Investigating the Death of 'Agent Dubson'

POSTED BY: TheSomnambulist
UPDATED: Friday, October 15, 2010 23:25
VIEWED: 18428
PAGE 4 of 14

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

PENNAUSAMIKE

Tuesday, October 12, 2010 10:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by pennausamike:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by pennausamike:
Joss brings back Dobson from a bullet to the head,
(fired from a gun that DROPPED a HORSE in ONE SHOT)
in a story where ANYBODY with a grudge could have been that character.

Joss killed a beloved character to artificially create "peril" and a sense of "realism"
in a fictional world that isn't "real"
(Criminals, who are good guys and beautiful people, commit crimes without repercussions for the innocent
and without getting tossed in jail for years-long sentences).

Both are bad story-telling and both took away from the quality of the 'verse.

I'll agree with the first, it was a bit of sloppy storytelling.

I'll disagree on the second. Found it to be a brilliant storytelling move, even if it hurt many people's feelings.

I found Wash's death in Serenity to be gratuitous.
What makes you feel it was a brilliant storytelling move?

Well, as you yourself mentioned, it ratcheted up the tension and the stakes, making the final act of the film much more intense than it would have been if they all got away.

Which is good storytelling - making the most out of the story at hand, bringing the greatest emotional punch. It's not just about giving everyone a happy ending so that no one goes away sad.

My point was, in using the quotes around "peril" and "realism" and the word artificially, that killing Wash out of nowhere DIDN'T ratchet anything up.
The peril was already there.
The chase was on, both Reavers and Alliance in hot pursuit;
Wash's death was a throwaway author's trick.
A gratuitous trick that, for me, brought nothing to the story being told and cut off an important line of story telling were the franchise to continue.

When I first saw the movie, having never seen Firefly, Wash's death didn't really register beyond, "what a waste".
After I saw and emotionally invested in the Firefly characters,
I felt betrayed by the creator for no reason.
Now that I find that investing audiences in his characters,
then randomly killing them is a Joss trademark,
I find myself increasingly less interested in Joss' work.

The fact that Joss would approve bringing back a NON-character like Dobson,
but kill a meaningful character like Wash;
is nonsensical to my storytelling sensibilities.

Mike

STORYMARK

Tuesday, October 12, 2010 10:36 PM

Well, that's great for you. But when I saw it, I did know the characters already, and his death did greatly increase the tension.

Maybe you would have thought they were in just as much danger had no one been hurt, but I don't. What you say is cheap and artificial, I saw as necessary.

And your use of words like "betrayed" is pretty much exactly what I'm talking about with the hurt feelings comment. What you see as "random" I see as very deliberate and calculated - and feel that the writing on display reflects this.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

TWO

Wednesday, October 13, 2010 12:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by pennausamike:
After I saw and emotionally invested in the Firefly characters,
I felt betrayed by the creator for no reason.
Now that I find that investing audiences in his characters,
then randomly killing them is a Joss trademark,
I find myself increasingly less interested in Joss' work.

The fact that Joss would approve bringing back a NON-character like Dobson,
but kill a meaningful character like Wash;
is nonsensical to my storytelling sensibilities.

Mike

Leonard Nimoy has a story about the killing of his character, Spock, in Star Trek II. Gene Roddenberry had not thought about it clearly, analogous to Joss Whedon killing Wash. Spock must die but there was an escape clause appended on the very last day Nimoy is on the set.

Leonard Nimoy explains how a major screw-up in a screenplay is repaired. Joss' producer on Serenity should have ordered Joss to fix Wash's death, somehow, someway. This is one example of how that is done in Hollywood, according to Nimoy:
We really had planned to be finished with the Spock character. And I was depressed because the film was going so well, and I thought, "We're making a big mistake here." I mean, Star Trek II was being made and being made very, very well. It was a good script, well directed, well acted. And here we came down to my last day.

And... Anyway, fortunately, just before the final death scene, where I'm going into this chamber to save the ship and die, out comes the producer and says to me, "Is there anything you can do or say that would leave a thread for the future?"

I thought, "Whoa!" That's... Wow. This is momentous. So I said I could do a mind meld on DeForest Kelley, who was lying there unconscious, or semi-conscious, and I could just say a word to him, and he said, "What would the word be?"

And I said, "I'll say, 'Remember.'" That's ambiguous enough to be picked up as a thread to anything. And that's exactly what happened. I said, "Remember," and we built the next film on that word.

The above quote is from Star Trek The Captains Summit - [2009] - www.subtitlesource.org/title/tt1394315

The Joss Whedon script for "Serenity", where Wash lives, is
Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/two

PENNAUSAMIKE

Wednesday, October 13, 2010 12:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:

Well, that's great for you. But when I saw it, I did know the characters already, and his death did greatly increase the tension.

Maybe you would have thought they were in just as much danger had no one been hurt, but I don't. What you say is cheap and artificial, I saw as necessary.

Right...

Quote:

When I first saw the movie, having never seen Firefly, Wash's death didn't really register beyond, "what a waste".

...and I don't know how a storyteller reconciles two such divergent audience viewpoints.

But...

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:

And your use of words like "betrayed" is pretty much exactly what I'm talking about with the hurt feelings comment. What you see as "random" I see as very deliberate and calculated - and feel that the writing on display reflects this.

Quote:

After I saw and emotionally invested in the Firefly characters,
I felt betrayed by the creator for no reason.

...The sense of betrayal comes from deeper investment in the story and characters.

I see such writing as self-destructive within the context of the story being told.
If Firefly/Serenity were some heavy drama, grounded in reality, random killing of characters might make sense.
But Firefly especially is NOT real; it is a fantasy where pretty, fun people play at being bad guys without killing innocents or getting caught.
Investing the audience in characters only to eliminate them is out-of-place storytelling and drives audiences from investing further.

While obviously not the only thing, the out-of-place dark elements contributed to BDM Serenity's poor box office showing.
The happy ending brings audiences back for repeat viewings, the downer ending only works in weepers like "Terms of Endearment" or "Titanic".

I'm glad BDM Serenity was a satisfying experience for some folks, but the fact that the death of Wash aligns with the death of the franchise is more than coincidence for me.

Mike

THESOMNAMBULIST

Wednesday, October 13, 2010 9:52 AM

Quote:
...The sense of betrayal comes from deeper investment in the story and characters.

I see such writing as self-destructive within the context of the story being told.
If Firefly/Serenity were some heavy drama, grounded in reality, random killing of characters might make sense.
But Firefly especially is NOT real; it is a fantasy where pretty, fun people play at being bad guys without killing innocents or getting caught.
Investing the audience in characters only to eliminate them is out-of-place storytelling and drives audiences from investing further.

While obviously not the only thing, the out-of-place dark elements contributed to BDM Serenity's poor box office showing.
The happy ending brings audiences back for repeat viewings, the downer ending only works in weepers like "Terms of Endearment" or "Titanic".

I'm glad BDM Serenity was a satisfying experience for some folks, but the fact that the death of Wash aligns with the death of the franchise is more than coincidence for me.

Mike

Thing is though Mike that Joss as a creative individual has to tell the story that he wants to tell. I don't believe he would want to compromise the narrative he had in order to possibly receive the green light for a sequel. Given the cancellation of the show the chances Universal would also give him a sequel were unlikely, therefore better to tell the story he wants (as he was given a second chance) than to settle for something he would not entirely be happy with, and have that out there for the rest of his career.

I personally don't see the dark as out of place. And while Firefly was based on a fantasy premise it's characters were very much routed in reality, and that's why we liked them.

The poor box office need not ncessarily be down to this either (and I realise you mention it as a contributing factor and that may well be) but one of the highest grossing films of all time (TITANIC) didn't have a happy ending.

Therefore you have to produce the work in an honset way and from the heart. And I believe that's exactly what Joss does. Can you really ask for more from an artist?

Cartoons - http://cirqusartsandmusic.blogspot.com

ZEEK

Wednesday, October 13, 2010 1:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by pennausamike:
...The sense of betrayal comes from deeper investment in the story and characters.

I see such writing as self-destructive within the context of the story being told.
If Firefly/Serenity were some heavy drama, grounded in reality, random killing of characters might make sense.
But Firefly especially is NOT real; it is a fantasy where pretty, fun people play at being bad guys without killing innocents or getting caught.
Investing the audience in characters only to eliminate them is out-of-place storytelling and drives audiences from investing further.

While obviously not the only thing, the out-of-place dark elements contributed to BDM Serenity's poor box office showing.
The happy ending brings audiences back for repeat viewings, the downer ending only works in weepers like "Terms of Endearment" or "Titanic".

I'm glad BDM Serenity was a satisfying experience for some folks, but the fact that the death of Wash aligns with the death of the franchise is more than coincidence for me.

Mike

I understand that those are your impressions of the film, but they definitely do not apply to everyone. I didn't feel betrayed at all by Wash's death. I actually felt more betrayed that Book died without revealing his backstory. I think both of their deaths were absolutely essential to making the final battle feel very intense. One death feels like a token death these days. Killing 2 of the main characters really starts to make you wonder.

When Zoe got sliced, Kaylee got hit by darts, Simon got shot, River got pulled away by reavers and Mal got impaled I really did believe that any one of them could die if not all of the crew. When Simon got shot I turned to my friend and whispered "is he really going to kill them all?".

The deaths left the door open that the crew really might not make it. If no one had died it would feel like any other movie where the protagonists are in situations where they shouldn't survive but it's a movie so you don't really think anything bad will happen to them. Joss thoroughly took away that safety blanket for me. He did that by killing well established characters that we're invested in. If he killed Fanty and Mingo it wouldn't have had any impact. Sorta like how no one complains that Joss killed Mr. Universe. It had no emotional impact because we aren't invested in the character.

I saw the movie at least 4 times in theaters (that I can remember). I've gone to CSTS screenings every year since. I don't think the movie needed a happy ending to get repeat customers.

PENNAUSAMIKE

Wednesday, October 13, 2010 2:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:

Thing is though Mike that Joss as a creative individual has to tell the story that he wants to tell. I don't believe he would want to compromise the narrative he had in order to possibly receive the green light for a sequel.

Joss did it with the original Firefly pilot.
The changes he made to appease the FOX creative heads are some of the fans' favorite elements of the show.

Quote:
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:

Given the cancellation of the show the chances Universal would also give him a sequel were unlikely, therefore better to tell the story he wants (as he was given a second chance) than to settle for something he would not entirely be happy with, and have that out there for the rest of his career.

And I'd agree, except the story was so compressed, I'm not sure it was really told.
I don't know that Joss didn't metaphorically kill Firefly/Serenity by killing himself/Wash...

Quote:
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:

I personally don't see the dark as out of place. And while Firefly was based on a fantasy premise it's characters were very much routed in reality, and that's why we liked them.

That's a whole 'nother discussion!
I would define what Joss did was to create VERY unrealistic characters that,
by speaking to the audiences' psyche,
FEEL realistic, even tho' they aren't, really.
I could write a character by character analysis about the unrealities of each character, and yet, why they touch our hearts.
The "hooker-with-a-heart-of-gold", the "loveable-thug", the "farm-girl-nuclear-spaceship-engineer", the "bitter-but-honorable-criminal-captain"....these are "REAL" characters?
Only in fiction, but I loved them, too.

Quote:
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:

The poor box office need not ncessarily be down to this either (and I realise you mention it as a contributing factor and that may well be) but one of the highest grossing films of all time (TITANIC) didn't have a happy ending.

Titanic was a weeper about the most famous shipwreck in history.
Totally different audience.
BDM Serenity is a sci-fi action flick.
I think it would have helped to stay true to that milieu.

Quote:
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:

Therefore you have to produce the work in an honset way and from the heart. And I believe that's exactly what Joss does. Can you really ask for more from an artist?

As mentioned about the Firefly pilot, Joss "compromised" his vision for commercial reasons.
Those compromises improved the final product/story.
FOX Entertainment made Firefly better.
They GOT Firefly.

The short-sighted executives at FOX Broadcasting killed Firefly.
They didn't GET anything that wasn't "American Idol".

Point is, Joss is in a business to please his audience.
Firefly is standing up to long-term examination better than the BDM Serenity.
Even at the post showing Q&A in Australia, the audience stated that they wanted more Firefly more than they wanted more BDM Serenity.

Not sure it really matters.
With the new movie deal, I think life has carried Joss beyond Firefly.

Mike

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, October 13, 2010 2:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:
Thing is though Mike that Joss as a creative individual has to tell the story that he wants to tell. I don't believe he would want to compromise the narrative he had in order to possibly receive the green light for a sequel. Given the cancellation of the show the chances Universal would also give him a sequel were unlikely, therefore better to tell the story he wants (as he was given a second chance) than to settle for something he would not entirely be happy with, and have that out there for the rest of his career.

Agreed, however, I don't think the movie Serenity was the story he wanted to tell. He wanted to tell a 7-year series, where secrets about Wash and Book would have come out before they died (and they would have, I have enough faith in Joss to acknowledge he probably did plan to kill them).

Compressed into the time frame of the movie, Joss didn't get to tell us things about the characters he wanted to. He was trying to wrap things up, and in the end he did something that it now seems like he regrets, but can't admit he regrets because of artistic integrity.

Quote:
I personally don't see the dark as out of place. And while Firefly was based on a fantasy premise it's characters were very much routed in reality, and that's why we liked them.

The dark wasn't out of place. Wash and Book were going to die eventually, and Kaylee, River, Mal, or Inara are probably going to die next.

The movie was just not the most optimal setting to tell the story Joss wanted to tell.

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, October 13, 2010 3:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:
And when the crew are questioned during Bushwacked by the Alliance officer should there not have been mention that the last known where abouts of Agent Dobson was aboard a Firefly class ship....?

Could be that his failure (and death/disappearance) in a non-Parliament-sanctioned black bag op resulted in the permanent dumping of all info on the mission to keep things simple.

I wasn't a fan of bringing him back myself. In my mind, Mal ended him with that shot.

The laughing Chrisisall

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, October 13, 2010 3:15 PM

Quote:
"is he really going to kill them all?".

There's no way he would have killed all the crew; the point of the movie was sending out a big damn hail mary.

If Firefly/Serenity were a dystopian drama, If Joss were the Orwellian type, maybe it would have ended that way, with the Operative crushing the recording file underfoot without ever looking at it. That's called a "Shoot the Shaggy Dog Story," where nothing is accomplished and the futility of the efforts of the main characters is emphasized. In Orwellian stories, this works, because the message is "these people are scary, don't let them take power."

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ShootTheShaggyDog

Despite a penchant for killing off his characters, Joss is not this writer. Joss believes these people HAVE taken power, the endings he writes are "hey! wake up! It's still possible to win!" He finished Angel and Buffy by STOPPING The End Of The World As We Know It, not having it happen anyway. This is the series he loved that broke his heart, the story he would tell if he got a chance to. For an ending, he's not going to be going for the message "nothing in this story mattered."

I admit that Book's death would not be sufficient to raise concerns that everyone might die. Too much of a time gap between that and the end battle.

Although... Heh. You're right. One death is a cop-out. But maybe two is a cop-out too, if the purpose is to ratchet up tension. Desensitization of the audience and darkness induced apathy. There's a losing battle if I saw one. This is a trope that seriously needs to be deconstructed, and soon, for the sake of storytelling everywhere.

I can accept Book's death if only because within the context of the movie, it worked, and there was a story-related reason for it. He gives Mal the push to do what needs doing.

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE