Serenity--spoilers inside

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Miisa on March 6, 2010 at 11:34am

I was shocked by it (I had managed to avoid spoilers), and it suddenly made me fear a very similar Hamletesque ending to the remaining story, and I suspect that was the whole idea; make everyone think anyone, just anyone - or even everyone - could be next.

There is also the whole Whedon signature of destroying any relationship that is going well. Which, in retrospect, means that they were doomed from the start, and just managed to stay alive through the series through the grace of Teh Joss and the cancellation power of Fox.

But killing off everyone would seem rather desperately Shakespearean and artsy. Plus, no sequels that way, and that was the plan.

Permalink Reply by Loren Miller on April 2, 2010 at 6:44am

Wash's death was a "this is WAR" slap in the face, as well as perhaps being Joss's way of saying that ANYTHING could happen from this point onward ... which, curiously enough, included defeat of the Operative.

The loss of Shepherd Book was more emblematic of cruelty of the Parliament and its determination in the person of the Operative to recover River Tam and to Have Its Way, regardless of who or what got in the way. If this had happened as a part of the series and Mr. Universe had put a wave out about it, I shouldn't wonder that a second war against the Alliance wouldn't have been fomented.

Sadly, because Fox mismanaged "Firefly" and no one was interested in picking it up after an 11-episode run, we'll never know what might have happened ... to the crew of Serenity, to Simon & River ... and what about those threatening men in black who went "two by two, hands of blue"...?

Permalink Reply by Howard S. Dunn on April 9, 2010 at 3:17pm

I actually felt like it was a perfect way to take advantage of the sorry fact that the show wasn't allowed a full run. I would, now, actually like to see series planned this way - three season's leading up to a full length film - with no chance for a sequel.

In Star Trek (also killed before they knew what they had) there were the red shirts. The main characters can't die in a series - so there is a built-in predictability factor. Wash was killed because you kill the second most sympathetic (likable) character. He couldn't kill Kaylee - she's too damn sweet 'n innocent 'n stuff - sort of.

I was bummed we never got to know who the Shepherd really was. So much foreshadowing and no reveal.

Permalink Reply by Noah Petersen on April 28, 2010 at 7:42am

I disagree, I think Wash most likely died because he expected the movie to be sucessful, but was done with that role so he asked Joss Whedon to kill off his character. It's unlikely that Alan Tyduk was upset about his character's death, as he has done many other projects with Joss Whedon, including a fairly important contribution to the show Dollhouse.

Permalink Reply by Leigh Anne Jones on October 2, 2011 at 2:18am

I listened to some of the commentary on the last season of Buffy, and I'm pretty sure Whedon said something about the necessity of killing off important characters so that the audience is truly invested in the seriousness of the events. When sacrifices are made, the payoff is bigger. I'm not phrasing it properly but that was general idea.