Comments | kattahj: Yet another Serenity post, sorry

kattahj

Yet another Serenity post, sorry

Oct 13, 2005 11:40

Okay, there is one plot element in Serenity that seems to have people in wildly different camps when it comes to what was actually told and why. I explored my own view in the fic I wrote, and I know plenty of people agree with me (I googled some keywords). But I've also seen comments that indicate that this view is completely foreign to some ( Read more... )

serenity, firefly

Comments 13

(The comment has been removed)

kattahj October 13 2005, 10:18:52 UTC

*giggle* Damn, that answer never even occurred to me. And polls can't be changed, right?

(The comment has been removed)

kattahj October 13 2005, 11:29:04 UTC

Yeah, I kind of think they are, so I'm curious as to what you mean. Care to explain further?

mouse42 October 13 2005, 11:37:48 UTC

I ticked "two", but only because I know I have a habit of missing key details all over the place. Subtle things that people grab up as proof of a theory totally fly over my head until many, many viewings later. Not that I haven't read everybody else's opinions. I just didn't see them myself, so I'm not worrying about it too much and enjoying the speculation and the mystery.

kattahj October 13 2005, 13:14:06 UTC

Cool. :-)

justhuman October 13 2005, 12:09:39 UTC

None of the above.

In the Q&As after some of the screenings, Joss has hinted that if he gets a sequel, more of Book's story might come out. He's also said that Ron and Alan were not necessarily out of the picture - I can see him including them in flashbacks and dreams. I can also see the plot line running them into official records of Book's past and having Mal explode over them -- my own opinion is that Book did some very specific work against the independants in the war.

So to me, it's too early to ask the question.

kattahj October 13 2005, 13:13:33 UTC

Hmm... Interesting, but I disagree with your conclusion that it's "too early to ask the question". Rather, I ought to have included more possible answers.

What I was trying to get to was mainly the divide between those who think we have gotten an explanation (myself included, though I'm aware that Joss still has his back free if he wants to spin things differently) and those who don't, with an added dimension of whether the voters want an explanation.

With those parameters, I suppose I'd say you want one and think we haven't been given one, but that the possibility of more canon prevents you from going "Joss, you bastard!" Is that correct?

justhuman October 21 2005, 03:26:27 UTC

but that the possibility of more canon prevents you from going "Joss, you bastard!" Is that correct?

oh no. I'm much more on the side of "it's a mystery and I'm just fine with that". There are all sorts of possibilities and possible directions to the storyline that I can pick and chose the ones that work for my story.

Despite the variations, there's a similar direction for all of them so in many ways the answer has been given.

kattahj October 21 2005, 04:24:07 UTC

Meh. Copied the same part of your reply twice. Me idiot. It was supposed to go like this:

oh no. I'm much more on the side of "it's a mystery and I'm just fine with that". There are all sorts of possibilities and possible directions to the storyline that I can pick and chose the ones that work for my story.

Okay, gotcha.

Despite the variations, there's a similar direction for all of them so in many ways the answer has been given.

Yeah, even if my pet theory turns out to be untrue, I'd be very surprised and dissappointed if Joss decided that Book had been a sheep farmer on Persephone...

davidbrider October 13 2005, 12:53:22 UTC

Mm. I've still only watched the first 3½ episodes of Firefly, so I presume that there's a lot of hints still to come about Book's past. Which is fair enough. I did sort of feel that his inclusion in the movie was a bit pointless, chiefly because it seemed daft to kill off a central (to the TV series) character when he'd so little screen time in the film. If he'd featured more heavily then his death might have seemed to have more point - or at least more emotional weight - to it.

OTOH, if (as lasthuman says) there's the possibility of more for Book, then that's good as far as I'm concerned.

David.

kattahj October 13 2005, 13:16:06 UTC

I think both Book and Inara were short-shifted storywise because neither of them really fit into the plot (which has been a problem in the show as well). In Book's case, I think that was somewhat remedied by his symbolic importance, but I'm aware that this opinion depends on my interpretation of the Book's Past thing.