GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Wash and Book, resurrection wrongness

POSTED BY: GILEAD
UPDATED: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 01:18
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 6537
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, March 26, 2008 5:25 PM

GILEAD


So, we've established a couple of things:

1) Wash and Book are dead.
2) Any plot-device perceived as fan-born is a copyright risk, and thus also... dead.

I have had a plot-device related idea involving the future of Wash and Book. So, if you'd care to play a mind-game with me, here's what I propose: 'If' you see where I'm going with this idea, try to communicate that you get it back to me in this thread, without actually giving away the idea (and thus dooming it to non-canon obscurity).

My plot-device is twisted, it's wrong (not in a perverse way), but for the price of one plot device, you would get both characters back.

(that would be clue #1)

Remember, NO BLATANT GUESSING (don't be lame), just cryptic winks and nods, preferably in the form of allusions and metaphors, to let me know if you savvy.

I reward creativity with verbal affirmations. ;)

Night all.

Gilead


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 26, 2008 8:26 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


The logical response would be Wash and Book in baggy pants, with fright wigs, red rubber noses, and big yellow shoes.

WAIT! WAIT! WAIT! I spelled that wrong-- Oh, never mind...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 26, 2008 9:19 PM

GILEAD


So, we've established that fashion is involved.

But how, man... HOW?!?!

Gilead

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 27, 2008 3:54 AM

JOSSISAGOD


They could pull an Emporer Palpatine.

Fe'nos Tol
JOSSIS(Most Definitely)AGOD
Self appointed Forsaken! Been on the list for a while now!
98% of teens have smoked pot, if you are one of the 2% that haven't, copy this into your signature.
"Look at me, I'm STUPID!" The Doctor.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 27, 2008 4:22 AM

WASHNWEAR



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 27, 2008 5:02 AM

OUT2THEBLACK


Quote:

Originally posted by Gilead:
So, we've established a couple of things:

1) Wash and Book are dead.
2) Any plot-device perceived as fan-born is a copyright risk, and thus also... dead.




Just addressing your points...

1) Yeah , most folk seemed to have noticed the deadness thing .

2) Fallacious conclusion ! Anything fan-born is no copyright risk at all , because the fans do not hold the copyrights...The copyrights belong to the respective copyright holders , which would be Universal in the case of the BDM , and the F-network in the case of the Firefly series...And , of course , contractually , Joss Whedon , as the creator of the characters and situations...

It's Joss's 'Verse , he just lets us play in it !
Anything 'fan-born' is derivative , and not able to claim copyright as a result...And , because it doesn't originate with the creator or a copyright holder , is naturally non-canonical...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 27, 2008 5:48 AM

MICJWELCH


Well, I had my own theory, but apparently Joss has specifically said that Book was not an Operative. He may have been a "duplicate" though.

As far as Wash goes, two words: "Steering Column!"

And yes, I totally went there.



"We may experience some slight turbulence, and then... explode."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 27, 2008 2:25 PM

GILEAD


Quote:

Originally posted by out2theblack:
2) Fallacious conclusion ! Anything fan-born is no copyright risk at all , because the fans do not hold the copyrights...The copyrights belong to the respective copyright holders , which would be Universal in the case of the BDM , and the F-network in the case of the Firefly series...And , of course , contractually , Joss Whedon , as the creator of the characters and situations...



Perhaps we have a semantics issue here. But an interesting topic nonetheless. Of course the actual copyrights/rights reside with Joss (and/or various big wigs). What I meant is that, from what I've come to understand, if a fan comes up with an idea, concept, or plot device related to series and documents it (eg. with a posting), and a similar idea is later used in a similar context in the series in question... it can make lawyer-types get all queasy-like. There is at least an perception of burden of proving that the idea was not taken from the fan without just compensation. Therefore, fan ideas (and overt, habitual exposure to them by casual participation in online community environments) are treated with affection akin to a wet rat corpse.

Quote:


Anything 'fan-born' is derivative ... And , because it doesn't originate with the creator or a copyright holder , is naturally non-canonical...



And, naturally, that's what I'm trying to avoid.

Gilead

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 27, 2008 2:30 PM

GILEAD


Quote:

Originally posted by micjwelch:
Well, I had my own theory, but apparently Joss has specifically said that Book was not an Operative. He may have been a "duplicate" though.



I'm unfamiliar with the duplicate concept in Firefly, although it clearly implies a good return method for, if not necessarily Book, Ron Glass.

My thoughts were more along the lines of a way that the two of them - the originals - given their new situation, could find some way to make themselves more... useful.

Gilead

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 27, 2008 9:33 PM

OUT2THEBLACK



Quote:

Originally posted by Gilead:


Perhaps we have a semantics issue here. But an interesting topic nonetheless. Of course the actual copyrights/rights reside with Joss (and/or various big wigs). What I meant is that, from what I've come to understand, if a fan comes up with an idea, concept, or plot device related to series and documents it (eg. with a posting), and a similar idea is later used in a similar context in the series in question... it can make lawyer-types get all queasy-like. There is at least an perception of burden of proving that the idea was not taken from the fan without just compensation...



The only semantics applicable would be the legalese...A 'fan' has no contract , no vested interest in the property except as an entertainment 'consumer' , and no right to 'compensation' , 'just' or unjust...

No competent attorney would attempt a claim based on thin air , like this , and no court would entertain it for long before seeing it for being what it is : 'frivolous'...

No worries...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 28, 2008 12:20 AM

SPACEANJL


As somebody who has had the, er, privilege of seeing an idea, complete with dialogue, appear up on screen unexpectedly before now...the only way to deal is to leave the fandom.

On the plus side, I believe that Joss admitted that the Spike/Buffy arc was inspired by the will of fans. So I'm still hoping for that call to join the new FF script-writing team...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 28, 2008 2:43 AM

YOSHOSEDAI


Not to speak too badly of the departed, but are we really sure the whole Spike/Buffy relationship was a good thing? Anywho onto the real topic, maybe it is just me but i usually avoid fanfics that "Take Place after the BDM, but Wash and Book or one of the two didn't die."

Please don't take this the wrong way i love Wash and Book but i am one of those fans that like my fanfic to follow the verse. (steps down from soapbox) That said if it is done right it might work the problem is getting over that credibility gap.

So, why do you write these strong female characters?

Because you're still asking me that question.

Joss Whedon-Equality Now acceptance speech

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 28, 2008 4:25 AM

MAL4PREZ


Quote:

Originally posted by Gilead:
Perhaps we have a semantics issue here. But an interesting topic nonetheless. Of course the What I meant is that, from what I've come to understand, if a fan comes up with an idea, concept, or plot device related to series and documents it (eg. with a posting), and a similar idea is later used in a similar context in the series in question...

From what I hear (I just looove hearsay expertise LOL!) show writers avoid fanfic so that there can be no claim of copying. It makes sense. If I ever invented a verse that got fanfic written about it, I'd stay away too, just so my vision wouldn't get clouded.

And to suggest that fanfic - which explores just about every possible nook and cranny of the material - can make any kind of legal claim or prohibit Joss's creative freedom.... Well, that's just silly!

Not to say there isn't pressure in the form of fans asking things like "when're Buffy and Spike gonna do it? Huh? Huh?" and he may have wanted to appease. But I don't think Joss is combing through our stuff for ideas. He's got plenty of his own. Anyway, I'm sure his plans for Wash and Book are set, since he's hinted that they would be included in later movies in some mysterious way. Some mysterious but *already decided* way. (Is my take...)

Postulate your ideas freely, I don't think it'll bug him at all.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 28, 2008 5:19 AM

COZEN


Mourn for Book and Wash, otherwise I say, "Leave 'em alone." Dead is dead. It's supposed to hurt. This ain't the Buffy/Angel 'verse, and that's my point. Perhaps Joss's point, too, but I dare not actually speak for what goes on in that brilliant writer's brainpan.

There is no great achievement attained without some risk, there are no wars fought without loss. To portray anything less would be trivial.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 28, 2008 7:34 PM

GILEAD


There have been so many posts, I'm just going to try to cover them all without quotes.

1) I'm not really talking about fans making legal claims. I'm talking about writers/creators avoiding us and our ideas for appearance's sake. Bummer (or neat, I guess) about the person who actually had their idea appear on screen unexpectedly. Was that an idea/fanfic that you'd posted?

2) Wash/Book. I don't like the 'they didn't die' stories either. Not the 'it didn't happen' versions. Resurrection stories definitely have a high burden to bear to be plausible and avoid cheapening the event. My idea goes a different but not dissimilar direction from a post I read some months back on a way to bring at least Wash back with some plausibility. I don't remember who posted it, but let's call it the 'at best freshly dead' hypothesis. Basically that idea was that the Alliance, who were near on the scene, put Wash's still-warm corpse on ice for interrogation purposes. I won't go over the various hoops that were required for that one, but it was a neat concept.

Only, my path would put Zoe through a lot more hurtin' than she deserves, over a considerable stretch of time that would probably still best end with a nice quiet grave. Fans of Joss should have absorbed by now that, even in the 'Verse, he has an at best blurry concept of dead. Oh, he can do death. And when he means it, he means it. But he also has that special writer's gift to make people come to accept it, or even better... want it. The last thing I'd ever want is to cheapen the loss, no matter how much my idea would probably stir it up.

There's also hair product.

Gilead

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 29, 2008 12:24 AM

SPACEANJL


Quote:

Originally posted by Gilead:


1) I'm not really talking about fans making legal claims. I'm talking about writers/creators avoiding us and our ideas for appearance's sake. Bummer (or neat, I guess) about the person who actually had their idea appear on screen unexpectedly. Was that an idea/fanfic that you'd posted?





Yeah, another idea in a totally different fandom...At first I just thought 'wow, that was odd.' And then one of the actors on the show was being interviewed and came out with a paragraph that was pretty much word for word something I'd come up with for the character. At that point, I decided that I was going to stop - either they were nicking my ideas or someone was reading my mind!

*SpaceAnJL adjusts her tinfoil hat* Pretty cunning, dontcha think? I'm all better now - me and the voices do just as we like...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 7, 2008 4:01 PM

GILEAD


"A bit of respect Wash...
...you're among the dead."


Gilead

Mal: Cattle on the ship three weeks, she don't go near 'em. Suddenly we're on Jianying, and she's got a driving need to commune with the beasts?
River: They weren't cows inside. They were waiting to be, but they forgot. Now they see sky, and they remember what they are.
Mal: Is it bad that what she said made perfect sense to me?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 7, 2008 9:47 PM

AGATSU


OMG Wash n Book r dedd? ohnooooes!11!1

Please don't use spoilers in the headlines.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Dude, you never wanna f*ck with a Browncoat, man." - Kevin Smith

I think that cats know the deepest secrets of the universe, but they don't give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 8, 2008 5:48 AM

MICJWELCH


Here's what bugs me. We have so many people that say this ain't Buffy, and we can't just go resurrecting people. Uh, we already have. Two examples:

"You died Mr. Reynolds."

and

"What'd y'all order a dead guy for?"




"We may experience some slight turbulence, and then... explode."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 8, 2008 6:45 AM

AGATSU


Quote:

Originally posted by micjwelch:
Here's what bugs me. We have so many people that say this ain't Buffy, and we can't just go resurrecting people. Uh, we already have. Two examples:

"You died Mr. Reynolds."

and

"What'd y'all order a dead guy for?"



Both instances you refer to happened under controlled circumstances and are hardly comparable to a sudden telephone pole through the chest during a full-on Reaver attack...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Dude, you never wanna f*ck with a Browncoat, man." - Kevin Smith

I think that cats know the deepest secrets of the universe, but they don't give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 8, 2008 6:55 AM

TYRANTKILLER


True, but Tracey was no more dead then Simon and River in "Ariel" and Mal dieing under torture is like someone dieing on the operating table and being revived via defibrillator. i haven't watched much Buffy, but i understand that's a different kinda resurrection. you know, a kind that mite bring back a guy who a reaver spike shoved through their chest.

and speaking defibrillators

a@@hole DR: "... when your manager hears about the rude and disrespecAAAHHHHH"
Zoe: "clear"

"when you cant run, you crawl, and when you cant do that, you find a friend to carry you!"
-the browncoats

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 8, 2008 9:40 AM

BROWNCOAT2007


Wait, wait, wait... so your saying that Wash and Book dieing ISN'T just some terrible, reacurring nightmare that I'm having??


Awww, hell....

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 8, 2008 10:05 AM

AGATSU


Quote:

Originally posted by BrownCoat2007:
Wait, wait, wait... so your saying that Wash and Book dieing ISN'T just some terrible, reacurring nightmare that I'm having??


Awww, hell....



Oops... no, it's just a bad dream, don't worry. la, la, la, la, laaaaa...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Dude, you never wanna f*ck with a Browncoat, man." - Kevin Smith

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 8, 2008 10:16 AM

AGATSU


Quote:

Originally posted by tyrantkiller:
True, but Tracey was no more dead then Simon and River in "Ariel" and Mal dieing under torture is like someone dieing on the operating table and being revived via defibrillator. i haven't watched much Buffy, but i understand that's a different kinda resurrection. you know, a kind that mite bring back a guy who a reaver spike shoved through their chest.



That's because there's friggin' MAGIC in Buffyland.
The only "believable" scenario would be if the Alliance found him at once and somehow fixed him with the magic of technology, but I neither see a reason nor any other indication for that, and there were a lot of Reavers around. Besides, you betcha the BDHs went back for his body after the job was done.
Now I love zombies as much as the next zombie-loving guy, but come on.

D.
E.
A.
D.

Ah, that defibrillator quote made me lol.

- hope-shattering Agatsu

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Dude, you never wanna f*ck with a Browncoat, man." - Kevin Smith

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 8, 2008 8:04 PM

GILEAD


Wash's death does have a certain solidity to it, especially if we get to see Gina Torres get to act out the aftermath.

Still, I can't help feeling like I sense a pattern, almost River-like, of breadcrumbs being left for us, of what Joss intended for after.

But, in the end, if it's cold death that Joss wants us to feel, and nothing more, I'll take that.

Gilead

Mal: Cattle on the ship three weeks, she don't go near 'em. Suddenly we're on Jianying, and she's got a driving need to commune with the beasts?
River: They weren't cows inside. They were waiting to be, but they forgot. Now they see sky, and they remember what they are.
Mal: Is it bad that what she said made perfect sense to me?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 9, 2008 2:14 AM

PENNAUSAMIKE


Quote:

Originally posted by micjwelch:
Here's what bugs me. We have so many people that say this ain't Buffy, and we can't just go resurrecting people. Uh, we already have. Two examples:

"You died Mr. Reynolds."

and

"What'd y'all order a dead guy for?"




"We may experience some slight turbulence, and then... explode."



Also, Dobson, clearly shot in the HEAD with a high-powered handgun was brought back in the comic, "Those Left Behind".

Dobson was such a nuthin' character compared to Wash; but I'm supposed to accept Wash's death as some dramatic necessity and then I'm force-fed Dobson's resurrection?

BULLSH!T

Bringing back Wash is important to the Firefly 'verse dynamic.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 9, 2008 2:16 AM

PENNAUSAMIKE


I am probably the most FANATIC "Wash Lives" proponent on the Browncoats Board. If I rehash all my discussion points, people will probably drive to my house, wrap me in my Alliance Fed armor, and beat me like a pinata!

OK, can't help myself.
You can just read this:

Re: Wash's death in "Serenity". I am simply not willing to accept that in a fictional 'verse. I look to fiction as entertainment. If I want unhappy endings, all I gotta do is wake up! In my mind, until a film or series continuation says different, the crew put Wash in River's cryo-box to take him home for burial. Along the way, they are informed by Simon that the same medical tech that produced Tracy's hopped up internal organs ("million credit meat" in Tracy's words) are accessible at Government research facilities. Using a bit of improvisation and Book's ident card, they sneak Wash in place of a politico who bumped a deserving recipient (ala PA's governor Casey who bumped everybody down the list for his transplant). Alliance bashing, witty dialog and some gunplay ensues. The Firefly 'verse returns to normal.

I will miss Book but his death was a more acceptable fit than Wash's.
One: Books death was important to the storyline and character development because Book was the catalyst to Mal regaining a little bit of his "rudder". Book's casual murder by the Operative and his dying wish, nay, DEMAND that Mall "believe" again made Mal and crew confront River's Miranda secret, rather than just run. Wash was sacrificed meaninglessly as a plot gimmick to create peril.

Two: Book was an individual who interacted with the crew but Wash was half of a married couple who as such made up an important ingredient of Firefly's unique-ness. To destroy that couple as a plot device is a cheap shot at all those who reveled in a mature, married couple as part of the cast ensemble. Which ties into,

Three: Book is a more easily replaced character. If another character with deep-seated religious beliefs were to join Serenity, (not a Sheperd but perhaps a person who wouldn't be stereotypically devout, say a blue-collar industrial worker who knows why he trusts in his Christian faith) the conscience-character would not replace Book but add to his legacy.
But if some "guy" just jumped into Zoe's heart and bed, it would be creepy and an insult to both Wash and Zoe.

Four: Also, Book's mysterious past could be explored in flashback, which would keep actor Ron Glass involved in the series without quite the level of sadness that showing widow Zoe's dead husband would cause. Wash is the "funny" character and there is little funny about being reminded of his death.

I have to admit that to many people, "undoing" Wash's death would cheapen it.
Since I feel the death was cheap and frivilous in the first place,
(and we are talking about "entertainment" and "fiction" here)
I want Wash back as a character more than I want to service a
manipulative, low blow.
Book's death had value and made sense.
But you can't "cheapen" a "Cheap Shot".
While some may think Wash's death was a good idea at the time,
I haven't heard ANYONE say,
"Boy I sure am glad Wash is dead!"

Joss went on at some length in the Australian Q&A about messing with characters internally vs externally to provide real drama vs contrived drama. I understood his point but I think he went too far. The dynamic has been needlessly shifted from all the things Firefly used to be about (do the job, keep flying, found family) to life without Wash. Mal has no pilot (and making River skilled at Wash's level is a farce of a fiction if ever there was one), Zoe has no husband, Simon has no friend and advocate, Jayne has no light-hearted counter-point and the ship has no smart-assed comic relief. Book's role is replaceable, Wash is NOT.

I understand the idea of killing characters for dramatic effect, but my whole point is that at no point is the show (or a Serenity sequel) made better by the loss of a main character as compared to what those characters bring to the table dramatically. If we "had" to kill off a fictional character I would agree with this reasoning but we don't "have to" kill off anybody. Its a work of fiction. There is no REAL peril in any of it.

If Firefly were truly realistic, every one of the crew would be in jail or dead. The success of their criminal enterprises, and the fact that they never hurt or kill innocent people while commiting crime is far more "Unrealistic" than Wash living through Serenity.
If we are going to pick and choose our un-realistic-ness, lets pick and choose what makes for the most entertaining story

But please keep in mind that I acknowledge that my bias runs to the fact that I like my entertainment to be FUN and I expect life to be tempered by MISERY, so when entertainment is tempered by MISERY it becomes a reflection of life and ceases to be entertainment. Good entertainment resonates of real life without getting sucked into dwelling on real life drawbacks.

Also, Wash being saved by Simon adds exciting new dramatic tension for the characters. Zoe would now "owe" loyalty to two people; Mal for saving her and Simon for saving Wash. A viable plot/character development would be her journey to her not owing anybody, which would strengthen her relationship with her husband, Wash. ("What this marriage needs is one less husband") And Mal would have less of a subordinate and more of a partner. And Zoe would be an even stronger female character; but dramatically MADE stronger thru growth, not contrivance.

I LOVE the potential storylines and character development that grow out of Wash being saved. I am disheartened and depressed at the downward spiral that is inevitable if Wash is removed from the Firefly equation.

Joss is a genius, but he isn't perfect.
(Read "Serenity: Those Left Behind", ooo....)
To service a short term goal, he wrote himself into a corner by killing Wash, if Wash is truly gone. He took one of the "wheels" off his Firefly "car". The car might limp around on three wheels, but it ain't gonna run RIGHT.

In my mind, Wash lives. I feel so strongly about his place in the Firefly dynamic that if no more Firefly can come after Serenity without dead Wash, I'd rather it end at Serenity and allow me to finish it out in my own mind in a way that makes me happy. ( My "Wash Lives" plotline.) Firefly speaks to me very deeply at a very tough (just "still flyin'")point in my life. I hate to see that connection tossed in the dustbin in the name of a cheap, needless dramatic trick to create fictional peril.

Eh, I'll make a lousy pinata, anyway.....
Hopefully somebody new read this.

Mike



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 9, 2008 3:08 AM

SPACEANJL


Woah. Good...point.

I'm one of the the folks who work with the 'reality' that the BDM gave us, but I can't say I like it much. As Mal said of the chandelier, I can see the how, but I don't understand the why so much. I mean, I understand the need to underpin the fragility of existence and all, but frankly (and heretically) Kaylee would have been a better choice in some ways. (Not that I wanted any of them to die.) The point about the fact that the one stable, loving, healthy relationship had to be the one that got sporked deserves notice.

Though I can quite see that River could be a good pilot - if she reads minds and memories, she can remember how to fly as Wash (in my 'verse, anyhow.) Also, Jayne can do funny. (and yummy, but,er, back to thread...)

Mind you, I'm all for remiving religious conviction out of people's lives - I don't think it does any good.

SpaceAnJL, Happy Humanist and Annoyer of the Righteous.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 9, 2008 3:40 AM

EAGERREAVER


Wash will never be truly dead so long as there's a crappy town where HE's a hero.

As for Sheppherd Book. He was never quite who he said he was. Maybe that's the biggest misdirection of all. Lets wait and see what happens on the third day.

In all seriousness, Joss expected the verse to live on in movies from Serenity onwards. Nine characters are plenty enough to provide a diversity of stories for a TV series. But that's WAY too many for a film franchise. Wash was comic relief, and that's pretty much it. There was not much to him. His death was essential to psych us for the potential martyrdom ending. (In my opinion Kaylee destroyed that with her "I want to live" beat. It was an entertaining moment in itself, but in hindsight it would have worked better as a lament). Book had a fantastic character background to peal open but I guess that wasn't worth exploring in cinema. I mourn Book's demise for that particular reason.

Hurts to admit it but I don't believe they should be resurrected.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 10, 2008 12:10 PM

AGATSU


Quote:

Originally posted by pennausamike:


In my mind, until a film or series continuation says different, the crew put Wash in River's cryo-box to take him home for burial. Along the way, they are informed by Simon that the same medical tech that produced Tracy's hopped up internal organs ("million credit meat" in Tracy's words) are accessible at Government research facilities. Using a bit of improvisation and Book's ident card, they sneak Wash in place of a politico who bumped a deserving recipient (ala PA's governor Casey who bumped everybody down the list for his transplant). Alliance bashing, witty dialog and some gunplay ensues. The Firefly 'verse returns to normal.




Except that...
1) We SEE the burial. I know you're gonna say all we see is a memorial, but it would make no sense whatsoever to do a memorial service and THEN fly somewhere to actually bury Wash.

2) You can put as many healthy organs into a dead body as you want, it's still gonna be a dead body

3) A telephone pole through the chest and spine is really, really deadly, and I mean instantaneously (he's been sitting there with that thing in chest for at least half an hour, too).

I'm sorry that you personally don't like things like that to happen in entertainment, but that doesn't really mean anything. (<- Not meant to mock or bash you; just stating a fact.) I'd like to refer to the death of Buffy's mother as an example again.

That being said, I agree that Wash will be sadly missed and FF will never be the same without him.
Then again, it might never "be" again, so until there's new material and we know for sure, don't let me piss on your parade.

Btw, I always wondered why they cut the fireworks at the end of the burial scene, which would have made for a nice transition to the welding that starts the repair montage that follows.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Dude, you never wanna f*ck with a Browncoat, man." - Kevin Smith

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 10, 2008 12:54 PM

ANNUETTE


I have had a plot-device related idea involving the future of Wash and Book. So, if you'd care to play a mind-game with me, here's what I propose: 'If' you see where I'm going with this idea, try to communicate that you get it back to me in this thread, without actually giving away the idea (and thus dooming it to non-canon obscurity).

I'd be intrigued to see how that could be done in a non-AU verse setting. *grins* I am guilty of bringing them both back in one of my fics (which was more implied in Books case). The second, I brought Wash only back but somehow I doubt Spike's vampiric childe would ever be a plausible plot device ><

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 10, 2008 6:25 PM

GILEAD


Quote:

Originally posted by annuette:

I'd be intrigued to see how that could be done in a non-AU verse setting.



Joss alludes to the idea in Those Left Behind.

Gilead

---------

Mal: Is it bad that what she said made perfect sense to me?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 10, 2008 9:31 PM

PENNAUSAMIKE


Quote:

Originally posted by Agatsu:

1) We SEE the burial. I know you're gonna say all we see is a memorial, but it would make no sense whatsoever to do a memorial service and THEN fly somewhere to actually bury Wash.



We don't SEE the burial, ONLY the memorial service.
Why would they bury Wash on some strange rock?
I think they'd fly him home or to a site of Zoe's and Wash's choosing.

Quote:


2) You can put as many healthy organs into a dead body as you want, it's still gonna be a dead body

3) A telephone pole through the chest and spine is really, really deadly, and I mean instantaneously (he's been sitting there with that thing in chest for at least half an hour, too).



I see Simon injecting Wash with the same chemical as used on himself, River and Tracy.
Something that mimics death could also logically stave off necrosis.
And a pole in the chest isn't as mortal as a bullet in the brainpan.
We saw Mal's pistol drop a horse.
That same bullet, introduced into a human skull, would penetrate and the hydrostatic shock would turn everything inside Dobson's skull to jelly.
But for CONVENIENCE sake, Joss wrote him back to life for "Those Left Behind".

If Joss can justify something as FRIVOLOUS as resurrecting Dobson,
he should have more compelling reasons to resurrect Wash.

Quote:


I'm sorry that you personally don't like things like that to happen in entertainment, but that doesn't really mean anything.



Yes it does. Entertainment is business combined with art.
If a piece of entertainment turns me off, I won't support it. If enough people share my opinion, it really starts to mean something.

Fortunately for "keep Wash dead" supporters, there seem to be lots of folks who like to see noble deeds rewarded with tragedy.
Jurrasic Park II, The Mist, 3:10 To Yuma, Gone,Baby,Gone; and many more; see noble characters commit noble deeds, only to be handed ignominious deaths or soul-crushing twists.
Humanity and life is filled with un-fairness.
I don't support it in the name of entertainment.

Quote:


That being said, I agree that Wash will be sadly missed and FF will never be the same without him.
Then again, it might never "be" again, so until there's new material and we know for sure, don't let me piss on your parade.



Only Joss can piss on my parade.
I keep hoping he doesn't.
I'll reassess my fandom if he does.

Quote:


Btw, I always wondered why they cut the fireworks at the end of the burial scene, which would have made for a nice transition to the welding that starts the repair montage that follows.



Because test audiences thought it was corny...


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 10, 2008 9:44 PM

PENNAUSAMIKE


I apologize for replying to my own post but....

Quote:


Only Joss can piss on my parade.
I keep hoping he doesn't.
I'll reassess my fandom if he does.



....I don't mean this to say that I'll pout, take my toys, and go home.
I mean this like how many view the Terminator Series, including the creators of the new Sarah Conner Chronicles.
Which is to say, like T3 never happened.
T3 undercut the whole point of Cameron's Terminator movies, and was something of a character and narrative detour as well.

The Sarah Conner Chronicles creators chose to advance the story from T2 and ignore T3.

Much like the seamstress who sewed the Browncoat patch on upside down, just cuz' it's canon doesn't make it so...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 10, 2008 10:18 PM

ANNUETTE


Quote:

Originally posted by Gilead:
Quote:

Originally posted by annuette:

I'd be intrigued to see how that could be done in a non-AU verse setting.



Joss alludes to the idea in Those Left Behind.

Gilead

---------

Mal: Is it bad that what she said made perfect sense to me?



Does he? I haven't read the comics.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 11, 2008 3:28 AM

AGATSU


Quote:

Originally posted by pennausamike:
Quote:

Originally posted by Agatsu:

1) We SEE the burial. I know you're gonna say all we see is a memorial, but it would make no sense whatsoever to do a memorial service and THEN fly somewhere to actually bury Wash.



We don't SEE the burial, ONLY the memorial service.
Why would they bury Wash on some strange rock?
I think they'd fly him home or to a site of Zoe's and Wash's choosing.



Then why the memorial service on some strange rock? Ah, maybe I'm just nitpicking. I'd be willing to let THIS slide. I love Wash too, you know. Not in a Zoe-ish way, though.

Quote:


I see Simon injecting Wash with the same chemical as used on himself, River and Tracy.
Something that mimics death could also logically stave off necrosis.



Bodies have to be alive to be put into stasis.
With your logic, you could bring poisoned people back from the dead if you inject them the antidote an hour after they died.

Quote:


And a pole in the chest isn't as mortal as a bullet in the brainpan.
We saw Mal's pistol drop a horse.
That same bullet, introduced into a human skull, would penetrate and the hydrostatic shock would turn everything inside Dobson's skull to jelly.
But for CONVENIENCE sake, Joss wrote him back to life for "Those Left Behind".



And look at how well THAT was received, and he's just a minor character. Imho, it was cheap, and a HUGE mistake to do that, but then again, I don't really take the comic books for full, even though Joss wrote them. If Joss'd pull that shit with Wash, the FF universe would lose a lot of appeal to me. Now, again, don't get me wrong, I really ruttin' love Wash, but I like consistency more.
I used to watch Hercules and Xena way back when, and that lost a lot of appeal once I knew that if someone died, they could just walk into the underworld and bring them back. It's boring and makes sacrifice meaningless.

Quote:


If Joss can justify something as FRIVOLOUS as resurrecting Dobson, he should have more compelling reasons to resurrect Wash.



Reasons, yes. Ways, I dunno.
I'm looking for WAYS to, because the REASON is pretty obvious.
And because Dubson's resurrection IS frivolous and happens in the comic book is the only reason why I let it slide.
Joss DOES make creative mistakes from time to time, although they're mostly minor. Killer demon robots in Buffy, anyone?

Quote:


Yes it does. Entertainment is business combined with art.
If a piece of entertainment turns me off, I won't support it. If enough people share my opinion, it really starts to mean something.



Ever watched Buffy?
(Huge Buffy spoiler in the video! It's a montage of deaths of "good" people, tears likely: )



Stop supporting Joss already, Buffy fans!

This piece of entertainment called Firefly (although it's so much more) would turn ME off if it became inconsistent as to main character's deaths, but THAT doesn't mean a thing either, because it's my PERSONAL view on FF, just like yours is yours. Josh does it, we deal with it - or leave.

Quote:


Fortunately for "keep Wash dead" supporters, there seem to be lots of folks who like to see noble deeds rewarded with tragedy.
Jurrasic Park II, The Mist, 3:10 To Yuma, Gone,Baby,Gone; and many more; see noble characters commit noble deeds, only to be handed ignominious deaths or soul-crushing twists.
Humanity and life is filled with un-fairness.
I don't support it in the name of entertainment.



Giving your life for others, in life or in sacrifice, is the noblest thing there is, and therefore has a deep emotional impact. Death is also not a reward, but something that just happens and is inevitable. Karma - which is basically what you describe - is awesome, but non-existent.
It's not fair, but only bad things happening make a good story in the first place. There is no really good story without really bad things happening.
It's entertainment with unhappy endings that really STICKS as opposed to Hollywood's apparent rule that you can't let movies end on a downer.
The conditions the BDHs have to live in and are treated by almost everyone are not fair, the Independents losing the war isn't fair, what has been done to River wasn't fair, good people dying isn't fair, but it is what makes the story.
I don't think you'd have prefered a 50's-sitcom-style Firefly where the BDHs live wealthy, happy lifes on a beautiful private moon in an independent and death-less 'Verse.

Quote:


Only Joss can piss on my parade.
I keep hoping he doesn't.
I'll reassess my fandom if he does.



Bringing Wash back in a cheesy and unbelievable way would do the same to ME, as much as I want to see him back. I was using "Don't let me piss on your parade" because I blew a few holes in your theory, imho.
I'll happily build Joss a shrine if he finds (or has found) a believable way to bring Wash back, but I just don't see how, including your scenario, which is a good effort, but would still not do it FOR ME. Which of course doesn't mean anything in the great scheme of things, as I already pointed out.
Besides, I'm a really huge ruttin' nitpicker.

Quote:


Quote:


Btw, I always wondered why they cut the fireworks at the end of the burial scene, which would have made for a nice transition to the welding that starts the repair montage that follows.



Because test audiences thought it was corny...



Huh? It's not like the camera moved up to show a flag move in slow motion or something.
I ruttin' hate test audiences. They seem to be the main reason why original unhappy endings in movies are dropped for happy endings that lack oomph and make the movie forgettable. In almost all cases, the "alternate endings" on DVDs are the much more fitting and better ORIGINAL endings.
Anyways, thanks for clearing that up.

Quote:


....I don't mean this to say that I'll pout, take my toys, and go home.
I mean this like how many view the Terminator Series, including the creators of the new Sarah Conner Chronicles.
Which is to say, like T3 never happened.
T3 undercut the whole point of Cameron's Terminator movies, and was something of a character and narrative detour as well.

The Sarah Conner Chronicles creators chose to advance the story from T2 and ignore T3.



Terminator is a franchise that is not in canon, period, because too many people in too many mediums meddled with it (plus it's about time travel and different time lines, anyway). Btw, note that the creators of the series based it solely on the work of Terminator's CREATOR, James Cameron, and ignored the rest.
Same rule applies to Alien/Predator, or ANY comic turned into a movie except for Sin City. Personally, I ignore everything Highlander except for the very first movie. THAT's Highlander. I don't give a shit what anyone else craps out and slaps the Highlander label on it.
I don't even read Firefly fanfic or the fan-made scripts for season 2, I'm afraid. If Joss or Tim didn't supervise it, it ain't FF for me and I don't bother with it. (No offense.)
Unfortuntely, that's how it works with "open" franchises that anyone seems to be able to do with as they please as long as it makes money, as opposed to a franchise that is in its creator's hands. There are exceptions, of course (Rest in peace, Star Wars), but imho, if you're into something so much as we are into Firefly, you don't want to be fed the smallest bit of bullshit.
Come on, you know how it works. You want THAT for Firefly?

Quote:


Much like the seamstress who sewed the Browncoat patch on upside down, just cuz' it's canon doesn't make it so...



Minor mistakes have to happen, but resurrecting Wash in an unbelievable way is a far bigger deal than some seamstress putting on a patch upside down (in an opening scene that wasn't in the original script and so presumably was rushed, including coming up with designs for uniforms, weapons, vehicles etc.). An upside-down patch is a hick-up, death being made irrelevant is a f*ck-up.
But the very fact that we notice logical mistakes like upside-down patches that are on screen for a mere second should make it pretty clear that making BIG logical mistakes wouldn't sit very well with us at all.

I'd like to point out that I see this here as a healthy, heated discussion amongst Browncoats, so take none of this personal.
We both want the same thing - Wash back. I just don't want him back if I can't believe it.
I get this subtle feeling that Alan is a bit pissed about Wash's death, too, btw.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Dude, you never wanna f*ck with a Browncoat, man." - Kevin Smith

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 11, 2008 4:23 AM

PENNAUSAMIKE


Quote:

Quote:

I see Simon injecting Wash with the same chemical as used on himself, River and Tracy.
Something that mimics death could also logically stave off necrosis.



Bodies have to be alive to be put into stasis.
With your logic, you could bring poisoned people back from the dead if you inject them the antidote an hour after they died.



I was thinking before they left the ship, while the crew was gathering weapons.

Quote:

SNIP I really ruttin' love Wash, but I like consistency more. SNIP


And I just don't. I'm willing to put up with authorial speed bumps to correct narrative mistakes. If it happened every week, yeah, it would wear pretty thin in a hurry. But there is no other Serenity crew member whose death will improve the storytelling opportunities.
But that is MY bias.

Quote:

It's not fair, but only bad things happening make a good story in the first place. There is no really good story without really bad things happening.
It's entertainment with unhappy endings that really STICKS as opposed to Hollywood's apparent rule that you can't let movies end on a downer.
The conditions the BDHs have to live in and are treated by almost everyone are not fair, the Independents losing the war isn't fair, what has been done to River wasn't fair, good people dying isn't fair, but it is what makes the story.



Bad things happening is what makes the story.
OVERCOMING bad things is what makes the story stick. Independents losing the war isn't fair, what has been done to River wasn't fair, etc; but how the crew deals and overcomes is what makes the fictional journey worth taking.

The tales that have meaning and STICK beyond their original viewing are the ones that are uplifting.

Quote:

I don't think you'd have prefered a 50's-sitcom-style Firefly where the BDHs live wealthy, happy lifes on a beautiful private moon in an independent and death-less 'Verse.


No, my model is more Star Trek episodic TV, esp. the original series.
I could enjoy the peril and still be comfortable knowing the main characters would return next week.

Uplifting franchises create active and energetic fan-bases that costume and raise money for charities and throw conventions; people don't wish to thrust themselves into fictional worlds that mimic the harshness of real-life.

If Serenity's crew just-died-one-tough-death-after-another, there would not be a fan Browncoat movement. No happy people thrilling to the next adventure, throwing Shindigs to celebrate the BDH's latest great escape.

People might say, "Wow, that story really hits ya where you live", but they would then move on to the next movie/TV series/book/whatever.

The power of the 'verse, as FOX execs mandated it, was to bring weekly joy and excitement into our homes.
That those same execs then turned around and extinguished it is perhaps the bigger tragedy.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 11, 2008 5:14 AM

TANKOBITE


http://hijinksensue.com/2007/10/08/i-am-a-leaf-on-the-wind/

Sorry this debate reminds me a bit of the conversation in this comic.


Quote:

Josh: No one said Wash's wounds were fatal.
Eli: I'm going to bet his burial was.



Look, I liked Wash as a character too, but he is dead and there ain't nothing short of the Rapture that'll bring him back, and seeing as Joss don't believe in that, I'm willing to bet on him staying dead. Hell, even a clone won't really be Wash...so why bother?

-----------------------------------------------------------
There's a widow in sleepy Chester
Who weeps for her only son;
There's a grave on the Pabeng River,
A grave that the Burmans shun;
And there's Subadar Prag Tewarri
Who tells how the work was done.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 11, 2008 8:29 AM

MAKTON


Heres a question. Are we trying to keep them alive to continue the series or just for sake of a second movie?

I say this because the series can continue with them alove as there was not a direct timeline to which the series ended and the movie started. Meaning the movie can be 2 months or two years from the time the series ended. In which, we can sill have many series to go before reaching the end of the crew.

Go backwards to go fowards.

Two by Two, Hands are blue.....

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 11, 2008 11:13 AM

MICJWELCH


Mal was very specific that River had been on his boat for 8 months.



"We may experience some slight turbulence, and then... explode."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 11, 2008 4:06 PM

MAKTON


You are absoluty right about that. Umm.... They really cut the movie to close to the series to add more in the middle. I'm trying to get an actual time from the last episode to judge how much room there really is.

As for resurrection of Book and Wash, I really don't see that and replacing them would be hard to do. Might need to break the rules a bit to really bring back the series with all the charaters. I need more info.

Also, I didn't introduce myself. My name is Mike and I'm a technician, also known as the troubleshooter. I'll make a new thread when I have a the information I need. It's nice to meet everyone :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 11, 2008 4:24 PM

GILEAD


Quote:

Originally posted by annuette:

Does he? I haven't read the comics.




I should clarify: He alludes to a concept (eerily in conjunction with Wash) that I am of the opinion would be a bad, creepy, and yet irresistably intriguing way of bringing Wash and maybe even Book back.

I don't even want you to think Joss made a direct allusion to bringing them back.

And you should read the comics. They're very good.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 11, 2008 8:48 PM

TYRANTKILLER


Quote:

Uplifting franchises create active and energetic fan-bases that costume and raise money for charities and throw conventions; people don't wish to thrust themselves into fictional worlds that mimic the harshness of real-life.

If Serenity's crew just-died-one-tough-death-after-another, there would not be a fan Browncoat movement. No happy people thrilling to the next adventure, throwing Shindigs to celebrate the BDH's latest great escape.

People might say, "Wow, that story really hits ya where you live", but they would then move on to the next movie/TV series/book/whatever.



in part i agree that people watch fiction to find a diferent, more exiting world, but as Joss has said
(notice: May not be exact quote) "firefly shows that, yes we're in the future, we have new technology and new planets but our problems are basically the same."

so even though fiction should be fictional an ENORMOUS part of Firefly's appeal is it's feeling of "you know these people" and breaking the set rules of a 'verse, in this case 'death' would damage that feeling.

Wash is a huge part of the humor and wit that is Firefly but i think to say the "car" wouldn't run anymore is kind of an insult to Joss and the other BDHs because i think they could pull off a great show without Book and Wash.

on the other hand, i do believe that killing Wash in the first place was huge mistake, but brining him back would be like burning down your house to find your keys.

oh... and river would make an awesome pilot. especially since she kind of "woke up" near the end of serenity and isn't as completely insane as she was throughout firefly.

but Wash or no, we've gotta keep flying till we get or big damn heroes back.

"when you cant run, you crawl, and when you cant do that, you find a friend to carry you!"
-the browncoats

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 12:53 PM

ANNUETTE


*grins* I'll have to look out for the hints then. I just brought the first comic at the con this weekend but I'm unsure where to get the others so may have to shop around :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 6:22 PM

GILEAD


Quote:

Originally posted by annuette:
*grins* I'll have to look out for the hints then. I just brought the first comic at the con this weekend but I'm unsure where to get the others so may have to shop around :)



I'm talking about "Those Left Behind". Better Days is pretty awesome, though.

Gilead

---------

Is it bad that what she said made perfect sense to me?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 14, 2008 1:59 AM

SPACEANJL


I just had a thought...

Maybe that guy from 'Pushing Daisies' has a descendant with the same powers? Now that would make for some twisted fanfic...

"Zoe, honey, there's a hole in my shirt. I love this shirt...oh, wait, damn...Zoe, honey, there's a hole in my...me. Er, ouch?"

*sits back and waits for someone to run with the idea...*

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 14, 2008 9:18 AM

FUTCHFACTOR


Quote:

Anything 'fan-born' is derivative , and not able to claim copyright as a result...And , because it doesn't originate with the creator or a copyright holder , is naturally non-canonical...


no. the copyright owner still holds rights to a portion of any derivative works.

fan-made works may only copyright the portion of original material and original ideas contained in the derivation. the original copyright owner retains ownership on the universe, characters, names etc. and may prevent their use or request royalty.

for a fan to retain 100% intellectual copyright, the original design must be transformed such that it can no longer be recognised as the original.

case in point, Harry Potter goes to court today over the unauthorised lexicon.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 14, 2008 10:26 AM

OUT2THEBLACK


Quote:

Originally posted by futchfactor:
Quote:

Anything 'fan-born' is derivative , and not able to claim copyright as a result...And , because it doesn't originate with the creator or a copyright holder , is naturally non-canonical...



...fan-made works may only copyright the portion of original material and original ideas contained in the derivation. the original copyright owner retains ownership on the universe, characters, names etc. and may prevent their use or request royalty.

for a fan to retain 100% intellectual copyright, the original design must be transformed such that it can no longer be recognised as the original.




Looks like you misunderstand my meaning...

How many fan-fic writers do you know that file for copyright protection of their work ?

There may be one or two , but in the Firefly-Verse , perhaps not many more than that...

Without a copyright statement and a filing , to support a fic writer's claim to a copyright on a derivative work , it would seem very doubtful that such a writer could make any legitimate 'claim', particularly since the characters and situations are only borrowed and derivative in the first place.

If a fan-fic work is so substantially changed , so as to be unrecognizable as originating in that particular 'Verse , then there'd be no point to writing the fic in the first place , right ?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 14, 2008 11:05 AM

FUTCHFACTOR


i'm not trying to rain on the parade here, just clarify some legal points for any wanna-be authors out there.

anyone is free to write fan-fic derivations provided they do not claim the entire works as their own and publish the work for non-profit.

while derivatives might boost the popularity of something, they do leverage off the effort, concept and fan-base established by the original.

so write you stories, but don't forget to include a footnote to the effect of "Firefly © Joss Whedon"


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 15, 2008 1:18 AM

SPACEANJL


If you post on this site, or fanfiction.net, the fact that your work is derivative, and someone else's plaything originally, is a given.

The weirdness comes when an idea or situation posited in a fan-based work then turns up in the original. (And I know whereof I speak, 'kay?) Of course there is no legal recourse, but it doesn't stop a certain miffed feeling, which is ironic, since that miffedness must be even more intense for the originator of the base material...

There are folk who have had hissy fits and banned anyone from producing fanworks based on their stuff on any fansite. Which is a little sad - the original will always be there, and fanworks can only spread the news.

There is also the situation where a fanfic writer finds their work being ripped off and/or used as canon in other works. (Again, been there, done that.) That's even more convoluted - no recourse, because it's a copy of a copy...



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
76th Independent Battalion Part 48
Wed, November 20, 2019 08:35 - 1913 posts
What chu talkin' 'bout, Nathan? A fan film? Oh, ok. Lets hope it goes somewhere...
Tue, November 19, 2019 10:45 - 11 posts
Christina in Tin Star? also Lethal Weapon discussion because I like threadjacking my own threads
Mon, November 18, 2019 04:05 - 12 posts
Patton's wife
Mon, November 18, 2019 03:38 - 18 posts
Anyone gotten to the end of season 3 of The Expanse?
Mon, November 18, 2019 03:31 - 12 posts
The NEW newb Welcome Mat thread...
Mon, November 18, 2019 03:27 - 167 posts
O.M.G. These guys! Take a listen. lol.
Mon, November 18, 2019 03:23 - 9 posts
Random roles; AV Club interview with Morena
Mon, November 18, 2019 03:22 - 7 posts
Seamus Kennedys Tribute to the Armed Forces, Cheers!
Mon, November 11, 2019 22:11 - 1 posts
Wash is gonna be on the Rookie next week with our Captain.
Sun, November 10, 2019 23:18 - 1 posts
Rocker Ric Ocasek, The Frontman Of The Cars, Has Died
Sat, November 9, 2019 15:53 - 7 posts
Happy Halloween
Tue, October 29, 2019 10:20 - 10 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL