posted
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.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
(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.
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
*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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
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.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
