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?

---

t trots out Farscape

But, yeah, not many.

---

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.

---

Is there a show (with more than two seasons) that really lived up to the moral dilemmas presented?

I don't think it's all that unusual to present dilemmas and show the consequences. Particularly with cop shows. They're not equivalent, really, because few of them are decisions that could lead to humanity being wiped out by demons. The thing is, if you don't want to deal with the consequences, you don't have to present those dilemmas. But if you want to do the aforementioned meloramatic/operatic scenes where people argue about what to do, you have to pay that off.

---

I'm trying to come up with moments when the Scoobies said "Damn the world" and it worked out anyway and I'm drawing a blank. Buffy said it in Season 5 in regards to Dawn, but she still had to sacrifice herself in order to save her.

The only other moment I can think of is when the Mayor captured Willow and they agreed to exchange the box of Gavrock, or whatever it was called for her, but that wasn't a "world in immediate peril" situation. Yes, the box was part of the mayor's scheme but the world wasn't going to end that night if he got it back. They still had time to find another way to stop him.

It wouldn't be the first time I've forgotten things like this, though.

---