Firefly comeback?

POSTED BY: Lurker99
UPDATED: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 13:51
VIEWED: 5412
PAGE 2 of 2

PREV PAGE 1 2

BROWNCOAT01

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 11:44 AM

In the end, it all depends on if some "suits" with money want to pay for a sequel. At least that's what Joss said.

Still flyin

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 1:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bringitback:
To suggest that hours of lobbying, hard work and great story-telling should be swept aside because you don't like the fact that two major characters died is a joke.

*sigh*
Alas, you did not fully read my post. I qualified all my statements. The issue twixt us would be centered in your phrase I quoted above: "Great Storytelling". I'm the biggest browncoat you'll ever meet friend. The TV series was great storytelling. Serenity the film was not. The film tried to pack 5 lbs of go-see into a 3lb bag. There have been plenty of long analyses about this subject on fff.net since 2005, seek out any number of them buried in the archive.

Quote:
lets ring up George Lucas and see if we can get him to rescind the death of Darth Vader.....Imagine all the Brave Heart sequels if William Wallace didnt die...bring back Samuel Jackson in Deep Blue Sea? Loved characters die, people get old...THAT IS LIFE.

You say things I am more than completely aware of, but your outlook is to simple. My vision of these subjects encompass a much broader scope. I was quite clear in my previous post that if it's the destiny of Wash and Book to perish to serve a greater story then so be it. The way the film presented these events was not the best way to do it. Firefly was always meant to be on the small screen. That is the story's medium. The move to a large screen was certainly an important step to promote awareness in an effort to jump-start a season 2...but it was NOT a venue to kill the opus. And that is what happened, Whedon made it clear to audiences that he wanted to bring an ending to things. So silly and sad when these same events could have transpired in a season 3 or 4 and had more meaning.

Quote:
Joss Whedon killed characters for a reason

I appreciate your 'Joss is Boss' attitude. I used to share it. Throughout Buffy I learned to trust the man. Jenny Calinder's death in season 2 BtVS, while painful at the time, set Willow's magical path. I wrote an essay on this subject. But nowadays I perceve that outside his natural medium (TV) Joss Whedon makes mistakes. This has nothing to do with who lives or dies, but about good storytelling. You might focus upon my prior statements related to Wash and Book but those are the easy plot points in which to find holes (And thus prepare a defense for Whedon). Can you provide me a proper defense as to why he cut to the center of the Reaver mystery? Or River's nature? These are 2 of the most important plots to the entire premise of the 'verse and require at least 2-3 seasons of slow-reveal. And yet within 2 hours they were laid bare for all to examine. No, I tell you: Whedon made his choice and killed his magnum opus on the big screen. I certainly agree that Whedon kills characters for a reason, but with a dead-end film there can be no reason. In TV there is hopefully a season 3 and a season 4 ect...to provide the storytelling power to make events mean something. Films are stand alone efforts which might be sequeled. Serenity the film should serve the same purpose as the River Tam Sessions, to add value. The main body of the tale is better served by being contained in a series, where time can serve the story. This is why Buffy the TV show works and Buffy the 1992 film is terrible. Joss simply could not fit the nessessary minuta into the 1992 effort and his writting was derailed by the Kurzi duo.

Killing characters in Serenity was as valueless as telling everyone what Reavers were. These things required time to simmer. THATS good storytelling.

Quote:
I really do hope I never see this `Serenity was a bad dream' rubbish again...

A Bad dream? Oh it's as canon as anything. I said as much before. But I'll have no trouble repeating to you why it was a gorram mistake if it requires a re-statement.

SHINYGOODGUY

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 8:08 AM

Okay! People talking about Firefly/Serenity, here.
People talking about shoving things into an orofice, elsewhere.
_____________________________________________

I read a review regarding Serenity from a couple of years back (2005), and the writer had an interesting comment on the deaths of Wash and Book. He said that the Book's death made sense within the context of the movie. He said that it was a motivating factor for Mal's story arc - a man who finds something to believe in. Mal found his rudder.

He went on to say that Wash's death, on the other hand, was done merely for shock value and served no purpose other than to have us think that no one was safe.

Now let's think a moment about this. Might I suggest to return to the DVD set and watch OoG.
Storytelling done correctly is an art. Just look at how Joss tells the story of the gathering of the crew. There is a way to bring Wash and Book back to life without doing the whole "Dallas" dream sequence.

Now let's go make that mini-series.

SGG

Tawabawho?

BROWNCOAT01

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 11:58 AM

Sounds good to me.

Still flyin

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 1:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Shinygoodguy:
There is a way to bring Wash and Book back to life without doing the whole "Dallas" dream sequence.

You'd have to pack 6 seasons of development into a space as wide as the gap twixt Objects in Space and the feature film while at the same time dodging the 2 graphic novels Those Left Behind and Better Days.

Never going to work.

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 1:51 PM

Select to view spoiler:

I actually disagree on the effect that Book's death has on Mal. Book ASKS him to believe, but that's not something you can just tell Mal to do and he'll do it, nor does Book tell Mal anything specific to believe IN. So if Book's death made Mal believe in something... What is it?

I think Book's death served as just another motivation for revenge against the Alliance. And Mal found a vector for it on Miranda.

And to be honest, I think that makes Book's death cheap. You didn't need to kill Book to give Mal another motivation to broadwave the Miranda message, just like you didn't need to kill Wash to add a sense of danger, or to make clear that what the crew is trying to do is suicidal.

PREV PAGE 1 2