GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

So... a higher body count if Firefly went the distance on TV-?

POSTED BY: CHRISISALL
UPDATED: Friday, August 13, 2010 17:21
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 5166
PAGE 1 of 2

Thursday, August 12, 2010 6:37 AM

CHRISISALL


Inara had a fatal illness as we now know.
Book was always gonna die (Sage/Mentors always do).
Was Wash destined to go? Or was that a movie-only decision?
My bet is that Simon would have also kicked at some point to make River grow up a little more completely.

Thoughts?


The Bucket Chrisisall



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

Thursday, August 12, 2010 6:55 AM

STORYMARK


Joss and Alan have both said Wash likely would have died in season 2 anyway.

It's Joss - of course there would have been a high body count.

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

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

Thursday, August 12, 2010 6:57 AM

BYTEMITE


The short stories have thematic hints that Mal or River are on the chopping block, where Simon dying had no hints whatsoever. But I agree with your reasoning on why Simon might be killed off.

Wash was probably always going to die. See River's foreshadowing of it in Safe. Dinosaurs, and Alliance-types resorting to cannibalism (Reavers).

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

Thursday, August 12, 2010 7:38 AM

THESOMNAMBULIST


If I were a writer/creator Kaylee would be my choice. The set-up would be going the other way of course with maybe storylines leading towards someone else. But ultimately Kaylee's death would really tug the heartstrings.





Cartoons - http://cirqusartsandmusic.blogspot.com

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

Thursday, August 12, 2010 8:00 AM

STORYMARK


I think Joss was making Kaylee the Willow of the show. She'd be safe from death, but lots of bad stuff would happen to her to pull at the heart-strings.

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

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

Thursday, August 12, 2010 8:12 AM

CORTEXOVERRIDE


Joss would've definiteley introduced new charatcers to take their places.The only downside to it is that one of those new characters would've been a narcissistic teenager *cough*Dawn and Connor*cough* whom tends to screw with chemistry of the show.

(((tO sPARK tHE mOVEMENT)))

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

Thursday, August 12, 2010 8:26 AM

THESOMNAMBULIST


Hey Storymark.

Kaylee is the Willow type character and I thought about that, but Joss used Fred in a similar way in Angel and had her killed off. Plus while it was only a one off, he also killed off Felicia Day's character in Dr Horrible... So he's quite able to kill off a beloved character. Whether Kaylee is quite on the same standing as Willow in terms of a loved character or not I couldn't say.... Personally by season five of Buffy I'd have been quite unmoved had Willow been killed. In fact I may even have cheered.


Cartoons - http://cirqusartsandmusic.blogspot.com

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

Thursday, August 12, 2010 8:57 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:

It's Joss - of course there would have been a high body count.


As is, the body count was high enough- more and I might have been too turned off to continue wanting to care.
Just sayin'.


The laughing Chrisisall


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

Thursday, August 12, 2010 10:12 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:
Hey Storymark.

Kaylee is the Willow type character and I thought about that, but Joss used Fred in a similar way in Angel and had her killed off. Plus while it was only a one off, he also killed off Felicia Day's character in Dr Horrible... So he's quite able to kill off a beloved character. Whether Kaylee is quite on the same standing as Willow in terms of a loved character or not I couldn't say.... Personally by season five of Buffy I'd have been quite unmoved had Willow been killed. In fact I may even have cheered.



Good points, but I don't see him killing her. Even with Fred, he held off until nearly the end of the series, and used her death as a catalyst for the final arc - not just as a stunt.

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

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

Thursday, August 12, 2010 10:13 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:

It's Joss - of course there would have been a high body count.


As is, the body count was high enough- more and I might have been too turned off to continue wanting to care.
Just sayin'.


The laughing Chrisisall




Lightweight. ;)

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

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

Thursday, August 12, 2010 12:07 PM

PENNAUSAMIKE


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
As is, the body count was high enough- more and I might have been too turned off to continue wanting to care.
Just sayin'.



The body count was already too high.
I'm rarely entertained by writers who have to kill beloved characters to make a point.

Toy Story III's ending had tears running down my cheeks because of insight and connections.
It is a cheap shot for the writer to tell his audience,
"Look at me! I can kill 'em all!"

The better writer can carry his characters through troubles without seeming cliche or trite.

I don't care for Joss' prediliction for killing characters; totally ruined Dr. Horrible for me.
I wanted to see Dr. Horrible turn his "evil" against phony do-gooders, not see a light-hearted romp turned into a THUD! morality tale.

Killing off beloved characters in light-hearted action tales;
It's not clever,
it's not insightful or enlightening,
it's not commercial.
It satisfies a niche audience at the cost of greater acceptance.

Firefly appealed to a larger audience than the BDM Serenity, in part because its sensibilities were lighter at the behest of FOX. If FOX hadn't effed with the scheduling and if they hadn't allowed Joss to murder off his characters, I'd argue that Firefly would rank up there with Star Trek as long lasting and influential.

Sadly, we're left with influential and a short burst of shiny goodness.

Mike

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

Thursday, August 12, 2010 12:13 PM

PEACEKEEPER

Keeping order in every verse


I wonder how it would have gone down if they had killed off Mal in ep1 and made Zoe the centric character? That's what Lost were originally going to do with Jack Shepherd

Peacekeeper---keeping order in every verse!!!

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

Thursday, August 12, 2010 12:20 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



No one dies.

Everyone lives happily ever after

Big, friendly meals around the dinner table every night.






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

Thursday, August 12, 2010 12:24 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

No one dies.

Everyone lives happily ever after

Big, friendly meals around the dinner table every night.



That's too far the other way. Me- I'm thinkin' a place in the middle.


The laughing Chrisisall


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

Thursday, August 12, 2010 12:53 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

No one dies.

Everyone lives happily ever after

Big, friendly meals around the dinner table every night.



That's too far the other way. Me- I'm thinkin' a place in the middle.




Great. Now I'm wide awake, chained up in a box, at the bottom of the cold ocean.






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

Thursday, August 12, 2010 12:55 PM

CHRISISALL


Angel?



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

Thursday, August 12, 2010 1:01 PM

THEHAPPYTRADER


Sometimes I like to pretend the BDM was an elaborate fanfiction and all nine of our Big Damn Heroes are still flyin'

assuming the movie never happened, I could see either Wash, Kaylee or Simon dying, but only one of those. In my opinion, the pilot, doctor and mechanic are the least replaceable and we can't expect River to be able to do all three jobs at once. Of course Book and Inara would have been goners (though I'd keep hoping Simon finds that cure up until the end).

I think Jayne would survive just because the 'verse loves irony.


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

Thursday, August 12, 2010 1:05 PM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

No one dies.

Everyone lives happily ever after

Big, friendly meals around the dinner table every night.



That's too far the other way. Me- I'm thinkin' a place in the middle.



Great. Now I'm wide awake, chained up in a box, at the bottom of the cold ocean.







Well played.



Joking aside, I agree with Chris, somewhere in the middle.

I think it's very effective to kill someone off now and then, as the story warrants.

No one every dying makes things a bit too pat and unbelievable. Scorching the Earth is too harsh.

Nor would I be trouble by the idea of several dying over the course of the series. In a longer form, it would be spread out enough.

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

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

Thursday, August 12, 2010 1:13 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Angel?





heh heh...yeah.

I countered Joss's standard vision w/ one of his own... to the other extreme.

I knew it was a bit much to ask for, but hey... one can dream.






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

Thursday, August 12, 2010 1:55 PM

FEARTHEBUNNYMAN


I think Inara would have died, probably in season 2 or 3. I honestly wonder if Joss would have killed Mal and let Zoe take over, or possibly done something to put Mal out of commission for at least half a season...I do think Joss wanted Zoe to run the ship at some point, but with Mal as the lead character, I'm not sure how that would work out with him gone. I think Simon was headed towards a Wesley-type arc, and I could see the catalyst for that being Kaylee's or River's death, with him then dying, but I don't think he would have been killed off until season 6 or 7 (and I think Mal would have been the one to kill him b/c of their scene at the end of the pilot....or the other way around). I think if Simon died River would follow shortly after or vice-versa. I think Jayne was going to outlast them all (like a cockroach, never dies) and end up becoming a preacher.

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

Thursday, August 12, 2010 2:01 PM

CYBERSNARK


Yeah, Mal's "awake, facing me, armed" line in the pilot pretty much had "foreshadowing" written all over it.

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

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

Thursday, August 12, 2010 4:06 PM

TWO

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Quote:

Originally posted by pennausamike:
The body count was already too high.
I'm rarely entertained by writers who have to kill beloved characters to make a point.
It is a cheap shot for the writer to tell his audience, "Look at me! I can kill 'em all!"

The better writer can carry his characters through troubles without seeming cliche or trite.

I don't care for Joss' prediliction for killing characters; totally ruined Dr. Horrible for me.
I wanted to see Dr. Horrible turn his "evil" against phony do-gooders, not see a light-hearted romp turned into a THUD! morality tale.

Killing off beloved characters in light-hearted action tales:
It's not clever,
it's not insightful or enlightening,
it's not commercial.
It satisfies a niche audience at the cost of greater acceptance.

Firefly appealed to a larger audience than the BDM Serenity, in part because its sensibilities were lighter at the behest of FOX.

Joss would have made us mad by ending Firefly with the crew dying in a radioactive fireball when they heroically crash head-on into the Reaver Mother Ship at max velocity. I can imagine the news conference at ComicCon about the significance of the final episode. Jayne narrates the final episode because he survived, like a rat, by abandoning ship.

“I'm in your face, Christians,” explains Joss as he shoots them the metaphorical finger. “The best you can hope for is a bittersweet death, with morphine for the pain, followed by existential nothingness of non-existence.” It's too pretentious for TV but perfect for a comic book convention crowd.

Or Joss could go flabby and give Firefly a Lost-style final episode where Mal's old enemies and friends meet him in the, so called, interdenominational afterlife and all Mal's heartbreak and anger are forgotten. That does not require Joss to completely abandon his principled atheist schtick of murdering major characters to demonstrate again and again that God is a myth.

“Are there any Buddhists in this crowd?” Joss will ask at ComicCom. Several hands will be raised. “Sorry to say: there's no reincarnation, either. Get over it!”

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

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

Thursday, August 12, 2010 4:14 PM

BYTEMITE


There's some who think that everything after Out of Gas might just be Mal's dying dream.

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

Thursday, August 12, 2010 4:19 PM

LAUREN779


Had the series gone on, I would of hoped that they wouldn't have killed anyone--at least not until the third season, and even then I can still see Book being the first to go.

However, personally, one of the things I thought made Firefly great was the cast and the chemistry they all had. If they killed off Wash in season two, I can't see it lasting another season. I think with Inara dying, and the crew having near close calls with death would satisfy me.

And if they had to kill a character in season two, my vote would go to Yo-Saff-Bridge.

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

Thursday, August 12, 2010 4:35 PM

TWO

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
There's some who think that everything after Out of Gas might just be Mal's dying dream.

Stop with the crazy theories inspired by Inception. They hurt my brain.

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

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

Thursday, August 12, 2010 5:02 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by two:
Stop with the crazy theories inspired by Inception. They hurt my brain.


Mal died in Out Of Gas. Thereafter was a dream. Deal with it, Two.


Or maybe not.

Maybe it was ALL a dream in Buffy's head after "Chosen"...

Caleb was once a hero, now fallen...



The twisted Chrisisall


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

Thursday, August 12, 2010 6:42 PM

CELLARDOOR


Well, they're all figments in Tommy Westphall's mind anyway, right?

( http://home.vicnet.net.au/~kwgow/crossovers.html)

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

Friday, August 13, 2010 5:02 AM

GWEK


To answer the question re: body count, I think we have to look at the larger question of overall fate (as determined by character arc).

Had the show gone seven seasons, I suspect the crew would have looked very different at the end. My guess is that it would have been Mal, Kaylee, River, and Jayne... and maybe even Saffron (who they discussed adding as a series regular). Mal and Kaylee aren't going anywhere--both love Serenity too much--and River and Jayne (and even Saffron) are similar in that their arc seems to be to find a place in the 'Verse. Possibly, any (or all) of those characters could have bought the farm in the final act of the series, but not significantly before.

As a sidenote: if Joss's endgame involved the destruction of Serenity, I think Kaylee and Jayne would have gone down with her (Kaylee refusing to leave her beloved ship and Jayne finally achieving his goal of becoming Mal's proxy), leaving Mal and River alive, with Mal once again lost, and River this time helping him pick up the pieces (a hint that the future would be sort of an inversion of the series itself).

As has been noted, Wash has always been slated for execution... which makes me think that Joss always had it in mind that Zoe was going to be a single mom. Would she have stayed aboard for the full seven seasons with a child? Much as Joss loves a manufactured family, I think he's logistically smart enough to know that if they dragged a toddler with them through multiple seasons, it would be a problem, so Zoe would likely have settled down someplace and made periodic appearances (not on the crew, but safe).

A few people have earmarked Simon for death "in order to let River grow." I don't see that happening, because I think Joss realized Simon was much to interesting a character to kill off. The Wesley comparison is a valid one. Throughout the series, Mal makes the important decisions, but Simon often makes the hard ones. That dichotomy should buy Simon his survival. Further, if we look at the crew as a family with Mal as the father, Simon is often the rebel son. His arc, I think would have been to "grow up" and leave the ship at some point, possibly to become a captain in his own right or go on to do something great. If executed successfully, that would allow both River and Simon to grow significantly as characters.

Inara... Well, we know Joss is a sucker for a tragic love story, so I think the only question here is whether she would have died late or early.

That leaves Book, who died in the movie. Had the series played out, I have a feeling his character trajectory would have been very different. While what happens to Book in the movie makes perfect sense in the movie, it doesn't feel like "payoff" for what Joss was setting up in the series. With seven seasons of FIREFLY, I have a feeling Book would have been far darker, far sinister, possibly even the Big Bad, by the end.

Dead? Yes. But probably killed by Mal to protect River (again, as with Simon breaking off from Mal, the rebellious son rising up against the father).

www.stillflying.net: "Here's how it might have been..."

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

Friday, August 13, 2010 5:12 AM

PENNAUSAMIKE


Quote:

Originally posted by LAUREN779:

SNIP
However, personally, one of the things I thought made Firefly great was the cast and the chemistry they all had.
SNIP



This point by LAUREN779 is the crux of the whole issue.
The interactions of the crew,
the contrasts of their personalities and motivations,
the clever back-and-forth of their dialog,
the chemistry of the actors playing their roles
are what made Firefly great.
At no point does killing the characters make that better,
unless you're trying to make "Terms of Endearment".

Another poster wrote:
Quote:


I think it's very effective to kill someone off now and then, as the story warrants.



The story doesn't "warrant" anything.
The story is a blank slate until the writer writes it.
Maybe "Cheers" would have been better off if they had killed a character off now and then.
Or maybe "Gunsmoke" coulda killed off Marshal Dillion so we could have seen how Miss Kitty would have run things...
Naw, I call BS.
Those shows lasted FOREVER because viewers tuned in to see characters they loved,
not to see who the creators would "kill off".

Quote:


No one every dying makes things a bit too pat and unbelievable. Scorching the Earth is too harsh.



While I recognize there are people who find entertainment in stories ABOUT killing people
(like the SAW movies or suspense flicks)
that's not what drove Firefly.
Firefly was episodic TV.
There were elements of Firefly that were already unbelievable,
(like the fact that they weren't hauled in after the Ariel heist, where they were undoubtedly on every security camera in the place!)
but we bought into the Firefly 'verse out of love for the characters.

Killing those beloved characters doesn't make Firefly more real OR better,
only...less...

Mike

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

Friday, August 13, 2010 6:53 AM

KHAMBILO


I hate to say it, but I agree on the point with Book possibly being the big bad of the show. But with the premature cancellation of Firefly, Joss got to play this storyline out in Dollhouse with Boyd. So if any more new material is ever released on the progression of Book, I doubt it would point to him being the secret evil any more.

Though it has been rumored, and murmured at conventions and what not that Inara is dying of a terminal illness, I don't believe it really, at least not until a comic book or short story or something comes out confirming it. Also, if anyone has read Still Flying, I believe Inara was still alive much into her elderly years in the one short story. Can't exactly remember and sorry if thats a spoiler. With that said, Inara's arc would play out much differently. I think that as the series would have continued, Inara would be forced to choose between the life on Serenity and her life as a Companion and the "tugging-on-heartstrings" effect would come when she would choose the Companion life. I could picture her leaving for a season or so and the coming back to find Mal romantically involved with someone else. Possibly even Saffron.

And yes, Saffron would become apart of the main cast. It was mentioned by the writers that her role would expand and also that she would develop a romantic entanglement with Mal. Perhaps if the show had continued we would have really met the real Saffron.

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

Friday, August 13, 2010 7:12 AM

GWEK


Quote:

Originally posted by pennausamike:
Quote:

Originally posted by LAUREN779:

SNIP
However, personally, one of the things I thought made Firefly great was the cast and the chemistry they all had.
SNIP



This point by LAUREN779 is the crux of the whole issue.
The interactions of the crew,
the contrasts of their personalities and motivations,
the clever back-and-forth of their dialog,
the chemistry of the actors playing their roles
are what made Firefly great.
At no point does killing the characters make that better,
unless you're trying to make "Terms of Endearment".

Another poster wrote:
Quote:


I think it's very effective to kill someone off now and then, as the story warrants.



The story doesn't "warrant" anything.
The story is a blank slate until the writer writes it.
Maybe "Cheers" would have been better off if they had killed a character off now and then.
Or maybe "Gunsmoke" coulda killed off Marshal Dillion so we could have seen how Miss Kitty would have run things...
Naw, I call BS.
Those shows lasted FOREVER because viewers tuned in to see characters they loved,
not to see who the creators would "kill off".

Quote:


No one every dying makes things a bit too pat and unbelievable. Scorching the Earth is too harsh.



While I recognize there are people who find entertainment in stories ABOUT killing people
(like the SAW movies or suspense flicks)
that's not what drove Firefly.
Firefly was episodic TV.
There were elements of Firefly that were already unbelievable,
(like the fact that they weren't hauled in after the Ariel heist, where they were undoubtedly on every security camera in the place!)
but we bought into the Firefly 'verse out of love for the characters.

Killing those beloved characters doesn't make Firefly more real OR better,
only...less...

Mike



I beg to differ. FIREFLY is about a group of people living on the edge, trying to eke out an existence, and barely getting by. The stakes of the game for them ARE, in fact, life and death. They live with the possibility of death every day of their lives. If we don't see the effects of that death periodically--sometimes even visited upon the main characters--it becomes hollow and meaningless, and the struggle of the heroes becomes hollow and meaningless.

The first time I saw OBJECTS IN SPACE, I cringed through the whole episode at Early's threat to rape Kaylee. Why? Because I know Whedon's track record. He might do it. If I were watching a show by Abrams or Kripke or some other writer/creator, I would NOT have been on the edge of my seat wondering what would happen.

The deaths of Wash and Book in the movie are brutal, but they demonstrate for us how very real the stakes are. This is life and death we're talking about. And, I don't know about you, but if Joss ever does another FIREFLY movie or TV show or whatever, I will watch every segment on the edge of my seat wondering if the characters will all survive. Because Whedon has created in environment in which the states are real and dramatic and meaningful. THAT is the 'Verse in which our crew lives (and dies) and that is part of why we love them.



www.stillflying.net: "Here's how it might have been..."

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

Friday, August 13, 2010 7:22 AM

GWEK


Quote:

Originally posted by khambilo:
I hate to say it, but I agree on the point with Book possibly being the big bad of the show. But with the premature cancellation of Firefly, Joss got to play this storyline out in Dollhouse with Boyd. So if any more new material is ever released on the progression of Book, I doubt it would point to him being the secret evil any more.



My thoughts exactly. I think that Joss used DOLLHOUSE as something of an "idea clearinghouse" for stuff he wanted to do for FIREFLY but knew he never would.

As a sidenote, the "living mainframe" idea is something that would mesh perfectly with the FIREFLY universe, and would explain why Blue Sun was trying to create people can can't not feel. Imagine how powerful River's processing power would be if she were subjected to the Attic.

Quote:

Though it has been rumored, and murmured at conventions and what not that Inara is dying of a terminal illness, I don't believe it really, at least not until a comic book or short story or something comes out confirming it.


Morena Bacarrin confirmed it, and I believe either Joss or one of the writers did as well. I agree that it's not canon until it appears in a story, but there's no denying that it was, at one point, there intention (and there is nothing to contradict it to date).

Quote:

Also, if anyone has read Still Flying, I believe Inara was still alive much into her elderly years in the one short story. Can't exactly remember and sorry if thats a spoiler.


I apologize for any spoilers as well, but I think you're mistaken about elderly Inara.

The Molina story is basically Mal-penned "fanfic", so none of the "future stuff" is in anyway true (for that matter, I don't think Inara actually appears).

In "Crystals" (or is it "Shards"?), River tells Inara that she has two questions, and that the answer to one--and only one--of them is "yes." I believe Inara places a "face" on each question, one being hers, the other Mal's.

Although the questions are never asked, the context, to me at least, implies that they are along the lines of:

1) Will Inara have a relationship with Mal?
2) Will Inara live a long life/Survive her illness?

So she will either live long and loveless, or have Mal but die young.

Although open to interpretation, this short story jibes with the idea that Inara is dying.



www.stillflying.net: "Here's how it might have been..."

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

Friday, August 13, 2010 7:44 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by GWEK:


A few people have earmarked Simon for death "in order to let River grow." I don't see that happening, because I think Joss realized Simon was much to interesting a character to kill off.



Matter of opinion. Simon always bored me, and was the one character I was actually kinda hoping would die in Serenity (not that I wanted him to die - but knowing someone was going to, he's the one I coulda lost with no problem).

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

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

Friday, August 13, 2010 7:49 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by GWEK:


So she will either live long and loveless, or have Mal but die young.


Precisely a major reason why I love the BDM; it leaves the possibility of a happy ending for Mal & Inara open.




The sappy Chrisisall


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

Friday, August 13, 2010 7:52 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by pennausamike:


Another poster wrote:
Quote:


I think it's very effective to kill someone off now and then, as the story warrants.



The story doesn't "warrant" anything.
The story is a blank slate until the writer writes it.



Yes, and sometimes the death of a character is a powerful storytelling device, both in terms of how it effects plot, and more importantly, the characters.

To say no one should ever die on a show you like - EVER - just sounds a bit simplistic.



Quote:

Maybe "Cheers" would have been better off if they had killed a character off now and then.


Gee, were the characters on Cheers smugglers and fugitives living incredibly dangerous lives on a frontier? Asinine comparison.

Quote:

Or maybe "Gunsmoke" coulda killed off Marshal Dillion so we could have seen how Miss Kitty would have run things...
Naw, I call BS.
Those shows lasted FOREVER because viewers tuned in to see characters they loved,
not to see who the creators would "kill off".



Yes, lets ignore the changes in culture, norms in entertainment, writing styles, acceptable levels of content and style.... everything is still just like it was in the 50's. Meanwhile, the most successful dramas of TODAY, never ever ever kill anyone - oh, wait, that's not even remotely true.

Quote:


While I recognize there are people who find entertainment in stories ABOUT killing people
(like the SAW movies or suspense flicks)
that's not what drove Firefly.



Seriously? You are comparing NOT flipping out over a character death to being a SAW fan? Such a facile generalization.


Quote:

Killing those beloved characters doesn't make Firefly more real OR better,
only...less...




Yep, the characters being immortal is more realistic. Wait... Nevermind, fanatics don't take kindly to reason....

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

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

Friday, August 13, 2010 7:52 AM

GWEK


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:

Originally posted by GWEK:


A few people have earmarked Simon for death "in order to let River grow." I don't see that happening, because I think Joss realized Simon was much to interesting a character to kill off.



Matter of opinion. Simon always bored me, and was the one character I was actually kinda hoping would die in Serenity.

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



Yes, it's a matter of opinion. That's part of why I prefaced it with "I think..."

Your point is?

www.stillflying.net: "Here's how it might have been..."

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

Friday, August 13, 2010 7:53 AM

BYTEMITE


EDIT: Ah, nevermind, someone got this before me.

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

Friday, August 13, 2010 8:08 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

A few people have earmarked Simon for death "in order to let River grow." I don't see that happening, because I think Joss realized Simon was much to interesting a character to kill off. The Wesley comparison is a valid one. Throughout the series, Mal makes the important decisions, but Simon often makes the hard ones. That dichotomy should buy Simon his survival. Further, if we look at the crew as a family with Mal as the father, Simon is often the rebel son. His arc, I think would have been to "grow up" and leave the ship at some point, possibly to become a captain in his own right or go on to do something great. If executed successfully, that would allow both River and Simon to grow significantly as characters.


Hmm. Aside from the "rebel son" thing, I don't see this at all.

Simon's main issue during the series is that he has split loyalty between the crew and his sister. And the decisions he makes, including the initial decision that's gotten him in hot water, is not so much hard or easy but rather "what benefits River?"

Simon's secret wish to return to the life he left behind is his character flaw at the time of the series, and so if he were to have an arc I'd say it's letting go of those selfish desires he's buried deep down. This makes Simon a better caretaker to River, and also leads either to Simon eventually coming to accept the life he's found himself in, or might eventually lead Simon to become more generally heroic (not just to River). Simon isn't actually male lead material in his own right, this isn't a verse that's friendly to idealistic doctor healing types, it's a verse where you have to fight to keep from losing what little you have. BUT, Simon is very likely to become a driving force behind Mal's return to heroism, and Simon's actions, such as saving River and bringing her aboard, have already started Mal (reluctantly) down this road.

A Wesley character is a scrappy character. Simon wasn't heading for Mary Sue territory.

Your Book and Mal scenario would also suggest that for the rebellious son to rise up against the father, they would have to kill the father. Despite Mal's ethically questionable decision to use River in a bank heist in the movie, and the fallout with Simon over it, I don't forsee Simon killing Mal to protect River, as Mal would have to kill Book to protect River/crew.

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

Friday, August 13, 2010 8:12 AM

PENNAUSAMIKE


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
SNIP
just sounds a bit simplistic
Asinine comparison
Yes, lets ignore
that's not even remotely true
Such a facile generalization.
Wait... Nevermind, fanatics don't take kindly to reason....



DUDE!
I'm just posting what I look for in escapist entertainment.
I appreciate that others don't feel the same way.

Your response to my post was like something out of the Real World Discussions.

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

Friday, August 13, 2010 8:20 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Originally posted by GWEK:


In "Crystals" (or is it "Shards"?), River tells Inara that she has two questions, and that the answer to one--and only one--of them is "yes." I believe Inara places a "face" on each question, one being hers, the other Mal's.

Although the questions are never asked, the context, to me at least, implies that they are along the lines of:

1) Will Inara have a relationship with Mal?
2) Will Inara live a long life/Survive her illness?

So she will either live long and loveless, or have Mal but die young.

Although open to interpretation, this short story jibes with the idea that Inara is dying.



www.stillflying.net: "Here's how it might have been..."



Almost. River's answer to Inara's two questions are "yes and no," and Inara's two reactions (very happy or very sad) are dependent upon the order they address the questions.

Loveless but a long life, or having Mal but dying young are neither of them a purely positive or a purely negative outcome. You asked the wrong question.

However, if you ask, "Will I die, will I get to be with Mal," the resulting answers fit the appropriate emotional reaction. No, you won't die, yes, you get to be with Mal (happy state), Yes, you die, no, you don't get to be with Mal (sad state).

From this we can infer that if Inara lives, she will get to be with Mal, as Inara dying makes her not being with Mal a foregone conclusion.

I also note that "dying" is not the same thing as "will die." In the sense of story-writing, this is fairly noncommittal.

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

Friday, August 13, 2010 8:29 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by GWEK:
Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:

Originally posted by GWEK:


A few people have earmarked Simon for death "in order to let River grow." I don't see that happening, because I think Joss realized Simon was much to interesting a character to kill off.



Matter of opinion. Simon always bored me, and was the one character I was actually kinda hoping would die in Serenity.




Yes, it's a matter of opinion. That's part of why I prefaced it with "I think..."

Your point is?

www.stillflying.net: "Here's how it might have been..."



Uh.... my point is the same as yours - to give MY opinion (isn't that what the board is for?). That's why I said "Simon bored ME" (as opposed to Simon is boring - to EVERYONE).

You give your opinion, I give mine, someone else gives theirs.... you know.... a conversation.


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

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

Friday, August 13, 2010 8:31 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by pennausamike:
Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
SNIP
just sounds a bit simplistic
Asinine comparison
Yes, lets ignore
that's not even remotely true
Such a facile generalization.
Wait... Nevermind, fanatics don't take kindly to reason....



DUDE!
I'm just posting what I look for in escapist entertainment.
I appreciate that others don't feel the same way.

Your response to my post was like something out of the Real World Discussions.



Sorry, but regardless of the topic, when someone responds to me by making broad and inaccurate generalizations, I take issue.

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

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

Friday, August 13, 2010 8:53 AM

GWEK


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Aside from the "rebel son" thing, I don't see this at all.

Simon's main issue during the series is that he has split loyalty between the crew and his sister. And the decisions he makes, including the initial decision that's gotten him in hot water, is not so much hard or easy but rather "what benefits River?"



I think you're misreading Simon. His issue is not at all split loyalty between the crew and River. HIS LOYALTY IS TO RIVER. The crew is a means to an end (helping is sister).

None of Simon's decisions are hard? Simon gives up his cushy life for the HOPE that he can help his sister in some way. He choses to join the crew of a ship where he obviously doesn't fit in, again, because it is the only place that his sister might be able to get by.

It is no accident of writing that Simon is a doctor and that his job is to hold the life and death of the crew in his hands.

A close reading of the show indicates, I think, that Simon (like some other Whedon characters--including Wesley) is the one who often makes the right choice--and is kicked in the teeth for it.

Quote:

Simon's secret wish to return to the life he left behind is his character flaw at the time of the series, and so if he were to have an arc I'd say it's letting go of those selfish desires he's buried deep down. This makes Simon a better caretaker to River, and also leads either to Simon eventually coming to accept the life he's found himself in, or might eventually lead Simon to become more generally heroic (not just to River).


One thing that I find very interesting about Simon is that he's unique among the crew in that he has seen both the good and bad of both the Core and the Rim (arguably, Inara is in a comparable position, but we don't know enough of her history). While most of the other characters are sort of in a binary lifestyle, I think Simon is in a much grayer area. You indicate that his character choice is basically to return home or stay on the ship (basically chosing to side with one father or another, Mal or Gabriel). I submit that his actual dramatic choice is to remain stagmant by picking either of those paths (doesn't matter which) OR "grow up" and forge a path of his own.

You refer to Simon's "selfish" desire hidden deep down, but I think the issue with him is that he's too SELFLESS! He needs to nut up and be a little selfish and figure out his own path rather than just helping others.

Quote:

Simon isn't actually male lead material in his own right, this isn't a verse that's friendly to idealistic doctor healing types, it's a verse where you have to fight to keep from losing what little you have.


And when has Simon ever NOT been doing that?!?

Simon is CONSTANTLY fighting that fight... and I think that's the thing that makes him "more heroic" than someone like Mal or Jayne (and potentially "male lead material" in a philosophical sense).

Consider "Objects in Space": When Mal confronts Jubal, he's got the upper hand and has ambushed him, thanks to a plan that someone else came up with. But when Simon confronts him, he's in a clearly inferior position and is very likely to lose--but he risks his life anyway because it's the right thing to do and it's what he NEEDS to do to protect his family (literally, River, but also the crew as a whole).

Which is, on the balance, the more heroic, and the harder choice?

Quote:

A Wesley character is a scrappy character. Simon wasn't heading for Mary Sue territory.


When I say a Wesley-type character, I don't mean in a long coat and with a scruffy beard. I mean a character who makes the right decision for the wrong reasons... or the wrong decision for the right reasons... Well within Simon's character as we've seen him so far.

Quote:

Your Book and Mal scenario would also suggest that for the rebellious son to rise up against the father, they would have to kill the father Despite Mal's ethically questionable decision to use River in a bank heist in the movie, and the fallout with Simon over it, I don't forsee Simon killing Mal to protect River, as Mal would have to kill Book to protect River/crew.


You're making a leap in logic that I never intended.

I never suggested that Simon would kill Mal, or even fight him. As I said, I would see Simon "rebelling" by chosing to go off on his own path rather than remaining on the ship.

www.stillflying.net: "Here's how it might have been..."

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

Friday, August 13, 2010 9:00 AM

BYTEMITE


Oops, wrong Wesley.

Quote:

None of Simon's decisions are hard? Simon gives up his cushy life for the HOPE that he can help his sister in some way. He choses to join the crew of a ship where he obviously doesn't fit in, again, because it is the only place that his sister might be able to get by.


You misunderstand. Simon's choices aren't defined by how hard they are, he makes both hard and easy choices. But what they ARE defined by is what benefits River.

Quote:

And when has Simon ever NOT been doing that?!?

Simon is CONSTANTLY fighting that fight... and I think that's the thing that makes him "more heroic" than someone like Mal or Jayne (and potentially "male lead material" in a philosophical sense).



He has, and this is something that consistently defines the struggles of ALL the members of the crew. But Simon has significant disadvantages if you're considering him for being in the male lead role.

Quote:

Consider "Objects in Space": When Mal confronts Jubal, he's got the upper hand and has ambushed him, thanks to a plan that someone else came up with. But when Simon confronts him, he's in a clearly inferior position and is very likely to lose--but he risks his life anyway because it's the right thing to do and it's what he NEEDS to do to protect his family (literally, River, but also the crew as a whole).




Yet Simon simply is not the one who defeats the big bads, nor is he ever in the position to do so. Mal is the hero of the story. I understand you like and identify with Simon, but making Simon focus and hero of the story is a stretch and quite clearly not the point of the story.

Simon is the most idealistic character, the most self-sacrificing character, but he is, unfortunately, not the most heroic character, as his decisions still revolve around benefiting River, NOT the greater good. In literature, the classic definition of the hero is the one who attempts to defeat the antagonist or solve the overarcing situation at hand. Their success, or failure, determines whether the story is a tragedy or not.

In Simon's case, he attacked Jubal Early, but his attack was independent on the outcome of what HAPPENED with Jubal Early. This makes Simon a supporting character, an important one, who represents a driving force behind the main hero character. Not the hero. If he was the hero, his failure to defeat Jubal Early would have made the story have a tragic outcome.

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

Friday, August 13, 2010 9:01 AM

GWEK


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
From this we can infer that if Inara lives, she will get to be with Mal, as Inara dying makes her not being with Mal a foregone conclusion.



I haven't read the story for a while, so I don't recall if this particular statement is impacted by it, but, on it's own, your statement above is false.

"Inara dying makes her not being with Mal a foregone conclusion" is not at all true. If Inara dies in a year, she could well have spent 11 and a half of her remaining months with Mal.

We're pretty far afield of my original point, though, which is that the short story seems to support (although not unambiguously) that Inara is dying within canon (rather than simply within conversation at conventions).



www.stillflying.net: "Here's how it might have been..."

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

Friday, August 13, 2010 9:09 AM

BYTEMITE


Uh, no, because the implication is that when Inara asks if she gets to BE with Mal, it's in the sense of a relationship. If she dies before she gets a relationship upgrade, then this doesn't happen. It's also true in the sense that if she does get a relationship upgrade, then dies, she will then no longer be with Mal, and so she then doesn't get to be with Mal thereafter.

I agree with your original point, I don't know why you're arguing my interpretation. Do you disagree, are you saying my interpretation doesn't fit the success and failure state of the logical question?

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

Friday, August 13, 2010 9:14 AM

FEARTHEBUNNYMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Oops, wrong Wesley.

Quote:

None of Simon's decisions are hard? Simon gives up his cushy life for the HOPE that he can help his sister in some way. He choses to join the crew of a ship where he obviously doesn't fit in, again, because it is the only place that his sister might be able to get by.


You misunderstand. Simon's choices aren't defined by how hard they are, he makes both hard and easy choices. But what they ARE defined by is what benefits River.

Quote:

And when has Simon ever NOT been doing that?!?

Simon is CONSTANTLY fighting that fight... and I think that's the thing that makes him "more heroic" than someone like Mal or Jayne (and potentially "male lead material" in a philosophical sense).



He has, and this is something that consistently defines the struggles of ALL the members of the crew. But Simon has significant disadvantages if you're considering him for being in the male lead role.

Quote:

Consider "Objects in Space": When Mal confronts Jubal, he's got the upper hand and has ambushed him, thanks to a plan that someone else came up with. But when Simon confronts him, he's in a clearly inferior position and is very likely to lose--but he risks his life anyway because it's the right thing to do and it's what he NEEDS to do to protect his family (literally, River, but also the crew as a whole).

Which is, on the balance, the more heroic, and the harder choice?



Yet Simon simply is not the one who defeats the big bads, nor is he ever in the position to do so. Mal is the hero of the story. I understand you like and identify with Simon, but making Simon focus and hero of the story is a stretch and quite clearly not the point of the story.



Just to jump in here, who says Simon becomes the male lead? He already IS *a* male lead, I don't think Simon having an arc drops Mal out of the running or anything, but the Father/Son dynamic Gwek points out is pretty evident in the series already, and there's plenty of foreshadowing there that indicates Simon's path is going to weird places. As for scrappy, we see them toughening him up in the movie (Sean and Joss talked about that in a few interviews - Simon's getting rough around the edges, acclimated to the new life, and taking more and more part in crime). Currently Simon IS more the philosophical hero in the story, and it's in that which he provides a contrast to Mal, the lead hero - and it's Simon who pushes Mal to become the true hero again that he once was - there's a really nice essay in one for the Finding Serenity books that goes into this a fair bit.

The difficulty is discerning Simon's future path - will he maintain his integrity, or in the process of becoming a little more selfish, go down a less noble path? Will his focus shift away from River, or will it remain on her, but maybe twist into something different? And of course, how does that effect Mal's future choices? That's what ALL these characters are btw - spokes on the wheel around Mal, and they are pushing and pulling him by their actions. And Simon's effect on Mal was a strong one from the second he steped on the ship. Think we would have seen that evolve over time.

Honestly you guys, the only character I can never figure out is Zoe. Does anyone here think the scene at the end of float out is cannon?




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

Friday, August 13, 2010 9:15 AM

CORTEXOVERRIDE


Now that I think about it. From the way the Alliance was portrayed in the tv show, the BDM, The Session 416, etc. it seemed like a revolution was going to spark from all of the lies, secrecy and backstabbing from within. So if the series would of gone on longer, than I would've of expected another Interglactic Civil War with a large body count by the hundreds. I could really see Joss having the series end just like the way it started.

(((tO sPARK tHE mOVEMENT)))

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

Friday, August 13, 2010 9:17 AM

GWEK


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
You misunderstand. Simon's choices aren't defined by how hard they are, he makes both hard and easy choices. But what they ARE defined by is what benefits River.



And on the balance, those are harder choices than the other characters have to make.

Dramatically speaking, Mal's choices are often fairly easy... and the ones that are emotionally difficult are the ones that he runs from.

Again, this is intentional storytelling, because Simon is in many ways a mirror image of Mal. Where one is strong, the other is weak.

Quote:

He has, and this is something that consistently defines the struggles of ALL the members of the crew. But Simon has significant disadvantages if you're considering him for being in the male lead role.


When did I ever say he should be the male lead? (Although I do believe that Sean Maher could probably carry a show.) If anything, the character arc that I'm suggestion would have him off the show, not at his center. HIS REBELLION IS TO LEAVE.

Quote:

Yet Simon simply is not the one who defeats the big bads, nor is he ever in the position to do so. Mal is the hero of the story.


But I'm not talking about Mal's story. I'm talking about Simon's story. Every character in the show has a character arc and their own story to tell. I'm talking about Simon's character arc here.

And, to be honest, Mal actually doesn't defeat the Big Bads all that often--at least not on his own. He has help from virtually every crew member at some point or another.

Quote:

I understand you like and identify with Simon, but making Simon focus and hero of the story is a stretch and quite clearly not the point of the story.


You're making a lot of assumptions here.

I never said that Simon should be the hero of the story (although, on the whole, I DO consider his actions to be more heroic than Mal's: for the record, I also consider Xander to ultimately be more heroic than Buffy, Spike to be more heroic than Angel, and virtually everyone in DOLLHOUSE except Topher and DeWitt to be more heroic than Echo, Leia to be more heroic than Luke, and Bail Organa to be more heroic than Anakin Skywalker or Yoda... but that doesn't change who the main characters are).

Also, I don't particularly identify with Simon, nor do I necessarily like him (compared with other characters on the show). I simply think he's a much deeper and more interesting character than he is given credit for.

www.stillflying.net: "Here's how it might have been..."

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

Friday, August 13, 2010 9:19 AM

GLYWYSING


I would have liked to have seen Inara leaving the crew as she does, but to be replaced on the show by Yosaffbridge!

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

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

FFF.NET SOCIAL