What's new

Firefly 12/06/02 (1 Viewer)

Patrick Sun

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 30, 1999
Messages
39,660
The torturer could have just been having fun with Wash and Malcom. He probably figured that if he broke one, the other would fall that much easier.

The torture scene was used to not only be played for dramatic laughs, but to show how resourceful Malcom was in using Wash's insecurities to help him resist the torture tactics and to not let the torturer "get their goat". Does that make it dramatically false? Can't say for sure, who knows how people 400-500 years in the future think about the use of torture.
 

Keith Mickunas

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 15, 1998
Messages
2,041
Good point Patrick, and the torture wasn't used for getting information, it was for the fun of that one guy. I too think Malcolm was using the discussion to keep from breaking under the strain.
 

Craig P

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jan 9, 2000
Messages
124
Based on the conversation between Wash and Zoe on the way out (and the events in the chamber subsequent to Wash's purchase), I thought Mal was only saving Wash, he didn't need the discussion to hold himself up.
 

Patrick Sun

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 30, 1999
Messages
39,660
Yeah, Malcom's tough as nails, it was Wash that needed propping up, and Malcom's "leadership" makes his crew become energized in the face of danger. Malcom understands how to elicit the necessary reaction from people. Malcom inspired Wash to become a braver man after that torture session.

Once you all see the "origin" of Malcom and Zoe (and the rest of the crew) in the pilot that may or may not see the light of day, you'll know why Malcom is pretty tough in these situations.
 

Todd Terwilliger

Screenwriter
Joined
Feb 18, 2001
Messages
1,745
I don't think Malcolm was going to break (he didn't break under the worse torture he was exposed to later) but I think he felt like the conversation would keep Wash from breaking. Wash admits as much after his rescue.
 

Andrew Beacom

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jan 11, 2001
Messages
792
Bugger! Am I right in guessing that there was a new Firefly last Friday? I checked my cable listing and it said it was a repeat so I didn't tape it.
I should have guessed that since John Doe was new Firefly would be. I'm all bummed out now.
[Edit] On reflection I even checked www.tvguide.com before I left work.
 

Rex Bachmann

Screenwriter
Joined
Nov 10, 2001
Messages
1,972
Real Name
Rex Bachmann
Patrick Sun wrote:
Judging from the rest of the character behavior and attitudes I've seen in the episodes of this show, I'd say they'll share "our"---or, more accurately put, the Hollywood writers'---viewpoints on the matter, just as they share "our" viewpoints on almost everything else, which is one of my gripes about such shows (including the Star Trek programs): "The future (and its people) will be just like the present (and us), except for a few technological details."
The safe, comfortable, and familiar re-served to the viewing public. A failure of "imagining".
 

Phil Florian

Screenwriter
Joined
Mar 10, 2001
Messages
1,188
Rex, if anyone still reads/sees Shakespeare any more, the biggest point that folks should get out of it is that even though it was written 400 years ago, the ways people acted towards each other in love, war, friendship, etc. aren't very different from the way we do now (and thus the "universal" appeal of the Bard's works). Times change, people pretty much do not. And anyway, your statement pretty much is Joss Whedon's working philosophy...use genre shows like horror and sci-fi to exame the current human condition. He has said this on numerous occasions. Either way, I think if anything history has shown is how little things have really changed in terms of human interactions, motivations, belief, etc. Sure, maybe they kill with rayguns in the future, but the point is humans still kill each other for the same reasons as they do now (and as they did 400 years ago).
"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so". - (Hamlet, Act II, Scene II)
"Can one desire too much of a good thing?". - (As You Like It Act IV, Scene I). ((regarding Firefly, yes! :) ))
"We have heard the chimes at midnight". - (General Chang, Star Trek Six...wait, no, Henry IV Part 2, Act III, Scene II)
Phil
 

Aaron Thomas

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Aug 14, 2001
Messages
67
one of my gripes about such shows ... "The future (and its people) will be just like the present (and us), except for a few technological details."
It's easy to make the argument that the past (and its people) was just like the present (and us), except for a few technological details. Especially since this case concerns human beings rather than another species.
Aaron Thomas
If I can figure out why cotton supplants other fibers, I've got everything figured out but the G.I.Joe lazer-firing guns. :D
 

BrianW

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 30, 1999
Messages
2,563
Real Name
Brian
Rex, I understand what you’re saying, and it certainly has relevance when information is being obtained, but I have to side with the others on this one. Niska didn’t want his subjects to betray any information – he just wanted to exact revenge in a manner that delighted him. “Breaking” them wasn’t (at least initially) the point. The context even provided a plausible reason for his methods: he wanted to “know” the “real” men he was torturing. No doubt, he planned eventually to break them, and then to kill them. But watching them together, watching them construct and deploy their coping mechanisms, must have delighted Niska to no end. Would he kill Malcolm first and watch Wash collapse without his rock of salvation? Or would he kill Wash first just to see how dependent Malcolm was on keeping Wash afloat? Oh, what a delightful dilemma!

What would be the point of breaking them as soon as possible? Why simply swat a fly when you can pull its wings off and watch it flutter about and see how long it takes for it to discover it can’t fly? The longer it takes, the better.

I believe that’s just the kind of guy Niska was.
 

Keith Mickunas

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 15, 1998
Messages
2,041
Very well put Brian, this is exactly how I feel too. Niska is insane, its ridiculous to try to make assumptions about his thoughts and goals, unless you too are insane, and in which case I wouldn't trust your analysis.
 

Jason Seaver

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 30, 1997
Messages
9,303
I don't know about "insane"; he is ruthless and vindictive, and maybe a sociopath. He still does things for definite goal-oriented reasons, though.
 

Ken_McAlinden

Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2001
Messages
6,241
Location
Livonia, MI USA
Real Name
Kenneth McAlinden
Yeah, I would say he was a sadistic sociopath. If any arbitrary action could be justified by just saying "he's crazy", that would be a pretty lame character. Although I have seen films and shows like that before. :)
Regards,
 

Rex Bachmann

Screenwriter
Joined
Nov 10, 2001
Messages
1,972
Real Name
Rex Bachmann
Phil Florian wrote:
On the part of the writers, it sure is.
And, by the way, I did and do find the scene humorous (and, ultimately, silly), as well as false. Maybe if I saw it again, I would see something in the actor's reactions and/or pick up some snippet of dialog that I missed the first time that would convince me that the character, as a professional criminal and torturer, would follow this particular protocol and allow these behaviors on the part of his victims (which is the part that I find incredible; not the victims' behavior per se, as it seems you're claiming).
So far, I remain unconvinced.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top