FRANK BLACK RETURNS IN X FILES 2

[Guest Jim McLean]

LOL, I guess I need to watch the episode again, because my recollection is fuzzy. Was there even evidence that would indicate that the person in Watts room was definitely dead, let alone that it was Watts himself. I'm not saying there wasn't, just that I don't remember. I remember seeing a lot blood when cancer man was shot. When he survived, I don't remember hearing much, if any, objection from the fans. Then again, maybe Watts is dead, was turned into a super soldier, and had memories implanted from another agent who was monitoring Mulder and Scully.

It's personal preference as to what you want to believe. Hell, I've heard people preferring to imagine Butch and the Sundance Kid managing to escape their final freeze frame against the odds. There was even talk at the end of Burton's "Batman" that the Joker would return, that they had an "out" even for a man who had fallen a Cathedral's height. If people want something back, anything is possible.

And I'm not here to take that "out" from anyone. Millennium has always preferred to wade in ambiguity when it feels it carries a deeper experience.

My point is, that so far as the show went, he was dead - for a finale of a show, its the only answer that fits the direction, motivations and our understanding of the character as well as the message of the show; the threat of the Group and another reason why Frank is running. If you stand still, what happened to Watts will happen to Frank.

Again, anything in fiction is malleable, and even though Watts showed no indication that he would run from the Group (he justifying their work to the very end), and the body was found in Peter's central hub, anything can be shifted or moved in retrospect - question is, how well it works. You can raise Mr Spock from the dead if the audience, actor and production agrees. Anything is possible, but the question is, regardless of what MIGHT be possible, what is.

For instance, look at the end of season two, a finale made to be as much the end of a failing show than anything else, an ending which proved difficult but not impossible to revise to make season three. However if season two HAD been the finale, the end is implied in the episode to be a far more epical and wide spread problem than season three tells us it was. On the basis of season two - and no season three - we see the potential start of human Armageddon on the grounds there was little expectation of a return. Until season three came and told us 70 odd people had died, the death toll was - to the viewer a lot higher. An even more relevant point is Peter at the end of season two, who shows indications of defying the Group. That on season one and two alone shows Peter in a very different place than when season three is born and Peter returns to the Group.

Until we're told otherwise, what the episode suggests, is what happened. And with Peter's continuing inability to separate from the Group he holds loyalty to, his knowledge of their power and his own final choice to side with Frank over the Group regardless, leads us to the inevitable dramatic answer - an answer season three has shown us to all who defy the Group, with Frank being the single exception because of Peter.

We could have seen a change in season 4. For the outset, one could argue his work with the Group was to keep Frank protected, and without that power he and his family went on the run. There is plausible alternatives to what I suggest, but I think the overall message from the season 3 finale is Peter's dead, and to argue otherwise on the basis of what could happen does take away from what HAS happened. If season 4 was to be made, then yes, I would happily see Peter return, but does not one find that Peter's escape in a show which is resolving its threads not extending them, goes a little against the grain? :)

I think given that I can see no way Millennium can return, even if Frank could, the answer is he's dead. The story of the Group is too complex, too out of date and too irrelevant to 2008+ to be picked up by TV or film. It's a decent bookend to the show. The only answer I can see to this plight for Peter's continued existence lies in two outcomes, 1), that Carter does as Whedon has, and continues his official story on in either book or comic form, allowing his story to come to an end officially, 2), that Carter/Fox endorses the virtual seasons as canon - something I think is unlikely given the creative complications.

So until there is an official statement/comic/book/ I think there is no real other logical dramatic answer to Peter's outcome than a death that bookends Frank's direct involvement with Millennium. It's a shame that no future movie/TV will likely pick up this dramatic ambiguity and bring Peter back, but I think given the Group has run its course and Peter had a touching end, we have to accept that if Frank returns beyond X-Files 2, it will be Peterless.

I do wish they'd used him more in season three!

[Guest MillenniumIsBliss]

It's personal preference as to what you want to believe. Hell, I've heard people preferring to imagine Butch and the Sundance Kid managing to escape their final freeze frame against the odds. There was even talk at the end of Burton's "Batman" that the Joker would return, that they had an "out" even for a man who had fallen a Cathedral's height. If people want something back, anything is possible.

And I'm not here to take that "out" from anyone. Millennium has always preferred to wade in ambiguity when it feels it carries a deeper experience.

My point is, that so far as the show went, he was dead - for a finale of a show, its the only answer that fits the direction, motivations and our understanding of the character as well as the message of the show; the threat of the Group and another reason why Frank is running. If you stand still, what happened to Watts will happen to Frank.

Again, anything in fiction is malleable, and even though Watts showed no indication that he would run from the Group (he justifying their work to the very end), and the body was found in Peter's central hub, anything can be shifted or moved in retrospect - question is, how well it works. You can raise Mr Spock from the dead if the audience, actor and production agrees. Anything is possible, but the question is, regardless of what MIGHT be possible, what is.

For instance, look at the end of season two, a finale made to be as much the end of a failing show than anything else, an ending which proved difficult but not impossible to revise to make season three. However if season two HAD been the finale, the end is implied in the episode to be a far more epical and wide spread problem than season three tells us it was. On the basis of season two - and no season three - we see the potential start of human Armageddon on the grounds there was little expectation of a return. Until season three came and told us 70 odd people had died, the death toll was - to the viewer a lot higher. An even more relevant point is Peter at the end of season two, who shows indications of defying the Group. That on season one and two alone shows Peter in a very different place than when season three is born and Peter returns to the Group.

Until we're told otherwise, what the episode suggests, is what happened. And with Peter's continuing inability to separate from the Group he holds loyalty to, his knowledge of their power and his own final choice to side with Frank over the Group regardless, leads us to the inevitable dramatic answer - an answer season three has shown us to all who defy the Group, with Frank being the single exception because of Peter.

We could have seen a change in season 4. For the outset, one could argue his work with the Group was to keep Frank protected, and without that power he and his family went on the run. There is plausible alternatives to what I suggest, but I think the overall message from the season 3 finale is Peter's dead, and to argue otherwise on the basis of what could happen does take away from what HAS happened. If season 4 was to be made, then yes, I would happily see Peter return, but does not one find that Peter's escape in a show which is resolving its threads not extending them, goes a little against the grain? :)

I think given that I can see no way Millennium can return, even if Frank could, the answer is he's dead. The story of the Group is too complex, too out of date and too irrelevant to 2008+ to be picked up by TV or film. It's a decent bookend to the show. The only answer I can see to this plight for Peter's continued existence lies in two outcomes, 1), that Carter does as Whedon has, and continues his official story on in either book or comic form, allowing his story to come to an end officially, 2), that Carter/Fox endorses the virtual seasons as canon - something I think is unlikely given the creative complications.

So until there is an official statement/comic/book/ I think there is no real other logical dramatic answer to Peter's outcome than a death that bookends Frank's direct involvement with Millennium. It's a shame that no future movie/TV will likely pick up this dramatic ambiguity and bring Peter back, but I think given the Group has run its course and Peter had a touching end, we have to accept that if Frank returns beyond X-Files 2, it will be Peterless.

I do wish they'd used him more in season three!

Yes, interesting thoughts. I still think there is hope for Watts, but come on people Butch and Sundance are DEAD!!!

[Guest MillenniumIsBliss]

Sorry to wade in on a discussion so wonderfully constructed but I needed a breather from the VS6 forum so forgive my inhaling.

I believe it reads, high above and far away, that it is incongrous to use X-Files as support for the concept of character resurrection as its tradition of doing so was not shared in the thematic of 'Millennium'.

I guess it's worth nothing thus that Season Three did little more than ape Season Two with regards to its Watts-hanger. Both arcs ended with a deliberately vague inference that Watts had been killed with both sharing the cunning plot device of not depicting his corpse at any point. Considering Season Three didn't even feel the need to comment on his alleged demise and simply unveiled Peter with out such much as throwaway line I guess anything goes.

Best wishes as always,

Eth

Well, I think X-files was offered as one of many examples, not because I found it to thematic match with Millennium. I won't spend the time, but if I sat and thought about it, I could probably think of a great many examples to support my opinion that, in general, from my experience, when they kill off a character, they milk it for all it's worth. When they show something like somebody's legs behind a desk, it usually means that they are putting something out there to entice the viewer, but have something else in mind. I agree though, the way season 3 ended, pretty much anything goes. Then again, the possibility of any form of Millennium coming back are so remote (IMHO) that my points are all moot anyway.

[Guest Jim McLean]

When they show something like somebody's legs behind a desk, it usually means that they are putting something out there to entice the viewer, but have something else in mind.

Without flogging a dead Watts, as a cinematic device, not showing a suicide isn't uncommon, suggestive visuals are often deemed enough to carry the point. A back in a chair with a smoking gun, feet hanging from the ceiling in the foreground with maybe the discoverers in the background are common.

Again, while I do concede to the notion that it could be there for future ambiguity, when I saw the scene for the first time last week, I had no doubt in my head it was Watts (as much as I didn't want it to be) - it just felt like the inevitable conclusions to the story arc. That was my gut reaction, not that they were toying or suggesting he escaped (even though I can see how that conclusions can be found both emotional and practical reasons).

Simply put, in television the general rule is a death is a death, unless the future dictates otherwise. When there is no future, it holds very much that the character - for the intent of the story and official line - as O'Quinn has said himself - is dead. It's a funny dichotomy we have in fiction that characters can die and yet live forever; Watts is dead so far as what we see, but if the show did somehow return, he could be as alive as Frank Black. There is no death in fiction despite the fact there is rather a lot of it! :D

[Guest MillenniumIsBliss]

Without flogging a dead Watts, as a cinematic device, not showing a suicide isn't uncommon, suggestive visuals are often deemed enough to carry the point. A back in a chair with a smoking gun, feet hanging from the ceiling in the foreground with maybe the discoverers in the background are common.

Again, while I do concede to the notion that it could be there for future ambiguity, when I saw the scene for the first time last week, I had no doubt in my head it was Watts (as much as I didn't want it to be) - it just felt like the inevitable conclusions to the story arc. That was my gut reaction, not that they were toying or suggesting he escaped (even though I can see how that conclusions can be found both emotional and practical reasons).

Simply put, in television the general rule is a death is a death, unless the future dictates otherwise. When there is no future, it holds very much that the character - for the intent of the story and official line - as O'Quinn has said himself - is dead. It's a funny dichotomy we have in fiction that characters can die and yet live forever; Watts is dead so far as what we see, but if the show did somehow return, he could be as alive as Frank Black. There is no death in fiction despite the fact there is rather a lot of it! :D

I agree with the suicide scenes. Usually the visual implications you mention, and other things, such as the sound of a gun shot and some blood spattering on some symbolic object, are considered enough to imply suicide. However, from my experience, although the suicide is not depicted in a graphic way, the identity of the person committing the act is established. This is simply a difference of opinion regarding Watts, but to me, the fact that they don't establish Watts identity leaves it wide open. I have seen so many people rise from an implied death that I almost automatically assume that the character who is involved in such an ambiguous scene is going to turn up alive. I guess this view is the opposite of yours. Terry O'Quinn is just another person with another opinion, and the fact that he considers Watts dead doesn't sway my point of view. We see a body under Watts desk, and there is nothing to indicate the identity of the body. This was probably done to give fans something to ponder and discuss, and to create interest, while at the same time leaving them with the option of going either way with Watts character if by some miracle the story was extended. The point where I disagree is with your assertion that the fact that the story wasn't continued seals Peter's fate, and that he can be assumed dead until we are shown otherwise. My view is that he is alive until proven otherwise. This is based on my own perception of television (and movie) story writing. Your perception, and that of many other people might be completely different. I hope I don't sound militant about the issue. I realize that there are many who have written Peter off, and I have no problem with that point of view. To me, showing a dead body and implying, but not establishing, identity is almost a guarantee that the person implied dead is alive.

[Guest Jim McLean]

This is simply a difference of opinion regarding Watts, but to me, the fact that they don't establish Watts identity leaves it wide open. I have seen so many people rise from an implied death that I almost automatically assume that the character who is involved in such an ambiguous scene is going to turn up alive.

Again, if this was an ongoing show, I'd say the perspective would be very much one we would share on this; that the "death" was an open question, potentially to be revealed as being something different to what is implied depending on pre-mediated or serendipitous reappearances of the character. However, the ballpark is very different for the end of a show, which knows that its very, very, very unlikely to find a new series. The episode doesn't play that Watts is looking for an out, and the whole drive of season three paints Watt's final moments in the show as being one of resolution than a new chapter.

I guess this view is the opposite of yours. Terry O'Quinn is just another person with another opinion, and the fact that he considers Watts dead doesn't sway my point of view.

Again, if this was an ongoing show, I would agree, that Terry's personal opinion cannot be reflective of possibilities, but its a good indicator what the scene meant to him; that it was not Peter maybe escaping the Group and the body being ambiguous, it was Peter's death - until fiction and more likely money, tells Terry otherwise. I think seeing what he was getting from the scene is important to the dramatic intent - which is what I refer to, not the notion that there is no possible way Peter could be resurrected from such a scenario.

Terry's opinion is very much an example of what the dramatic intent was meant to offer - which is my argument - not that Terry's opinion thereby certifies that Peter could never be found to be alive in a future story.

The point where I disagree is with your assertion that the fact that the story wasn't continued seals Peter's fate, and that he can be assumed dead until we are shown otherwise. My view is that he is alive until proven otherwise. This is based on my own perception of television (and movie) story writing. Your perception, and that of many other people might be completely different.

I'd strongly disagree with that, because not all literature is perception. It's a dangerous mode which some debaters (and I'm not subtlety pointing fingers here) will excuse the notion that there is "never an answer". If you follow the chain of dramatic and narrative reasoning you can find an answer. Maybe you'll find some alternate possibilities, but a story tends to play with some intent. Writers need to know their characters to sculpt a tale - hopefully inside out. The events that lead Peter to his final moment should be the culmination of narrative and character events. It's not perceptional, there are answers to be found.

I would suggest that "alive until proven otherwise" is an emotional not analytical assertion; a preference that is naturally yours to take, but not necessarily the point of the drama. Analytically, as the final story, with the character being forced into a circumstance with a lethal company which he is betraying - and still defends - who the actor himself also sees as dead, all points towards the analytical answer of the contrary - he is dead until proven otherwise. We do not see any unnamed characters to have taken his place in a pool of blood, and stories are very much under the demand of certain ex positional relevances in any finale; you don't replace a dead man with another man that hasn't even been introduced. Certainly that can be a leap of logic as a possibility, but as a narrative intent, the man on the floor is the man you are lead by the story to expect - until proven otherwise.

I hope I don't sound militant about the issue.

Likewise, I feel the same way - I have no interest in upsetting members or derailing threads on a topic becoming tenuously linked to the thread. I just think its a fascinating topic (which probably should be split into its own thread I guess).

I guess our split comes in what is deemed burden of proof. I strongly believe - regardless of what I prefer - that the burden of proof comes for any story to prove it isn't what you expect it to be (Peter's body), not the other way round. If the story throws a curve ball and does something that isn't naturally what we expect (that a man under threat of death isn't the man lying in his room under his very desk) the audience naturally further information to accept the more unusual notion that what's presented - be it in that scene, the following scene or several episodes thereon. The absense of this "burden of proof" leads the analytical answer to be Watt's is dead, even if we can see hopefully possibilities we choose to embrace.

And hell, why not? If no show is going to tell you otherwise, does it matter what is analytically right beyond these debates? Of course not. That is how so many can enjoy the Virtual Seasons without needing Fox's pat on the head to do so.

[Guest MillenniumIsBliss]

Again, if this was an ongoing show.......

Fair enough.

[Guest Sinestro]

I really hope the X-Files sequel is along the lines of this fan made trailer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kb6j3YTSNvc

Edited January 23, 2008 by Sinestro

[Guest Laurent.]

Wow. Thanks for the great link.

[Guest F_Black]

Speaking of The X-Files, I saw part of the "Never Again" episode yesterday and Scully got a tattoo: It was an orobouros.