|
Post by William the Bloody on Jul 29, 2004 19:38:15 GMT -5
Uh huh, sounds just like the wicked husband in Gaslight, "I don't know what you're talking about. You misplace things. Go lay down and rest." REally? *buffs his nails seemingly disinterestedly* I have no idea what you are talking about , however. You do look a little lost...or perhaps tired... perhaps you should lie down? Vlad
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on Jul 29, 2004 19:43:25 GMT -5
These script pages, for the most part, were also filmed and are part of the deleted scenes from the pilot on Disc Four of the DVD set, for those interested. And why, when I read that, did I think, General Richard Wilkins?
|
|
|
Post by Nickim on Jul 29, 2004 19:47:13 GMT -5
REally? *buffs his nails seemingly disinterestedly* I have no idea what you are talking about , however. You do look a little lost...or perhaps tired... perhaps you should lie down? Vlad Yes dear. You're always right about these things. **wrings hands nervously** I'm sorry I'm such a burden to you. I really do have to do. Night all.
|
|
|
Post by William the Bloody on Jul 29, 2004 19:49:32 GMT -5
Yes dear. You're always right about these things. **wrings hands nervously** I'm sorry I'm such a burden to you. I really do have to do. Night all. Night
|
|
Lola heading to bed
Guest
|
Post by Lola heading to bed on Jul 29, 2004 20:48:36 GMT -5
As Rachael said "Who the hell IS Book?" To me, during the first run of this show, that very question was one of the largest I held. And if you all would like, I'll let you in on a little secret part of my theory. I don't know if this ... should be permissible, or if it is a "spoiler" because I am completely unspoiled for the movie. If you don't want to know what I discovered while the show was still airing then don't read beyond the next paragragh. On the official Firefly website run by FOX, they had script pages and stuff available to look at... Now, I wondered at the time how they chose which script pages to post and why...and then I stumbled onto something. In the typed up script for the pilot "Serenity", the scene where Simon is using the encyclopedia to review the battle on Hera ...the entry states: "The Independant Faction, with sizteen brigades and twenty air-tank squads, held the valley against Alliance forces for almost two months, until superior numbers and a briliant deep flank strategy by General Richard Wil --" Now, I have a theory/had a theory that Book is this General , formerly of the Alliance. It makes so much sense. I believe that like Mal, he was horrified at the carnage of war...of perhaps how "his" side handled things... and that he left the military and joined the brotherhood that he did. It would explain his knowledge, his training, his fine mind... jsut everything... Now, I have wavered on whether it is by circumstance or not that he is aboard Serenity. I have hatched several different conspiracy theories (many of them also utilizing Inara as some sort of Alliance spy or a neo Browncoat spy) on why Book and Inara are aboard that ship. But, considering the cooincidence Zoe's line actually being "Were not in there. The book, I mean." It's jsut so damn Joss-ian! Vlad Fascinating super cool idea! It would be very Joss! I hadn't seen the stuff you mention on the site, but I gotta admit I have been pondering the idea that Book might turn out to be some high up person in the Alliance - and maybe he turned to the religeous life after the war, etc. etc. I wonder if the movie will address this question of Book? I haven't really read much about the movie yet. Not necessarily trying hard to avoid spoilers, but sort of. Lola
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on Jul 29, 2004 21:29:38 GMT -5
Fascinating super cool idea! It would be very Joss! I hadn't seen the stuff you mention on the site, but I gotta admit I have been pondering the idea that Book might turn out to be some high up person in the Alliance - and maybe he turned to the religeous life after the war, etc. etc. I wonder if the movie will address this question of Book? I haven't really read much about the movie yet. Not necessarily trying hard to avoid spoilers, but sort of. Lola And that would fit in well with the weirdness in Book's head in "Objects in Space": "I don't give half a hump if you're innocent or not. So where does that put you?"
|
|
|
Post by Linda on Jul 29, 2004 23:01:04 GMT -5
Been thinking--usually a bad thing--about the line in the theme song "you can't take the sky from me." To me the "sky" seems to represent our true selves. Terrible things can be done to us, but we can still remain the same person inside. Not everyone who was abused as a child becomes a criminal later. Ties in with River and the cattle "seeing the sky" and "remembering what they are". The cattle when freed remember how to behave as cattle. River remembers what her life was before the Alliance got ahold of her. She says she "remembers everything", but she has to suppress the good in order to suppress the bad. The Reavers have "lost the sky", so to speak. They've lost touch with their humanity, their true freedom. Serial rapists and killers never get enough--their enslaved by their twisted desires. Raping and killing don't set someone free. Just makes them a prisoner of their own cruelty. This has probably already been stated and more clearly, but it just kinda hit me this morning. Ooh, I like this thought. Mal is all about the sky and he completely understands what River was saying. Their seeing the sky the same way kinda fits in with the way the both of them seem so at home in space. Him in Serenity and her outside Serenity in a spacesuit. Temporarily free of their bad experiences. And maybe faced with only themselves and nearly endless possibilities.
|
|
|
Post by Linda on Jul 29, 2004 23:03:01 GMT -5
As Rachael said "Who the hell IS Book?" To me, during the first run of this show, that very question was one of the largest I held. And if you all would like, I'll let you in on a little secret part of my theory. I don't know if this ... should be permissible, or if it is a "spoiler" because I am completely unspoiled for the movie. If you don't want to know what I discovered while the show was still airing then don't read beyond the next paragragh. On the official Firefly website run by FOX, they had script pages and stuff available to look at... Now, I wondered at the time how they chose which script pages to post and why...and then I stumbled onto something. In the typed up script for the pilot "Serenity", the scene where Simon is using the encyclopedia to review the battle on Hera ...the entry states: "The Independant Faction, with sizteen brigades and twenty air-tank squads, held the valley against Alliance forces for almost two months, until superior numbers and a briliant deep flank strategy by General Richard Wil --" Now, I have a theory/had a theory that Book is this General , formerly of the Alliance. It makes so much sense. I believe that like Mal, he was horrified at the carnage of war...of perhaps how "his" side handled things... and that he left the military and joined the brotherhood that he did. It would explain his knowledge, his training, his fine mind... jsut everything... Now, I have wavered on whether it is by circumstance or not that he is aboard Serenity. I have hatched several different conspiracy theories (many of them also utilizing Inara as some sort of Alliance spy or a neo Browncoat spy) on why Book and Inara are aboard that ship. But, considering the cooincidence Zoe's line actually being "Were not in there. The book, I mean." It's jsut so damn Joss-ian! Vlad Hmm… Thanks Mr. Bloody, for your vast Jossian conspiracy theory. If I may put my $.02 in: I luuurve speculation. The fact that I personally was wrong just about every time I speculated about the direction of a Joss show makes it more fun, ‘cause even if I ever *did* guess correctly, it would still surprise me.
|
|
|
Post by Linda on Jul 29, 2004 23:12:49 GMT -5
Wow, Rachael and Linda and Nicki! I've really been appreciating all the cool and interesting ideas about Simon and Kaylee and snobbishness and finding a home among the crew of Serenity. IMHO, I think there are lots of obvious and not so obvious points being made about class differences and what they mean in this ep. We got a bunch in the last episode too, but where Shindig showed us the Serenity gang trying to fit into a "higher" class world, Safe shows us upper crust Simon being forced into the world of the Serenity crew. (Because I figure Kaylee and Jayne for sure, and probably Mal and Zoe and Wash to a lesser degree, originally came from isolated, hard-scrabble, outer planets like this one.) Here's just a few examples I noticed: * Mr. Tam tells young Simon "You think I'd let you work with something that's second rate? You're worth it." * Guy on the planet sees Serenity and says "fancy vessel such as that", reminding us again (like with The Train Job) that there are levels below that occupied by our gang, who at least have their own "business" (illegal tho' it may be) and a measure of freedom. * Another bit of common ground between Book and Inara is that, by virtue of their chosen professions, they are more able to "float" between the classes. * Mal and Jayne and Zoe seem very familiar with handling the cattle. Learned from previous jobs, or do they have farming/ranching backgrounds? * As was mentioned before, we have the very telling scene with Kaylee and Simon in the store. But I love the clever way it's done. Simon never knows, for example, that Kaylee was thinking of giving him the plate ("It's rich, you know?"). So he has no idea that he began his insult of her with his offhand comment of "They're asking money for this crap?". To then go on and call her precious ship "luh-suh" was the final straw. * Eetah with Rachael on loving Kaylee's reaction. She just completely calls him on his behavior. He tries to backpedal, "I didn't mean . . " "Yeah. You did." Just said right straight out. Because he did mean it. And it never even crossed his mind how condescending that comment was. * Comparing the dance River goes to with the one we saw in Shindig is a nice little comment on class made just through visuals. * Love the little touches. Like how the hill folk tell Simon to "stand up straight" when they bring him into the village. Gotta look the part of a doctor, you know. * Then of course, there is the whole example of the hill village. We can see that Simon is amazed that people actually live like this. Just the way he says "Has there been a . . . is there a sickness here?" So carefully choosing his words because he assumes there is some unusual, horrible event going on. And then the matter of fact response of Doralee: "Not especial. Just people get sick or injured. Mostly people heal on their own, but sometimes... " To his credit, Simon the doctor does just knuckle down and start helping people. * To Joss's credit, he doesn't make the villagers some misty-eyed noble, simple folk whose poverty and isolation has made them better people. They are just who they are. Most of them trying their best, but also: kidnappers, superstitious, ignorant (not the smartest thing to say to them, true, but he is right), suspicious of the very strangers they stole to help them. Lola Can I just say I love the line: "Morbid and creepifying I got no problem with. Long as she does it quiet like." Also, has anyone else noticed that Jayne likes to watch folks a lot? I mean part of it is 'cuz it amuses him, but it seems like he's also somehow . . . trying to figure out how he should be acting. Definitely takes a lot of cues from Mal. He often seems to be trying to act like he thinks Mal would or the way Mal would like. Not that he doesn't also challenge Mal a lot, but I think Jayne sees Mal as the kind of grown up criminal he'd like to be some day. You know what I mean? Kewl! Thanks for pointing out all of the embedded world-building going on. And yes, "Morbid and creepifying" is one of my favorite lines of the series. And Eetah with Vlad's comments on your Jayne observation. And Eetah with Vlad on the Fox necks. (Rip their heads off and drink from their brain-stems, is what I say! Or is that too good for them, considering they've proven they don't really need their heads?) Linda, still bitter
|
|
|
Post by Linda on Jul 29, 2004 23:14:09 GMT -5
Also: There was one bit of Chinese that was not easily inferred from the context: River says a longish phrase at Mal when he tells Simon to keep her quiet. From the following website: fireflychinese.home.att.net/ (Organized by episode, conveniently searchable) Liou koe shway duh biao-tze huh hoe-tze duh bun ur-tze. Stupid son of a drooling harlot and a monkey. River, ranted at Mal Linda, from work (again dammit!)
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on Jul 30, 2004 6:19:26 GMT -5
Also: There was one bit of Chinese that was not easily inferred from the context: River says a longish phrase at Mal when he tells Simon to keep her quiet. From the following website: fireflychinese.home.att.net/ (Organized by episode, conveniently searchable) Liou koe shway duh biao-tze huh hoe-tze duh bun ur-tze. Stupid son of a drooling harlot and a monkey. River, ranted at Mal Linda, from work (again dammit!) I have a few people I'd like to use that on! Thanks, Linda!
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Aug 3, 2004 20:38:40 GMT -5
Sara! Much applause on your analysis of "Safe"! I hadn't really thought about the placement of the flashbacks and how they were paralleling and commenting on the current story. I mean, I saw how we could compare their two "families" - by blood and now by circumstance, but hadn't noticed the importance of their specific placement as scenes. In particular, I loved: The other two flashbacks were more obvious in their commentary to me, but this one really went over my head on all it's meanings. Thank you so much for helping me to see another perspective! Also, you've hit the Joss nail on the head with: This is so much a core part of what I love about his work. Thanks again for your insight, Sara! Lola
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on Aug 4, 2004 9:13:10 GMT -5
Really excellent work, Sara. Your writing is clear, concise, and you bring up many excellent points.
You said:
I actually am a big fan of this episode, but the reason I have trouble commenting on it is because it rather is enough in itself. It's one of the more compact episodes of Firefly; I feel as if there is not a whole lot left hanging at the end. It seems as if "Safe" represents the end of the beginning of Firefly, the "establishment" period...River and Simon are more integrated, Jayne's backed off and is trying another strategy to rid Serenity of them, Book calls Serenity "home." Now, the middle portion, in which everything gets shaken up, can commence.
|
|
|
Post by Linda on Aug 30, 2004 5:11:35 GMT -5
Hi Sara! Excellent review, as always! Eetah to everything! I, too, found this episode much more interesting this time around. I really do get the feeling you are right about the possible pivotal role this episode would have played in some future story arc. And thanks for pointing out how River takes care of Simon in her own way. Their bond is really beautiful to see. Can we say www.soulfulspike.com/membersavatars/smileys/badrazz.gif[/img] to Fox too often? I didn't think so. Linda, next up: Our Mrs. Reynolds ... Yay!
|
|
|
Post by Pixi on Jul 2, 2005 19:34:49 GMT -5
Been thinking--usually a bad thing--about the line in the theme song "you can't take the sky from me." To me the "sky" seems to represent our true selves. Terrible things can be done to us, but we can still remain the same person inside. Not everyone who was abused as a child becomes a criminal later.Ties in with River and the cattle "seeing the sky" and "remembering what they are". The cattle when freed remember how to behave as cattle. River remembers what her life was before the Alliance got ahold of her. She says she "remembers everything", but she has to suppress the good in order to suppress the bad. The Reavers have "lost the sky", so to speak. They've lost touch with their humanity, their true freedom. Serial rapists and killers never get enough--their enslaved by their twisted desires. Raping and killing don't set someone free. Just makes them a prisoner of their own cruelty. This has probably already been stated and more clearly, but it just kinda hit me this morning. I love this thought. (Oh and eetah on everything Linda, Lola and Rachael have also posted). It seems like - especially today where we get twisted freaky killers of every kind on shows like CSI (did anyone else see the guy in the diaper show. I mean seriously - the guy in the diaper? Weird.) that we always want to make excuses. And yes - having a horrible childhood is horrible and it can seriously mess you up. Why is it though that some have the same horrible childhood the serial killer has and survive it and rise above it and make something of their lives? I don't know the answer to this. I don't know if genetics or environment or choices play stronger roles. I don't know. But somehow we choose and we become our true selves as you put it. I can't wait to see more of River's story. So intriguing - the hints they drop. Another thing this episode brought home to me is that even though it seemed that the Tams had everything - to a beggar in the streets their lives seem perfect. In the end - they had nothing but a few shallow beliefs. And Simon and River were actually not the children of wealth but children of poverty. They were brought up in a poverty of spirit if all they were taught was that keeping your place in society is more important than your family. Eeep - I got all soapboxy but as someone who has struggled with the money thing (having had it and lost it and being jealous for awhile of other's things till I realized - heck- just stupid things) I've come to realize that even though I'm basically among the living paycheck to paycheck crowd - in some ways - I'm very rich. And though Simon and River seemed rich and priveleged - they really weren't.
|
|