River is the most troublesome element of Serenity to me, as although the film wasn't supposed to be about her, it felt like it most of the time. They even went back and reshot things to emphasis it's Mal we're supposed to be following, but it didn't really work. I still think thematically it had many layers which worked for me personally (I think it's a great, great movie), but it did tend to get distracted at times. I still maintain I'm glad the movie was called Serenity, as it wasn't Firefly. Might be the same characters, might be the same universe, but it's not the TV show I loved.

Personally, Wash's death worked for me. I had a mental list of people I thought might die (you know, it's a Joss thing), but I didn't think it'd be Wash in a million years. There's one of two things that can happen in that situation with an audience: they are either thrown out of the story by denial/anger/whatever, or they are drawn in. I was on the edge of my seat first viewing, and only half because I really needed to pee.

Hmm. If it was to be about Mal, yes, they did a bad job in my eyes. Because it's about River, her mystery, and how that affects people, almost foremost of whom is Mal.

Well, the official line (meaning, Joss' from the commentary, I think) was that it is Mal's story as told by River. I personally know one of many things which came back from the early test screenings was people thinking it was River's film, but being disappointed by her journey. Which is why the reshoots (well, additional scenes) went in to make people focus on Mal a bit more.

Personally -- and, yeah, I'm not an expert -- I would have stripped River's part back a bit and put more Inara in. Inara could act as a window to Mal, but also have her own part.

Well, it was one of the few times I didn't hate Inara, but I'd have been resentful of her gaining screen time at the expense of anyone who actually got any.

the official line (meaning, Joss' from the commentary, I think) was that it is Mal's story as told by River

Huh. Sounds like some backpeddaling to me. As in they started to make Mal's story, but it turned out to be River's so they had to adjust their "official line."

To me, it is River's story. Period.

Because it's about River, her mystery, and how that affects people, almost foremost of whom is Mal.

So very much this.

I'm not sure if River needed to be stripped back more, but I think they could have done away with Mr. Universe and expanded Book's part more. Imagine if instead of having Book already be off the ship, at the beginning they dropped him at his mission and, somehow, found some kind of abandoned (possibly Alliance) signal complex, either in space or on the missionary world, which Book "mysteriously" understands the workings of. They could even have included the first visit that happened in the movie, and thus given Book a bit more time/backstory, plus he could also be a window into Mal. His death could have had more meaning (which did ping me as gratuitous/cliched), and we could have done without the plot device that was Mr. U's only reason for being.

I had no issue with Wash's death, though it did make me sad. It totally made it "all bets are off" for me on who was going to make it. Plus, once I learned about the meta reasons for who died, I couldn't unknow them.

There were meta reasons?

I think they could have done away with Mr. Universe

I think they needed Mr. Universe to be Mr. Exposition, plus at the end they needed a way to not stop the signal to all the worlds....

There were meta reasons?

Ron Glass and Alan Tudyk would only agree to do one movie (which is why they were the last to be signed).

I don't think it's back peddling, so much as the River story wasn't the intention, as far as I understand. I did a quick Google on that term and I wasn't wrong: [link]

PS: Ron is signed for 3 movies. Until later this year when the contracts expire.