Did Joss paint himself into a corner with Serenity?

POSTED BY: OPPYH
UPDATED: Monday, September 1, 2008 22:55
VIEWED: 28681
PAGE 1 of 1

OPPYH

Sunday, August 24, 2008 3:39 AM

Just feel he has no intention of returning to the characters outside of comic books.
After Serenity, he didn't leave a lot of room for improvement. Talking about main characters that will never be back(this aint Buffy)

If there ever is a return of the best show to hit television, it's gonna be one hell of a different feel than the original show. That's for sure.

Deep down I feel he has moved on

PHYRELIGHT

Sunday, August 24, 2008 4:29 AM

Well, the characters aren't the same after Miranda. That part's true. But River's comment at the end of the movie about a storm is a wink to the audience that there is soooo much more to come.

Experience the Horribleness!

http://www.drhorrible.com

NBZ

Sunday, August 24, 2008 4:40 AM

Yes and no.

Even if it was the original tv series, eventually things would change.

However he upped the ante to such a level, it is hard to drop back down into the world of almost nobodies that the crew lived in in the series.

NCBROWNCOAT

Sunday, August 24, 2008 1:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by PhyreLight:
Well, the characters aren't the same after Miranda. That part's true. But River's comment at the end of the movie about a storm is a wink to the audience that there is soooo much more to come.

Experience the Horribleness!

http://www.drhorrible.com

I agree but I don't see a series but another movie. Joss has already said that he's up for another one, so are the actors, it's the studio and financial movers and shakers.

And Joss left a lot of options open. What changes did the Miranda wave make? Are the Independents going to rise again? If they do will Mal and Zoe join them? Will Book's past be revealed and how will that affect the crew?

Simon and Kaylee, is it just a fling or something else? Will Zoe become either more bad ass or will she retreat? And the most important question of all, Mal and Inara, can they get together and will Joss kill one of them?

So many questions that Joss has to answer.

http://fireflyfaninnc.livejournal.com/

PHYRELIGHT

Sunday, August 24, 2008 1:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ncbrowncoat:
Will Zoe become either more bad ass or will she retreat?

Everytime I wonder about that, I look to the last scene between Zoe and Mal and remember her words, "She's tore up plenty, but she'll fly true."

Quote:
And the most important question of all, Mal and Inara, can they get together and will Joss kill one of them?

Probably and... *sad sigh*... probably. Either that or things will get too complicated between them for the relationship to go but so far.

Experience the Horribleness!

http://www.drhorrible.com

REDDRAGON

Sunday, August 24, 2008 2:24 PM

Here's something that I've thought about, what if Zoe is Preggers? How would that shake things up?

____________________________________________________
http://www.flickr.com/photos/23360846@N03/2789351441/

PHYRELIGHT

Sunday, August 24, 2008 2:29 PM

A lot of people have thought about that, actually. And if so, that would make things oh-so much more interesting! (Unkah Mal! Unkah Mal!) This series was destined for a baby anyways because their lives aren't complicated enough!

Experience the Horribleness!

http://www.drhorrible.com

REDDRAGON

Sunday, August 24, 2008 2:52 PM

In-friggin'-deed

____________________________________________________
If you can't walk, crawl. If you can't crawl, find someone to carry you.

PENNAUSAMIKE

Sunday, August 24, 2008 2:52 PM

QUOTE Did Joss paint himself into a corner with Serenity? UNQUOTE

YES! (But it doesn't have to be that way...)

My fear is that Joss, in his quest for "realism",
has cut off major-ly interesting storylines about
Simon and River's future, Zoe and Wash's future, Mal and Inara, because of killing or separating characters.
Characters being "Jossed" in the words of the Australian Q&A participant.
He's already wiped out the whole Zoe and Wash dynamic.
Gee, I can hardly wait for him to break up Kaylee and Simon (which he has alluded to) so it feels "real".
Oh Boy! Maybe he'll KILL Simon and not just break 'em up!
I can hardly wait!

My fear was Joss crapping all over his own show in the name of drama and cuz everybody KNOWS he's a genius, fans just nod their heads and say, "Yes, of course that was the dramatic choice he HAD to make".
My response? BU(($H!T!

I watched a show about people who could commit criminal acts armed with deadly weapons while still being the GOOD guys to escape reality.

Not to have my nose rubbed in more reality.
So what do I want?

Wash back.
Wash being saved by Simon adds exciting new dramatic tension for the characters. Zoe would now "owe" loyalty to two people; Mal for saving her and Simon for saving Wash. A viable plot/character development would be her journey to her not owing anybody, which would strengthen her relationship with her husband, Wash. ("What this marriage needs is one less husband") And Mal would have less of a subordinate and more of a partner. And Zoe would be an even stronger female character; but dramatically MADE stronger thru growth, not contrivance.

I LOVE the potential storylines and character development that grow out of Wash being saved. I am disheartened and depressed at the downward spiral that is inevitable if Wash is removed from the Firefly equation.

In my mind, Wash lives. I feel so strongly about his place in the Firefly dynamic that if no more Firefly can come after Serenity without dead Wash, I'd rather it end at Serenity and allow me to finish it out in my own mind in a way that makes me happy. ( My "Wash Lives" plotline.)

Joss creates GREAT fictional characters to draw an audience in, but it is my opinion that he loses much of that audience because of his insistence on killing off the very characters he attracted the audience WITH.

Look at the two big movies of summer 2008.
Ironman
Dark Knight
Both huge hits and both true to what they were.
Ironman was fun and the Dark Knight was...dark.
If the filmmakers had tried to inject more "realistic" tragedy into Ironman, it would have ruined the movie. Once a motivational character is killed (Book in Serenity, the doctor in Ironman) a fun movie doesn't support any more tragic reality without losing its uplifting quality. Book's death in Serenity, and the doctor's death in Ironman were dramatically important to the main characters' growth in both movies. But the Ironman creators knew not to bring their movie down after that, and the commercial success of the movie stems from that. Serenity was certainly not a less good movie than Ironman, but it wasn't true to its own nature. And it paid for that misunderstanding of its own nature with a poor showing at the box office.

Everybody vilifies FOX, but thank God they insisted on lightening up Mal and the tone of the series.
Mark my words, if it weren't for that meddling, Firefly would have faded into obscurity.
I don't know if you remember the Australian Q&A,
but the question Joss asked the audience was whether they preferred more of the movie or more of the series.
He even prefaced their response with "I think I know which it is".
The audience strongly said "Firefly" and Joss nodded as tho' that was what he expected.
Although there are fans who like the dark misery stuff, the uplifting elements of Firefly/Serenity are what create an ENDURING fandom.

EMPIREX

Sunday, August 24, 2008 3:45 PM

Well said, Penn. I absolutely agree with you.

If we can't have Wash in more Firefly, at least we have fanfiction. *sigh*

"Can you, for a moment, imagine how depressing it is to teach one thousand years of masculine ineptitude? Why do you think there are so few women historians? I'll tell you why. Because history is not such a frolic for women as it is for men... History is a commentary on the various and continuing incapabilities of men. History is women following behind with a bucket and a mop." - Alan Bennett, "The History Boys"

SLOWHAND

Sunday, August 24, 2008 4:55 PM

Well, Joss did say in the Serenity Visual Companion that if a sequel was made, he has every intention on bringing Wash and Book back. He said it was gonna be in a cool way too, not that they had twins or were cloned or something. If anyone could, it's Joss. He brought back Colossus in the comics and it made sense. He did it in a cool way.

Anyway, here's my take on how to bring both characters back.

Lets say the crew left Haven, also leaving Book behind. Something tells me they wouldn't have strapped his dead body to the hull. Anyway, not long after Serenity leaves an Alliance ship arrives to inspect the damage. They find Books body and realize who he is. Remember the officer in the episode "Safe"? They imiediatly gave Book medical attention. Same here. They take Book aboard their ship and "fix" him. Not just for who he is, but because they feel he can tell them about Serenity and where River is.

Same with Wash. The crew was forced to leave Serenity very quickly after Wash was killed. We know the Alliance was there too cause they showed up after River killed the reavers. They would've first searched the ship. Finding Wash, they would also feel like he could give them much needed information about the crew of Serenity. So, they take his body as well.

Now, you might be wondering how the Alliance "fix" both Wash and Book.

Wetware.

Remember what Tracey was transporting in the episode "The Message"? Organs. "Super" organs. Who's to say the Alliance can't replace the damaged organs in Book and Wash with wetware? After all, they wouldn't have been dead long.

We could then say that the funeral at the end of Serenity simply used monuments. Doesn't mean the actuall bodies were buried there.

That would make for a cool story for Serenity 2. Wash and Book are alive, being questioned by the Alliance. Serenity finds out about this. How?

The Operative.

He doesn't become part of the crew, but Mal get's a tip from the Operative on what the Alliance has done.

So, with River being the temporary pilot, Serenity takes off on an adventure to rescue Book and Wash from the Alliance!

I can just picture the scene when Wash enters the bridge again. He sits down in the pilot's chair. Sets his dinosaurs out, and hits the 3 switches, ready for take off!

PLATONIST

Sunday, August 24, 2008 5:04 PM

I see no Drama in having Simon bring Wash back and alive for Zoe. Zoe made her choice to stay loyal to Mal and her role on Serenity rather than leave with her husband, when he wanted to, (see his comic fantasy). He died a hero doing his job to save his family. Why take that away from him? Zoe's character growth will come from her grief and acceptance of his death, like the old saying, "what doesn't kill ya, will make ya stronger and wiser". There is potential for story writing here. Either, by being that new single mom or a returning Dust Devil.

And, Mal doesn't need anymore partners in crime. He has River, Zoe, Jayne, Kaylee, and Simon. What he needs is to love a woman, that loves him back (Inara) and make babies with her (a family) so he can emotionally pull himself out of the Valley and he can start by being man enough to tell her so. Again, potential for story writing. A very long one, knowing, Joss.

Simon, Kaylee, Inara, and River are young enough to have a life time of stories. So, I'm not sure of where this thinking comes from, that because one character dies there is no more room for storytelling. Joss kills his characters because people do die in real life drama. That’s the way it is, but life goes on.

Unfortunately, Serenity, metaphorically killed Firefly. These characters won’t be seen in a series, other than movie sequels. The actors are busy (thank goodness), and are getting older. Movie sequels make the most sense or maybe a mini series.

SLOWHAND

Sunday, August 24, 2008 5:18 PM

Well, I don't think people are worried about Wash and Book's death causing a lack of stories. Like Joss said, you can take all nine characters and have nine different spin-offs.

I think it's more of an matter of having "the whole" crew back.

If we really want to start talking about the rest of the crews future, I think it would be off the ship. I mean let's face it. If Mal and Inara get together and have kids, I see Mal starting a ranch. Because at that point, he wouldn't need Serenity anymore, in my opinion. Serenity is his love because it fills a void. If he were to marry Inara, neither one would really be running to or from anything.

Jayne would leave Serenity because he'd get paid more somewhere else since Mal left.

Simon and River almost left in the movie. Wouldn't take much for them to leave. If Simon and Kaylee married, they would leave as well. Raise their family somewhere safe. They'd be able to make a living fixing ships and people.

Not sure what Zoe would do. Her story has the potential to become tragic if Mal and Inara got together. Zoe had two things to take care of. Mal and Wash. With Wash dead and Mal not really needed her anymore, her life would kind of be up in the air.

The point is this. Serenity is the thing they all need to fill the voids in their life. This made up family is what they live for. Once you start introducing real family into the equation, the need for Serenity diminishes. That's why I've never been a fan of Mal and Inara getting together. I've never been a fan of anyone having babies either.

The phrase "Happily ever after" is put at the end of stories for a reason. Once everyone is happy and has what they want, the story is over.

NCBROWNCOAT

Sunday, August 24, 2008 5:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Platonist:
I see no Drama in having Simon bring Wash back and alive for Zoe. Zoe made her choice to stay loyal to Mal and her role on Serenity rather than leave with her husband, when he wanted to, (see his comic fantasy). He died a hero doing his job to save his family. Why take that away from him? Zoe's character growth will come from her grief and acceptance of his death, like the old saying, "what doesn't kill ya, will make ya stronger and wiser". There is potential for story writing here. Either, by being that new single mom or a returning Dust Devil.

And, Mal doesn't need anymore partners in crime. He has River, Zoe, Jayne, Kaylee, and Simon. What he needs is to love a woman, that loves him back (Inara) and make babies with her (a family) so he can emotionally pull himself out of the Valley and he can start by being man enough to tell her so. Again, potential for story writing. A very long one, knowing, Joss.

Simon, Kaylee, Inara, and River are young enough to have a life time of stories. So, I'm not sure of where this thinking comes from, that because one character dies there is no more room for storytelling. Joss kills his characters because people do die in real life drama. That’s the way it is, but life goes on.

Unfortunately, Serenity, metaphorically killed Firefly. These characters won’t be seen in a series, other than movie sequels. The actors are busy (thank goodness), and are getting older. Movie sequels make the most sense or maybe a mini series.

For once Platonist, I totally agree with you. There's also more conflict between Mal and Inara and Mal settling down doesn't mean that he or any of the crew will leave Serenity

And life does go on after the death of loved ones. I found that out at 18 when my father died suddenly and again now at 48. My Mom passed at the end of May. Life is different, but it goes on.

http://fireflyfaninnc.livejournal.com/

PLATONIST

Sunday, August 24, 2008 6:45 PM

I dunno Slowhand; I've never felt much of a Zoe/Mal/Inara triangle vibe. I think all three could still co exist on Serenity. Wash/Zoe and Mal did. Zoe's role has always been Mal’s working partner. She doesn't fulfill Mal's romantic idealism or he wouldn’t be looking Inara's way. They've never been that intimate beyond the jobs or Wash wouldn't have made his way into Zoë’s heart.
All love and need Serenity in their own way, why would they leave or that change? Besides, Mal and Inara have enough obstacles to overcome without throwing Zoe in the mix. She needs to arc on her own to gain strength to keep going, and there you have the stories.

And isn't it inevitable that eventually all characters will move on and start families of their own (those that are still alive), otherwise the verse becomes cartoonish. Some may stay or choose to leave. Nothing lasts forever, except family and love.

GORRAMGROUPIE

Sunday, August 24, 2008 7:02 PM

A thought about future Firefly:

Do they have cloning tech? Surely the Alliance does, we're cloning sheep now, why not people in the future?
IF that is the case, what would happen if Wash was killed, but for some reason the Blue Hands decided to clone him? Then he could be an agent provocateur, inserting himself back into the crew, for some twisted purpose he may or may not know.

Or as far as a new series, I wouldn't be upset if Joss just picked up from the end of Season Only and went forward, and just make the movie a "dream sequence" so that we get all the characters back, and the story line continues on.

My two cents anyway.

'Who are you and how did you get in here?' 'I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.'
Police Squad

NBZ

Sunday, August 24, 2008 7:21 PM

@ slowhand, You're also forgetting that Mal doesn't WANT to be on land.

and why would Inara willingly throw away what she believes in to be with Mal? she wouldn't = no happy ending for them two. (if she did, she wouldn't be the same person..)

As for a Mal/Zoe vibe, no. Just no. I thought that War Stories went to great lengths to dispel any possibilities of that happening.

A good storyline to explore is Zoe becoming captain (but under different circumstances than what mal4prez is exploring.) - only problem would be getting to a situation where that would be possible. Getting rid of Mal in a believable fashion is hard, especially if you work towards a sudden but inevitable return.

ECGORDON

Sunday, August 24, 2008 9:27 PM

You might as well ask if Joss painted himself into a corner when he killed off Jenny Calendar, Angelus, Joyce Summers, Buffy Summers, and Tara Maclay.

The answer to either question is no.

CHRISISALL

Sunday, August 24, 2008 9:36 PM

Yeah, no corner here. Joss is a wizard that way.

Agreeing Chrisisall

PENNAUSAMIKE

Sunday, August 24, 2008 9:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ncbrowncoat:

And life does go on after the death of loved ones. I found that out at 18 when my father died suddenly and again now at 48. My Mom passed at the end of May. Life is different, but it goes on.

And was the death of your parents entertainment?
That is a totally cruel question, but it speaks to the difference between fiction for entertainment and real life.

Death and reality are things we deal with, and learn to move on from.

I look to fiction as entertainment. If I want unhappy endings, all I gotta do is wake up! But please keep in mind that I acknowledge that my bias runs to the fact that I like my entertainment to be FUN and I expect life to be tempered by MISERY, so when entertainment is tempered by MISERY it becomes a reflection of life and ceases to be entertainment. Good entertainment resonates of real life without getting sucked into dwelling on real life drawbacks.

I offer my sincere condolences to ncbrowncoat for the real-life loss of your parents.
But I guess I'm surprised that you would want that real-life saddness mimicked in your entertainment.

I'm not entertained by having fictional characters (that I've been led to be emotionally invested in) killed off as a form of audience manipulation. I will miss Book but his death was a more acceptable fit than Wash's.
Books death was important to the storyline and character development because Book was the catalyst to Mal regaining a little bit of his "rudder". Book's casual murder by the Operative and his dying wish, nay, DEMAND that Mall "believe" again made Mal and crew confront River's Miranda secret, rather than just run. Wash was sacrificed meaninglessly as a plot gimmick to create peril.

I understand the idea of killing characters for dramatic effect, but my whole point is that at no point is the show (or a Serenity sequel) made better by the loss of Wash as compared to what that character brings to the table dramatically. If we "had" to kill off a fictional character I would agree with this reasoning but we don't "have to" kill off anybody. Its a work of fiction. There is no REAL peril in any of it.

ECGORDON

Sunday, August 24, 2008 9:55 PM

I suppose you need to clarify you definition of the word entertainment. In my opinion Shakespeare is entertainment, but also painfully real. Should we rewrite his plays to excise any deaths you don't care for?

CHRISISALL

Sunday, August 24, 2008 10:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by pennausamike:

And was the death of your parents entertainment?

The month after my Mom died from cancer, I went to see a movie titled Bright Lights, Big City, in which Michael J. Fox's Mom dies from same. Yeah, it hit REAL close to home, but the story it told was powerful, and I even found it somewhat cathartic, much like I did the Buffy ep The Body.
I see nothing wrong with a creator making creative decisions about his characters, even to the point of removing them to spell out that life ain't always guaranteed.

Jossisall

PENNAUSAMIKE

Sunday, August 24, 2008 10:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ecgordon:
I suppose you need to clarify you definition of the word entertainment. In my opinion Shakespeare is entertainment, but also painfully real. Should we rewrite his plays to excise any deaths you don't care for?

But please keep in mind that I acknowledge that my bias runs to the fact that I like my entertainment to be FUN and I expect life to be tempered by MISERY, so when entertainment is tempered by MISERY it becomes a reflection of life and ceases to be entertainment. Good entertainment resonates of real life without getting sucked into dwelling on real life drawbacks.

That is my definition, so I admit I don't look to tragedy for entertainment.
Shakespeare is not in the same vein as Firefly as entertainment.
I don't care for Serenity becoming a tragedy, when Firefly was NOT.

SWISH

Sunday, August 24, 2008 10:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by pennausamike:
I look to fiction as entertainment. If I want unhappy endings, all I gotta do is wake up! But please keep in mind that I acknowledge that my bias runs to the fact that I like my entertainment to be FUN and I expect life to be tempered by MISERY, so when entertainment is tempered by MISERY it becomes a reflection of life and ceases to be entertainment.

And what I like about Joss is that he goes beyond entertainment, doesn't present hollow fake idealizations of life.

Quote:
Good entertainment resonates of real life without getting sucked into dwelling on real life drawbacks.

You seem to be laying down a rule where maybe you have no right. When you write your own show, you can take your audience into fantasy land by making everything perfect and safe and happy. Joss chooses differently. Speaking for myself, I must say: Thank god he does!

Quote:
I'm not entertained by having fictional characters (that I've been led to be emotionally invested in) killed off as a form of audience manipulation.

All entertainment is audience manipulation. You appear to feeling bitter that this particular manipulation was a sad one, rather than a show coaxing you into some happy fantasyland for two hours. Which is understandable, if you went into Serenity thinking it was the Little Mermaid. (Why would anyone think that?)

If Wash's death bugs you too much, watch Alan Tudyk on Dodge Ball or something to assure yourself that no one actually died. Or write some fanfic about Wash, so the character can still be alive for you. See? It's all good.

Quote:
I understand the idea of killing characters for dramatic effect, but my whole point is that at no point is the show (or a Serenity sequel) made better by the loss of Wash as compared to what that character brings to the table dramatically.

MANY would disagree with you. I do! I thought Wash's death added a lot. The whole end of the movie was very scary just because anyone was fair game. The death also made this fantasy world more believable (to me) because death can be, and most often is, meaningless. When every death in a show is played out like the Shepherd's, all carefully played out to have a well defined effect on the plot, I start to see nothing but the hand of the writer. The fantasy is ruined for me.

Quote:
If we "had" to kill off a fictional character I would agree with this reasoning but we don't "have to" kill off anybody. Its a work of fiction. There is no REAL peril in any of it.

And there is no REAL happy family bonding in the Brady Bunch either, just actors faking something that does not exist. And no REAL magical joyous wedding at the end of the Little Mermaid. Ariel didn't HAVE to get her man, cause she's not real, so what's the point?

You see what I'm saying?

NCBROWNCOAT

Sunday, August 24, 2008 10:23 PM

If I want light and fluffy entertainment all the time I'd only read romance novels and watch ABC Family.

Granted there are times that that's what I want, then there are others when I want to be challenged and reminded that real life is messy, sometimes tragic and everything can't be wrapped up neatly in 60 minutes or 2 hours with a happy ending for everyone.

For me, Firefly and Serenity came about the time my Mom's health was getting worse in early 2006. Her cancer had come back and she was enduring radiation therapy and then a fall last January that broke her hip followed by a downward spiral in health culminating in her death this May.

Mal and the crew's journey (along with countless friends I have made at this board and other boards) helped to keep me going. It taught me that matter how bad things got you just held, held until some semblance of a plan evolved. Usually Plan A went south, just like for the crew, but Plans B,C and D and so on succeeded in some form and you coped with it.

Back to the topic. We have what Joss gave us. Book and Wash dead. Zoe grieving, River half way sane and Mal and Inara not quite sure where they are going. Simon and Kaylee together (at least for the moment) and Jayne, well I think Jayne has changed a bit too. But plenty of stories to be told.

http://fireflyfaninnc.livejournal.com/

NBZ

Sunday, August 24, 2008 10:31 PM

Firefly was never a fairytale.

The series has its dark moments with death, torture and more death.

The series, while fun, was less about fun and more about surviving misery. About people who lose everything (including hope?) and still march on.

PLATONIST

Sunday, August 24, 2008 10:53 PM

Sorry to here about your Mom ncbrowncoat.

And I liked what you said about dealing with what Joss left us with. He himself admits during the Aussie Q&A that the verse dramatically changes after Miranda and that's just the way it is, but it does move the story forward and I'd like a little more movement in the form of a sequel.

And I don't think anyone can anticipate what these characters will do in the future, i.e. Inara's professional conflict, Simon's and Kaylee's sex commitment, River's saneness and piloting, etc...never say never.
It’s really all up to Joss who absolutely DID NOT write himself into a corner.

NCBROWNCOAT

Sunday, August 24, 2008 11:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Platonist:

Sorry to here about your Mom ncbrowncoat.

And I liked what you said about dealing with what Joss left us with. He himself admits during the Aussie Q&A that the verse dramatically changes after Miranda and that's just the way it is, but it does move the story forward and I'd like a little more movement in the form of a sequel.

And I don't think anyone can anticipate what these characters will do in the future, i.e. Inara's professional conflict, Simon's and Kaylee's sex commitment, River's saneness and piloting, etc...never say never.
It’s really all up to Joss who absolutely DID NOT write himself into a corner.

Thanks and Amen!

http://fireflyfaninnc.livejournal.com/

JAYNESMANE

Sunday, August 24, 2008 11:57 PM

I don't think so. Wasn't it stated somewhere that all of the events in Serenity would have happened in a "Firefly Season 2" ?

Even if the events of Serenity wouldn't have happened, the characters would have grown and series changing events would have happened regardless. Firefly would have been a terrible show if it remained the same every episode, constantly resetting it's characters. Clearly from season 1 the series didn't do this - it's characters had such depth and in such a short time grew so very much. The plots grew too. So, I think the answer is no. The series grew. Serenity was part of that growth. Either way change was 'acommin. Enjoy the Firefly universe as it continues to grow, as it would have had it remained on television, otherwise you're living in the past.

---
http://www.freewebs.com/optics233/index.htm - my website - learn how to make money online filling out surveys.

CHRISISALL

Monday, August 25, 2008 12:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ncbrowncoat:
If I want light and fluffy entertainment all the time I'd only read romance novels and watch ABC Family.

Yep.
All my best to you, man.

Beenthereisall

PENNAUSAMIKE

Monday, August 25, 2008 12:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by swish:
And what I like about Joss is that he goes beyond entertainment, doesn't present hollow fake idealizations of life.

You are twisting what I'm saying by equating uplifting, positive entertainment with "hollow fake idealizations of life".

Quote:
You seem to be laying down a rule where maybe you have no right. When you write your own show, you can take your audience into fantasy land by making everything perfect and safe and happy. Joss chooses differently. Speaking for myself, I must say: Thank god he does!

I'm not laying down a rule but rather, I spent a number of (apparently wasted) words and examples to put forth MY opinion that Serenity isn't true to its own nature; and it paid for Joss not knowing how far you can push an audiences' buttons with a $25 million box office gross; as compared to Ironman (which got it right) doing over ten times that business.

Quote:
All entertainment is audience manipulation. You appear to feeling bitter that this particular manipulation was a sad one, rather than a show coaxing you into some happy fantasyland for two hours.

Once again you demean my position (Firefly was realistic AND uplifting) by making the leap that I think Serenity should have been "some happy fantasyland for two hours".
You also blew off my whole point that Book's death serviced the plot and character in the story whereas Wash's death was aimed at creating an audience reaction. But based on the quote below, what you seek from a story is 180 degrees out from what I look for...

Quote:
When every death in a show is played out like the Shepherd's, all carefully played out to have a well defined effect on the plot, I start to see nothing but the hand of the writer. The fantasy is ruined for me.

See, I'm the opposite!
Book's death serviced the story,
(makes the story real to me)
Wash's death was the writer saying,
"be scared,audience, I'm the writer and I-Can-Kill-Them-All!"

Quote:
You see what I'm saying?

Yes I do, and I don't agree with you and that's fine.
But it isn't necessary to demean my points to present yours.

And I believe the failure of Serenity to reach a mass audience like
Ironman (uplifting and positive)
or The Dark Knight (just...dark)
is that it tried to be too many things.
I believe killing Wash is one of several examples where Serenity lost its way and alienated audiences, to the detriment of seeing more of the 'verse on the big OR little screen.

CHRISISALL

Monday, August 25, 2008 12:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by pennausamike:
MY opinion that Serenity isn't true to its own nature

As Darkness said in Legend, "All things change, lady."

I would not have killed off Wash.
But I am not Joss.
Or Buddha.

Chrisisall

ECGORDON

Monday, August 25, 2008 1:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by pennausamike:
Quote:
I'm not laying down a rule but rather, I spent a number of (apparently wasted) words and examples to put forth MY opinion that Serenity isn't true to its own nature; and it paid for Joss not knowing how far you can push an audiences' buttons with a $25 million box office gross; as compared to Ironman (which got it right) doing over ten times that business.

It's ridiculous even trying to compare the two films. Iron Man had the higher gross not because it is a better film (it most definitely is not) but rather because of its pre-sold nature. A high-profile superhero movie from Marvel with ten times the promotion from Paramount as Universal did for Serenity, plus a known commodity in Robert Downey Jr. as the lead. Compare that with the relatively unknown television series that was the basis of Serenity, one which the majority of movie-goers had never heard of (and still haven't), featuring no big name stars.

Hell, you didn't even join this site until nearly a year after Serenity premiered in theaters and about six months after it came out on dvd, probably about the time it started airing on HBO and Cinemax. Did you see it in the theater? If not, how can you now judge what it was about it that didn't sell itself? People who do not see an unknown movie on its first release usually don't do so because they have heard negative things about events in the movie, but rather because they haven't heard anything about it, period.

I don't think anyone is trying to tell you that you can't have your own opinion, just that the majority of us don't agree with it.

wo men ren ran zai fei xing.

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

SWISH

Monday, August 25, 2008 1:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by pennausamike:
You are twisting what I'm saying by equating uplifting, positive entertainment with "hollow fake idealizations of life".

You said: "when entertainment is tempered by MISERY it becomes a reflection of life and ceases to be entertainment." And you have the authority to set down this definition? It's one thing to say: I didn't find it entertaining. It's another to lay down a definition of entertainment and placing Serenity outside of it. As my mama used to say: who died and left you in charge?

You also said: "Good entertainment resonates of real life without getting sucked into dwelling on real life drawbacks." So you don't want the negative aspects of real life in your entertainment. That's fine. But to me, this kind of entertainment is an idealization, and often comes off as fake and hollow.

Note that I call the *entertainment* fake and hollow, not you. It was not my intent to demean you personally. I'm sure you're a rocking dude. Or chick.

Quote:
I'm not laying down a rule but rather, I spent a number of (apparently wasted) words and examples to put forth MY opinion that Serenity isn't true to its own nature; and it paid for Joss not knowing how far you can push an audiences' buttons with a $25 million box office gross; as compared to Ironman (which got it right) doing over ten times that business.

I believe it is not your job or mine to define Firefly's nature. That job is Joss's. We can like what he does with it, or not, but to call it *wrong* (as you seem to be doing, sorry if I'm misinterpreting) seems a bit much. Defining it as "not entertainment." Whatever! I don't like the movie as much as the series, but when I sit down and watch it I'm still pretty damned entertained!

Also, if box office revenue is how you define the proper "nature" of entertainment, then how about those ratings numbers when Firefly first aired, huh? That show sure must have sucked!

Quote:
Once again you demean my position (Firefly was realistic AND uplifting) by making the leap that I think Serenity should have been "some happy fantasyland for two hours".

I don't demean your position. You have every right to it. I simply state my own opinion: entertainment that must avoid any negative aspects of real life is fantasyland.

Not that there's anything wrong with fantasyland. I've read a bodice ripper or two in my time. But I disagree with imposing this form on Serenity. Firefly had plenty of grit, and if it didn't go so far as killing a beloved character, surely that's only because there were so few episodes. Don't fool yourself into thinking it wouldn't have happened eventually. I believe someone already posted that Joss was planning on killing a main character at some point.

Quote:
You also blew off my whole point that Book's death serviced the plot and character in the story whereas Wash's death was aimed at creating an audience reaction.

I didn't blow that off. My point was that ALL entertainment is about getting an audience reaction. To cherry pick some event as too much of this and say it ruins the whole movie seems a bit of a low blow. If that's what it did for you, that's a shame. But don't pull the whole movie down, calling it "not entertainment", because you disagree with one choice.

Again, there's a difference between saying you weren't entertained and saying that it's not entertainment.

I do see your point that Wash's death may have destroyed your suspension of disbelief. But here's a question: if Serenity 2 came out and involved things that directly follow from Wash's death... say, maybe Joss has always been planning that River's Academy has a division for building Robocops out of dead pilots. This was to be the foundation of Firefly season 3, Zoe's battle with her Robopilot dead husband. Once you were done ridiculing the stupid plot, would you forgive Joss for killing off Wash? Because there was plotty motivation and it wasn't solely for audience reaction?

Quote:
See, I'm the opposite!
Book's deat

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

PENNAUSAMIKE

Monday, August 25, 2008 1:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ecgordon:

Hell, you didn't even join this site until nearly a year after Serenity premiered in theaters....

I don't think anyone is trying to tell you that you can't have your own opinion, just that the majority of us don't agree with it.

When I joined doesn't affect the rightness or wrongness of my opinions.
And:
I don't claim to speak for the majority of Firefly/Serenity fans BUT I don't think you should, either.

While some (including Joss) may think Wash's death was a good idea at the time,
I haven't heard ANYONE say,
"Boy I sure am glad Wash is dead!"

PENNAUSAMIKE

Monday, August 25, 2008 2:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by swish:
I believe it is not your job or mine to define Firefly's nature. That job is Joss's.

So he (Joss) had to choose one genre to focus on, and went with fast-paced adventure.

And once he "defined" the genre, I feel he needed to be true to THAT nature.

Quote:
The fact that so many new fans did bond with it, and went to find the series and then came here, speaks volumes.

And that is the success of Serenity.
I just feel that the downer elements put into the action climax kept it from sealing the deal.

That's OK, I'm doing the 'verse my own way.
Firefly Fan Film, "Fool Me Twice".
costumes seen here:
http://fireflydvd.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3541&start=30

about half way down the page.

See, this Alliance sergeant realizes that the Unification he fought for isn't all it was cracked up to be.
Sorry folks; happy ending.

SLOWHAND

Monday, August 25, 2008 2:32 AM

Um....I didn't mean Zoe and Mal would have a romantic interest in each other, for those that thought that. I never said that. What I meant was protecting Mal was one of the things that gave Zoe purpose. If he settled down, he wouldn't need her to be at his right hand anymore. His life and purpose would have changed.

There's several schools of thought here and everyone is entitled to their opinion. I'm of the group that likes my entertainment to be...entertaining. Yes you need drama. Yes people die. But to me, killing off beloved characters goes beyond keeping it real. That's a realness I don't want in my entertainment. To me, it's like watching a new Batman movie and Batman get's killed 5 minutes into the thing. The rest of the movie is told from Gordon's POV. Well, that may be real, but as a Batman movie, it would be pretty disapointing.

I'm of the group that wants the whole crew back. I'm not interested in seeing Zoe live life as a widow. I'm not interested in seeing Mal and Inara married with kids. Those aren't the characters I fell in love with. That's just not Firefly to me.

But that's just me.

TUJIAOZUO

Monday, August 25, 2008 4:01 AM

Quote:
Do they have cloning tech? Surely the Alliance does, we're cloning sheep now, why not people in the future?
IF that is the case, what would happen if Wash was killed, but for some reason the Blue Hands decided to clone him? Then he could be an agent provocateur, inserting himself back into the crew, for some twisted purpose he may or may not know.

Even though we're talking about SciFi and let's face it, cloning has been done many times in SciFi (the first reason why I doubt Joss wouldn't visit it), cloning has been found to be something entirely different than what we all think. Just because another being is created from a copy of someone's genetic code, doesn't mean the copy will be exactly like the original. Often there can be physical and personality differences making the copy it's own unique self. They could clone Wash, but it may not look nor act like Wash, Clone!Wash could be six inches taller with green eyes and a distaste for Hawaiian shirts and dinosaurs (as well as the quiet type even). Even though I'm totally against rising the dead, the SuperOrgan Replacement mentioned somewhere above would be my vote for fixing up Wash and Book, though I think if the Alliance had taken Wash's body from Serenity, Zoe would go into berserker amazon mode and there would be hell to pay. Serious hell to pay.

The problem with Serenity isn't the deaths, because that, while saddening, creates a new structure for the crew. Roles are shifted, healing has to take place, life has to move on. In the Firefly 'verse it's the new frontier. In the old frontier people died (frequently) roles were shifted, folk pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and kept moving. And our crew has that strength to do that, it will take time, but it has to be done in order to keep exisiting. depending on your view of entertainment, I think it would be highly entertaining to see that as well as true to the canon of the show. Nandi died before, her girls wept, but they picked themselves up and kept living. In Firefly there is alot of darkness, but it is balanced out with humor and hope. If it was happy all the time, it would get boring. Granted I wouldn't want Joss to kill off every relationship or send them spiraling into a path of destruction like he's done to every other series (because even though I know he wants to be 'realistic' realistically alot of relationships do survive and become stronger through tough times, and people don't suddenly die after finding love either).

What Serenity lacks is the texture of Firefly. Firefly had so many precious moments; the crew having dinner together, playing cards, Inara and Kaylee having their girl time, Jayne picking on Simon, Wash and Zoe as a couple, even River and Kaylee running around and playing. So much was in the show that helped shape it into the realism that Joss strived for. It's what balanced the dark and it's what the movie lacked. There was no heavy vein of a unconventional family, a theme heavily present in the series. I know that there was no way to show it since the movie had the crew fractured and ready to part ways, but that made the movie hard to swallow is that we didn't see what made them pull away, we didn't see Book go or Inara leave (and the comics don't give that justice because it's such an intregal bridge from the show to the movie). The movie had the plot, it had the action and the drama, but it completely lacked the texture and the intimate moments of the universe of Firefly, that's what's wrong with Serenity. Not the deaths.

I think that there are alot of reprocussions to visit after Serenity besides the dealing with the death of crewmembers. Like the backlash of the tape, the reaction of the planets, as well as what the Alliance Friendly Guild would have to say about Inara helping a band of rebels air such a politically dangerous tape. Let's face it, her certification could be on the line.
-Then there's Zoe's gradual recovery.
-River's continual growth (she's got a long way but it would be interesting, I suspect it would be rough but she would

NCBROWNCOAT

Monday, August 25, 2008 5:11 AM

And then there's the whole Blue Sun arc that Joss didn't have time to explore. It would fit in well with the reaction of the Alliance to the Miranda wave.

And cloning, you'd have to wait 30 odd years for Washclone to grow up. Clones do age normally and not at fantastic rates so no magical adult Wash several months after the BDM.

http://fireflyfaninnc.livejournal.com/

PENNAUSAMIKE

Monday, August 25, 2008 5:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ncbrowncoat:
And then there's the whole Blue Sun arc that Joss didn't have time to explore. It would fit in well with the reaction of the Alliance to the Miranda wave.

Oh yeah, we wanna see the return of Blue Sun!
Another cool Firefly concept that got swept aside in the abbreviated movie 'verse.

Quote:
And cloning, you'd have to wait 30 odd years for Washclone to grow up. Clones do age normally and not at fantastic rates so no magical adult Wash several months after the BDM.

I can't see cloning working because it is substitute Wash instead of repaired Wash.
And the tech for repair is in the 'verse, cloning is not.
In my mind, until a film or series continuation says different, the crew put Wash in River's cryo-box to take him home for burial. Along the way, they are informed by Simon that the same medical tech that produced Tracy's hopped up internal organs ("million credit meat" in Tracy's words) are accessible at Government reseaerch facilities. Using a bit of improvisation and Book's ident card, they sneak Wash in in place of a politico who bumped a deserving recipient (ala PA's governor Casey who bumped everybody down the list for his transplant). Alliance bashing, witty dialog and some gunplay ensues. The Firefly 'verse returns to normal.

SMAUG

Monday, August 25, 2008 5:11 PM

Just to comment on a few of the ideas being discussed in this thread.

As much as I didn't want any of the characters to be killed off, tradjedy is a part of life. And greif and pain can expand your soul in ways that nothing else can.

Just look at this thread as an example. This many years later people are still talking about the death of Wash and Book. What are some of the most intense memories of stories/movies that you saw when you were a child? I would be willing to bet that a good deal of them had some kind of tradgedy in them.

Life isn't a Disney story where all your dreams come true. As a matter of fact, a lot of the public domain stories that Disney built it's empire on.. didn't orginally end happily. The little mermaid was turned into sea foam at the end of the orginal story. And so on..

But anyway.. yes, it has been argued about the tension and uncertainty that was added to the story when those events happend. The Holy-(#*&$-he-just-killed-Wash-is-everyone-going-to-die feeling that suddenly you had at the end.

If characters keep going through dangerous situations time and time again and no body every gets killed, or seriously injured (except a red-shirt), then there is never a true sense of danger. Granted, even if it's "realistic", most people don't want to see a major character die a sensless accidental death. I don't think too many people would be happy if Kalyee died doing a routine spacewalk repair on the ship because her spacesuit failed. But if a character is killed either as a sacrafice or in the midst of a dangerous event, that tradjedy grabs you in a way that continous "happily every after" never will.

But I don't think Joss painted himself into a corner at all.. if anything he set himself up beautifully for more movies. There are probably at least another 6 seasons of stories left even AFTER Serenity. There would have been more if 2-3 seasons of shows wouldn't have had to of been compressed into a 2 hour movie. But, what worked great on a tv series, which was a 9 person crew.. didn't work as well in a movie.

Let's face it.. you simply can't focus very much on 9 main characters in one two hour movie. This was basically a movie about Mal and River. Everyone else was just kind of along for the ride. Especially Book and Inara really got the shaft in this movie.

But now.. with a smaller crew.. and River, who makes perfect sense that she would be able to take over the pioleting duties of Wash, leaves a leaner crew to focus on and continue the story in future movies.

I would argue that Joss knew exactly what he was doing! Not only for this movie.. but hopefully for the next.. and the next...

SLOWHAND

Monday, August 25, 2008 5:24 PM

Well, I agree that death is a part of life. Who wouldn't. But entertainment shouldn't try to imitate life so closley, in my opinion. Heck, if you want that, watch reality TV.

I understand the feeling he was going for, by making us wonder if the others were gonna be killed too. But I just don't think that's nessisary. Sure, by not killing the main characters, there's no real sense of danger. But danger isn't the only feeling I get from entertainment. Take War Stories for example. I knew Mal wasn't gonna be killed by Niska. I knew he'd be safe back on the ship before the episode was over. But, the show had my full attention because I was wondering HOW is he gonna get out of this.

But anyway, this is just my opinion. I just don't know if I could get into another Serenity movie without all 9 characters. I always said when I would describe the show that ALL of the characters were so thought out and important. It just wouldn't be the same without them all together.

I use entertainment to escape the trageties of life. I don't want my entertainment to pull me back into the reality I'm trying to forget for a while.

HUGHFF

Monday, August 25, 2008 9:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TuJiaoZuo:

Even though we're talking about SciFi and let's face it, cloning has been done many times in SciFi (the first reason why I doubt Joss wouldn't visit it), cloning has been found to be something entirely different than what we all think. Just because another being is created from a copy of someone's genetic code, doesn't mean the copy will be exactly like the original. Often there can be physical and personality differences making the copy it's own unique self. They could clone Wash, but it may not look nor act like Wash, Clone!Wash could be six inches taller with green eyes and a distaste for Hawaiian shirts and dinosaurs (as well as the quiet type even).

Actually, not quite. A clone of Wash would look pretty much exactly the same as Wash, no green eyes, no taller. Clones have existed in nature since the beginning of life, in fact. At present, at the school where I teach, there are at least two sets of "clones." Naturally occurring clones are called IDENTICAL TWINS. A clone shares the exact same genetic makeup as its original, just like an identical twin. So you could clone Wash, but he would be born as a baby after 9 months gestation etc. The clone Wash would be physically different from the original Wash because he would be 30 years younger(!) and any environmental factors that affected his physical stature (eg, if he was enrolled in a heavy gym program) would also change his body shape. Similarly, his personality, while partly determined by his genes (clone Wash would be gregarious too) is also strongly determined by his experience (he may not be such a pasificist.) Of course all this is moot because he would be 30 YEARS YOUNGER. Forget cloning.

Quote:
Originally posted by TuJiaoZuo:

What Serenity lacks is the texture of Firefly. Firefly had so many precious moments; the crew having dinner together, playing cards, Inara and Kaylee having their girl time, Jayne picking on Simon, Wash and Zoe as a couple, even River and Kaylee running around and playing. So much was in the show that helped shape it into the realism that Joss strived for. It's what balanced the dark and it's what the movie lacked. There was no heavy vein of a unconventional family, a theme heavily present in the series. I know that there was no way to show it since the movie had the crew fractured and ready to part ways, but that made the movie hard to swallow is that we didn't see what made them pull away, we didn't see Book go or Inara leave (and the comics don't give that justice because it's such an intregal bridge from the show to the movie). The movie had the plot, it had the action and the drama, but it completely lacked the texture and the intimate moments of the universe of Firefly, that's what's wrong with Serenity. Not the deaths.

Absolutely correct. Exactly what I have said from the begining -and very well put too, sir. That's why I'm not all that fussed about seeing Serenity 2 but I would pay a fortune for Firefly 2.

www.cpfc.org - my life

SMAUG

Monday, August 25, 2008 9:41 PM

Quote:
It just wouldn't be the same without them all together.

Of course it wouldn't be the same... but still doesn't mean it won't be great!

RALLEM

Monday, August 25, 2008 9:42 PM

This is something I've thought about with the characters. Is it possible that the Operative from Serenity might be significant to the crew of Serenity again when he comes looking for help for some noble cause which happens to either be very close to something they were already doing or maybe something the crew is passionate about, and in turn the Operative offers some help in figuring out Shepard Book's colorful past, as well as payment?

http://swyzzlestyx.com/index.html

NBZ

Monday, August 25, 2008 10:00 PM

You're assuming they want to know about his past = They do not believe what he told them.

I'd hate to see any sort of "teaming up" with an enemy.

RALLEM

Monday, August 25, 2008 10:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by nbz:
You're assuming they want to know about his past = They do not believe what he told them.

I'd hate to see any sort of "teaming up" with an enemy.

It doesn't have to be teaming up of old enemies, because there probably would be some drama involved, wondering if he will betray them or if his stated goals were real, but even then why wouldn't you want to see them team up with an old enemy? I would think the crew of Serenity would want to know the Shepard's history after they asked him so many times to explain how a shepard knew so much about crime, but even if that wasn't good enough I would think there could be a plot point which could make the knowledge about Book's past vital.

http://swyzzlestyx.com/index.html

BROWNCOAT1300

Tuesday, August 26, 2008 1:11 PM

I can see other movies in the future but I am sad to say that I dont see them doing anything further with the series.
I think that there is enough unknown plot for them to maybe do some off-shoots but I just dont see it.
I wish I could see it but I cant.

SHINY

WASHNWEAR

Tuesday, August 26, 2008 4:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by swish:
Quote:
I'm not entertained by having fictional characters (that I've been led to be emotionally invested in) killed off as a form of audience manipulation.
All entertainment is audience manipulation. You appear to feeling bitter that this particular manipulation was a sad one, rather than a show coaxing you into some happy fantasyland for two hours. Which is understandable, if you went into Serenity thinking it was the Little Mermaid. (Why would anyone think that?)

If Wash's death bugs you too much, watch Alan Tudyk on Dodge Ball or something to assure yourself that no one actually died. Or write some fanfic about Wash, so the character can still be alive for you. See? It's all good.

Gee, Swish - condescend much? Yeah, let's all watch Alan Tudyk in Dodge Ball, 'cause that's EXACTLY like watching Alan Tudyk in Firefly/Serenity, and in any case my grasp of reality is so thin that I think Alan and Wash and Pirate X (been a while since I watched Dodge Ball) are all one and the same. But thanks for helping clear up one thing: I went into Iron Man thinking it was The Little Mermaid, and now I understand my confusion (though if I squint my eyes down pretty good, Gwyneth Paltrow looks amazingly like Alan...)

It was like my 3rd-grade social studies teacher was alive and well when we got here!

NCBROWNCOAT

Tuesday, August 26, 2008 4:47 PM

Then watch Alan on CSI from last year. He gave me the creeps as a pedophile who let a little boy die. Definately not warm and fuzzy, but the mark of a good actor.

http://fireflyfaninnc.livejournal.com/

SWISH

Tuesday, August 26, 2008 7:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by WASHnwear:
Gee, Swish - condescend much?

When someone gets so condescending as to say that *they* are the ultimate judge of what Joss Whedon can or cannot do with his own creation, yeah, I condescend back. Glad you noticed.

Quote:
Yeah, let's all watch Alan Tudyk in Dodge Ball, 'cause that's EXACTLY like watching Alan Tudyk in Firefly/Serenity

And you might have noted the happy face I put on the end of that line. I know the idea is ridiculous, just like it's ridiculous to take it so personally when a writer who created a character decides that character's fate. As if the viewer owns the character more than the writer. Uh-huh.

Guess the irony of my post was too nebulous for some to figure. (Yes, I'm condescending again. So shoot me. If you can aim high enough. My pedestal is quite towering.

)

SLOWHAND

Tuesday, August 26, 2008 9:11 PM

Wow. We're Browncoats arguing over Firefly/ Serenity. You'd think we were Trekies! LOL!

Anywho. If they make another Serenity without Book and Wash, I know I'd see it and I'm pretty sure everyone here would as well. I think there's just several schools of thought here.

One is the looking forward to what's gonna happen now.

Another is, "Wait a minute! We only got half a season of TV and a movie! Let's go back and take our time here!"

Still another is, "Let's move forward, but make sure EVERYONE is onboard."

I'm a member of the later.

Sure Joss is the creator of these characters and has a right to do with them as he pleases. (That's why I'm glad he mentioned bringing back Book and Wash in the Serenity visual companion.) And I know that, even though things may be different, they could still be great. They just can't be AS great as they were without Book and Wash.

To say that it could be better or even that it could be just as good would be like saying that Book and Wash were dead weight. And I know no one here would say that.

So sure. If they made more Firefly and Serenity, I'd see it. I'm just saying that, because it can't be the saem, I'm not as thrilled about it as others.

Firefly was very special and it's sad that it was cut short. As good as further stories could be without Book and Wash, I have to believe that they would be better with them.

Again, just the opinion of me and the other card-carrying members of the third school of thought. ;-p

OPPYH

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 1:27 AM

I want to state that while a new series or movie would be completely different, I' would still be very happy if it happened.

Of all the Joss shows, I think this is the one most deserving of a return.

SLOWHAND

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 2:49 AM

Agreed!

Have some mudder's milk on me.

PENNAUSAMIKE

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 3:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Slowhand:

Sure Joss is the creator of these characters and has a right to do with them as he pleases. (That's why I'm glad he mentioned bringing back Book and Wash in the Serenity visual companion.) And I know that, even though things may be different, they could still be great. They just can't be AS great as they were without Book and Wash.

It was my understanding that Joss has no intention of bringing Book or Wash back "alive", but that they would be seen in flashbacks.

I feel that works for Book, but not so much for Wash.

PENNAUSAMIKE

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 4:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by swish:
Quote:
Originally posted by WASHnwear:
Gee, Swish - condescend much?

When someone gets so condescending as to say that *they* are the ultimate judge of what Joss Whedon can or cannot do with his own creation, yeah, I condescend back. Glad you noticed.

Well swish, if your latest demeaning comment was aimed at my original statement:

"But please keep in mind that I acknowledge that my bias runs to the fact that I like my entertainment to be FUN....etc.",

you obviously define condescending differently than the dictionary I have.

At no point did I presume to pass ultimate judgment on anything; only presented my views on why I feel about, or like/dislike, certain elements of Serenity.

I find the need to use condescension and sarcasm to answer my view (that Serenity betrayed the nature of its Firefly parent by frivolously killing a main character) undermines the legitimate points you have.

For the most part, I have found Browncoats to represent a HUGELY diverse number of interests and beliefs.
In my experience, that very diversity has always meant spirited discussion without denigrating anyone else's opinion.
(I guess that's why Browncoats are "Independents"!)
The insistence that uplifting and positive has to somehow carry some negative connotation when applied to entertainment, smacks of Alliance control, seems to me.

I don't know who has been on this board "long enough" or which opinions represent a minority or a majority.
I only know that each poster's answer to the original question, "Did Joss write himself into a corner with Serenity?" is legitimately right for themselves.

PEPPERG

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 4:47 AM

amazing how wedded some folks are to happy endings, and how betrayed they feel if they don't get them. like someone else implied on this board, serenity isn't a disney movie. besides, (extreme) danger without consequence cheapens the story, and joss is too smart for that.

PENNAUSAMIKE

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 5:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by pepperg:
(extreme) danger without consequence cheapens the story, and joss is too smart for that.

I think Firefly did a better job of not having the consequences outweigh the dramatic return.
i.e. the crew overcame peril at some cost, just not the cost of their lives.
I'm pretty sure Inara and Kaylee are the only two characters who were never shot/wounded/tortured whatever.

Actually, I viewed things not going "according the gorram plan" to be sort of the running gag of the show.
Shoot, even the Lassiter heist didn't pay off like they hoped.

ECGORDON

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 11:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by pennausamike:
Quote:
I'm pretty sure Inara and Kaylee are the only two characters who were never shot/wounded/tortured whatever.

Kaylee was shot by Dobson in the pilot episode.

I agree that the Firefly episodes we were blessed to see did generally end on an uplifting note, but if you are familiar with either Buffy or Angel then you would have to assume that was not going to remain the norm for very long. In this case we saw that type of event in the movie, but it would have happened in the series if it had gone another season or two.

Please don't misinterpret what I am saying either. Wash was the character I identified with the most, and I was devastated when he was killed. However, I think that event made the end of the film a better one than it would have been otherwise. And my comment about how long you have been a Browncoat was less about denigrating your opinion and more about saying it makes no sense for someone who did not see the film in the theater to make the judgment that Wash's death is the reason it failed at the box office. It failed because so very few movie-goers were even aware of it at the time, not because of the story line. It's the same way that there are so many people aware of Firefly now that when it was on the air. If those people watched it then it might still be on the air, and if a lot of them had seen Serenity in the theater it would not be considered a failure.

wo men ren ran zai fei xing.

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

SWISH

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 11:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by pennausamike:
At no point did I presume to pass ultimate judgment on anything; only presented my views on why I feel about, or like/dislike, certain elements of Serenity.

Oh criminy - I'm not going to quote you back to yourself for a third time. You did more just state your views - oh yes you did! (I'm in third grade all of the sudden LOL!) Plenty of people on this thread have stated that they didn't like part of the BDM, didn't find it as entertaining as the series, etc, which you may or may not have noticed that I agree with. The part I disagreed with the absolutes you spoke in, and the way you seemed to be setting down rules that bound Joss's choices. (Do I really need to quote you back to yourself here?)

As I told you before: there's a difference between saying "I wasn't entertained "and "that wasn't entertainment". You definitely said the latter

I note that now you are being clearer about stating your views as your own opinion, and that's cool. Yay! See, I knew you weren't a jerk. It's just the imperfection of the medium - your first few posts came off pretty strong. You know, like a soft French cheese.

Maybe stronger than you intended?

Quote:
The insistence that uplifting and positive has to somehow carry some negative connotation when applied to entertainment, smacks of Alliance control, seems to me.

Dude, the only one speaking of "had to"s here was you! The rest have opinions as to fluffy entertainment - opinions, not absolutes. For instance, I said I find it fake and hollow (that's just my taste), but I also said there's nothing *wrong* with that (hence removing judgement from others whose taste is different) and I go there from time to time (I do find it entertaining).

Quote:
I only know that each poster's answer to the original question, "Did Joss write himself into a corner with Serenity?" is legitimately right for themselves.

It's an excellent question and no one, certainly not me, is saying otherwise. It was your first few posts that I (and others) disagreed with.

PENNAUSAMIKE

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 1:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ecgordon:
Quote:
Originally posted by pennausamike:
Quote:
I'm pretty sure Inara and Kaylee are the only two characters who were never shot/wounded/tortured whatever.

Kaylee was shot by Dobson in the pilot episode.

Holy Smokes!
How'd I forget that?!

So that leaves Inara.

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

PENNAUSAMIKE

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 1:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by swish:

As I told you before:

That would be the part you can leave off.
Answer the question, disagree with my opinion;
but come down off your self-proclaimed pedestal and don't deign to tell me.

Wash Lives!
Mike

SMAUG

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 4:20 PM

Quote:
extreme) danger without consequence cheapens the story, and joss is too smart for that.

And expecially life threatening danger (hey, petty theving and gun fights are down right life threadtening) that happens week after week after week, story after story.. and no one is ever in any real danger?

Eventually that gets old. As someone said.. yes.. it might be exciting to see "HOW" they are going to get out of danger. But how much is the intensity increased if you add "IF" they are going to get out of danger.

I loved STTNG when I was a teenager watching it, but since, as usual, no major character ever died (that you didn't later find out they didn't really die), there was never that intensity-edge-of-your-seat feeling. Throwing in an unknown red-shirt here and there to die does not add anything to the "danger" level of wondering if a main character could get killed. And now that I look back on STTNG.. it looks and feels so juvenile by comparison.

Give me Firefly and BSG any day of the week and 10 times on sunday.. even IF I am never certain that Mal or Adama are going to live to see the next episode.. or mainly because of it.

SWISH

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 5:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by pennausamike:
your self-proclaimed pedestal

Geez. Sense of humor much? My pedestal comment was irony. Joke.

Hmm... maybehaps you'd feel less demeaned if you grew a funny bone. Really, I've given you plenty of invites to loosen up and bond with some humor, and even to turn the talk to Firefly plot, but you seem to be doing your damnedest to take offense, paint yourself into a "poor demeaned me" corner, and generally focus on negatives. (No wonder you don't want them in your movies!) You must really want a fight, huh? Sorry, not interested. This thread can be put to much better use.

Apologies for the aside, all. I'm done now.

Joss ain't in no corner is my take.

PENNAUSAMIKE

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 5:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by swish:
I'm done now.

Phew! Thank Goodness.

JOSSISAGOD

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 6:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by pennausamike:
So that leaves Inara.

Negatory, 'nara got banged-up in that fight with the Reavers at the end of Serenity, not a mortal wound but still a wound

Fe'nos Tol
JOSSIS(Most Definitely)AGOD

Self appointed Forsaken! Been on the list for a while now!

98% of teens have smoked pot, if you are one of the 2% that haven't, copy this into your signature.
"Look at me, I'm STUPID!" The Doctor.

JONGSSTRAW

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 8:43 PM

Wash and Book didn't die because the entire movie was simply a bad dream that Mal had. Serenity is morbidly dark, and all the characters aren't quite themselves. So I think it was all a dream; a dream brought on by Mal's inner torments, fears, and hopes. It's really, for me, the only explanation of the movie. During the entire series Mal always looked out for the welfare and saftey of the crew, but in the movie he would have seen them all killed by Reavers just so he could discover a potential Allliance secret. Don't make no sense, and that's the way dreams work.

SLOWHAND

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 9:28 PM

It all just comes down to a matter of taste. It's no big deal. Someone mentioned that wondering HOW they're gonna get out of danger is entertaining. (Oh...that someone was me!) Heh. Someone else mentioned that wondering IF they are gonna get out of danger is more intense. I absolutly agree with that. But, because of my taste in entertainment, that's a level of intensity I don't want. I just don't like that. I wasn't all into the movie and on the edge of my seat during the final reaver fight, wondering who was next. I was pissed off thinking he was gonna kill everyone. So was the guy next to me! When the rest survived, it wasn't a buy back for me. I was still pissed off.

I like the movie more as time went by. I bought it and the collector's edition. But I wasn't real thrilled when I saw it in theaters.

I like to have characters entertain me. They can't entertain me if they're dead. Sure, you can kill off a main character to get a specific emotion. But then that character is done. If the character lives, you can keep getting emotions with that character over and over again.

Someone said that the deaths shouldn't have come as a suprise to Joss fans. Well, I probably couldn't be called a Joss fan. I actually am not interested in Buffy or Angel at all. I have never been a fan of those shows. It was Firefly that brought me in and made me aware of Joss. So, the deaths of main characters came as a huge shock to me.

Yeah, happy endings are a little cheesy maybe. But that's what entertainment is to me. I want to leave feeling good. There's too much unhappiness in the real world. I don't want to leave a movie feeling miserable, regaurdless of how "real" and "emotional" it was. Bad things must happen. Conflict is what makes drama. But I do believe there is a line that can be crossed that makes a film go from intense to depressing.

Again, just my opinion.

YELLOWJACKET

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 9:31 PM

In addition to being shot at by reavers, Inara got repeatedly punched by the operative and thrown against a wall.

WASHNWEAR

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 9:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by swish:
Quote:
Originally posted by WASHnwear:
Gee, Swish - condescend much?
When someone gets so condescending as to say that *they* are the ultimate judge of what Joss Whedon can or cannot do with his own creation, yeah, I condescend back. Glad you noticed.

Quote:
Yeah, let's all watch Alan Tudyk in Dodge Ball, 'cause that's EXACTLY like watching Alan Tudyk in Firefly/Serenity
And you might have noted the happy face I put on the end of that line. I know the idea is ridiculous, just like it's ridiculous to take it so personally when a writer who created a character decides that character's fate. As if the viewer owns the character more than the writer. Uh-huh.

Guess the irony of my post was too nebulous for some to figure. (Yes, I'm condescending again. So shoot me. If you can aim high enough. My pedestal is quite towering. )

Ouch - that last part hurt...especially since I flatter myself as being a pretty ironic individual...on several levels. BUT, that's not why I tuned in - this is: I APOLOGIZE! Sincerely. My remarks and tone were both uncalled for - must've got confused and thought I was lurking in the RWED or something. I guess the remark about Alan in Dodge Ball struck me in much the same way as it did PENNAMIKEUSA (didn't have my irony filter on), though the entity designated PENNAUSAMIKE clearly doesn't need me to champion his/her causes. Sorry for gettin' all surly.

It was like an alive Wash was STILL better than a dead Wash when we got here!

HOBOFRED

Friday, August 29, 2008 9:13 AM

My problem with the whole idea of Wash and Book being dead and all is that while no, we can definatly not count Joss Whedon painted into a corner, it paints Firefly into a corner if they are to remain dead. Firefly was never about the verse (though I believe Serenity was), nor was it ever about the characters on their own. Firefly was about the crew, how they dealt with each other. The crew was never 9 people (speaking in a truly metaphorical sense here) the crew was one big person, it had its different personalities in the different characters, and while yes, we can count on there being tragedy, The crew without 2 of the 9 personalities that create the crew, simply isn't the crew, and firefly isn't firefly without the crew, cos after all, thats what firefly was.

Feel free to tear apart my logic, im not expecting and sort of feedback, do your worste, just putting in my idea of how Joss should play this one out.

Oh hey guys, thanks for welcoming me to the community, just realised after that big rant that this is my first post here! haha! HELLO!

FIREFLY151

Friday, August 29, 2008 6:38 PM

Does everyone realise that, if Firefly does return or another movie is made, some actors might not be in it. This means not only will we be without Wash and Book, but those characters too.

I've read posts quoting positive comments from some cast members, but can we truly expect the lot to return.

Perhaps Joss Whedon will make a TV show set in the firefly world, but with diff characters? Of course, I'd prefer Serenity back myself and our favourite space crew. So, anyhow, if it does return, there would have to be new characters..
Maybe I should start a new thread...

KIMURI42

Monday, September 1, 2008 7:16 PM

When it comes to corners, Joss has a portal gun. And not a cheap, plastic portal gun, the real, metal, it-gets-it-right gun.

Also, Firefly's cake is REAL!

KATESFRIEND

Monday, September 1, 2008 8:03 PM

I've enjoyed this thread very much, and there's some wonderful ideas here. I don't realy think Joss painted himself into a corner because he could easily run quite a show on the characters that are left. In the early development of the show, I think I read somewhere that he originally only planned on 5 characters. And think on the episodes where Book was conveniently left at an abbey somewhere because there wasn't much for his character to do in that episode. Or one of the characters had very few lines. And if I heard Nathan's comments right at Comicon, he said to Joss that since Joss had already gotten rid of the characters he didn't like to write for, Nathan was in for the sequel. I never underestimate creativity when it's backed into a corner. It has ways of coming up with amazing solutions - kind of like evolution in process. Maybe Joss has plans to bring in new characters already for the next project - in whatever form it takes. I'm in for the ride.

CHARLIEBZ

Monday, September 1, 2008 9:25 PM

I agree with you, Katesfriend. Maybe some other writer would have trouble with the scenario he/she created but not Joss. It hurts seeing two wonderful characters disappear from this 'verse but I have the utmost confidence that if Firefly returns, in whatever format, Joss can move forward.

I also don't think Wash could ever return in any other form. Cloning, the Alliance saving him, at the last minute, whatever - that wouldn't be Firefly.

PENNAUSAMIKE

Monday, September 1, 2008 10:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by CharlieBZ:

I also don't think Wash could ever return in any other form. Cloning, the Alliance saving him, at the last minute, whatever - that wouldn't be Firefly.

Mal was revived from "dead" in Niska's torture room.
But the ALL-TIME-WINNER?

Has to be Dobson,
He got shot in the head with a pistol that Mal used to
DROP A HORSE IN IT'S TRACKS!
And Joss brought him back in the comic book.

So it's not too un-Firefly/Whedonesque to bring
Wash back!

CHARLIEBZ

Monday, September 1, 2008 10:55 PM

Massive stake or whatever that was through the chest? Plus, there's that funeral thing - I don't think Zoe would have gone through that without some remains. She would have noticed if his body came up missing.

I think it's different than the Dobson or Mal scenario. Mal's was more for dramatic effect. Let's all get together and rescue the captain. Next shot, yep he's dead. And Dobson, he was shot and then tossed out the ship - no emotional impact for me.

But Wash, it would feel really cheap if they miraculously brought him back. I guess I'm not as attached to Wash as others because I watched the movie in the middle of watching the series so I conditioned myself not to get too attached to him or Book.