I was a HUGE fan of Firefly until last night's episode...

POSTED BY: FireflyClassAct
UPDATED: Friday, December 13, 2002 03:08
VIEWED: 20098
PAGE 2 of 6

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE

FIREFLYCLASSACT

Saturday, December 7, 2002 5:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by YeAhItSme:
The show was about how far you can push a man by torturing him that's why they kept refering to the book. So YES the torture scenes were crucial in the story and not just some gratuitous violence...

...so you have to show every second and not just imply it?

...and if plot lines are sometimes going to be, "...how far you can push a man by torturing him...", then this show really isn't for me.

Surely there are other plots more worthy. lol.

SNOWSPINNER

Saturday, December 7, 2002 5:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FireflyClassAct:
Quote:
Originally posted by Snowspinner:
I'm not really sure how they could have done the plot without showing the Mal/Walsh torture sequence the way that they did. A crucial aspect of the story was what Mal did to keep Walsh from cracking, and the way that Mal did this. You couldn't have taken that scene down in any way without losing the entire story.

That scene was not *crucial* to the plot of the show.

That scene was the whole point of the show! The episode was, ultimately, about how Mal and Walsh overcome their differences and jealousies, (Which they both clearly had - keep in mind that Mal explodes at Walsh telling him that he didn't want Zoe to marry him before they find themselves in any torture) and gain respect for one another. Walsh gains respect for Mal because Mal goes to such lengths to keep him alive. Mal gains respect for Walsh because Walsh comes back to fight for him. Furthermore, Walsh comes back for Mal because of what happens in that torture sequence.

Cut out that scene, and much of the plot falls apart. Truth be told, I found the lesbianism scene far more gratuitous. It seemed needlessly sensationalistic, as though it wanted to bring all the gay-bashers out of the woodwork to provide free publicity for the show, and didn't seem to contribute at all to the plot.

Quote:
Originally posted by Snowspinner:
Was it grusome? Yes. But Firefly is a drama, not a comedy. Dramas show unpleasant and depressing things sometimes.

...and I haven't complained one time about other unpleasant issues that were shown.

The issue here is not whether to show unpleasant things; but the **degree**.

The degree was important. Again, for the plot to work, Walsh, and, more to the point, the audience had to understand the nature of Mal and Zoe's relationship. We had to see why what looks like it could be a sexual relationship from the outside is founded on something entirely different - Mal and Zoe have lived through this stuff over, and over, and over again. They have a huge number of shared war stories. And this creates a bond that isn't sexual, but is, instead, very deeply horrifying. It's a bond of trust, and of a shared experience.

Again, they couldn't simply exposit that, or even cut around it. We had to know the basis of Mal and Zoe's bond in a way that made it totally believable to us. You can't communicate a "war buddies" bond without showing what war is like. That was the point of Saving Private Ryan as well - it sought to explain why war veterans view war and each other the way they do - because of what war is really like. But you can't just suggest that war is bad. You have to show it.

Quote:
Originally posted by Snowspinner:
Truth be told, you probably weren't gonna be the liking a Joss Whedon show much in the first place then.

...and that's not true either.

We watched and loved every single episode and have been huge supporters.

Do you watch Buffy or Angel? Whedon shows run the gamut. Every season of every one has at least one disturbing and somewhat graphic moment that is played to very, very thoroughly show you how screwed up characters or relationships are. Buffy last season had an entire episode (Dead Things) that existed to show how screwed up Buffy and Spike's relationship was. It did this by showing, repeatedly, very disturbing displays of sexuality. Buffy also had a truly grusome torture sequence, when Willow has a bullet slowly bore through Warren's body. The effect here? To show how depraved Willow had become. Angel had repeated scenes with Holtz to demonstrate that Holtz posessed no quality of mercy or kindness whatsoever, and one or two with Justine to demonstrate the same thing. And, most prominantly in Buffy, you have Angelus's murder of Jenny Calendar and subsequent mental torture of Giles, which was crucial to show us just how absolutely evil Angelus was.

Whedon shows do not shy away from graphic s

FIREFLYCLASSACT

Saturday, December 7, 2002 5:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by YeAhItSme:
The show was about how far you can push a man by torturing him that's why they kept refering to the book. So YES the torture scenes were crucial in the story and not just some gratuitous violence...

Perhaps it would be clearer if I said that the episode where everyone is off Serenity and the Captain is trying to fix the ship before he dies was easily one the best episodes I've seen in the last year. Easily. Really powerful!

From that to an episode about "...seeing how far a man can be pushed under torture" is just not worthy of the show imho.

The writers are obviously capable of a more superlative mark!

XERIAR

Saturday, December 7, 2002 5:55 PM

Quote:

Perhaps it would be clearer if I said that the
episode where everyone is off Serenity and the
Captain is trying to fix the show before he dies
was easily one the best episodes I've seen in the
last year. Easily. Really powerful!

You know, it's a bit odd. I thought 'War Games' was
the best, because it defined Zoe and Wash, for me,
while before that I thought they were weaker characters
overall. The electrocution scene was about Malcom
keeping Wash alive, awake and, if angry, sane, through
the process.

And I've seen much worse on national TV than ears
being cut off. Do Van Gogh reinactments and open
heart surgery also put you off?

Quote:

From that to an episode about "...seeing how far a man
can be pushed under torture" is just not worth of the
show imho.

It was about revenge. Revenge for Mal having Zoe
first, revenge for Malcom going back on the deal,
revenge against a truly despicable man who would
do such a thing to his 'employees'.

Torture, sex, drugs and crime happen, sometimes all
at once. I find it far, far worse, personally, to
hide these things, to pretend that they never
existed, and let the children of the world find all
this crap out for themselves. Usually in a bad way.

Of course, that's just my opinion.

FIREFLYCLASSACT

Saturday, December 7, 2002 5:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Snowspinner:
That scene was the whole point of the show! The episode was, ultimately, about how Mal and Walsh overcome their differences and jealousies, (Which they both clearly had - keep in mind that Mal explodes at Walsh telling him that he didn't want Zoe to marry him before they find themselves in any torture) and gain respect for one another. Walsh gains respect for Mal because Mal goes to such lengths to keep him alive. Mal gains respect for Walsh because Walsh comes back to fight for him. Furthermore, Walsh comes back for Mal because of what happens in that torture sequence.

Tell ya what. Your paragraph has encouraged my wife and I to watch the rest of the episode.

Thanks for the insight!

Honestly though, if the episodes are just going to be violent, we will stop watching.

Thanks for the objective discussion folks and for the lack of personal attacks.

FIREFLYCLASSACT

Saturday, December 7, 2002 5:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Xeriar:
Torture, sex, drugs and crime happen, sometimes all
at once. I find it far, far worse, personally, to
hide these things, to pretend that they never
existed, and let the children of the world find all
this crap out for themselves. Usually in a bad way.

Of course, that's just my opinion.

You make an important point here and one that I have heard many times before.

Yes, acknowledging evil and evil-deeds is important; but, showing them as entertainment makes no sense to me.

The darkest deeds of man should be best covered in newspapers and history books and not flaunted as entertainment during prime-time.

LIVINGIMPAIRED

Saturday, December 7, 2002 6:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FireflyClassAct:
Tell ya what. Your paragraph has encouraged my wife and I to watch the rest of the episode.

Thanks for the insight!

Ok, Just curious, but were you critizing an episode THAT YOU NEVER FINISHED WATCHING? I'm sorry, but that just seems... kind of wrong to me.

________________

Well, you were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

FIREFLYCLASSACT

Saturday, December 7, 2002 6:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by LivingImpaired:
Ok, Just curious, but were you critizing an episode THAT YOU NEVER FINISHED WATCHING? I'm sorry, but that just seems... kind of wrong to me.

We found the visuals that disturbing.

RINGWRAITH

Saturday, December 7, 2002 6:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FireflyClassAct:

...so you have to show every second and not just imply it?

...and if plot lines are sometimes going to be, "...how far you can push a man by torturing him...", then this show really isn't for me.

Surely there are other plots more worthy. lol.

Actually you DO have to show it. You can't sugar coat it. If it's uncomfortable, if it hurts, if it is disturbing, if it makes you angry, sad, happy, then it works. The writer got a reaction.

It's not for us to decide what is or is not necessary in any given scene. To quote JMS (creator of Babylon 5) from USENET:

Quote:

See, here's where I start to have a problem. For starters, I don't do any thing to be politically correct, or politically incorrect, I do what I do in any story because that's what the story points me toward. Anybody who says "It's not necessary" isn't entitled to that judgement, frankly; you don't know what's necessary to the story. And by framing it in the "is this NECESSARY?" way is designed to make you defend your position when such defense isn't the point; is it NECESSARY to have humor? to have a romance? to have correct science? No, *nothing* is NECESSARY. It's what the writer feels is right for that scene, that story, that character.

"Oh, well, I saw it, but was all that violence NECESSARY?" This is, frankly, a BS observation usually offered by someone with an agenda, who wishes to invalidate the notion of an artistic view and impose some kind of quota, or objective criterion to what is and isn't necessary for a movie or film. As far as I'm concerned, the first person to throw this into a discussion has, frankly, just lost the argument.

Now, I'm not saying you have an agenda, I'm just quoting JMS here. What I am saying is that what I, or you, or anyone else thinks is irrelevant in the eyes of the writer. He/she writes what they want to write, for the story.

Personally I thought it was rather surreal, that whole electrocution torture scene.

It takes a lot to make one laugh and cringe at the same time.

************************************************
"How will this end?"
"In fire."
--Babylon 5, 'The Coming of Shadows'
************************************************

DRAUGLUIN

Saturday, December 7, 2002 6:46 PM

Yes!

The mark of quality writing...tugging at conflicting emotions at the same time, and keeping it compelling.

Torture is always a touchy subject, but it was necessary here, as this show is more about the characters than the action.

Im not the squeemish type, but it made me cringe.

But I found myself laughing quite often during the episode as well.

Im here to stay, that's for sure!

_____________
Place your clothes and weapons where you can find them in the dark.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE