Talk:Hoban Washburne

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Oh, man. I haven't watch Serenity yet, and I already spoiled! HoneyBee

Alan Tudyk's speculation on Wash during the War[edit]

It really should be noted that Alan Tudyk's speculation that Wash participated in the Unification War is not substantiated in anyway. There is nothing in the canon of the series that mentions whether or not Wash participated in the war or the nature of it if he did. So including it as fact based on commentary seems a bit premature if nothing else. I think more of an effort should be made to label that as Alan Tudyk's own interpertation, not something established by the creator or on-screen information. - AM2783 9:18, 29 March 2006

Was it speculation or was it a planned story line for Season 2 that was scrapped when FOX axed the show?Pinkfloydfan 03:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation. Listen to the commentary track with Nathan Fillion and Alan Tudyk on War Stories. Much of the commentary about things like "shadow puppets" was mentioned jokingly. - Anonymous Coward, 25 June 2006

Past Tense?[edit]

Due to the deceased nature of the character, wouldn't it make sense to refer to him in the past tense? Kajmal 03:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Writing about fictional characters isn't quite the same as writing about real ones. The characters and plots of fictiona are typically presented in the present tense, as if the story is unfolding. Wash is and always will be a character in the TV series Firefly, even if someone watches it in 2106. It can get a little tricky when the person dies during the storyline, but perhaps a good rule of thumb is to only use past tense when talking about events that predate the story (either the entire story, like Wash's early life, or the story being discussed, like an allusion to a earlier episode). There are some other uses of past tense in this article currently, but many of those can and probably should be made present tense. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I edited out the uses of past tense. Kajmal 22:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I may be wrong but...[edit]

On the section "after the war", it is said that Wash has a big "reputation" and that Zoe dislikes him. However, when i watched that episode, i had the idea they were refering to the first mechanic they got before Kaylee: During this conversation, after Mal says that a lot of people were after him, he tells Zoe "we got ourselves a genious mechanic" to which the mechanic himself replies "Genious mechanic (...) Shiny" or something like that and then Zoe replies to Mal "He simply bothers me". I think the scene was made in a way we all thought they were talking about Wash but we get to discover they were not. Later in episode however, Mal discovers Kaylee and hires her (firing the other mechanic in the process) because she shows she is better. I didn't want to change anything before knowing your opinions however.

They're referring to Wash, and then Mal mentions their "genius" mechanic as part of his argument that they shouldn't turn down a genius pilot just cos Zoe's unenthused. Here's the script, which makes it a bit clearer. --Nalvage 17:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I am a leaf on the wind; watch how I soar"[edit]

It was said "Wash apparently does not know what it means". Can anyone shed a light upon the real meaning of this quote (please)? I googled for it but all I found was firefly referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.122.57.183 (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A leaf in the wind floats freely and in sometimes a wondrous way. It does not have a pattern to its flight, making it unpredictable. This is what Wash meant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PokeHomsar (talkcontribs) 20:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Reference[edit]

I have added a new reference to the article, although I was hoping that someone with more expertise on this matter could better integrate it into the article. However, people are rushing to judgment as if this source doesn't exist just because it isn't mentioned here, so I've added it. I invite people to better integrate the source into the article. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]