"But he added that the movie's sales on DVD, which came out on Dec. 20, are running neck-and-neck with the hit comedy Wedding Crashers, which bodes well for a possible Serenity sequel."
[ January 12, 2006, 08:05 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Ohboyohboyohboyohboyohboyohboyohboy!
(I'm sorry, I couldn't help but get excited. )
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
You know, I think I'd get more enjoyment from two more episodes of the show than from a feature length movie.
For instance, the episode "Ariel" was probably the best episode of any TV show I've ever seen.
If they made two episodes of that quality, I'd like it far better than if there was another movie. The movie was pretty good, in my opinion, but I thought the show was excellent.
I would be far more happy if it was revealed that the show was being relaunched than if a sequel was announced.
[ January 10, 2006, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: Xavier ]
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I agree with Xavier.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
I'll take anything I'll get.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
*Nods* Though the movie was 80 mill, the TV show was mill per episode. So I'd settle for 40 episodes. Though, you know, things are going to be a lot different what with the war and all.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
How do you like that, I agree with everyone who has posted in this thread so far!
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
Er, war, pooka?
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
I agree with the idea that eps would be better than a movie. It costs less per season, and they can still charge more for the DVD's!
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
The movie cost US$39M to make, didn't it? Not US$80M.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Two things to remember: the studio gets something like 55% of the box office, and they also paid a fair bit for marketing and promotion.
Reportedly, before the movie came out the studio execs said they'd like to see $80 million to consider a sequel.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I'ld prefer a new season as well. The movie was good yes, but having some new seasons where you can better explain the story is preferable.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
A new season would be far better than a movie. Joss Whedon has said himself that he doesn't work so well in a feature film environment. He's a master story teller for tv shows where he has time to tell his story, but isn't terribly good with crunched movie times.
Not that Serenity was bad, it was excellent. I just would much much prefer a new season of Firefly.
Posted by Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged (Member # 7476) on :
Stop the madness people. I'm hoping it all ends here, I'm not sure I can stand another two years of Firefly talk.
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
i'm with wowbagger.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
You'll prolly get it anyway. Fortunately I label my subject lines carefully so they can be easily avoided Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
Yeah, you can't really complain about Firefly talk if you clicked on a thread called "Serenity sequel?"
Anyway, now I have to convince people I know to buy the DVD to up sales...
Posted by Evie3217 (Member # 5426) on :
*jumps up and down* Personally, I'll take anything I can get, as long as they keep the Firefly universe alive.
*stops jumping up and down because it's tiring*
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I personally would love to see a Firefly min-series. Joss would get a chance to tell more of the story than in a feature movie, but it wouldn't be as difficult as getting a network to start the show up all over again.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I'll take anything I can get, but I too would prefer a series. Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
I guess I don't understand why the Sci Fi network doesn't pick it up for a miniseries. See how it does, then try for a series. I wouldn't mind a sequel to Serenity, but would much prefer a series. Or miniseries.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
No longer getting the scifi channel, I don't know the answer to this question:
What proportion of scifi channel miniseries have been inted to be stand-alone (like Dune and Children of Dune), and how many have been attached to series or possible series (like Battlestar Galactica, Babylon 5: Legend of the Rangers, and Farscape: Peacekeeper Wars)?
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
I'd prefer to see it come back as a series. A nice weekly dose of new Firefly would set my world to right.
But could they pick up with the series where it left off instead of where the movie did? I want Wash and Book, dangit!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
IIRC, Wash and Book left because they were getting too busy to be able to commit to remaining available for future movies or shows.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Yeah, by killing Book, they took away some of the more interesting story lines. But I'd say they're gone... gone forever.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I think they gave us all we needed to know about Book's background in the movie... but my favourite storyline was always the Mal-Inara arc anyway. I'm a softie, I admit it. Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Well, gee thanks for spoiler warnings considering some folks haven't seen the movie yet.
Yeah, I know I bear some responsibility for clicking on a sequel thread, but still, a little consideration for major plot points would be appreciated.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Well, apparently there isn't full agreement on how the movie actually ended.
Had you seen the series at all, Belle?
Posted by Vasslia Cora (Member # 7981) on :
I would like the show back either set before teh movie or just forget the movie happened.
But then again Joss has never been afraid to kill off poeple from what I have seen.
To tell the truth anything would make me happy, a series, a minisereies or another movie, I don't care to much. I loved the series and I thought the movie was good and like a good book, I want more.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I think they gave us all we needed to know about Book's background in the movie...
What in the world did we learn in the movie about Book's background?
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
We didn't learn anything in the movie about Book's background. The visual companion quotes Ron Silver as saying that Book sees a lot of his younger self in Mal, which I think is an interesting statement. The book also says that Wash may return in future productions. That made me happy.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: The visual companion quotes Ron Silver as saying that Book sees a lot of his younger self in Mal
What is the visual companion?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote: The book also says that Wash may return in future productions. That made me happy.
Oh man, if it gets all freaky star-trekky, I would not like that. It would also be weird if it is done through some kind of spiritual medium. I could possibly buy some kind of clone deal where he isn't really himself. Reminiscences are fine too. Don't get me wrong, Was was probably my second favorite character. Or third. But when you're dead, you're dead.
P.S. There is a deleted scene where Mal is talking to the Operative. I think that is what Book is talking about. Was it book or the book or ... Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Might be flashbacks. Who knows? Gotta trust Whedon not to cheat, though. He seems pretty commited to honest storytelling from what I can see.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
He did that an awful lot in Angel after Dharla was killed (the second time).
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
SPOILER WARNING FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE NOT SEEN SERENITY OR WHO DON'T WANT TO KNOW ABOUT BOOK'S PAST
.
.
.
.
Did you want them to flat-out say "Book used to be an Operative before he converted to Christianity?" I think that would have taken away from how beautifully they said it without saying it directly. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
In my defence, I've only seen it once, and that was on opening night.
I need to get my DVD back from my brother. Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
twinky- I don't think we've had nearly enough info to be positive about that yet. It's the theory I subscribe to, but it remains a theory, which is fandom discussions, unlike in science, means that there isn't nearly enough proof to be sure of it.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Twinky, I came to the same conclusion.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I disagree, blacwolve, I think we've got all the information we're ever going to get. Book said as much in the movie. I'd actually prefer that Joss not state it explicitly, because I think that would detract from how well it was handled. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Twinky, haven't you praised some of William Gibsons's novels because they never really explain what's going on?
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
Twinky, I speculated that Book may have been an operative as well, but I really don't think that there's much that even implies it. I certainly wouldn't say that they said it indirectly. Although I think it's a very probably theory, I also think that you may be reading too much into the dialogue.
Now I'm about to say something highly controversial: Does anyone think that maybe it's better if Firefly doesn't come back as a series? It's just a thought, but it's relatively easy to keep a series great for a season or two, but much more difficult to do so for 7 or 8. Maybe Firefly would lose some of its charm after 100 episodes. Maybe returning in a more limited sense, such as another movie or two, or a mini-series, would actually keep it fresh, and prevent future discussions about when precisely Firefly jumped the shark.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
"jumped the shark"? *laughs* I've never heard that phrase before. What's it from?
I didn't get that Book used to be an Operative from that exchange. It makes a lot of sense, except that Operatives don't even have names. And in that one episode, where he gets shot and is taken to the hospital, the officials jump on getting him treatment, it was his name or something in his identity that got them to expedite his admission. Not that it couldn't be explained away, but I really think it's too vague. I would think that the last thing the Alliance would want to do is treat an apostate Operative.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Well, considering that the doctor who had met with key members of Parliament didn't really know what an Operative was, I would find it surprising for Book to know what one was if he hadn't been involved with them in some way.
Jumped the shark = The Simpson's where the Critic is a guest star. The "Home" episode of the X-Files. Pretty much any episode of a Fox series where women mack on each other. It comes from when Fonzie did a motocycle jump over a pool of sharks on Happy Days. When the show kind of loses it's moorings.
What's funny is I was asking my husband (who is a movie-only fan) if Mal will hook up with Inara or Zoe, and he said "I'd go for River."
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
quote:Originally posted by jeniwren: "jumped the shark"? *laughs* I've never heard that phrase before. What's it from?
Have you really never heard it?! I thought everyone had. Basically, when a show... well.. starts to suck it is said to have "jumped the shark". Usually people like to try to pinpoint this to a particular season, episode, or event. There's even a site (jumpedtheshark.com maybe? I'm not sure) where people vote on when popular series jumped. I believe the term itself came from an episode of "Happy Days" where the Fonz jumped over a shark on water skis. It was considered to be the start of an unending nosedive in the series' quality.
*edit* Damn, I knew someone would beat me to it. I type too damn slow. Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
That's funny. I'd never heard the term but now it makes sense. I like it.
pooka, I don't remember that from the movie. I'll have to go back and watch that part again.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Twinky, haven't you praised some of William Gibsons's novels because they never really explain what's going on?
That would be Neuromancer. And yes, it's a favourite of mine, becuase I think some things are ruined by being explicitly stated.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
The jump over the shark was indeed on water skiis, not a motorcycle.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
I'd go for River, too.
With Kaylee as a close, close second.
And Inara as a close, close third.
And Zoe as a close, close fourth.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I think some things are ruined by being explicitly stated.
I can't think of any story where I'd agree with this.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
I don't remember Neuromancer being all that vague, which probably means that I just missed all the subtlety, or maybe I picked up on it so well that I didn't realize that it was being subtle. I'll have to read it again some time. I do agree with your point though, in some cases.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I agree with Twinky. It was subtle, but also obvious to those of us who don't need an anvil to fall on them before they get a point.
It was also strongly implied in the series.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I don't see how it could be implied in the series -- opratives like we saw in the movie were not part of the series at all.
quote:It was subtle, but also obvious to those of us who don't need an anvil to fall on them before they get a point.
I need the anvil.
Posted by WntrMute (Member # 7556) on :
Yeah, definitely River.
Hmmmm, life with River..... (Wayne's World dream sequence 'dobidiboo' fade out) River: Honey, does this dress make my butt look big? WntrMute: Oh, no baby, not at all. (*thinking* just like two rhinos in a pillowcase) *THWAP*
River: Let's cuddle. WntrMute: Ok, honey (*thinking* and then I'll just [NOTICE, FURTHER THOUGHTS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF SERVICE]) *THWAP*
(Fade out of dream sequence)
On second thought now, that Inara.....
Posted by NinjaBirdman (Member # 7114) on :
If Book wasn't an operative, I don't know what he possibly could've been. I can't think of anything else that would fit. He beat a fed down in the pilot episode. He knew what kind of sniper rifle Niska's men had in war stories just by seeing the wounds of the dead guys(he was also pretty darn good at shooting kneecaps in that episode ). He got medical help from the alliance ship in safe.
The movie introduced the operative and I think made pretty clear that the hints in the show were leading toward that being Book's past life.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
He could have been the headmaster at Operative School.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I agree with Twinky in that I prefer things not be too explicitly spelled out.
Which, now that I think of it, may be why I'm not as big a big fan of Ender's Shadow and it's sequels. I liked the amount of information we had in Ender's Game and Speaker for the Dead. I didn't need or want all the additional bits filled in.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
He could also have been an Alliance officer who grew disillusioned with the Alliance's goals after the war.
Whereas Mal abandoned God after Serenity valley, perhaps Book embraced God instead. If he were a military officer/soldier, it would explain his proficiency and knowledge of weapons and combat, as well as his knowledge of Alliance tactics.
He doens't *have* to have been an Operative, though that theory is also very plausible.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:I think some things are ruined by being explicitly stated.
I can't think of any story where I'd agree with this.
I think Neuromancer is just such a story.
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: He could have been the headmaster at Operative School.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
Who is this Book character? I've only seen the movie, which may be the reason for my confusion.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
By the fourth viewing, I was beginning to feel like the word "believe" was dropping a bit like an anvil.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I think Neuromancer is just such a story. [Smile]
It left me unsatisfied.
But, as our host likes to say, no story is for everybody (or does he say that not all stories are for everybody?)
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Spoilerish? . . . . . .
I've only seen the movie, and I got that Book was an operative. I didn't even think it was much of a stretch, to be honest.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
Who is Book?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
SPOILER WARNING
.
.
.
.
.
FC, I think Joss came as close as he could to telling us without saying it explicitly. We know from the series that Book has high-level Alliance credentials and combat experience but that he is not famous or infamous for something like high-level military service. The Alliance is not actively looking for him, and neither is anyone else. We know from the movie that he knows what Operatives are and how they work, which is very rare knowledge since supposedly nobody knows that Operatives even exist. We learn in the movie that Book's combat skills are not just good, they're outright incredible, since he singlehandedly brings down the ship that destroys Haven. We also know from the end of the movie that the Alliance does not automatically kill Operatives whose usefulness is expired.
Not only is it a perfect fit, it's the only fit Joss has actively offered to us. Given his skills as a director and writer, I'm pretty sure it was intentional.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
In the first confrontation between Mal and the Operative, when the Op says that his warship locked onto Serenity's pulse beacon, and Mal shows the Op the pulse beacon, Mal mentions that he did that on advice from an old tracker. He's referring to Book, correct? I think that suggests that Book was an Operative.
"Who is this Book character? I've only seen the movie, which may be the reason for my confusion. "
Book was in the movie. He was Mal's friend at Haven who gave him advice when he was staying there.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I think the reason that I found the ambiguousness of Neuromancer unsatisfying is that I also found it confusing. I assumed that I just didn't understand what was going on.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
He was named Book? I thought they called him Sheperd...
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Shepherd was his title, followed by Book, his last name (one assumes it was adopted when he converted, or something).
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
You are named Rogers? I thought they called you Steve...
His name is Shepherd Book.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
Aah, makes sense. Alright, I understand now.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:I'd go for River, too.
With Kaylee as a close, close second.
And Inara as a close, close third.
And Zoe as a close, close fourth.
Yep, that about sums it up. With some fuzziness on the line between Kaylee and Inara.
When I think about it, it's kind of spooky how Joss manages to cast the prettiest people in the world in all of his shows.
I mean, seriously. The prettiest.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
For me, its Inara by a long margin.
*sigh*
I do think that Saffron was pretty sexy.
Kaylee is very very cute. Adorable really.
River is pretty, but I never really got into her.
Zoe's not exactly bad to look at either.
But Inara.... She quite literally took my breath away on more than one occasion in that show.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Shepherd Derrial Book. Played by Ron Glass, not Silver.
In the novelization, there's a scene where the Operative encounters Book during the devastation of Haven, recognizes him, and calls him by "Derrial." I have no idea if this was made up by the novelist or if it was in the original Whedon script (it's not in the version of the script in the Visual Companion) but if it's true it would imply that was his name before. "Book" might be new, dunno.
Who is Book? Former operative? Former alliance officer? Maybe black ops, which would explain why he wasn't? An operative from Blue Sun, keeping an eye on the Tams? An ex-criminal, maybe along the lines of Niska, who found God? That would explain his knowledge of operatives, since one or two of those might have come after him before.
I like the ex-operative idea, but it ain't conclusive.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Gaal- I assumed he was talking about himself in that sequence.
Where is everyone getting that no one knows Operatives exist? The scientist definately knows what an Operative is, and when Book tells Mal that an Operative is after him, Mal knows what he's talking about. I assumed that everyone knew what Operatives were, but just didn't think much about them, because Operatives didn't have much bearing on their everyday lives. In the same way that everyone knows CIA spies exist, but no one really thinks about them at all on a day to day basis. Note, I'm not saying Operatives are like spies in any other way than the way society relates to them.
Twinky- Look, I agree with you, I think it's very likely that Book was an Operative. Regardless, you present it like it's canon, and it's patently not. That's one of the hazards of things being left unstated, you never really know. You've said you dislike it when things are explicitly stated, but in those situations there's always going to be the chance that you're wrong. All I'm saying is that that chance of being wrong needs to be recognized.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote: but no one really thinks about them at all on a day to day basis.
I beg your pardon? Are you saying that I don't exist?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:For me, its Inara by a long margin.
*sigh*
I do think that Saffron was pretty sexy.
Kaylee is very very cute. Adorable really.
River is pretty, but I never really got into her.
Zoe's not exactly bad to look at either.
But Inara.... She quite literally took my breath away on more than one occasion in that show.
I think my problem with Inara is that she's the one who depreciates the most without the makeup and costuming. Her real speaking voice is pretty unattractive, too.
Saffron was pretty hot, if built really oddly. I think I just like her initial, ultra-innocent act (I'm going to the special hell, too).
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Kaylee and River and very very
very
very very cute. They'd both be great. But I like tough women. And I don't mean psychotic. I mean mentally, physically, and emotionally tough. And self-assured. It's Zoe in a near dead heat.
Inarra doesn't even make the list. I don't even comprehend you guys that like her best. She's freaking first season Deanna Troi all over again.
Neither does Saffron (make the list), cute as she is, because she's too often pouty. She reminds me most of a teenager, though River seems to be a teenager and Kaylee may well be one as well. But Saffron acts the most like a teenager.
And Lovebot . . . she just seems so artificial. Know what I mean?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
The big "clue" to me about Book being an operative is the reaction to the identification. When the operative comes into the scientist's lab, the operative uses his ID and suddenly everyone drops everything and does what he says.
The same thing happened when Book showed his ID in the medical ship.
IIRC neither of the people who looked at the ID's reacted to it until the ID was scanned into a computer. The computer showed something that gave both men top priority.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I don't even comprehend you guys that like her best. She's freaking first season Deanna Troi all over again.
Nah. No freak-outs over sensing emotions and REALLY bizarre hairstyles. Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
River is 17 in the movie. It isn't said how old Kaylee is but it's understood she's older.
Which is funny, because Summer Glau (River) is older than Jewel Staite (Kaylee).
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
As far as leaving things unsaid . . . I don't like to feel confused about major plot points. I don't like to feel that an author is testing me, to see if I measure up to his intellect. I find that arrogant, and a turn off. But leaving peripheral details blank is totally different, to me. I very much like it when writers do that. I like that feeling of wondering if I see it all just right; I like being able to fill in the gaps with my own interpretation. I think peripheral vagueness can make a work of art richer.
I believe we are meant to draw the inference that Book is a former operative, or something very like it (i.e., a director/boss of operatives, maybe.)
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
I just watched Objects in Space for the first time. The bad guy said Book was no Shepherd. That was interesting.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Of all the Firefly women, Kaylee is the only one I actually find lovely. The others are reasonably attractive, but I would follow Kaylee like a lovesick puppy if I ran into her on the street.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
But what if Kari from Mythbusters was heading in the opposite direction?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I find all three of them attractive. (Not Inarra.) But Zoe . . . Zoe is awesome.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Oh, man, Dag, that's just not a fair question. In that event, I suppose I'd yell "Hey, that's a really cool engine!" And when they came running back, I'd ask them to kiss each other.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
How many of the Serenity cast were supervillians in Buffy or Angel?
Mal was Caleb, Zoe was Jasmine, and Jane was super-liason to the senior partners. All three did serious damage and generally kicked butt at will until the superhero learned the right trick.
Was anyone else a Wheedon big bad?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Tom
Funniest. Post. Ever.
Posted by Evie3217 (Member # 5426) on :
quote: I need the anvil.
Me too. I'm not good at picking up the little things, so I need the facts handed to me straight up. None of this beating around the bush and suggesting things. My sensitive brain can't take it.
quote: I'd ask them to kiss each other
What is it with men wanting women to kiss eachother? I'm sorry, but I just don't understand.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
There's a whole thread on this. Suffice it to say that you either get it or you don't. You may as well ask why Harry Potter/Draco Malfoy shippers exist, and why they're almost all women.
Edit: Whoops. Having re-read the first sentence of your post, I'll rephrase that: women kissing women = women who enjoy kissing - ugly men no one wants to see = hawt.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
River is pretty, but I never really got into her.
No one here has, that's why they're all fantasizing.
I'd go for Kaylee though.
Posted by Jeni (Member # 1454) on :
Heck, I'd go for Kaylee. She is adorable.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: You may as well ask why Harry Potter/Draco Malfoy shippers exist, and why they're almost all women.
That is an eternal mystery to me.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Was anyone else a Wheedon big bad?
Jonathan Woodward. He holds the record for the Whedon hat trick, having played a nice-guy-turned-baddie-turned-dead-guy in Buffy, Angel, AND Firefly.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
(I love doing that...)
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
You have a damn lot of explaining to do, Chris.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You'll get yours someday, Bridges. I swear it.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
In a couple of weeks I get to cuddle up to Summer Glau and Alan Tudyk Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I get to cuddle up to Summer Glau
Keep it up, my assassin-bot is almost ready.
Posted by Vasslia Cora (Member # 7981) on :
Assassin-bot? Wouldn't it be easier to just drive out there, tie-up Chris, throw him in a closet then go and meet them?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
By that logic, we'd be better served by driving out there and tying up the cast of Firefly. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
::wonders when Chris is going to meet Summer Glau::
Posted by Vasslia Cora (Member # 7981) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: By that logic, we'd be better served by driving out there and tying up the cast of Firefly.
I figuered that it wouldn't be the best way to make first impressions.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I figuered that it wouldn't be the best way to make first impressions.
I don't need them for "first impressions."
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Kaylee and River are cute, and Inara is pretty, but Gina Torres is beautiful. That woman could be a Greek goddess.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
PLOT SPOILERS WITHIN
I don't think I'd like to see any more Firefly that takes place in the post-movie realm.
It was a nice ending to the story, but as far as I'm concerned much of the driving force from the show is gone now. There's no more Wash/Zoe married on a ship angle, no more crazy sister angle, no more morality speeches and history guessing from Book. No more big bad Alliance breathing down their necks with a mass populace that doesn't care allowing them to go about their pleasantly illegal lives.
Any show that took place now would have to feature a much more hardass Zoe, who I'd imagine is emotionally barren. A lot more focus on Inara and Mal, which is a plot line I found more annoying than enticing. I kept getting Donna/Josh and Daphne/Niles vibes from the whole thing (though I guess the best analogy is actually Han/Leia vibes). Regardless, it's played out and I would hate for it to become the focus of a sequel or new series.
Wash was half the reason I watched the show, he was great, and a little part of my love for the show died with him. Kaylee and Simon are together now, which ruins some of the cute "ships passing in the night" near misses that their relationship was previously made of. Also, the fact that Simon and Kaylee are no longer wanted by the Alliance takes away a lot of the threat factor, and demotes the two of them to mere doctor and savant, rather than intriguing fugitives.
Basically, I think Whedon capped off too many of his best plot elements from the show to make anything further of extreme interest. He'd have to introduce new elements and new characeters, and they'd have to be very good, or else I'll just be annoyed by how much less good they are from what the show used to have.
Nothing will ever be as good as the first season. Certainly not the movie, and mostly likely nothing that may follow in the future.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
There we have it; someone who already thinks that Firefly has jumped the shark. You make some good points though. Serenity did wrap up a lot of the best aspects of the series. I still think it would be great if it continued. Incidentally, Wash and Book happened to be my least favourite characters, which is not to say that I don't like them, they just happened to be the ones I liked the least.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:There we have it; someone who already thinks that Firefly has jumped the shark.
Keep in mind that he's also someone who thinks Episode 3 is one of the best movies ever made.
That said, I think Whedon clearly DID tie up most of the loose ends -- mainly because, as he's said, he intended for the film to provide closure -- and he'd need to find new hooks for a continued plotline.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I'll just say that Wash and book can be brought back in for extended flashbacks.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Kaylee and River and very very
very
very very cute.
Kaylee's one of the cutest characters ever created. I just want to squeeze her.
Then punch Chris and take his picture.
That is, steal the picture of him and Jewel Staite, not photograph him.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Inara's my favourite. I'm not generally big on lots of makeup, but she exudes a powerful aura of sensuality and self-assuredness and I find it very attractive (and not just in her, either). I like her when she's poised but I like her even more when she isn't.
SPOILER
.
.
.
Like at the end of the movie when she smiles at Mal -- the difference between that smile and the one she uses on Atherton in Shindig keeps coming back to me. That smile at the end of Serenity warmed my heart so much that it broke. But, as I've said, the Mal-Inara thing is my favourite part of the whole story.
.
.
.
.
I do find Morena Baccarin attractive, and her natural smile is just wonderful, but I haven't seen enough of her out-of-character to get a sense of how much she shares those traits of Inara's.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
FX Sci-Fi & Fantasy Fair, Jan. 27, 28, 29 at the Central Florida Fairgrounds in Orlando. Alan Tudyk and Summer Glau are scheduled to be there, along with a ton of other guests.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Kaylee and River are cute, and Inara is pretty, but Gina Torres is beautiful. That woman could be a Greek goddess.
That's almost exactly what I was going to say.
I have to say that I don't get Icarus' likening of Inara to Troi. I felt that in many ways Inara was very consciously written as a response to characters like Troi and 7 of 9, but I can't see her as either of them "all over again".
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Inara's my favourite. I'm not generally big on lots of makeup, but she exudes a powerful aura of sensuality and self-assuredness and I find it very attractive (and not just in her, either). I like her when she's poised but I like her even more when she isn't.
SPOILER
.
.
.
Like at the end of the movie when she smiles at Mal -- the difference between that smile and the one she uses on Atherton in Shindig keeps coming back to me. That smile at the end of Serenity warmed my heart so much that it broke. But, as I've said, the Mal-Inara thing is my favourite part of the whole story.
Inara is a close second for me; the whole self assured sensuality thing is something that I respond to pretty well also (and like you, the Inara-Mal plotline was my favorite in the series. I noticed the differences in those two smiles also, and had a similar reaction to the second one. Morena Baccarin does a fantastic job of portraying both the glossy, "public" Inara and the more intimate, human "private" Inara.
Lyrhawn, those plotlines have been pretty well capped off, it's true, but there are others that haven't been resolved. I'm thinking specifically of Inara's backstory. What was in that needle? Why did she leave the chapterhouse (or whatever it's called) and head out into The Black? What's beyond her "I don't want to die at all" comment (beyond the obvious?). Lots of good stuff to be mined there. Plus, there's Zoe's likely pregnancy, Niska's animosity, the return of Jubal Early, people flushed out of government positions by Mal's wave about Miranda who might have a bone to pick with Serenity, the temptation of Simon to return to a plush life (now that the bounty has been lifted from his head) versus his desire to stay with River, and god knows what else that Joss has brewing. The show would have to change, sure, but change is not a bad thing, and Firefly was never a series that was all about flipping a reset switch at the end of every episode.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Kaylee and River are cute, and Inara is pretty, but Gina Torres is beautiful. That woman could be a Greek goddess.
Well, she has played Cleopatra. Not quite the same, but close, no?
-o-
I don't perceive Inara as self-assured. She strikes me as someone who has, after years of reading self-help books, made a conscious decision to act self-assured. Her assurance feels like a constant effort to me. (And her interactions with Mal give the lie to her self-assurance.)
But a little of attraction is what we bring to things. She reminds me of women I have known and not found attractive. I also hate it when women wear a lot of makeup. I mean, I respect their right to do whatever they want with their appearance, but it's a najor turn-off with me.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Self-assuredness may not have been the right word. I'm trying to express a combination of "she's comfortable and secure with herself" and "she is generally confident in her dealings with others." Or something like that. Her interactions with Mal are by her own admission (in one of the early episodes, her conversation about Mal with Book) not the norm for her. You can be mostly confident and still be insecure at times, particularly around someone you're strongly attracted to.
Inara: "Why are you so fascinated by the captain?" Book: "Well, he's something of a mystery. ... Why are you?" Inara: "Because so few men are."
To be honest with you, in some ways (this aura thing and the wonderful smile) she reminds me a little bit of my girlfriend.
I do agree with your point that our perceptions are coloured by our experiences. I don't expect everyone to agree with me about Inara, but she is definitely my favourite... and I'm not much for makeup either, actually. Inara is the exception that proves the rule. I like how Morena Baccarin looks without makeup too, but I've never seen her as Inara without makeup, so I don't know if I would like that as much. I did think that Inara was wearing less makeup (or that it was less pronounced/obvious) in the movie, and I liked that.
Posted by Ophelia (Member # 653) on :
quote: To be honest with you, in some ways (this aura thing and the wonderful smile) she reminds me a little bit of my girlfriend.
See in those same ways, your girlfriend reminds me a little bit of Kaylee. But then I find Kaylee much more attractive than Inara. Inara is pretty, but Kaylee just glows.
But then I've never met your girlfriend in person, so I'll leave you to judge whom she more resembles.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
She doesn't remind me of your girlfriend. (And yeah, if I had to liken your girlfriend to a Firefly character, it would be Kaylee.)
(FWIW)
-o-
quote:I'm trying to express a combination of "she's comfortable and secure with herself" and "she is generally confident in her dealings with others."
*nod* But I just don't see her that way. I see Mal as the exception not because she's uncomfortable around him, but because around him the sham breaks down.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
pffft! I've known twinky's girlfriend longer than any of you, and if she's anyone on Firefly, she's Jayne. Unquestionably.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
*mutters grumpily about misplaced priorities in con guest lists*
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
If I'm like anyone on Firefly, I'm like Simon.
I'd like to hear Niki's thoughts on that, since she knows me better than anyone .
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Kaylee and River are cute, and Inara is pretty, but Gina Torres is beautiful. That woman could be a Greek goddess.
Well, she has played Cleopatra. Not quite the same, but close, no?
She also played something of a fallen godess at the end of the 4th season on Angel.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
I always imagine Inara as similar to Irulan from Dune. Trained in a deep ritualistic way, trained to read emotions and to divulge only what emotions she wants to convey. Unfortunately her training breaks down around Mal. But it's been years since I read Dune. *shrug*
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
All of this would be why I used qualifiers like "in some ways" and "a little bit," and indeed enumerated the aforementioned ways.
I'd say Jayne isn't bratty enough, though, Enig. The biggest brat on the ship is River, but we don't see it much because River is mostly busy being crazy.
Kaylee, however, I definitely don't see. But then, I would reverse Ophelia's assessment. I'm not particularly attracted to Kaylee... or, really, anyone on the ship other than Inara. They're all attractive, but Inara is the only one who attracts me. Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
What do you guys see in Zoe that I don't? She's last on my last by alot.
"Gaal- I assumed he was talking about himself in that sequence."
He got advice from himself? And since when was he a tracker?
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
I take advice from myself all the time I think I've got Kaylee at #1, and the others clumped at #2.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
He himself was giving advice to the Operative. The line was "Advice from an old tracker" which sounds to me like my grandma telling me, "take some advice from an old lady."
I think Mal is very likely to have done a fair bit of tracking in his smuggling career.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Didn't Mal hire Jayne after Jayne tracked him down? Maybe Jayne is the tracker!
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
Speaking of Serenity, has anyone tried the new role playing game? I looked at it, but it seemed...not very well put together. I didn't feel like I would understand how the mechanisms off the game would work.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:What do you guys see in Zoe that I don't? She's last on my last by alot.
She's tough. She's self-assured. She's older. She's not "cute."
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
"He himself was giving advice to the Operative. The line was "Advice from an old tracker" which sounds to me like my grandma telling me, "take some advice from an old lady." "
Oh, I see what you mean. Yeah, I guess I could hear it that way.
"She's tough. She's self-assured. She's older. She's not "cute.""
So you don't think she's good-looking, you're just attracted to her personality?
Posted by Javelin (Member # 8643) on :
How did we decide the bounty has been called off?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus:
quote:What do you guys see in Zoe that I don't? She's last on my last by alot.
She's tough. She's self-assured. She's older. She's not "cute."
Agreed. I'd add drop dead gorgeous to that list though.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Well, even if it wasn't, they're exceptionally well known now. It wouldn't be the same.
Posted by Javelin (Member # 8643) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: How many of the Serenity cast were supervillians in Buffy or Angel?
Mal was Caleb, Zoe was Jasmine, and Jane was super-liason to the senior partners. All three did serious damage and generally kicked butt at will until the superhero learned the right trick.
Was anyone else a Wheedon big bad?
River was a dancer entrapped by a sorceror in Angel - not a big bad, but a role...
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
She's tall, slim, and curvy at the same time. The other women have generally two out of the three.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by smitty: Well, even if it wasn't, they're exceptionally well known now. It wouldn't be the same.
But the fact that things don't stay the same isn't a bad thing at all! I'm happier with a show if plotlines advance and characters evolve.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Which episode was that, Jav? Can't remember her. Although I do remember seeing her on a CSI recently... may have been a re-run
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by smitty: Well, even if it wasn't, they're exceptionally well known now. It wouldn't be the same.
Are they? We're never given any indication in the movie that the public at large learns who broadwaved the Miranda clip.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Well, well known by the Alliance, at any rate - which would make it harder to hide/run from them.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
That's true, but the Alliance could have come and collected them at any time while the Operative was fixing up Serenity. I wonder if they think they can't act against the "culprits" of the broadawaving for fear of inciting rebellion? Maybe the public did hear who did it.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: Which episode was that, Jav?
She played Prima Ballerina in the episode entitled Waiting in the Wings.
The CSI episode was What's Eating Gilbert Grissom? which aired in November 2004.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:River was a dancer entrapped by a sorceror in Angel - not a big bad, but a role...
That was a good episode.
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
If I had to pick the series character that I was most attracted to, it'd be Kaylee by a slightly-more-than-smallish margain. I joke that through the entire series you can tell who the main character of the episode is by whether or not they step on Kaylee's feelings. I can sympathize with that in my life at least.
In terms of being attracted the actresses, I'd probably have to say Summer Glau would be at the top of the list. She has an astonishing (and) addicting grace to her throughout the series / movie, and that is something that's hard to learn (or fake) for a role.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: "She's tough. She's self-assured. She's older. She's not "cute.""
So you don't think she's good-looking, you're just attracted to her personality?
No. That's not it at all. I think she's hot. I don't think she's cute. Maybe I'm weird in this, but to me "cute" has a particular meaning apart from good looking. It's good looking in a youthful, slightly childish way.
Youth is wonderful. I think many twenty-year-olds are sexually attractive. But someone older holds, for me, her own attraction . . . something I perceive as an added depth.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Notice that I picked Gina Torres, not Zoe.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There we have it; someone who already thinks that Firefly has jumped the shark. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keep in mind that he's also someone who thinks Episode 3 is one of the best movies ever made.
Oh Tom, you crazy crazy man that makes stuff up and misleads people. Firstly, I never said it was anywhere near one of the greatest movies ever made. I said it was my favorite of 2005, and I also added that that was mostly due to my love of Star Wars. That has little to do with which was actually the BEST of 2005 or for that matter, the best movie EVER MADE, it was simply a personal favorite.
Movies that follow Star Wars on my top ten list of 2005 are Howl's Moving Castle, Hotel Rwanda, Downfall (Der Untergang), Elizabethtown, Sin City, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, Wedding Crashers and others. All for different reasons. Serenity makes the list but closer to the bottom, simply because as an addendum to the series, it works, but as a stand alone, there are too many holes in it. Case in point among them is that SteveRogers had no idea who Book was. And there was much else that I didn't like, but I've covered that elsewhere.
Either way, that's kind of a cheap shot against a host of my valid points about Serenity and Firefly to try and discredit me over my opinion on a seperate series don't you think? Especially given the fact that you more or less seemed to agree with me after you took the cheap shot. The only conclusion I can thus come to is that you were trying to get an easy laugh at my expense, and that it actually had nothing to do with Firefly.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You're entirely right. It was a cheap laugh at your expense, Lucas-boy. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
A title I'll wear with pride, Whedon-boy.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Children! Behave!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Says the Rodenberry fan-gurl. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
1) I am not any type of *wince* "gurl."
2) I like Majel far more than her late spouse.
3) I like ST novels more than most of the on-screen stuff.
Thus, your assessment me is quite a bit off the mark. Would you like to try again?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I thought these were all supposed to be off the mark.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Ah. I wouldn't know -- I don't generally hang out in Whedon- or Lucas-related threads.
I'm slumming.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Ran out of Spock/Data/Crusher plotlines? Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Dear God, I hope so!
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
*slap*
"I am a naughty android."
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
While I will greatly miss Wash and Book, I don't think the series has lost any potential. I mean, Buffy and Angel did just fine, while losing main cast left and right throughout their runs. I would argue that season five of Angel was its best, even though
*SPOILERS LIKE MAD* . . . . ...the character of Cordelia, a fan-favorite who had been around since the very first season of Buffy, was gone. . . . . *END SPOILER*
Joss is not the kind of writer who depends on any particular hook to create his series. So Wash is dead. There are so many stories that could be told about Zoe yet: her grieving, her emotional trauma, and her eventual moving on. Sure, it wouldn't be exactly the Firefly we used to have, but that was always going to be the case anyway. Joss's series evolve; it's a major part of what makes them so good. He puts his characters through the wringer so that they (well, those that survive ) will grow and develop, and he does it better than almost anyone else working today. I have full faith that a post-Serenity Firefly would still be as funny, as exciting, and as heart-breaking as ever.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think that'd depend on whatever new characters are introduced. Wash made up a lot of what I found to be funny about the show, and Book was basically the moral center of the show.
Sure it can still be funny, but that means making all the other characters a bit more funny, which might remove from other aspects people previously found attractive. And who becomes the new moral center? That means bringing in new characters for an already large cast.
The only Whedon show I watched with regularity was Buffy, but after the cast started to really get screwed up, I stopped watching because it was just too much. Too much of a change from what I originally liked about the show, and just plain too ridiculous. Introducing Dawn into the show seemed to me like less of evolution and more of desparation.
I stopped watching just after Glory was introduced, catching only random episodes here and there. And with the exception of the musical episode, I was unimpressed.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Jayne is who I found the funniest.
(I think it's funny that you warn of Buffy spoilers, and claim the end of spoilers, and spoil Serenity left and right in your post.
I reckon somebody ought to change the topic title . . .
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Lyrhawm- I started watching Buffy in the fifth season and fell in love with that season first. I've heard a lot of people say they don't like the later seasons and that just doesn't make sense to me.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Icarus -
I thought that was funny too. He probably figured that after all the unwarned spoilers previously in the thread, it didn't much matter anymore.
blacwolfe -
That really doesn't surprise me. If you watch the first four seasons and THEN see the later seasons, you're going to have a different reaction than if you'd watched the later ones first and liked them to begin with. There's no departure from the old for you.
I think for all the series' in question it depends on what you liked about the series to begin with. If the thing you loved never changed, you'll still like it probably, but if you fell in love with a niche, or certain part of the show and it dies, chances are your love of it won't survive the change.
As for Whedon and evolution, his casting changes have more to do with actors leaving the show for other endeavors and less to do with concious decisions to change and evolve the characters through deaths. As someone else said, (not that it matters but SPOILER WARNING) Wash and Book weren't killed off to show the emotional toll or what not on the rest of the crew, they were killed because the actors were too busy to continue with any future creation of the show.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
*nod*
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:As for Whedon and evolution, his casting changes have more to do with actors leaving the show for other endeavors and less to do with concious decisions to change and evolve the characters through deaths.
But by paying constant attention to character development, he is able to pull this off without road to Damascus character changes.
Even the last season of Angel is a good example - he got what, 10 episodes notice to regear the storyline? And he could do it because his characters were not cardboard cutouts.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Buffy Spoilers......
On Buffy at least, both Oz and Tara leaving were both concious decisions on the part of Joss. Oz left because they were having trouble coming up with stories for him, and Tara got shot because Willow had to go bad. Angel and Cordelia both left to be on Angel, which I don't think counts. Were there any other major casting changes?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
What always puzzled me about Buffy fans was the disdain they showed for the original movie. Imagine my shock to learn that Joss Whedon also wrote that. All this time I had thought there had to be some rational basis to the disdain.
And now I learn that Joss is short for Joseph.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve:
On Buffy at least, both Oz and Tara leaving were both concious decisions on the part of Joss. Oz left because they were having trouble coming up with stories for him,
I know Oz leaving the second time was concious decision, but Joss said on the Buffy Season 4 DVD that his first departure wasn't exactly what they had planned.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
There were two departures?
I haven't finished Season 4 yet....
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
On the DVD commentary, Joss said, IIRC, that the reason why Oz left was that Seth Green's acting career was taking off too much.
quote:What always puzzled me about Buffy fans was the disdain they showed for the original movie. Imagine my shock to learn that Joss Whedon also wrote that. All this time I had thought there had to be some rational basis to the disdain.
My understanding is that Joss himself, though he wrote it, is deeply dissatisfied with that movie.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Icarus: Yeah, Serenity has been spoiled throughout the thread, so I figured that anyone still reading at this point would've run across them by now. However, since it isn't strictly a Buffy/Angel thread, and I know *I* would've been pissed if someone spoiled a different show, I spoiler-tagged the Buffy/Angel bit.
pooka: I haven't seen the original Buffy movie myself, so I don't have any opinion on it either way. However, Joss himself has stated on multiple occasions that he dislikes the movie a great deal, because the producers and director took his script and butchered it. The vampires were played as pure camp, the actors were not selected to fit his vision, and the director rewrote a lot of scenes without consulting Joss. That's why he refuses to let other people direct his scripts these days (now that he actually has enough pull in the industry to do that).
Lyrhawn: See, my enjoyment of Firefly doesn't come from it being a balanced array of character archetypes. As far as I'm concerned, *all* of the characters are "moral centers"; they just have different conceptions of morality. Even some of the villains demonstrated a strong sense of ethics- don't forget that the Operative himself is a very moral man, a believer.
I agree that many of the cast changes on Buffy were, at least in part, due to outside factors, but as Dagonee said, Joss always makes the change work in service of the story.
BUFFY SPOILERS: It's no secret that Oz leaving in the fourth season was heavily influenced by Seth Green's growing movie career. However, Joss took advantage of this outside pressure to craft a very compelling story for Willow, and gives Oz two of the best character episodes in the process of his exit to boot. Furthermore, this opened the door to Willow/Tara, which was the most mature relationship presented in the show's entire run. Rather than crippling the show by modifying the fundamental character dynamics that had been established at that point, Oz's departure instead *strengthened* the show by opening up new possibilities for Willow. END SPOILER
Edit: Gah, beat me to it, mr_porteiro_head. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Actually, Joss was planning on having Oz leave at the end, not the middle, of season 4, but Seth Green left too soon, so Joss had to cut out a lot that he had planned for the departure of Oz.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus:
(I think it's funny that you warn of Buffy spoilers, and claim the end of spoilers, and spoil Serenity left and right in your post.
I reckon somebody ought to change the topic title . . .
Really, I can't imagine why anyone would come into a thread about a possible Serenity sequel and not expect there to be open discussion about Serenity. Furthermore, anyone who cares enough to enter such a thread has probably seen the movie by now. I don't think that a spoiler warning is really necessary.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Woah Tarrsk, calling the Operative a believer is correct, but being a believer doesn't not automatically equate with being moral. Osama is a believer, does that make him moral? The Operative is NOT moral, and if you think he is, then I'm curious as to what level of morality slaughtering the people of Haven subscribes to.
Are they are "moral centers"? no, they are not. Jayne is always trying to kill people, Mal and Zoe are questionable, which is why Book was constantly arguin with Mal over some ethical issue or another. I don't think they filled niches, many of them were crossovers from what you might call a set in stone archetype, but there is still a void.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
mr_porteiro_head: Thanks for the correction.
Lyrhawn: Well, I meant "moral" in the sense of having a moral code, which the Operative most certainly does. He does things that can and should be construed as illegal, sure, but he does so with full knowledge of the criminality of his actions. However, I think he himself would argue that his service to the Alliance (and by extension, its citizens) follows a moral code that supercedes normal morality in the same way as a soldier killing another soldier in battle is different from murder. It may not be moral to you or to me, but it is to him, because his actions are necessary for "making better worlds." He's no sociopath like Jubal Early, who is incapable of adhering to ANY moral code because he enjoys hurting people.
As for Mal, Zoe, and Jayne... well, Mal and Zoe most certainly do have moral codes. Their morals don't line up with traditional Biblical morality, obviously; rather, they follow a mercenary's code. If you work, you deserve to be paid. Don't stab your friends and allies in the back (or throw them out of your damaged ship, or turn them in to the Alliance ). You protect the man you're with. People should be free to live as they wish, in peace. And so on and so forth.
I never saw Book and Mal's arguments as evidence that Mal lacked morality, but rather than Mal lacked *belief*. This point is stated rather explicitly in the movie, during Book's death scene. That's why Book never argues with Zoe, for example. Zoe does believe in something: she believes in Mal. She's still a soldier. Her moral code is just as questionable as Mal's, but initial fears in the pilot episode aside, Book is accepting of her way, because she believes.
As far as Jayne goes... well, I'll grant you that he's as close as the Serenity's crew gets to true lack of a moral code. But even then, he's not a sociopath like Early, and by "Ariel," he has developed loyalty to Mal (if not to anyone else aboard the ship). Jayne doesn't kill or injure for the fun of it- it's always in service of a purpose, even if that purpose is "for money," or "he looked like he was gonna start a fair fight."
Furthermore, remember that out of the entire crew, Jayne was probably Book's best friend. The preacher and the thug hang out, lift weights, and joke around with each other in a way that they don't with anyone else. And more importantly, in their conversations, Book almost *never* rebukes Jayne for his line of work or his actions, or even his outlook on life. Quite the contrary: he speaks to Jayne with understanding, almost as a philosophical equal. He gives words to Jayne's own thoughts.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't think your distinction between "belief" and "morality" is backed up by the movie.
First of all, I don't think even the Operative pretends that any of the stuff he does is moral. He thinks it is JUSTIFIED, because of his belief. But that certainly doesn't make it moral, by any definition of the word.
Mal - "I don't murder women and children." The Operative - "I do."
He knows what he is doing is immoral, but he qualifies it by saying he only does it to make worlds a better place because he believes in the Alliance. Thus: Not moral. You aren't talking about a moral code with the Operative, you're talking about an HONOR code, which is decidedly different. And the things he does aren't "construed" as illegal, they ARE illegal, not to mention immoral.
I'd also take issue with Jayne being Book's best friend. Book and Mal had a close relationship, as was evidenced in "Serenity" and he also spoke much to Inara. Book rebuked Jayne left and right for his outright violence. And they constantly were on the opposing sides of arguments.
Also, early on in the show Jayne showed he DOES injure for the fun of it. Do you not remember the first argument Book and Jayne had in "Serenity" from Firefly? It was over whether or not to kill Lawrence.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Touche. I think we may be operating under different definitions of "morality"... I'm using it to refer to any personal code of ethics that a person upholds. But I think you're right about the Operative following an honor code rather than morality. He admits to being a monster, which implies that his personal sense of morals objects to the acts he does in the name of his government.
That said, this doesn't exactly negate my argument that there is plenty of morality to be had in Firefly absent the Shepherd. The Operative, after all, *is* a bad guy.
As far as Jayne is concerned, I do believe that he and Book had a connection that Book did not share with the rest of the crew. Book respects Mal, and they speak candidly with one another as equals, but IIRC you never really see them just hanging out. Book is *relaxed* around Jayne (see: War Stories," "Trash," and "Objects in Space"), which is pretty surprising considering their temperaments and philosophies.
I would argue that Book's relationship with Inara demonstrates that Inara herself is a source of morality in Firefly. Despite her occupation, which he clearly finds somewhat objectionable on the grounds of his *own* moral code, Book confides in Inara as a fellow spiritualist, even receiving absolution from her ("Serenity Part II"), thus placing her on an equal level with himself. Indeed, it is the loss of both Inara and Book from the crew at the start of the movie that has clearly made Mal the harder, colder person that he is compared to the Mal of the series (assuming we ignore the real-world reason of "Fox forced Joss to make Mal funnier"). Both Inara and Book offer stability to Mal- Book by curbing his instinct toward anger and violence, and Inara by curbing his instinct towards isolation. In neither case is it specifically Book or Inara giving Mal a sense of morality; rather, they are restoring aspects of his humanity (belief and community, respectively).
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'll buy that the characters on the show have morality in them, but whenver there was an argument on the show where morality played a key role, 9 times out of 10 it was Book on the "right" side of the argument, trying to convince Mal and the others to do the "right" thing.
Doesn't necessarily mean that someone else on the ship can't stand up and do the same thing with him gone, but I still think something vital is lost without him being there. The spiritual angle of the show was a curious one. Why is Mal so angry at religion and religious people in general? Why did he wear at cross on Hera, but not afterwards? Does he blame God for them losing the war? This was a curiousity kept alive when a Shepard with a mysterious past was on board the ship, but that thread is somewhat dead with him gone. Dead, and unanswered I might add.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
I thought it was pretty clear that Mal lost his faith in a big way after the Battle of Serenity. It's not so much that he blames God for anything; rather, he cannot conceive of how the God in which he had previously believed could allow something like Serenity to happen. At the end of the war, he was as disgusted with the leadership of the Independents as he was with the Alliance, not only for surrendering, but for leaving their own troops to rot on the battlefield while they worked out the treaty. He blames the political powers that be for the destruction of his platoon. If he blames God for anything, it's for being utterly powerless at the time when Mal needed Him most.
The "faith of Mal" thread is not "unanswered" at all. In fact, it was completely resolved in the movie: Book urges Mal to believe in *something*, even if it isn't God. And by the end of the movie, Mal does indeed believe. He believes that the Alliance must be stopped, and he is willing to take up the hero's role to do it. He stops running, and fights back against the Alliance for the first time since the war. It's unclear whether his opinion of God has changed (I'd wager that it hasn't), but the void in his life created by his inability to believe in anything has been filled. End one subplot.
Anyway, it's been very interesting and enlightening talking Firefly with you. Illustrates one of my favorite things about Joss's work, really: two people can see the same thing and see totally different things, and both viewpoints are entirely valid. That's good art, if you ask me. However, I need to go to bed, as I'm flying out to do some job interviews tomorrow and probably won't have internet access again until late in the weekend. Thanks for the debate. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
(twinky! I need to return your DVDs. They are boxed and ready for the stamping.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:(twinky! I need to return your DVDs. They are boxed and ready for the stamping.)
It's not very nice to stamp on DVDs someone lent you. They're fragile.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Thank you, CT. I'm glad you two enjoyed them. Posted by Javelin (Member # 8643) on :
quote:As for Whedon and evolution, his casting changes have more to do with actors leaving the show for other endeavors and less to do with concious decisions to change and evolve the characters through deaths. As someone else said, (not that it matters but SPOILER WARNING) Wash and Book weren't killed off to show the emotional toll or what not on the rest of the crew, they were killed because the actors were too busy to continue with any future creation of the show.
Where does THIS information come from? It directly contradicts some quotes I've read from the man himself, Joss Whedon.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I heard that he planned to kill ... a certain character in Angel from the very beginning (which was aboutthe time I stopped watching, because he was the only character that interested me on the show).
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
*tries to think of a male character in Angel that got killed off*
*fails*
*thiks more*
*SUCCEEDS!*
*SPOILERS FOLLOW:*
Um, that doesn't match what I've read. I understand that the actor got fired because he was causing problems with his drug addiction (which got him killed not too long after) and related problems.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
He died well, though.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
The following is pretty much what I heard, taken from Wikipedia. Also, Joss said in an interview I read just after it happened that he had planned to kill a principle character in the 8th or 9th episode.
***spolers for Angel**** First season*****
quote: Doyle's abrupt and violent death midway through the first season angered many viewers. The creator of the series, Joss Whedon has always mantained that his death had be planned for the start. However, rumours persisted of actor Glenn Quinn's out-of-control substance abuse problems interferred with production. In interviews before Quinn's death, creator Joss Whedon discussed plans for Doyle to return to the show as one of the season's big bad role. Quinn passed away before anything could come of the talks.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
That was always the thing I disliked most about Angel - in comparison with Buffy - that there seemed to be such a huge death toll of main characters. Maybe it's just that season 5 is the only season I've watched all the way through.
SPOILER
By the time they killed Wesley, after killing Fred and Cordy, I started to think that Joss had been reading too much Thomas Hardy or Elizabeth Gaskill (everybody the main characters love seems to die.). And, though I loved the ambiguous ending, Gunn, at least, had also definitely had it. At least on Buffy the main characters that you cared about survived, if not intact.
Maybe Joss is just a big Blake 7 fan.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
*Angel spoilers*
I've liked Gleen since he played Mark on Roseanne (another good show Joss was involved with).
But I think Wesley was a much more compelling character and giving Cordy the visions made her character development a bit more credibility.
Fred's death was a good plot twist. It provided focus for the end of the series and gave Angel's last crusade against WR&H a a deeper emotional resonance with the viewers.
While Wesley is probably my favorite character and I was sad to see him go, his last scene with "Fred" brought tears to my eyes and probably ranks among my favorite TV moments of all time.
Wesley had just gone too far - stabbing Gunn was totally unjustified and he knew it. He got to die still a good guy, and that was enough for his character arc.
Next to Spike, Wesley's character development from Buffy season 3 through Angel 5 is my favorite, and very believable considering the enormous overall change. There were a few "jumps" that didn't seem quite right, which is why I prefer Spike's development, but it was still very good.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
*Angel Spoilers*
Yes, stabbing Gunn was somewhat out of character. What I love most about Wesley is the fact that he never lost his moral compass even after he was totally abandoned by his friends.
During their first official tour of WR&H, while most of the other characters were exploring what WR&H can do for them, Wesley was trying to free Lilah from her contract. That's not the same guy who would stab a friend for an unintentional mistake.
I'm just starting my journey through Buffy so I can't really comment on Spike's development. But based on your recommendations I'm really looking forward to it. Posted by kwsni (Member # 1831) on :
Remember that Joss kills off a seemingly main character in the first season of Buffy, too. I think it's his way of saying that people are going to die, and it's going to have consequences. I think someone would have died in Firefly, too, if he had the whole season. Not that I'd have been happy about it.
Ni!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Who died during season 1 of Buffy?
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Willow and Xander's friend Jesse. But that was in the first episode, and he was clearly less interesting than the other two - he's like LessCool!Xander, if that is even possible. And I don't think that the other two ever even mention their best-buddy again. They just replace him with Buffy and move on. There wasn't any major emotional wrench there.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
I kind of saw the difference between the Buffy/Angel endings as, in Buffy, Joss got to go out how and when he wanted, so it was a happy ending. Angel, he was cut off, so it was an angry/sad ending.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)