Serenity Spoilers

[dlgood]

In discussion of the movie, particularly Wash's death - one of the more frequent comments I see comes along these lines - that Whedon kills a character showing that no one is safe, and that anyone could die at any time. It heightens the drama/urgency.

And I would say that, in context of TV shows this is somewhat true. Particularly early in the BtVS run when Jesse dies in the pilot though he looks like a long running character...

However, actually, over time I think the reverse is more true. Particularly with Wash's death in "Serenity".

In War Movies, in Horror Movies, in Action/Adventure movies... one death from a "credits" character is by no means beyond the pale. In Serenity we have stabbings, shootings, and so on... and only Wash dies. And actually, by then end, nobody else even seems to have been injured. Mal takes a stab wound to the gut (which should be crippling) and isn't even slowed.

Looking back, Whedon's genre shows have a level of violence that approaches Tom & Jerry levels. And for the most part, the violence really doesn't leave that big a trace. No post-concussion syndrome for example...

It would seem his character deaths actually are the reverse of the standard... The only reason Joss needs to kill characters to remind us that death can happen to main characters, is because death happens to his main characters far less frequently in his shows than it actually should. The character deaths aren't about making points about death - it's innoculation for the fantastical unrealistic infrequency of lasting injury relative to the volume of violence.

Comments

[knullabulla.livejournal.com]

You might want to change the title to this entry...

Character Death + "Spoilers for Serenity" = Huh? Who dies in the movie??


I've seen the movie already, but I'd be really pissed off at you right now if I hadn't.

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

Do you have a suggestion for the alternate title...

[knullabulla.livejournal.com]

I would just say that you're analysing the movie, and you can have the title behind the cut.

Maybe everybody on your f-list has already seen it, so you might be lucking out. :)

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

Have renamed it "Serenity Spoilers".

[likeadeuce.livejournal.com]

I have long thoughts on the character death thing (and just about everything else about this movie to be posted eventually) but yeah. . .it's a bit odd to here the "no one is safe" argument about the same movie in which Mal walks around with a sword through his abdomen :)

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

I have long thoughts on the character death thing

It's the funny thing of people saying how you have to keep people around for a movie franchise... which is perhaps true. But I also remember pretty much everyone but Ripley dying in Alien and there still being three sequels. He could have killed three or four more characters and it still would have left plenty of room for a sequel. You just have to introduce more characters - or elevate some of the extra characters up to lead...

[likeadeuce.livejournal.com]

I do think there's a fundamental difference between something like serenity that carries the ensemble over from a series, and Alien, where Ripley was really all that mattered (you know the kid's not going to die in Aliens, because she's a kid, but don't they even get rid of her in one of the sequels?)

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

Yeah.. which is the difference between TV shows and movies... and why a TV-tunred-Movie isn't quite going to hit the same notes for a viewer who doesn't come in with the TV show background.

Judged against other TV-Franchises-Turned Movie it is different that Whedon would kill someone because I guess Trek didn't... but again, that's the difference between Whedon and Roddenberry. Not TV vs. Film...

[likeadeuce.livejournal.com]

somebody pointed out Zoe's line that "a definition of a hero is someone who gets other people killed."

perhaps that's not so much a joke as a statement of Joss's philosophy.

[smithereen.livejournal.com]

and so on... and only Wash dies.

Book dies too. And that's actually why Wash shocked me so much. Because I did think Joss might kill one character since that's his way, but once that one death occured, I didn't expect another one.

Point taken about lasting injuries though. This is clearly true. I think that's fairly common in fiction though, not just a Joss thing. Rarely do I see injuries heal realisitically slowly on tv or in movies (espcially action movies). Usually injuries seem to heal just as fast as the plot needs them to.

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

I should note that I'd only seen one episode of the series. So that might put my next comment in context for you....

Book dies too.

He's the black, older, mystic mentor figure. That guy always dies first. Killing him doesn't even count.

[(Anonymous)]

and in a movie context, Wash is the wisecracking sidekick married to the female in power -- someone commented "he may as well have 'Goose' on his helmet"

[canadiangirl-86.livejournal.com]

I'd be the first one to say that towards the end of BtVS/AtS, Joss seemed to just get a kick out of killing main characters or doing it because it was the only way he could think of to further the plot. Take Tara's death, for example. Willow and Tara are happy for about a minute, Tara is shot dead, and apparently it was the only way to get Willow to go over to the dark side.

Character deaths can be useful and meaningful for the story, but then there's a point where you know the writer just can't figure out how to move the story along. Tara is one example of this.

Wash's death surprised me, I thought it was shocking and kept the movie fast-paced, gave it a sense of urgency, and even though I had read spoilers about who dies, I still was worried that other characters would suffer the same fate. So for me, Wash's death worked to scare me.

However, had I been a more faithful viewer of the TV series, I probably would be pretty pissed about what happened. To devote so much time to a character during the run of the show only to have him killed off for shock value (for the most part) during the feature film...that's gotta suck.

I can see both sides of the argument though. Because death is pointless, and Joss can tell that story quite well when he wants to. Though I think your points are interesting as well, that he only uses the reality of death when it's convenient to him. It's a valid argument.

[http://users.livejournal.com/peasant_/]

Interesting analysis. In Buffy I think Joss is using his character deaths in a more complex way than most people, as a way to resolve otherwise unresolvable situations related to the unusual life spans of his demons. But Wash's death came across as something else, something much more mundane.

Incidentally, I put the speedy recovery of the Serenity survivors down to the magical doctor skills of Simon who seems able to cure anything in five minutes with one injection providing the patient is able to balance on that very narrow couch in the sickbay.

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

In Buffy I think Joss is using his character deaths in a more complex way than most people, as a way to resolve otherwise unresolvable situations related to the unusual life spans of his demons.

I'm sort of confused by this, so perhaps you could elaborate a bit more on what you mean... I've always There are a number of vampires that get killed, and are contrasted by those who have lengthy lives... for example Lyle Gorch, who is canny enough to run away from a slayer. Or Angelus & Darla who can attribute longer lifespans to being discreet. It was a bit more problematic to me with the humans who just keep fighting and, with the exception of Wesley's gunshot wound in S5, don't have injuries that last for more than an episode...

I put the speedy recovery of the Serenity survivors down to the magical doctor skills of Simon

Heh. There are a few different approaches to science on TV. Whedon's, IMO, is mostly uninterested in the details and lumps all disciplines together as "science" while treating it as plot-dependent-alchemy. Which works for some people, but tends to work less for me because I'm a nitpicker by nature.