posted
I thought it was a pretty tense moment, and then a good tension breaker. I didn't read that much into it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
You should listen to the commentary of Joss Whedon and Nathan Fillion (sp?) (who played Mal) for that bit.
Also, given Joss's prediliction for abruptly kiling major characters (Names of dead characters who shall not be named. You all know who they are though. I personally thought when so-and-so died because of you-know-what was the worst one. ) it *could* have been true.
I thought it was obvious that she wasn't dead, since she didn't seem deathly, nor did they deal with it right after it happened -- so when Mal told Simon that she was, I smirked -- such a Mal thing to do, and I'd only been watching the show for like an hour!
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
God the show was written well! I laughed my a** off when he did that. I howled with joy when he just walked in and killed the law officer, just taking charge. Oh and when he tossed the guy into the engine, that was so funny I litterally laughed until I cried, the tourture scenes, with the dialogue about the girl... Who cancelled this thing anyway?
quote:Except the real joke isn't on any of the characters--it's on the viewer. And when you mock your viewer for believing you, you lose them.
I guess if you got offended, instead of lauging at Simon and seeing that that was a perfect example of Mal's character, then maybe the series isn't for you. Because there are probably other moments in which Joss uses "goofy twist tactics" for comedic effect. But I don't know what they are, so I'm not looking for them.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought that scene was absolutely brilliant, myself, and as Lyrhawn says, a tension breaker. One of the things Joss likes to do is play around with the formulas we've all seen before, and give us a twist. I find it quite refreshing to see the stupid things that characters are so often called to do actively denounced. A good example is Mal shooting the law officer rather than going for a Mexican standoff kind of situation, and an even better one comes at the end of The Train Job.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I felt the same way as you, docmagik, when I first saw Serenity. I felt, like you, that I had been tricked. I thought it was a really mean way to write.
But then I watched the rest of the series, and it made sense. That is Mal. He would do something like that to rich, coddled person he percieves Simon to be. The fact that the viewer is as naive about Mal as Simon becomes almost part of the plot- we are naive, we don't know Mal at all, and so it's a horrible joke that makes us squirm and know that we are as out our depth as Simon. It's not the viewer who's being tricked, it's Simon, and we, who are just starting off in Serenity and we think we know SO much more than Simon are suddenly jolted in the realisation that we know NOTHING about this crew and this man. It puts us in our place.
quote: instead of lauging at Simon
I disagree. I think we are not supposed to laugh at Simon that first time we see the episode without really knowing the characters. We are supposed to be LIKE Simon, we are suppose to feel what he feels when he sees they've played a joke on him.
When we see it again, we think, "ha, Simon's so gullible here", but really we were tricked too, now we are on the inside. This is partially why seeing the episodes in order is so important, and also why it's important to watch the episodes more than once.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
imogen, could you edit your post to take out the spoilers of the names of the dead characters? Some of us (i.e., me) are still catching up on watching Buffy and Angel Posts: 2911 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The absolute, positively worst thing a filmmaker can do--especially in sci-fi--is mock the viewer for believing. The second you do that, you absolutely destroy the willing suspension of disbelief, and you drive the viewer right out of your story. Trust is destroyed--at that point, if their heart was ever in it, it has stopped being in it, and you will have to work even harder to get them back.
Not exactly. Like all of Joss Whedon's shows, Firefly occasionally darts into post-modernism, in this case by playing with the viewer's expectations by using filmic techniques designed to lead the viewer into a false belief. Think of it as dramatic irony focused as much at the viewer as at the character of Simon.
Jargon-happy analysis aside, I think this sequence is absolutely hilarious. It's always fun to watch the faces of new viewers as they realize what happened. The "character death --> cue slow-motion mourning sequence" is such an overblown cliche that it was refreshing to see a filmmaker poke fun at it. And regardless of your view on Joss' technique, the fact also remains that the scene is VERY informative regarding the characters of Mal and Simon. As Teshi noted, Mal is exactly the kind of person who would play a wealthy, self-important jerk for fun, and at that point in the series, Mal views Simon as just such a person. At the same time, it shows that, despite his ultimatum to Mal earlier, Simon is a true doctor- absolutely devastated upon learning that his patient is "dead."
quote:Now I knew the character wasn't dead. She's on the IMDB cast lists, and she's in the opening credits montage. So when I see the religious character headed towards the girl, I think, "Ah. There's going to be a fantasy element here, where they bring her back from the dead."
That's the whole point- Whedon KNOWS that such a scene will lead viewers to respond in a specific way, because they've been taught to do so by endless movies and TV shows that do just that. He's subverting the viewer's expectations on purpose. Frankly, I would've been far more upset if Whedon had pulled a Lord of the Rings-style "all the characters think she's dead but we know she's actually alive." THAT kills dramatic tension for me. Whedon understands that, as an audience, we hold as subjective a view as that of any character, and by manipulating our subjective view, he can surprise us by leading us down one path and then abruptly shifting us to another. It's actually a very mature style of filmmaking that most movie-level directors can't manage.
quote:The character was joking when he told the other character the girl was dead, and, apparently, joking when he let her hand fall.
Nope. Mal was just letting the hand fall because Kaylee went to sleep. The fact that it was shot to suggest that his reason was because she died does not mean that that was actually his reason. Remember: Whedon is treating the audience as a subjective entity. In order for the joke to work, we have to, like Simon, really believe that Kaylee is dead. Shots like the hand dropping are subtle ways to do that, because audiences are so groomed by modern film to interpret that as a sign of death (even though, if you really think about it, people don't usually let their hands fall dramatically just as they die). That makes it genuinely surprising for the viewer when it turns out that Kaylee is still alive.
quote:Except the real joke isn't on any of the characters--it's on the viewer. And when you mock your viewer for believing you, you lose them.
Well, the comments in this thread would certainly suggest that most people aren't "lost" so much as "extremely entertained."
Either way, though, the joke is very much about the characters. Simon is the butt of the joke as much as the audience- when we cut to Mal and the others laughing, they're laughing at Simon, not a hypothetical audience (now THAT would kill suspension of disbelief).
And again, Whedon is not "mocking" the viewer. He is a director who understands how film technique is commonly used to guide the viewer, and who understands that these conventions can be twisted to create unanticipated situations. It's something of a hallmark of his shows that he's never quite leading the audience where they expect, and I think this gives them a freshness unmatched by anything else on TV.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
Okay, first, for those who don't understand irony--I get that he let the hand fall because she was asleep.
I'm not an idiot, I swear.
But it was a deliberate mislead on the part of the director--he admits in his commentary--and isn't really something a person does with a sleeping person. It was a set-up for a gag, plain and simple, and there was no other reason to include it.
It would only work as a "subtle" mislead if there were really any circumstances under which people dropped people hands. There aren't. When people are sleeping, especially injured people, you set their sleeping hand down. You have to admit, he cheated here.
My simple statement was a way of pointing out, in a way that I thought would be clear, yet succinct, that he was setting up a joke that he really didn't have a reason to be making yet.
The brilliance of true misleading twists--like that of the sixth sense, or even, in this episode, the less important "twist" that the treasure turns out to be foil-wrapped food, not gold--is that they're plain, they're right in front of you, and that you feel like an idiot for not noticing them sooner.
Like in "Bushwacked," when it turns out the siblings are hiding on top of the ship. They spent the whole episode setting up that hiding place. That works.
What does not work (for me, at least, if y'all are fine with it, more power to you) is when a filmmaker actually shows you one set of events, and then goes, "Psyche! Those events never happened. Sucker!"
It's like Jerry Seinfeld's joke on the bad magician. He's basically going, "Here's a coin, now it's gone, you're a jerk, now it's back, you're an idiot."
This wasn't just Mal going "Just kidding" to Simon, it was Joss going "Just kidding" to the audience. That's what I mean by "mocking." He's saying, "I can toy with you just for fun, and cheat a little to do it."
The idea that a "Just Kidding" moment is "a very mature style of filmmaking that most movie-level directors can't manage" makes me spit-take my soda. A just-kidding moment is a six-year-old going "There's something on your tie," and then laughing because there really isn't anything on your tie, and you're just gullible.
Again--I'm not saying Joss isn't talented. There were some great moments in this series, as many people have pointed out. But trying to defend a bone-headed scene by saying "This scene over here was good!" only proves there's not much in that scene to defend.
The majority of people defending the scene, I think, are people who only saw the pilot after seeing some episodes of the regular series. Like me, they knew Kaylee wasn't dead, and they were waiting to see how they got around that one. The payoff appealed to them because of their pre-existing knowledge of the characters.
However, as an introductory scene, not to the characters, but to the show, I do not think it worked at all. It sends the message: "We can do anything we want, and then think of any excuse we want to back out of it at any point. We don't need to provide you with clues, or give any more reason for jerking you around than that we were kidding."
Teshi's also said that it was only on subsequent viewings the scene worked at all.
If that style of "twist" is entertaining and mature to you, great.
I think you have something on your tie.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But it was a deliberate mislead on the part of the director--he admits in his commentary--and isn't really something a person does with a sleeping person. It was a set-up for a gag, plain and simple, and there was no other reason to include it.
It would only work as a "subtle" mislead if there were really any circumstances under which people dropped people hands. There aren't. When people are sleeping, especially injured people, you set their sleeping hand down. You have to admit, he cheated here.
We'll have to agree to disagree here. Maybe I'm just insensitive, but dropping the hand didn't seem out of place, even in retrospect, knowing that Kaylee wasn't dead. And I'm usually pretty nitpicky about stuff like this, even with Whedon shows. As an example (SPOILERS for Buffy below!):
SPOILERS BEGIN In one of the third-season episodes of Buffy, Angel pretends to lose his soul in order to trick Faith into revealing her treachery. A similar "fool the audience" trick is used here, but in a way that genuinely insults the intelligence of the audience. Specifically, Angel's "reversion" is caused by a strange mage hired by the central villain. It is later revealed that the mage is actually working for Giles, and that the flashy special effects were done to give Faith the impression that Angel had, in fact, lost his soul.
Now, I have no problems with the way the rest of the misdirection was handled- specifically, Angel acting like his former self, Buffy pretending to be devastated, Angel even clocking Xander a good one to really make the point. All of that, while sneaky, shows good internal continuity and logic, so that in retrospect, the audience can go "OHH, so that's what he was doing!" rather than "wait, that doesn't make sense."
The problem comes from the use of the weird mage guy. While it makes perfect sense that Giles would have had dealings with such a man in the past, it doesn't explain how Giles knew in advance that the villain would hire someone to de-soul Angel. It's not a tactic that's ever been used previously (the one time it happened, it was a complete accident), and Giles himself never heard about the villain's plan, unless some really spectacular intelligence work was done behind the audience's backs. The internal logic of the scene doesn't add up. END SPOILERS
quote:The brilliance of true misleading twists--like that of the sixth sense, or even, in this episode, the less important "twist" that the treasure turns out to be foil-wrapped food, not gold--is that they're plain, they're right in front of you, and that you feel like an idiot for not noticing them sooner.
The difference between those examples and Kaylee's un-death is that it's not supposed to be plain... Mal is actively working to fool Simon. Since, in this instance, we are being placed in Simon's shoes, placing hints of Mal's duplicity would work against the scene. Simon sure as hell wouldn't have suspected any different.
quote:What does not work (for me, at least, if y'all are fine with it, more power to you) is when a filmmaker actually shows you one set of events, and then goes, "Psyche! Those events never happened. Sucker!"
Except that he doesn't. The events happened. They just happened to be photographed in a way that suggested different motives than the real ones.
quote:This wasn't just Mal going "Just kidding" to Simon, it was Joss going "Just kidding" to the audience. That's what I mean by "mocking." He's saying, "I can toy with you just for fun, and cheat a little to do it."
*shrug* You can look at it that way, if you like. I see it as Joss playing a good-natured prank on the audience while poking fun at cinematic conventions, and simultaneously informing us about the characters of Simon and Mal.
quote:The idea that a "Just Kidding" moment is "a very mature style of filmmaking that most movie-level directors can't manage" makes me spit-take my soda. A just-kidding moment is a six-year-old going "There's something on your tie," and then laughing because there really isn't anything on your tie, and you're just gullible.
A poor choice of phrasing on my part, sorry. My point was that the entire joke depends on the audience being familiar with certain movie/TV conventions (slow-mo as an indicator of shock and sadness, the preacher as a symbol for death, etc). It's funny because we realize that our expectations can be so easily manipulated by maudlin filmmaking technique, just as Simon is tricked by Mal. Again, this is Whedon's post-modernist side rearing to the fore, using the audience's awareness of technique itself as a tool to manipulate (yes, "fool," if you want) that audience.
quote:Again--I'm not saying Joss isn't talented. There were some great moments in this series, as many people have pointed out. But trying to defend a bone-headed scene by saying "This scene over here was good!" only proves there's not much in that scene to defend.
I don't think anyone did that. People have pointed out that post-modern misdirection and "goofy twist tactics" are a peculiarly Jossian thing (with The Train Job as a common example), and one that, maybe, you either "get" or you don't. Unfortunately, if you don't enjoy these sort of jokes, a significant number of common fan favorite moments throughout the series will probably fall flat for you.
No biggie, though. Diff'rent strokes, as imogen put it.
quote:The majority of people defending the scene, I think, are people who only saw the pilot after seeing some episodes of the regular series. Like me, they knew Kaylee wasn't dead, and they were waiting to see how they got around that one. The payoff appealed to them because of their pre-existing knowledge of the characters.
I saw "Serenity" first, without ever seeing the box art or promotional images. I had no idea who was main cast and who wasn't, and was completely convinced that Kaylee was dead until Simon stumbles into view of the infirmary. Yeah, that durned Joss fooled me good... and I loved it.
quote:However, as an introductory scene, not to the characters, but to the show, I do not think it worked at all. It sends the message: "We can do anything we want, and then think of any excuse we want to back out of it at any point. We don't need to provide you with clues, or give any more reason for jerking you around than that we were kidding."
Close. It, in fact, sends that exact message except for the backing out part. One constant in all Joss Whedon shows is that consequences matter. Something that happens in one episode will come back to bite you in the ass ten episodes later. However, Whedon shows also deviate from the norm in that they are perfectly happy to do whatever they want. Unconventional technique? Sure! Point the audience one way and then pull the rug out from under them, over and over again? You betcha! In the homogenized blandscape that is modern television, I consider such a philosophy a blessing.
quote:Teshi's also said that it was only on subsequent viewings the scene worked at all.
And I respectfully disagree with him- I think it works fine as it is. To be honest, this thread is the first time I've ever heard anyone complain about this scene, and I've discussed "Serenity" with several dozen people at this point. Lots more if you count online message forums. Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, the fact that you would point to The Train Job as having more moments like this one makes me feel you really don't understand what I'm trying to say at all. There is nothing remotely like this in The Train Job. Nothing that came within light-years of this.
See, there's nothing else I saw in any of the other episodes that made me think the series would continue to give me grief. The things you guys are talking about--particularly Mal's tendency to dispactch bad guys humourously quickly--are a whole lot of fun.
But it's just really blowing my mind that people think those have anything to do with what I'm talking about. If you think what I didn't like is to be found in The Train Job, we're having two different conversations here.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually I thought that was one of the better jokes in the series. I don't know why you're assuming that we aren't supposed to laugh at Simon in the first episode.
Ah well, you go ahead and think everyone who liked it are idiots and I'll go ahead and think you're an idiot. Everyone's happy.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Teshi's also said that it was only on subsequent viewings the scene worked at all.
That's not what I meant or what I hope I said. What I meant is that it works two different ways, neither which I find bad. the first time, when you are tricked and you feel Simon's intense embaressment, and the second time when you find it amusing. As I said before, this works not only within the show but also for you as a viewer, first time naive, second time not so much. I disliked it the first time, but looking back I like that I disliked it. I wouldn't change it.
Does that make sense?
I do think it's slightly childish and mean but unfortunately that's not only Joss but also Mal. It's a dirty trick to play on someone so out of his depth as Simon and the viewer.
quote: And I respectfully disagree with him
Her. And you agree with me.
EDIT: I think we can either laugh or not laugh at Simon, depending on who we are. If we are like Mal, and we get it. If we were tricked like Simon (like me), we do not laugh because we are embarressed for him and for ourselves. It's open to a personal reaction. I like it.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:See, the fact that you would point to The Train Job as having more moments like this one makes me feel you really don't understand what I'm trying to say at all. There is nothing remotely like this in The Train Job. Nothing that came within light-years of this.
I'd say the "kicking the guy into the engine after his big dramatic evil speech" is quite similar, as far as misdirecting the audience goes. In both cases, the scene is shot in order to suggest one predictable conclusion, but results in something completely different (Mal isn't even toying with Crow in the "Train Job," the way he is with Simon in "Serenity," so the argument that the misdirection is diagetic doesn't apply). Whedon shoots the Crow monologue in a way that, on any other show, would've led logically to Crow's release and later return as a recurring villain. And then Mal kicks him into the engine. The scene wouldn't be nearly as funny as it is if Whedon hadn't very purposefully misdirected the viewer into a specific (and very wrong) expectation.
quote:But it's just really blowing my mind that people think those have anything to do with what I'm talking about. If you think what I didn't like is to be found in The Train Job, we're having two different conversations here.
Apparently we are. Not that that's a bad thing, necessarily... it just means that a scene that bugs you doesn't bug us.
quote:Her. And you agree with me.
Oops... my bad. And I'm glad I agree with you. Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jebus, nobody's an idiot. This is basically what OSC calls "Reader response" criticism. And as OSC points out, even when wise readers disagree, wise readers are never, ever wrong, because they are all reporting on their own experience.
I can no more argue that you didn't like it than you can argue that I liked it. Nobody's really "wrong" here.
I'm not seeking to change anybody's minds. I'm just seeking to be understood. I'm as perturbed to find my opinion called unjustified as you must be if you feel I'm saying yours is unjustified.
All I'm trying to do is help people understand why I think it was cheap and immature. And apparently nobody does--not even remotely.
I'm not embarrased for myself. I knew she wasn't dead. Instead, I was extremly dissapointed that, after such a set-up, the director's out was "just kidding."
I'm not against twists on convention. M. Night is my absolute favorite writer/director. I loved both the other episodes on this disk, including the twists. I watched Buffy fairly faithfully the last couple of seasons.
What I hate, what is my pet peeve, what is absolutely the writing equivalent of fingernails on a chalkboard to me, is when a writer accomplishes a twist by cheating. I absolutely felt he cheated here. He set himself up in a way he had to bail out of, and as far as cleverness goes, "Just kidding," ranks really really low on the innovation scale for bail-outs.
quote:In both cases, the scene is shot in order to suggest one predictable conclusion . . .
It wasn't a "predicatble conclusion." It was a set of events that, speaking storywise, had occurred. Rather than dealing with them, he backed out on them. And instead of coming up with a logical explination for it, it was simply done as a "Just kidding, viewer."
You really can't understand why I see a difference here?
Do you really think that, if he had done this a couple more times, you would start having a hard time taking the show seriously at any dramatic moment, knowing he might just be screwing with you again?
Isn't there just a wee little bit of boy who called wolf in this scene?
Come, on, somebody--throw me a bone here.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:He set himself up in a way he had to bail out of, and as far as cleverness goes, "Just kidding," ranks really really low on the innovation scale for bail-outs.
This could be the point of contention. While I'm pretty sure you're describing it from your point of view, it seems like you're saying he wrote himselk into that spot and then bailed out through incompetence, where many of us are seeing it as something he set up and delivered exactly as he wanted to from the beginning. That scene, annoying as it was to you, accomplished several things. It defined Simon as someone who cared about his patients, where before all we knew was that he was (apparently) willing to let someone die for his own ends. It defined Mal as someone willing and perfectly capable of lying to someone for fun. Did Mal do it just to be mean? Was he getting a little revenge for the very real trouble the doctor had already gotten them all into? Was he maybe curious what the doctor's true attitude towards the dying might be? I'd say it's very likely some of all three, because I'll bet that had Simon not reacted that way, no way in hell would he ever have been offered a job as ship's doctor.
It also defined the show as one where the usual television conventions do not apply, where the cliches cannot be trusted. The fact is that he doesn't do this again, and after that one lapse the show is more cliche free than any other show I can remember watching. Time and time again the characters would react in ways that were not the accepted TV manner but would do something I might do, or something even better than I could have thought of. And then they deal with what happens afterwards.
I think that scene was important both in defining the characters and in letting us know that we weren't in TVland any more.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do understand why someone could be upset at watching the scene, and how they might feel betrayed by the creators. Had the scene run exactly as it was but cut after Kaylee closed her eyes (without the hand falling), I doubt it would have bothered you as much. I also don't think it would have been as effective.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: you would start having a hard time taking the show seriously at any dramatic moment, knowing he might just be screwing with you again?
To me, that's kind of the point. Don't get stuck in a predictability rut. Dare to take something seriously. Dare to be wrong about it.
It keeps you on your toes, keeps you guessing. Firefly is an intense show to watch because you're never quite sure. As someone who can predict many TV plotlines, lines and jokes a mile off, this is important.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just want to say that Firefly looks absolutely GORGEOUS on our new LCD TV. Better than anything else we've watched on it so far. There's so many details I'd never seen before!
Doc: While I disagree with you and think the Dying Kaylee scene was brilliantly executed and hilarious, I see your point. You thought it was cheap. No one else thinks it was cheap. But you're an audience member too and your reaction is just as important as anyone elses. The fact that you're voted down doesn't change the fact that it took away, rather than adding, to your experience.
If this is the problem (and I can accept that it probably is), I apologize.
In fact, after reading this thread, my wife said, "See, this is your problem, Doc. You can't get your point across without sounding contemptous. You say, 'I just want to understand,' but you don't reciprocate."
So, yeah. Sorry. Now you know the hell that is trying to have a conversation with me.
And Pix . . . thanks.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: While I'm pretty sure you're describing it from your point of view, it seems like you're saying he wrote himselk into that spot and then bailed out through incompetence, where many of us are seeing it as something he set up and delivered exactly as he wanted to from the beginning.
Okay, I think the best way I put it was when I said it's like the kid who says, "Hey! You've got something on your tie!" And then when you look, he laughs at you. I just don't find that clever.
So yeah, I think he did it on purpouse--I just don't find it that clever or entertaining that he's able to mislead me. Of course he can mislead me! He's got the camera! He's got the actors! That doesn't make him clever.
What makes a twist clever is the means by which it is executed. In the filmmaker's ability to make you feel like you're understanding things better (like in 6th Sense) rather than finally having the blinders taken off he's forced you to wear in order to hide his twists from you.
In this case, there's nothing clever about "Just Kidding." I got tired of that "Psyche!" game around second grade. ____________________________________
That all said, I finally finished watching them, and I enjoyed the rest of the series tremendously.
The Train Job was probably my favorite episode--I'm an action fan.
It did have that problem new series have--every so often, somebody would do something that seemed to jar with who I thought these people were, as the writers and actors figured out what they were doing--but not nearly so bad as, say, the first season of the Simpsons. That's part of the creative process of television.
Listening to the commentary for "Objects In Space," though--I don't know. Did anybody watching that show really think it was as philisophical as Joss was trying to make it?
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Okay, I think the best way I put it was when I said it's like the kid who says, "Hey! You've got something on your tie!" And then when you look, he laughs at you. I just don't find that clever.
That must be where we differ. My nephew did that to me recently (well, the variation where he points and when you look down, he runs his finger up your face) and, not having had that done to me in, oh, a decade, I cracked up. Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
docmagik -- All I can say is that I've never had that response to that scene, not the first time I saw it or any since. Obviously it didn't work for you, but I'm glad you stuck through the rest of the series.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should be in bed by now--I was planning to be, but it hasn't quite happened yet. I can't go to sleep, though, without asking--docmagic, when you say:
quote:It did have that problem new series have--every so often, somebody would do something that seemed to jar with who I thought these people were, as the writers and actors figured out what they were doing
What actions are you thinking of? One of the startling things, to me, was that Firefly didn't have missteps like that, with a single exception (that I'm not even sure could be considered an exception, honestly. It's the part where Mal tells Simon that if he ever shoots him, he (Simon) will be awake and armed. I've never been sure why Mal said that, since such an approach isn't really his style. I think I could see him *saying* it was, but I'm not sure that I can see that happening in that particular scene).
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
?, you probably haven't heard about it because it was cancelled halfway through the first season. Despite this, it is one of the best shows I have ever seen. The dialogue is hilarious, and the characters are all pretty well fleshed-out and interesting--some are even quite mysterious.
I really like the fact that the show tends to violate some television conventions--the Train Job incident spoken of earlier, for instance.
Docmagik, I will agree with you that the hand-dropping bit was cheating a little. However, I saw the scene as more of a wink-and-nod at the audience than a gotcha! moment. It seems more like parody to me. The scene worked for me, though. I watched all the episodes in order, and didn't pay enough attention to the title sequence to know that Kaylee was recurring. When she got shot, I was not sure whether she'd live. The scene with Mal talking to her was sending mixed signals on Kaylee's status. Kaylee seemed stable, and Mal didn't look particularly concerned. Kaylee did talking about feeling cold, and Mal almost had the attitude of humoring the dying person in order to comfort her. However, there was a doctor on board. If Mal thought Kaylee was dying, he would have been screaming for Simon. So when he dropped her hand, I was confused. I was pretty sure she was alive; why did he drop her hand like that? Nonetheless, I didn't believe she was dead until Mal told Simon that Kaylee was dead. I foolishly assumed that Mal wasn't lying, and discarded my previous knowledge in favor of this new information. I guess since the moment of belief in Kaylee's "death" came at exactly the same time and for the same reasons as Simon's belief, I felt that I was taken in by Mal's joke instead of Joss's. And I felt the same shock and relief on seeing Kaylee sitting up and waving that Simon apparently did. Because I was fooled, I got to participate in those emotions.
That is why I liked that scene. Because it made fun of cliches and conventions, and because I got to participate fully in the emotions of the event. And also probably because it wasn't the scene in the infirmary that convinced me, but rather Mal's statement.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, that scene with Mal and Simon was absolutely one of the scenes I stumbled on. He sounded absolutely serious, and the context was absolutely serious, so I took it as a serious guideline to Mal's behavior. It ended up being not nearly as etched in stone as a character trait as I thought it would be after that scene.
I can sort of explain around it. Mal sort of took it personally that Simon would imply he'd take Simon out that way, so his statement wasn't so much a declaration of a personal creedo as it was a reaction to the slight he'd felt from Simon. Once I got past it, it didn't bother me so bad.
Another was in the backstory, when Kaylee was sleeping with the ship's original engineer. I wouldn't expect to find Kaylee sleeping with a stranger while they were on shore leave--she seems like too much of a romantic for one night stands--so it seemed weird to have her doing that in the past.
I understand she was seeing it as a way to get around engines, but I see her as a bit innocent and naive, and I don't think you can stay all that innocent and naive sleeping with dirty men on dirty ships just to get around engines.
There were a few others, but those were the two big ones for me.
posted
A bit that annoyed me and still annoys me whenever I watch the episode is the ending to The Message. Why doesn't anyone tell the guy what the plan is before shooting him? It's stupid.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
jebus: because he's the kind of guy who will mess up a plan. He wasn't that great a soldier, didn't follow orders.
Posts: 2034 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, despite appearing innocent, throughout the series Kaylee's clearly trying to get Simon to show more affection than he does- this seems to include sleeping with him. She's completely puzzles when he explains why he won't- she expects him too want to immediately.
I don't think it's particularly innocence or naivite we see in Kaylee, than sweetness and charm.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kaylee is about sensuality. Look at the way she eats a strawberry. Look at the way she caresses Serenity in the engine room.
When Mal first met her she was having sex (completely shamelessly) with the previous mechanic. She's not innocent.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, okay. I misunderstood you; I thought you were holding that up as an example of inconsistent writing, and of a character not yet having gelled. By the time I saw Out of Gas I had a pretty good grasp of Kaylee's character already, so her having sex with the engineer didn't come as a surprise to me, but I can see how, to someone with a different read on her character up until that point, it would have.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
In fact the more I think about The Message, the stupider it gets. The whole point of the plan was to keep this guy safe (otherwise they could have just handed him over) and then they go and shoot him. That was a major screw up on someones behalf.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no idea what my reaction to The Message was... I'll have to go dreg up that thread of mine.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, I'll agree with that. The Message is my least favorite episode. It's confusing, and it's not particularly original. The best part, as Pixiest mentioned, is Jayne's hat.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
River trying to eat the ice-flail thing is pretty good too.
While The Message is weak compared to the rest of the season, it's still Firefly, which basically means that it's guaranteed to be better than most things on the air.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) it *could* have been true.![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
