clevermanka | Some thoughts from someone coming late to the party

Entry tags:

opinion

Some thoughts from someone coming late to the party

I've spent a couple days ago thinking why the hell was I so upset by the way Serenity ended. Now, some of you know that I have this...penchant for getting attached to things that meet unpleasant/untimely ends. So it wasn't really a shock to me that my favorite character yet again died needlessly. I admit I was irritated, but it's two days later and I'm still bummed about it. So it's got to be more than just the treatment of this one character, although it was the main inspiration for the creation of this icon.

I decided to go hunting for some other opinions and I found a post from a discussion on Slashdot that summed it up nicely.
**
Critics loved it (by sci fi standards) and I can admit that, in isolation, it was a great movie. The problem was that that movie turned off a lot of Firefly fans. I've debated this ad nauseam already on the official message boards - but the one things that's indisputable is that the entire community broke out into a firestorm over the killing of two characters, Wash and to a lesser extent Book.

I'm one of those that protested that loudest that killing Wash was a stupid, stupid move. There were a variety or other problems Firefly fans had with the movie (eg turning River into "River the Reaver Slayer") but I think that was really at the core.

Wheddon created a series that a lot of people fell in love with and they rallied after it was cancelled to bring it back to life. Killing Wash in a way that many felt was pointless was a slap in the fact to a lot of fans that had worked, struggled, evangelized and pretty much gone above and beyond to bring their show back to life.

I think he made a fundamental miscalculation in thinking that his Firefly crowd would stick with him while he reached for a broader audience. Given how he's revered by Wheddonites who also love Buffy and Angel, I'm not surprised he erred on the side of appealing to a broader audience. But a lot of the fans of Firefly were no fans of Wheddon, and so they were completely unwilling to go follow him just because he's Wheddon. They saw his treatment of characters (Wash in particular but also others) as wanton disregard for their beloved franchise, they spurned the movie, quit trying to bring their friends, and went home to watch their Firefly DVD set one more time.

The remaining Wheddonites who crowded into the theaters night after night and dragged friends and relatives along were just not quite the critical mass needed to really get the show to break out. Whether or not things would have turned out differently had Wheddon not killed Wash - no one will ever know. I think the chance was there to make a new Star Wars (the original) mega-hit and that that was the mistake that cost him, but I'm sure there are plenty of Wheddonites and others who disagree with me.

In any case, I'm sad to see it go, but I won't be eager to catch the next Wheddon project anytime soon. As far as I'm concerned Wheddon and Lucas are just proof-postive that talent is a fickle creature and some creators clearly create works that far outsrtip their own understanding. Just because the muse visits, doesn't mean she'll stay.
**

And that's really it. There are a lot of similarities to the way Wheddon ended this franchise and the way Farscape writers ended their series (before they knew they'd have a chance to make a movie--in other words, the Farscape series ended very similar, mood-wise, to the way the Serenity movie ended). But with Farscape, it was more a Fuck-You to the network and the fanbase was left with a sense of "you assholes" laughing *with* the writers. After Serenity I just felt betrayed. Like they were making a cruel joke at my expense rather than making a joke with me.

Wheddon is obviously in the "this is my toy and if I can't play with it, nobody can" camp. And that's too bad for the fans and for the actors.

EDIT: Oh, and if you ever introduce me to a series and you hear me say "Oh, s/he's my favorite character" and you know that character dies? For god's sake, just tell me. I'd rather know in advance. I kept saying all along "Oh Wash is going to die. That always happens to me." But it was still really fucking irritating. I guess I was still holding out a bit of hope. So yeah, just tell me. It'll make it easier for everyone. Seriously.

EDIT: This whole conversation has certainly made me think about what I appreciate as an audience member.

For example, it completely pissed me off when the screenwriters gave Memoirs of a Geisha a happy ending. But I did want a happy ending for all the crew members of Serenity.

I think it largely boils down to me wanting people to get what they deserve. Yes, I know that's not "reality" but damn, if I wanted to be entertained by reality I'd watch fucking CNN for fun and maybe indulge in a little mainstream literary fiction.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I have yet to see the TV series. Maybe someday.

I've got the set, I'll loan it to you.

I agree with you. I thought it was very much the suck of Whedon to kill off Wash and Book (I was especially sad about Book because I thought he was an interesting character who had been pretty much completely unexplored). He did the same thing in the finales for Buffy and Angel and I think its a cheap way to add a little more excitement to the end of storyline. Josh also recently closed the "browncoats" website which he had been using to promote Firefly and Serenity, this makes me think that he has really completely given up on doing anymore work with the story and characters. A big thumbs down to Joss on the character killing.

It's good to know this pointless character-killing is a common theme of Wheddon. Thanks for pointing this out. It tells me I'm best not watching any more of his stuff.

I don't know that I agree with this completely. To some extent yes. But Whedon is also known for not letting couples end happily together. Also, he's known for going to extremes to make story points (I could make numerous references with regards to Buffy and Angel, but I don't know if you've watched those and already know them, haven't seen them and don't want spoilers, etc.). Plus, in his world, rarely are characters actually gone, so I don't think he sees character death in the same way we do. The rumor was that, if he got to do another movie, it would be a prequel, the story of Book and some such. Whatever happened, he had already come out and said future movies would involve all of the cast members. That being said, I don't agree with his decision about Wash's death, either. Yes, it did all the things that he said it was done for, but I think that could have been accomplished in other ways. I think he just figured that no one would come but the die hards, and that we'd know what he was like, which was, truly, a bad move on his part...

he's known for going to extremes to make story points

I know you're a huge Buffy fan, so I won't knock it, but I have to say if a writer feels he needs to go to extremes to make a story point, well...that says something about this writing.

About his writing, I meant to say.

Apparently it also says something about my typing. =D

I guess what the difference is for me is that, other than that, he does tell a really good story. For that reason, us Whedonites are willing to yell and scream but keep watching the bad points where most of us think he has gone too far. I don't think you're wrong, per se, just that I got hooked in severely early enough on to make it worth it? Does that make sense?

I don't think there's any wrong or right here. It's all opinion and what kind of stories people like.

I can completely understand your view and that's cool. I just have this...thing...against a writer who likes to (it seems to me) manipulate his audience for the joy of manipulating them, rather than what's actually necessary. I guess I want an author to respect the characters he created, as well as the audience.

Seems to me (as an outsider, non-Whedonite) that he has taken the anti-Hollywood ending and run with it waaaay too far. Like he's so sick of happy endings that he won't write them at all. And that's fine for him if he chooses to continue as such. It's just not something I'm interesting in watching.

I think the greater point of Joss killing characters with seeming pointlessness is that people die pointlessly. In real life. He has an apolcolyptic ending for Buffy, and almost half the fighters die - well, hell if you're fighting demon hordes, it's likely somebody's going to die. He lets the heroes save the world, but not without sacrifice.

Do the choices of Wash and Book make us happy? No, and I would have killed Zoe instead, personally.

But who could he have killed that wouldn't have made some people furious?

(deleted comment)

I agree with this (#2...didn't watch the end of Farscape to comment) completely. You don't watch Wheddon because it's safe. You watch it because it's precisely the opposite.

they filmed that cliffhanger *before* they knew they were cancelled

But I believe they still did some purposeful editing. It would've been a completely different ending had they shaved the last, what? Thirty seconds? I think that "whaaa?!?!?!" ending was intentional. And that's all I'll say 'bout that 'cos I know not everyone reading this has seen Farscape. =)

and he might just kill them all

I think I would have preferred that, actually. Rather Blackadder-ish, too. Heh.

I think you have valid points. But it doesn't make me like Wheddon's style, especially if this is his M.O. I think a writer who believes he must resort to extremes is a writer who doesn't have faith in his own abilities or the strength of his characters.

Also, add that one of the things Joss has said is that death really happens. It sucks, but it's more real than everyone escaping at the last minute.

Yeah, fantastic. But I don't read or watch movies for reality. =)

And that's completely fair! LOL

ok random....Blakes 7 i loved that show. they had Dr Who and then blakes 7 on the pbs i watched in the twin cities. and i agree 100% on the edge of the seat thing. formulas suck!

they're SHOT (actually, we don't SEE Avon getting shot), but most of us crazed B7 fans don't believe they died. ;-)

Well, I have the series on DVD but still have not made the time to watch them. But I do agree with an above poster that Whedon seems to strive too hard to beat you over the head with an extreme to prove a point. I can deal with it once or twice, but after a while it can get annoying.

I can well understand why you find it annoying. It upset me. However, I contend that he did it for several reasons:

1. 9 characters were fine for television, but it makes for to many stories in film development. He was gearing for possible future films by cutting the number down to his original idea.

2. Wash had, literally, just played out the pentultimate moment of his existence. The character's development had played, making it a much more poignant death.

3. Killing Wash gives the now sane River a job on the ship and a place amongst the crew.

4. Killing Wash just gave infinitely more texture and possibilities to the character of Zoe...because ultimately them being a happy couple only went so far in the realm of storytelling...he's always worried she'll die, she always makes it back. Killing Wash was a much more interesting and wholly unexpected choice.

Good film, bold choices, but I agree with you that I think he lost some people with the Wash choice, and that it hurt the film's money. However, I think the fact that it was ultimately marketed like crap to the masses hurt it more.

D.

you put that ever so well. and i agree with your analysis.

5. Killing Wash takes away the cast member with the most film experience and the most likely to garner a higher paycheck in the future with the possible exception of Baldwin (Tudyk was bigger in movies than Fillion was at the time of writing).

Also a perfectly valid choice, at least from a film future point of view.

D.

im not a huge "reality" fan in movies but i do like things to happen that i dont know are going to happen. so to sum up lol
if i cant see it coming (which is rare) then i am very very happy person. i love a good suprise so even bad things are good (in movies) when it comes to that for me.

I agree with your assessment, but I think that even as a Wheddonite, I was entirely put off by his attitude about this movie. It seemed as if he was entirely mad at the people that funded his movie, and all through the publicity it seemed like the cast was greatful and he was acting like *God* and no film company was worthy of him. It makes me wonder about all those places that got rid of his good shows. Maybe it was his attitude, if this is how he really is . . .

The comments to this post have been very enlightening.

I think it's interesting that the comments from the Wheddon fans are the ones that have most convinced me that I shouldn't watch more of his stuff. Not that they're saying anything against him (mostly), but the reasons they like him are things I don't, personally, enjoy in my entertainment.

Well, if it's not your thing, then it's not. *shrug*

Yup. Now, bring on the costumes!!!! LOL!

Wasn't Wash played by the same guy who starred as the cult leader on Strangers With Candy? "I'm gonna sit at the welcome taaa-BLE!"

That Memoirs of a Geisha move can suck it, for real.

IMDB says he was in the show:

"Strangers with Candy" playing "Father" in episode: "Blank Stare: Part 1" (episode # 2.8) 19 June 2000

"Strangers with Candy" playing "Father" in episode: "Blank Stare: Part 2" (episode # 2.9) 26 June 2000

I never saw any of the episodes, though, so I don't know if this is the character you're referring to.

I note with interest and sadness, though, that he's a year younger than me. I bet I have now Officially reached that Point In My Life when the average Joe in a TV or movie is younger than me. Bah.

gee...this conversation seems vaguely familiar... ;) I understand all too well...you totally missed Brooke's 2 week textbook definition of depression after we saw Serenity the first time.

Hm... Well the whole "River the Reaver-Slayer" thing was something I thought everyone saw coming a long time ago. It was made pretty obvious in the series that the Alliance had turned her into a scary killing machine. The character was balanced out with disabilities that kept her vulnerable in other ways.

The Reaver-killing scene didn't even stretch credibility for me. I've taken five on one odds, and fought groups of armed individuals, and I'm not nearly as trained as River supposedly was. Add into that that we find out the Reavers were pretty oridinary people before exposure to Pax (as in, not highly trained fighters), and it's even easier to swallow. The easiest people in the world to beat in a physical confrontation are untrained people who rely on ferocity alone. In groups they're even easier because they get in each other's way (or you can put them in each other's way).

As for Wash and Book dying, I hated it, but I think it was a good move storywise. When Wash and Book die, the tension is ratcheted up, because now you've seen that people we care about can die here--and after the relative character safety of a series, that point needed to be driven home. If the most-beloved characters are safe, where's the tension? "Oh, Wash can't die. Everyone loves Wash." Well, then it follows that only the less popular characters can die. This means we're never truly afraid for the characters we love the most. Whether you think it was the best choice or not, if killing Wash was a cheap trick, then there are no legitimate story devices to be had, period. I don't think I can come up with a better way to get the idea across that no one is safe.

And frankly, if they'd been through all that with no casualties, I'd have been disappointed at the lack of guts. I didn't want any of the characters to die, but without that... Well, some people only like movies with unambiguously happy endings. There's nothing wrong with that, but committing to happy endings means committing to lessened tension because, walking in, you know that there's nothing to worry about. Everything comes out okay in the end.

Thinking about it, Wash's death wasn't even senseless. He died to save entire worlds. He piloted his ass off and was killed by the Reavers, and if he'd not been in that pilot seat (because, come on... Mal couldn't fly like that), the entire crew would have died and no one would have known about Miranda.

Then also, Alan Tudyke has more of a movie career right now than the others, and so is the one least likely to be available for a sequel. I'd rather have him die on-screen than off-screen between movies, or have some lame explanation in a sequel about why he's missing.

Agreed the last 30 seconds of Farscape was wholly unnecessary and in a way, pandering more to traditional Hollywood endings than anything.

I was pissed that Wash died - but that usually indicated they have done a good job. When you're emotionally invested in a show enough to care, they have succeeded. Were heroic endeavors not risky, hard and costly, we’d all get off our asses and pursue more noble causes. It only sucks because it seemed so real. Thanks goodness it’s just a movie.

I don't consider myself a Whedonite. I enjoy much of BTVS, think "Angel" is mostly crap & did not care for "Serenity" @ all. I do intend, however, to try the series someday if only because so many people I respect adore it.

That being said, even _I_ was annoyed that he killed Wash, because the character was VASTLY more interesting than either Inara or the intensely annoying little mechanic. As for Book's story, it will come out some day because EVERYONE tells, just to prove they can. Even the author of Primary Colours told eventually.

On the other hand, I would disagree w/ whoever said that Whedon ALWAYS fucks up his characters @ the end. There was a PERFECT moment in the last episode of BTVS where he peeled off all the additions & distractions of later years & gave us, the fans, a sweet, wonderful scene w/ the four primaries we've loved & followed from the beginning. It was clearly a gift of affection & respect to his fans & I valued it greatly.

I had been looking forward to the movie for some time. I even tried to work in a theatrical viewing during a stateside biz trip in November; no dice. I had another trip in December that finished on the day the DVD came out, and I managed to pick up the very last copy of the DVD at Fry's, though it was a full screen (not widescreen) cut. I bought it and felt lucky.

After enjoying the series through a box of DVDs a friend sent over for me, I had understandably high hopes for the movie. A number of friends saw and liked it; there were comments that it set things up for more movies, and that it was like an episode of the TV show, except with a budget. These misled me a bit, and I was not prepared for what actually happens during the movie.

In retrospect, the movie reads like a finale to the series. Mal inarguably damages the regime he despises. A couple we have been wanting to see get together finally does. The lost and damaged girl finds her way somewhat, and is finally given unqualified acceptance within the band of heroes. An explanation for two of the biggest mysteries in the show, River and the Reavers, is given. In the latter case, despite no change in actual state, the perception of the Reavers as inapproachably dangerous is permanently diminished; the bogeyman has had light shone on him. In the former case, there is room for further exploration, but the badass has been unlocked; Zoe has been surpassed in combat-monsterdom, so it is unclear what role she might fill.

I've got a lot more to say, but rather than write a novel in your comments, I'll stick it up in my LJ. I feel like I've even more to say after reading all the insightful things others have posted here.

Cool. Thanks. I'll check your LJ.

I'd better start writing something, then!

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Some thoughts from someone coming late to the party

heh. Later than Thou.

Re: heh. Later than Thou.

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

well...

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

$.02

no subject

no subject

no subject