If I may, the way I see it Benedict hires Toulour to steal the Diamonds to make sure the Ocean team can’t.
Benedict insist and makes it a condition that they steal the Diamonds even if the Team tell him it’s impossible. If my memory is good it comes back twice in the movie.
So if Danny does not get the Diamonds the deal is off and the brother dealer ship is bankrup ;).
He then hires Toulour who’s a better technical thief so they both have a kind of revenge. In some way it’s the 2 first movie combine. 11 is about the money, 12 about an object and pride and 13 all of this.
Here is my current problem with the 'cast – inconsistency.
I hear the crew rag on Malcolm Reynolds for how he acts on his ship, but give a free pass to Picard, Data, and pretty much the entire Klingon Culture (actually the crew seems to regularly sing the praises of Picard, Data, and Klingons on a regular basis (or at least when discussing Trek)).
In First Contact…Picard calls Worf a coward for questioning his orders and essentially tells his crew to do what he says because he is the Captain and throws a temper tantrum.
In Redemption part II, Data tells his first officer to do what he says because he is the Captain and threatens to relieve him from duty. Another way to look at Data’s first command is through the same lense that the podcast looked at Captain Jelilco last week. Data’s command style was much less like Picard and more like Jellico’s. Data is redeemed because he turns out to be right…would Jellico have been eventually redeemed?
The entire Klingon command structure is based on do it my way or else. The only difference is that Klingons are much more willing to chose the ‘or else’ option.
Having said all that, I understand everyone is entitled to their opinion…I just find it frustrating when folks express an opinion on one topic that is not consistent with an opinion expressed on similar topics.
I think you make an interesting argument, but want to understand more in regards to comparing an contrasting. You hint but you are not exploring. This is perhaps best discussed in a thread by itself. I look forward to having this conversation as an old ST:TNG fan and obvious Firefly supporter.
I can totally appreciate that. I feel the same way about movies – sometimes the critically acclaimed ones don’t move me, and vise versa. There are some movies I know are truly bad films (ie poorly made) but I love anyway because they are meaningful to me for some reason.
We watched Moon pretty soon after we finished watching the finale to BBC’s Ashes to Ashes series, which has a dramatic, amazing, heart-rending end. I think when I realized the implications Moon was exploring, I kind of shut myself off from it because I wasn’t ready to experience that level of emotion so soon after A2A. The movie was definitely not uplifting, but I liked the thoughtfulness of the situation and loved the 2001-style art, so I’m glad I watched it.
I wouldn’t say we were ragging on Mal. The three of us have different perspectives on Mal’s style, and we tend to push and pull each other’s views from week to week as we talk it over.
One thing that occurs to me about the Trek analogy (and we sing the praises of just about everyone in Trek, hero or villain, because Trek rules) is that Picard is a military captain in command of a ship and crew who have all gone through military training, voluntarily joined up, and worked their way through the chain of command to get to where they are. They’ve been trained to follow orders. While Mal and Zoe are ex-military, and Mal holds the title captain as head of the ship, it’s a different situation dealing with civilian/ragtag bunch who make up your crew. Some (Zoe) are more subject to direct orders from Mal than others (Book). Therefore when Mal basically says “help me, leave, or die,” it depends on the perspective of the listener whether that’s a sensible order or a maddening ultimatum.
Back to Trek – Klingons can’t be judged by the same standards as humans in matters of leadership style. It’s a warrior culture that obviously has so many drawbacks that few people (not me) would want to serve among most of them. There are exceptions, but most seem to be thuggish, corrupt, or lunkheads. That said, Klingons can also be really awesome in their displays of bravery, loyalty, and even humor. If we accept their violent culture and focus on the cool stuff, it’s not because we approve of all their ways; it’s because we set aside their faults so we can appreciate their better qualities, which makes Trek more fun for us.
I think it’s worth saying that our opinions are often fluid (which I think is a good thing). We try not to create an atmosphere of strict legal interpretation of what’s what, but rather a conversational one that continually raises questions and allows everyone (listeners too) to explore different ideas. Thanks for your comments; I hope I’ve helped to shape answers to some of the questions you raised.
Is Starfleet really military? They do behave like it towards the end of DS9, but they did not even have a real warship until the Borg invaded. Before that, their ships at best were luxury liners with guns. There are plenty of non-starfleet personnels on the Enterprise. If any of those people disobeyed Picard’s orders or even attempt to disrupt Picard’s orders, would they go unpunished?
I really don’t agree with the military v.s. none military argument. At least not when it comes to Trek comparisons.
I’m outraged. How dare you throw out an idea like Teen Worf, when you know darn well that doesn’t exist. I think you are now obligated to bring this movie to theaters. That is all.
The military thing. I understand the argument – I just do not think it works. Aboard a ship, the Captain is in charge and folks need to do as he says or get off his boat…military or civilian – does not matter.
The Klingon Culture thing. Is the Firefly 'verse any less of a different culture than the Klingon culture? Sure Joss Whedon used elements from our culture to inform the Firefly 'verse, but the creators of Star Trek did the same thing with Klingon culture. If we cut Klingon’s slack for bing culturally different, shouldn’t every person in the Firefly 'verse be cut some slack for being culturally different.
Finally on a different note. People seem to universally like Jayne. In the episode The Train Job he explains the chain of command to Wash. Jayne says (and I am paraphrasing) that the chain of command is the chain he is going to beat you with if you do not do what he says. So based on the arguments I hear about Malcolm being a bully, why isn’t Jayne a bully? To continue, if Jayne is a bully, why is it okay for him to be a bully and it is not okay for Malcolm to be a bully?
Again…what I am back to is a lack of consistency. I understand that opinions are fluid…but, to me, fluid opinions do not explain a lack of consistency.
I have not rewatched First Contanct lately, but I’ll try exploring. As the Borg continue to take over the Enterprise, Picard takes on the attitude that the ship needs to be defended at all costs. When it becomes apparent that defending the ship at all costs and Worf questions him…Picard calls him a coward. The message to the crew…do what I say and the rest of you be damned. On one level we can understand Picard; he had been assimilated by the Borg and has a connection to the Borg that horrifies him. On the other had he uses his knowledge of Worf in an attempt to humilate him so that Worf and the other crewmembers will do what he says.
Now let us turn to the debated scene from the movie Serenity. Malcolm Reynolds tells everyone else to either help, get out the way, or be shot and to add emphasis he shoots an Alliance soldier. On one level we should understand Mal. He sees the Alliance as something akin to evil. In his eyes, the Alliance cares not one bit for anybody and is willing to do anything to achieve its end of stability and safety (thereby leaving a chosen few in charge). Mal has spent time with River…so he knows they are willing to experiment on people. He has seen his friends slaughtered just to cover up Miranda and get River. He has seen the casual disregard the Alliance shows everyone on the Outer planets. On the other hand he uses the threat of physical force or abandonment to get his crew to do what wants.
Although the details are different, I believe the substance of these two examples are the same. Both men do something that can be see as despicable to get the people around them to face the thing that haunts them. However, when listening to the 'cast I hear folks forgive Picard his ‘slips’ and say that what Mal does is ‘unforgiveable.’
People like Jayne because he is funny. He is also a bully, but that is irrelevant because no one takes him seriously. If there is one thing the Serenity crew would all agree on is that Jayne in charge would be a disaster. Mal keeps him inline so you can enjoy his antics and not have to do more than watch him out of the corner of your eye.
It seems to me that Simon takes him seriously…he drugged Jayne twice afterall.
Even if Jayne is liked because he is funny why doesn’t his status as a bully taint him. On the 'cast Jayne’s praises are sung yet fault is found with Mal. The reason given for finding fault with Mal is that he is bully. Again this is a consistency issue…if you find fault with one for the ‘bully’ like qualities, shouldn’t you also find fault with the other for the same qualities.
If I remember the 'cast correctly Sean called Mal’s action’s in the Serenity movie ‘unforgiveable.’ At the same time however, he seems able to forgive Jayne for threatening to beat Wash with a chain. I find that inconsistency frustrating.
Jayne doesn’t get the bully tag, I think, cuz he doesn’t call shots. He’s obviously a bully. Whereas the Mal-as-bully theory – which I don’t agree with – is more of an active argument. And I don’t think any Jayne fans would argue that he’s not a dick.
Wash’s “I am a leaf blowing in the Wind” sounds like a Zen koan.
When taken in the context that he is one of the last of the Serenity crew proper to die in the show, the koan couples nicely with the Chinese expression for a military defeat, “luo hua liu shui” which gives the analogy of soldiers dying off in numbers like flowers drifting down a stream
…which brings to mind another Chinese chess expression, “man jiang hong” which describes the situation when the red chess pieces manage to amass along the river and cross into the green (the opponent’s) territory.
“Man jiang hong” itself is a famous poem by the Song dynasty general and patriot Yue Fei (he’s like the Chinese William Wallace) which describes how a soldier’s duties are never over, even when one is nearing the end of his life.
you are looking the first part alone. the second part “watch how I soar” shows in Wash’s mind he is traveling upward, thus has a more positive meaning. However, in most of the Chinese parallels you’ve drawn has the meaning of drifting downward, and all those phrases have negative connotation to them.
though it is interesting that often when Watch says that phrase, he is flying downward towards the ground.
Let us carry the ‘chain’ scene out to its logical conclusion had Simon not drugged him. Jayne would have beaten or shot anybody who got in his way. Wash probably would have been last, but do you think Jayne would have any issue with doing damage to Kaylee, Book, Simon, or River to get Wash to do what he wants? He gets what he wants…he is then in ‘charge.’ He doesn’t get what he wants, he just a bully who was stopped. Personally the Jayne character amuses me, so I have no probably with this as part of the show, but characters should be judged by similar (if not the same) standards.
It seems on the podcast however that Jayne and Mal are judged by different standards. Sean says he does not like Mal because he is a bully. Numerous folks have argued that he is not, but Sean argues (and Chuck agrees, while Audra goes along) that he shows bully like qualities that forever taints Mal’s character, so he does not like Mal. Jayne shows more bully like qualities, fewer good qualities like loyalty and a sense of honor, yet those qualities do not taint Jayne in Sean’s (or Chuck’s or Audra’s) eyes. I will say again that I find that lack of consistency frustrating.
Now in many ways that frustration is my problem (that in some ways I am now visiting on all of you), but in others I think people should try to be consistent in the way they judge people (be they fictional or non-fictional).
Audra is totally correct on this point. Star Trek drills in again and again the entire culture of Starfleet is one of military command. In Firefly, there is a rag-tag element of disobedience. Mal constantly intimidates and reminds and earns the obedience of his crew…not because they are disciplined, trained, orderly cogs of a military wheel (they aren’t) but because he intimidates, reminds and earns that obedience. In Starfleet, they obey orders. Period. We see that all the time when Picard et al bend over for various douchebag Admirals when they show up. We also see that in BSG, when Adama bends over for Admiral Crazy Chick when she shows up (before he sends Starbuck to put two slugs in her frakcing head).
Anyway
I still think if we are going to be truly obsessive compulsive about quality art on this forumn, the “heist” theme is icing on a crappy Carvel cake if we aren’t talking about “Sexy Beast” and not George Clooney fluff films. but that’s just me.
