What would you have done? SPOILER WARNING
POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 11:04
VIEWED: 5036
PAGE 3 of 3
Okay, I'm getting foggy and tired finally, so this one isn't as well thought out as my other posts probably, and I haven't read everything on this thread I sort of skimmed it cause I'm really gettin' sleepy.
I didn't get the impression that this was star wars scale, all or nothing. I think this is the start of resistance to the alliance, not the end of it. I suspect the recipients of the story know that a recording of an unintentional disaster on a settler planet. But I didn't think it was all alliance ships, all reavers, all members of parliment.
Even if people a) see it, and b) accept it as true, this doesn't change all that much. It means that mal and co may get more sympathy from people.
Now this all comes down to conspiract theory. The story presented is a conspiracy theory about what happened on miranda, which the general public never knew, and still doesn't, and a lot of people had heard a few competing theories.
The alliance next has to broadcast a well constructed argument that the miranda tape is a hoax. In time when that argument dies, people will be used to the story, and eventually they will accept the argument that it was an accident. By that time the intent to control people will be mutated into some twisted version where the anger being suppressed was that of pre-existing reavers, a historical inaccuracy that will just persist until people can accept that it happened and not care that much.
Consider 9/11. I have seen evidence to support the idea that we blew up the trade centers ourselves that dwarfs the proof the miranda tape presents against the alliance - but I'm still not sure I believe it. On balance I probably doubt it, but I'm willing to believe that it is a possibility. If someone came to me and said "hey, I was there, I saw the US destroy the twin towers, and here's my proof," I'd probably buy it. Similarly if someone said "hey I was there and I say OBL blow up the twin towers," and presents me with the proof, I'd believe that. But before seeing the WTC conspiracy stuff I probably would have only accepted the osama bin laden/al qaeda theory.
I'm not of course trying to convince anyone that WTC was an inside job. I don't believe it myself. But it's out there, and most of you have been exposed to it, and in theory it could someday prove to be correct. Someone puting it on the web didn't make us all believers.
Furthermore, here are some things that the US govt. has actually done. None of these are conspiracy theories, they are all well established facts.
Waged long term war in Iraq since 1991, with civillian casualties direct and in direct exceeding 1 million.
Dropped two nuclear bombs onto civillian populations, intentionally, against a country that despite the temporary insanity of tojo, we had been allies with for a hundred years.
Support wars in other countries to create a population and forcebly transported 22 million for slave labor.
Intenionally led a pogram of racial genocide to exterminate an entire people, 12 million in all, in a mad gree land grab, for land which almost exclusively we never used for anything. This last part is true, btw, the vast majority of former indian homesteads are virtually unpopulated today.
These are things that our govt. undeniably and unequivocally did, and did intentionally. They all dwarf WTC on an epic scale. And what do people say of this govt. if you ask them. (well, not so much lately, but generally through history) "greatest country on earth" "land of the free" "home of the brave"
People believe what they want to believe. It's not much of a much booster to say "I'm from the land of the genocidal babykillers" Okay, maybe they do if they're Dennis Kuccinich (sorry) but mostly people like that are depressing to be around, and most people don't respond that way.
So, alliance reaction to miranda, after hearing both sides and lots of spin, will decide on the one which is most comfortable to believe, and might even round up and kill the doomsayers, but probably just shun them.
Terrible what happened on miranda
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:
Static wrote:Quote:
Here's something folks are missing. . .and it's a result from 'over-thinking' everything.
Remember, as the audience, we are the "Gods". . .we see and know EVERYTHING.
The reason the Operative was sent was because...
"KEY MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT." were in the same room as River.
NOONE really knew what it was River knew, if she knew ANYTHING. They just knew that some dumbass had put people who POSESSED secrets in the same room as a psychic. The Operative was a 'just in case' scenario.
Stop over-thinking it.
I second this.
The
Somnambulist
Oh and I wouldn't have done a thing to change Joss' script.
www.cirqus.com
I third this, although I would have seen Mal naked at least twice - very traumatic seeing no Nathan butt!
extremely dimensionally transcendental
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I like overthinking it. besides, joss and co read these boards. anyway, getting sleepy, finally.
I think the antibiotics they gave me for this bug are causing insomnia, hence overposting.
I'm going to sleep now. That oughtta distract 'em.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well I think I'm going to have to apologise in advance to a few of you who have come up with suggestions for what the 'real' Firefly movie should have been, whatever that means as this 'SERENITY' is the 'real' Firefly movie...
However I've skimmed through many of the posts suggesting changes, alternatives, universe sizes and explanations and frankly, and I don't mean to be harsh, but in all honesty the level of reality you're encorporating is incredibly tiresome and dreary.
Part of making a film is knowing just what to include and what not to include within your narrative. Many of you here are basically loading your ideas with far too much exposition, which would require something the size of a series to accomplish. With the two hours you'd have to tell your story this would not be possibly.
Cinema has it's own language and short cuts, and knowing where to employ this is key to being a filmaker. While many of your ideas sound great on paper, I don't think they'd work up on the screen.
Artistic license n all that... It's a cliché, but like most clichés they're rooted in some truth.
I'm kinda defending where Joss took SERENITY because he had an incredibly difficult job in seeing this be made. To even sit down and tackle a defunct project in the first place is an amazing achievement, I know because I've illustrated books without any success and when ever someone suggests giving it another go, it's almost impossible to muster the enthusiasm again to do so..
Joss has had to meet many criteria here for his first cinematic venture as director, and I think he's nailed it. In terms of the integrity of the ethos of the original Firefly I think it's still there but yes he has changed it. He had to. It had to move on.
The
Somnambulist
www.cirqus.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME