Someone please break Joss' fingers! [spoiler]

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
...I rather liked seeing more of Spock's 'human' side in the movie. I found it quite amusing, though possibly only because I was accustomed the original series Spock.

---

Well, Spock *was* half human. ;) And I like what he did with Spock's parents. Besides, Vulcans are emotional, perhaps more so than humans. They just bury it very deep. ;)

I will confess, a chill went down my spine and I got a bit weepy when Spock tells the young Kirk:

"I have been and always shall be your friend."

Recalling all the emotion at his death speech in Wrath of Khan.

Yeah, I'm ready for the sequel.

P.S. I think Chris Pine makes a damned fine Kirk the younger. And I think he and the new Spock do well together. ...Am I just easy to please?

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by two:
I dredged up Pirates of the Caribbean and Johnny Depp, the charismatic Sea Pirate, because Nathan Fillion is a charismatic Space Pirate. In Hollywood, movie success depends on who's playing the leading man more than what dialog is spoken.

---

While there is definitely some truth to what you're saying, it's also a dreadful oversimplification. The easiest way for a movie to get made is for it to have the two following elements:

A) A script that is both smart and commercial
B) Attached elements (actors and/or director) who have built-in followings

Often, on the road to getting made, the script will be significantly modified, generally for the worst, often by the VERY SAME ELEMENTS THAT ALLOWED IT TO BE MADE.

For the record, SERENITY met only 1 (well, 1.5) of these criteria: It DID have an attached element with a built-in following: Joss Whedon. It also had the support of one of the most rapid and vocal fan-groups since Trekkies.

What it lacked, to some extent, was a commercial script, which made it difficult to successfully market. Factors working against it also arguably included Joss himself (for better or worse, BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYE carries a stigma to some folk), coming out at a bad time of year (what should have been second-tier summer blockbuster coming out after the summer was done and gone), and coming out after the sci fi audience may have been burnt-out by all the junk that came out with the Prequel Saga. Heck, ticket sales may also have been impacted (ironically) by the existence of the series: "Hey, man, want to go see that movie SERENITY again?" "Nah, I just picked up a DVD from the show it's based on on! I hear it's even better!"

Did the lack of a "Depp-level" star hinder SERENITY? Doesn't seem to have hurt movies like THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA, BATMAN BEGINS, KING KONG, and the latest Harry Potter movie, all of which made it to the top 10-grossing films of 2005 (while SERENITY sits way down the list as #100).

Quote:

---

Sadly, Fillion was Mister Unknown in 2005, but not anymore. Fortunately for Pirates 3, Depp was a celebrity. Using Depp was smart, compensating for a bad story with stupid dialog. Or stupid story with bad dialog.

---

I would argue that for PotC2/3, Depp was part of the problem, not the solution, as is often the case in sequels. Seqeuls are often notoriously worse than the originals because they are written FOR THE CAST, not written as stories. We definitely see this in the trajectory of the PotC movies, and also, for example, the Rambo and Rocky movies. In these examples, the first entries are intelligently and creatively written, but subsequent movies increasingly pander to the cast and/or audience expectation.

When PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN was written, the writers did NOT have Johnny Depp in mind--in fact, they were hoping Hugh Jackman would be cast. Depp was the one to choose to play Jack Sparrow like a drunken rock star, and while it was a brilliant choice for the character and for PotC:BP, it definitely had impact on how the sequels were written.

Remember also that the PotC movies are somewhat unique in that PotC2/3 were released a year apart (whereas most movies have a 2-3 year cycle) and were viewed as sort of one big sprawling, epic 5-hour saga rather than two 2-hour movies.

All of which is not to say that you're wrong to say that PotC2/3 are crap.... just that you're being very limited and short-sighted by saying that the reason they CAN be crap is because they have a popular star in them.

Quote:

---

I want to pick apart one very specific item where I doubt Joss Whedon has a plan for Serenity - he's turning River into a murderer.

...

Where is Joss going with River?

---

I have cut out the majority of what you've written because it's not important.

What is important, and what you're forgetting, is the timeline. All of these murders take place before or in SERENITY, so he's not "turning River into a murderer." He's already done so. That's not part of the future. It's part of the past.

As storymar

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

@Gwek - given the circumstances, not sure you could classify her bro as being "over" protective, but that makes me want to ask - did you interpret the end of the BDM, "my turn", as River's taking control of herself, and in addition to that, recognizing her attributes and making a commitment to using them to protect her loved ones? And if so, (or not) how did that play into your future story breakdowns? B/c that was kind of what I drew from the end. She's finally "awake", and while I reject the notion that she's ever going to be fully stable, and possibly not even self-sufficient, or able to get by without some modicum of guidance and medical care, that River by the end of the BDM had reached a point of control of herself, and awareness, that she hadn't truly possessed up until that point.
She has a soft heart, underneath it all. I'm not sure I see her becoming a mindless killer-woman, once she has at least some more control of herself.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Although you and I are drawing slightly different (although not necessarily incompatible) conclusions, I think we both agree that the assertion that Joss "had plans" to turn her into a psycho serial killer just doesn't seem valid.

I agree with you that the "my turn" sequence in the movie is River taking control of herself.

What exactly that means, though, is open to interpretation, and I think it again goes back to the questions of "Will the story be continued?" and "If so, in what format?"

A lot of folk seem to infer that post-SERENITY, River is "fixed." She has gotten out the secret of Miranda, and since Wash is dead and we see her helping Mal pilot, the assumption is that she will become the hotshot pilot. She is fixed, and now has a new place in the family.

I assert that, if the story continues, that is patently ludicrous. She is "better" but still broken. Miranda is only one of MANY secrets bouncing around her head, and a lot of the damage that was done to her was PHYSICAL and could not possibly be repaired by expunging the secret of Miranda. Mal would be a moron to put control of the ship in her hands.

Miranda and "My turn" are accentuated for the movie because that's what the structure of the movie requires. And, if the story ends there, it's a satisfying ending.

But if the story DOESN'T end there, I posit that River is "better" but nowhere near "fixed." Future stories might show her as more coherent, but would have to show that she is still broken in many ways.

As I mentioned previously, from a storytelling perspective, Joss would have to deal with "super-River," and would likely be able to "keep her in line" by examining her weaknesses.

Consider, for example, the following:

1) Say Simon were able to sythesize a drug that could help her continue to be coherent, but it would dull her psychic abilities. (From a writing point of view, this accomplishes a number of things: It prevent "reader River" from disrupting every story, shows the continued dynamic between River and Simon, and gives the Tams a compelling reason to continue to be aboard Serenity, if the drug requires expensive and/or illegal ingredients).

2) Even with her psychic abilities muted, River is still an excellent combatant... but the processes were experimental, so let's posit for a moment that Simon eventually deduces that whenever River fights, she risks some terrible side effect. Maybe, for example, she can become "locked" in combat mode or "becoming a Reaver," or maybe without her psychic abilities mitigating things, she risks a coronoary.

Taken together, these elements create a situation where the writers don't need to worry about "super-River," but they DO have her in a nice little box for when they need her (further, this builds on what was established in the movie, rather than negating anything that has come before).

Something like this also creates some really interesting moral dilemmas for our heroes, especially Mal, River, and Simon, forcing them to make exactly the kinds of hard choices that Joss Whedon is so fond of. What happens when Mal is in the middle of a deal that he thinks is important enough to merit "reader River"? Does he appeal to River and Simon, or does he just mess with her next dose to get "reader River" back temporarily? And if there are circumstances where she choses to stop using the drug, how does River deal with the balance between psychic and incoherent? She now has extra abilities, but is she still capable of using them in any functional way? And what about the drug itself? Is there a withdrawal aspect? Addiction? And let's not forget "super-River." if she risks a truly terrible fate every time she fights, who decides when she''ll take the risk? And how much is she willing to experiment to test her limits? What does that do to her relationship with Simon? And what tensions does that create between Simon and Mal?

All really rich, interesting stuff to play with, I think--more Whedon-y that either "super-River" or "killer River," in my opinion. (For the record, one of the ideas w

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Based on what you wrote I think you and I are more or less on the same page. Your second idea was one I hadn't thought up before - very interesting! And then there's always the question of River's emotional state and reactions to what's been done to her, what she's capable of, and what she's already done (voluntarily or not). We already see in the BDM and to a lesser extent in the series that she has guilt and fear of herself over it, and I think that's stuff she'll still be coming to terms with post-BDM, so it would be interesting to see that play out as well.
I like to think we WILL see it in some form or another eventually.....

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

...We already see in the BDM and to a lesser extent in the series that she has guilt and fear of herself over it.


And…When exactly in canon does she demonstrate this because I’ve seem to have missed it.

Can you be more specific by citing evidence?

I can't recall her ever asking how the customers of the Maidenhead are fairing, or any of the crew for that matter. She's very River centric, must be part of her programming.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME