I have the strong impression that Whedon likes to come close to moral dilemmas and then bunt. See, once again, Spike. I hear he has a soul now.
I really liked the construction of the Firefly universe, because it was fraught with interesting moral/character choices. Mal and Zoe both came out of the war changed by it, but Zoe wasn't embittered by it. Inara was aligned with the Federation. Book was too, but had rejected it. All from different angles. I didn't think there was a lot of bunting there.
Also, Wash only cares about the Alliance so much as they're the ones that are going to arrest him if they get caught. Jayne doesn't give a crap about them either way and would likely act the same no matter who was in charge. Kaylee doesn't seem to care for the Alliance, but I think a lot of that is simply growing up on a border world than anything else. She doesn't have anything resembling a grudge like Mal and Zoe do and in "Serenity" the episode she's unconcerned about the Alliance ship they almost got nailed by.
Joss has said, on many occaisions, that the Alliance is not an evil empire and Mal's opinion of them is incredibly biased. Unfortunately, we never saw that in Firefly itself, other than a few brief glimpses here and there. If the series had gone on further, hopefully we would have seen that rather than the fairly one-dimensional Alliance we saw.
I think the problem is that the two point-of-view characters (Mal and River) have exceedingly good personal experience reasons to view the Alliance as a monolithic evil. If the story were told from Wash's or Inara's perspective the government probably would have looked less Darth Vader-ish.
I didn't think there was a lot of bunting there.
Like I said, I can't speak to Firefly because I found it unwatchable. So maybe I don't understand what you're describing... but having characters with different histories is not, by itself, dealing with moral complexity. It's having characters with different histories.
A dilemma they used on Buffy repeatedly was, "Should I sacrifice one person I love to save thousands of others?" Once the answer was yes, and after that it was always no. And that's fine, but there's always an asspull that keeps the thousands of deaths from happening. That's what I mean by bunting. If you're going to present something as a dilemma, you can't deus ex machina the characters from the consequences of the choice they make.
Joss has said, on many occaisions, that the Alliance is not an evil empire and Mal's opinion of them is incredibly biased. Unfortunately, we never saw that in Firefly itself,
And he couldn't find a way to squeeze a hint of that into, what, 15 hours of television and a feature film? I can only discuss his writing, not what he intended to write someday.
but there's always an asspull that keeps the thousands of deaths from happening.
Oh! Having It Both Ways Syndrome! (Have I mentioned how much I hate Damn Yankees for that?)
One could (and I'm not sure if I agree with it) the argument, in the S5 case, that it was, at least, only half a cop-out, given that there was a significant sacrifice made. But, yeah, I much prefer the characters having to lie in the beds they have made. I do think there was some of that, though most of the examples I can think of are Wesley-centric
And he couldn't find a way to squeeze a hint of that into, what, 15 hours of television and a feature film?
I got the hint. I just wanted more.
I'm wondering if bunting is necessitated by series television-- you can only make so many changes to the premise. Is there a show (with more than two seasons) that really lived up to the moral dilemmas presented?
On network TV, probably not too many.
On cable, there's Farscape, The Shield, Sopranos.
I much prefer the characters having to lie in the beds they have made. I do think there was some of that, though most of the examples I can think of are Wesley-centric
Agreed. That scene in S4 when Willow & Wesley compare notes sums up so much about the differences between the shows. And why I preferred Angel.
