Talk:Firefly (TV series)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Character names, double quotes in links.

I didn't see an example of this in the FAQs... anyone know what the appropriate method is for inserting quotation marks in text that is a link? i.e., if I want Captain Malcolm "Mal" Reynolds as a link to the page about the character, what's the right way to go about it? I used parentheses for Kaylee, but as parens are used for disambiguation rules, this might cause some confusion too. -- Wapcaplet

The software won't let you. The title really should be Malcolm Reynolds or Mal Reynolds anyway. Titles like "Captain" aren't good in general since a person's (or fictional person's) title can change over time. --mav
Good point. Thanks for the tip! -- Wapcaplet
No problem. --mav

Another thing to consider is how you plan on linking to the articles for the character. For example; wouldn't Kaywinnit Lee Frye be better as Kaylee Frye since this is the full name she is commonly known as on the series? This is similar to the reasoning why why have the article on the US president Clinton at Bill Clinton and not William Jefferson Clinton (this is a redirect). Longer, more complicated names can be redirected to the the more common names (yet still complete with first and last names). --mav

Yeah I wondered about that too. I'll change 'em. --Wapcaplet

Data to include.

Work in somewhere:

  • Background: The introductory narration originally said that "after the earth was used up" our race "found a new system" with hundreds of habitable worlds. This drew much critical comment on Usenet and WWW discussion forums, and about half-way through the series the narration was changed to eliminate the suggestion that all the planets were all in the same solar system. The result is still somewhat problematic, as it would seem to require regular interstellar travel rather than the simple interplanetary travel that the show was originally predicated on.
  • Cancellation: Fans have made much of the fact that FOX handled the series very ineptly and apparently callously, with the specific problems of --
    • The pre-airing network advertising greatly misrepresented the nature of the show, portraying it as an action comedy rather than the cerebral character study with a long-term intrigue arc that the show actually proved to be.
    • The two-hour pilot was not aired until after the series had already been cancelled, with the slow-paced and simple-minded "Train Robbery" being used for the opener in its place.
    • There was a month-long hiatus at Thanksgiving, just when viewers were starting to grok what the show was all about.
    • The promised "media blitz" for the post-Thanksgiving restart never came to pass, while other programs were promoted heavily.

--B.Bryant 13:48 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Add it to the long list of shows that got screwed. FOX seems to be particularly good at screwing over good shows (The Lone Gunmen, Brisco County Jr., Sliders, Strange Luck) by mixing up the order, not promoting or promoting badly, etc., while really dumb shows continue to be on the air. But Firefly will forever remain the one I am the most annoyed about. Grr. -- Wapcaplet 11:27 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Position of spoiler notice.

Wapcaplet, I think the spoiler warning should go right at the top, incase someone doesn't read the entire article and so misses the warning. I also think we need to somehow incorporate the link to the episodes into the airing section. - Jeandré, 2003-06-22t21:37z

Most of the time it's placed just above the place where spoilers actually begin; that way, even if someone doesn't want to read spoilers, they can learn about what Firefly is and then stop when they reach the spoiler warning. -- Wapcaplet 21:34 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I now see how the spoilers are handled Wapcaplet, thanks. See Talk:List_of_Firefly_episodes for pre-merge discussion. - Jeandré, 2003-06-28t04:04z

Canada.

I removed the "?" from Canada, since according to the GEOS site, "The Train Job" aired both in US and Canada the same day. This site in generally very reliable. Lazarus Long 11:08 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, I've removed the brackets also, and added the UK Serenity date. Does anyone have reliable info about the movie? - Jeandré, 2003-06-28t20:46z

Movie.

Should we remove the movie paragraph until there is? - Jeandré, 2003-06-28t20:46z

It is certain that Joss is writing it, Jane Espenson is a reliable source. Of course we won't know for sure they'll really make a movie until Fox approves it. Lazarus Long 11:37 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)
According to IMDB, Hollywood reporter, and this article, the Firefly movie is definitely "in production"... obviously it's possible that it won't come together in the end, but I'd say it's past the point of being only in the talk stage. -- Wapcaplet 19:13, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Episode order.

I just edited the episode list with what is supposed to be the definitive order. This should be the order the episodes will be on the DVD set. The production code gives some info for the first part of the season ("79" is typical for pilots), while the last part, with unaired info, was already right and has also been confirmed by Tim Minear on the Buffistas forum, where he wrote:

The order, and (to the best of my recollection) the way it'll shake out on the

DVDs is:

Trash,
The Message,
Heart Of Gold,
Objects In Space
Joss made a minor adjustment in "Objects" when we aired it, and restored said change for the DVD order


I also changed the text before the table accordingly. If somebody can gather data about time-slots, we can add them too.

Lazarus Long 12:37 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Spanish tv.

Can anyone access MundoFox to find out when it will be showing in Mexico and South America? Starting 2003-04-19? - Jeandré, 2003-07-01t23:30z

Finally managed to get info from the mudofox site (it requires MS IE, ugh): Heart of Gold 2003-07-12 so MundoFox, and not SCI-FI UK or SABC3, seems to premiere 13. For more episode order fun see their episode list. - Jeandré, 2003-07-08t20:40z
1AGE13 The message, 26 de julio, 2003. - Jeandré, 2003-07-21t01:18z

Anyone know if http://us.imdb.com/ReleaseDates?0303461 is correct with its Brazilian air date of 2003-01-01, and if so what kinda episode order chaos the Brazillians were treated to? - Jeandré, 2003-07-26t23:45+02:00

According to TVTome, "FOX Latin America" (is this MundoFox?) showed Trash on 2003-06-28 [1], and Heart of gold on 2003-07-19 [2]. Were these dubbed in Spanish, or shown in English? - Jeandré, 2004-05-15t20:15z

Well, unfortunately I don't recall exactly when the show debuted on FOX in Brazil, but I can guarantee that it was not on January 1st 2003. It was sometime between June and August of 2003. The episodes were shown in the exact same order used in the United States and had subtitles in Portuguese (they kept the original audio in English). The unaired episodes (in the US) were shown after "Objects in Space". Right now, probably as a means of covering holes in their schedule, FOX is rerunning all the episodes, again in that messed up order. The original airing time was Tuesdays at 20:00 (right before Buffy the Vampire Slayer). Present reruns are Mondays through Fridays at 17:00. FOX has separated departments for Brazil and the rest of Latin America, because of the Spanish/Portuguese issue, so some of the info concerning Latin America does not apply to Brazil and vice-versa. I imagine that most of what I've written about the show in Brazil did not happen exactly the same in other South-American countries. Hope this was of any use. Redux 01:56, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Trash, Message, and HoG first broadcast where?

Anyone know where the copies available on the 'net of Trash, Message, and HoG were captured from? Were these shown somewhere other than the listed premieres? - Jeandré, 2003-07-13t12:11z

No, someone bought those episodes on eBay and decided to share them, they hadn't aired anywhere yet. Lazarus Long 10:09 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Chinese language.

Why do the crew speak Chinese every now and then? Sometimes just words, but sometimes complete sentences. Was the reason ever revealed? Because I didn't see any person important that look East Asian in the show. --Menchi 10:59 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I don't think they ever explained this. Could be all sorts of reasons - maybe China grew to become very influential in the history preceding the show and Chinese became a second language for many people. Though, it seems that the characters on the show only use Chinese to swear. I'm sure there is a fascinating reason for it... -- Wapcaplet 12:06 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I think curses are one of the very first non-native words we learn! Somehow, they're easy to remember and whose meaning can be very inclusive.
What I remember the most is actually their use of Aiya! (see interjection).
--Menchi 22:14 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I recall a print review of the show saying the Alliance was essentially the US and China. So yes on the influential in history hypothesis. -- Jake 11:06, 2003 Nov 7 (UTC)

Yes, the premise is that sometime in the show's past the US and China asimilate each other and a unifed government of the world's only hyperpower backed by corporations like Blue Sun colonise other planets. The idea of cultural fusion and the fact that everyone speaks fluent Chinese is also a convienent way to thumb their nose at US censors! A lot of the names are also oriental sounding (ie Simon Tan) Mark Richards 19:35, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Here's something I found at a Firefly RPG site. Could be useful, although some seem to be phonetic spelling:
"Pocket Guide to Firefly Chinese/Chinglish"
[from http://www.wam.umd.edu/~cadre/]
Fuck You = Chur ni-duh
[Piece of] Shit = Gos se
Bull Shit (nonsense) = Pi hua
Son of a Bitch = Duh liou mahng
Bastard = Hwoon dahn
God Damn = Gorram or Gor'am (not really Chinese)
Damn it! = Zhou ma zhi
Like Hell! = Jien tah duh guay!
Shut up = BEE-jway
In the name of all that's sacred = TYEN shiao-duh
We're in big trouble = Ai ya, wo mun wan leh
Just our Luck = Jen dao mei
Watch your back = Joo ta ma ya ming
[Do you] Understand? = Dong ma?
Can do = Ke yi
Old friend = Lao xiong
That's alright then = Nah may gwon-shee
Don't worry = FAHNG-sheen
Xjaymanx 06:20, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A more accurate guide is the Firefly-Serenity Chinese Pinyinary, on which Firefly Chinese translator Jenny Lynn has provided some informal assistance. It includes Chinese characters, hanyu pinyin spellings, literal translations, derivations, and some usage notes as well. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Fox broadcast at 20:00?

Did Fox broadcast all the episodes in the USA and Canada on Fridays at 20:00? - Jeandré, 2003-07-21t01:29z

Yep, I just removed the "?" from the article. Lazarus Long 22:47 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Article title.

It's not a television brand, and there's talk of a Firefly comic books series (like Joss' Fray); so, shall we move the article to "Firefly (television series)"? See also Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(television). - Jeandré, 2004-04-10t01:32z

Done. -Sean 01:01, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hypothetical timeline

Just curious: why was the link to the hypothetical Firefly timeline removed? Granted, it could be justifiably removed on other grounds (since it appears to just be one fan's random speculation), but the "no original research" restriction only applies to Wikipedia articles. There's no rule saying we can't link to original research. -- Wapcaplet 01:36, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Judgment call, at least as far as I'm concerned (I can't speak for the others who have removed it). There is nothing to base this speculation on, just random guesses, so I consider it like fan fiction which really doesn't need to be linked to around here. RADICALBENDER★ 02:34, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Shame. I thought it was kind of useful, it wasn't pure speculation, and there are interview sources and hints in the series that would at least give the order of events. Mark Richards 19:27, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wash & Zoë's full names

Also just curious: Why remove the detail of these characters' full names? Is it not considered canon/factual because it hasn't yet appeared in the movie? Rossumcapek 04:18, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • I don't know about that, but since this article is about the TV series, and those full names were never mentioned in the TV series, it seems a little weird to have them there. -- Wapcaplet 10:05, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, the TV series and the film are based on the same characters, so it would seem odd to exclude information about them simply because it does not appear in one of the other. Of course, we should think about how to deal with core information about the characters / ship etc, and not duplicate it in both articles. Mark Richards 18:18, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ummmm... referring me here would make more sense of there was any actual resolution of the issue. It made sense to omit Wash's full name when there was only the "Alan Tudyk" post, but a FireFlyFans.net (I think) poster known to be Nathan Fillion has confirmed the name. SarekOfVulcan 20:16, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The IMDB currently has "Zoë Warren" and "Hoban Washburne." --Rossumcapek 04:07, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
"Hoban Washburne" is the name I referenced above. "Warren" is a leftover from the "Jerry Lee 'Wash' Warren" mistake, and I don't want to assume that Zoë took her husband's name. SarekOfVulcan 23:44, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Setting

I'm almost positive that Firefly takes place in a single system. Is there any evidence in the series, or in Joss's interviews, that contradicts this? Remember, the narrations state that we used up Earth and moved to a new system. --SarekOfVulcan 18:09, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It seems unclear, there are occasional mentions of 'a whole galaxy of new earths', the details of the distances and capacities of the ships are not really clear. Mark Richards 18:19, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Just basic planetary physics suggests that habitable/terraformable worlds can only exist within a limited distance from the star, even in science fiction. "Rim worlds" would be worlds around suns farthest from the suns of the more populated worlds, the "core worlds". Some suns can have a few terrraformable planets, and a few moons as well, but not many. As other close worlds became more populated and the interconnections between them and the existing core worlds, they too would be considered core. So likely, Sinon and Londinium are part of the same solar system, while Ariel and Osiris are planets of nearby systems. Persephone, which seems to sometimes be a core world and sometimes not (depending on who is asked), is likely in that transition state of "moving into" the core. - UtherSRG 19:27, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but we don't know that that the Alliance solar system is comparable to ours. It may very well have a larger biosphere and a greater number of planets within and bordering that range. We really have no basis for comparison, and if the writers tell us that a system has dozens of habitable and terraformable worlds, it's hard to criticize that without further evidence. Khanartist 20:16, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In one of the deleted scenes for Serenity, I remember Mal saying something along the lines of "there's 40 planets mankind's colonised...". Unfortunately I don't have the DVD set right now, so I can't check that. Maybe someone else could? Anyway, 40 is a bit too many for one system.Akchizar 04:18, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
To some degree, depending on how accuate the writers want to be. For reality, a solar system with, let's say, a dozen habitable/terraforing, the star would need to be larger and/or hotter to support a wider zone of life. The more potentially habitable planets, the larger the life zone needs to be, putting the zone furhter and further from the sun, and making the sun larger and/or hotter. There's no evidence in the writings suggesting that the system is so large as to have a sun that is distinctively different from our own. The better assumption is that typically the worlds are orbitting different suns much like our own. The writers do give us the hint that they want us to take the science seriously, but to be as amazed at somethings as the characters are:
Wash: Psychic? Sounds like something out of science fiction.
Zoë: We live on a spaceship, dear. 
Wash: So?
But anyway... you are right that we can argue as much as we want about this, and the writers are free to come up with any decision they want to, whether its based in reality or fantasy. Until the writers do make it explicit that the Alliance system is just a single sun or many suns, we should note this lack of information in the article somehow, and leave it at that. That would be in keeping with NPOV. - UtherSRG 20:59, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I've editted the Setting paragraph to remove references to a single planetary system, hopefully making it as ambiguous as the TV show itself is. *grins* - UtherSRG 22:46, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I like your edit on this issue. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan 18:52, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
In the episode "Train Job," the female officer on the Alliance starcruiser mentions the Georgia system which implies more than one system. (You wouldn't have separate names if they were in the same system.) Also in "Bushwhacked," Malcolm discussed how the Reavers reached the "edge of the galaxy" (not the "edge of the system"). Plus, many FF sites and RPGs list at least two-or-three dozen terraformed planets/moons which are hard to imagine as being all in one system. -- xjaymanx 06:42, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Depending on context (can you provide? I don't have my DVDs at the moment), I can very easily see someone mentioning a solar system not their own. Also, "system" doesn't necessarily mean solar system - she could be speaking of the moon system of the planet Georgia. The "Bushwhacked" quote is harder to reconcile, and the other sources are non-canon. Khanartist 13:40, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
True. "System" may not necessarily mean "solar system," but if it means something else, then that would be unique in sci-fi television, including Star Trek (e.g. Remus of the Romulus system), Star Wars (e.g. fourth planet of the Hoth system), Babylon 5 (e.g. third planet in the Epsilon Eridani star system), and others. There are also mentions in the series of "border" planets (that is, the border between the Alliance and frontier). It's more likely that this border separates a group of systems (the core of the Alliance) from another group of systems (the frontier, closer to the Rim where reavers roam), rather than a border within a single superhuge system (which would then be an elliptical/orbital border between the inner planets and outer planets). Also, while the sources may not be canon, the planet/moon names are. There's a good list of worlds at the bottom of this page: http://www.browncoats.com/main.php?parent=3e546fa726367&line= . Each planet or moon includes a reference to the episode in which it is mentioned. --xjaymanx 17:40, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
"lifted off a train in the Georgia System en route to Paradiso." - the way it's used with a train and the small mining town of Paradiso, might indicate a sparsely populated planetary system (gas planet and it's moons). One wouldn't say "lifted off a train in the Solar System en route to Smallville, Nevada", more likely "lifted off a train in the Saturn System en route to Huygensville". While I think the show does have FTL [3], "the Georgia system" is not proof of that. - Jeandré, 2004-07-21t19:29z
Yeah, "Georgia" system doesn't point to either theory. If the Alliance starcruiser was outside the system, then "Georgia" would be a solar system. If the cruiser was inside the system, then "Georgia" would be a planetary system. Dang, I support the "multiple solar system" and faster-than-light theories, but the lack of evidence clouds this. For another similar discussion, here's an older thread on FireFlyFans.net: http://fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=4&t=2671&m=34843 . --xjaymanx 19:53, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Hrm... there's a note that the ships are all slower than light. Is there a specific reference to this in the show? - UtherSRG 22:52, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't think there is any definate statement that they are slower than light. My impression is that, while attention has been paid to some aspects of the physics (like sound in space), others have suffered neglect (like the spaceship power sources and engines). My personal feeling is that the writers are asking for suspension of disbelief in this area, there being an assumption that the engines 'just work'. Mal talks about 'hundreds of new earths' which to me implies many solar systems, but I also don't think it's important. The engine on Serenity seems to have been designed for how it looks, rather than any kind of function. Mark Richards 23:41, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. What important in the Whedonverse is the story, the characters, the dialogue, and the look. All else matters little. So perhaps there are multiple suns, or perhaps it's just one. It's not important to the story, so it's not important to the setting. - UtherSRG 01:17, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
A quote from Official Serenity Movie Site: 


A small band of [Browncoats] skim the outskirts of the galaxy unnoticed until


they find themselves caught between the unstoppable military force of the


Universal Alliance and the horrific, cannibalistic fury of the Reavers,


savages who roam the very edge of space.




- UtherSRG 02:46, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The phrase "very edge of space" would seem to invalidate the accuracy of that quote. I wrote to them a while back asking if they would fix it, and if I could get points for pointing it out. Didn't get a reply, though... --SarekOfVulcan 21:17, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)


wait! i think i may have found some good evidence for faster-than-light (FTL) travel in a "galactic" setting (which is my preference). in the episode "Safe", when Book gets shot, if you forward 22 minutes into the show, wash and mal are looking over star maps. and i say "star maps" because if you see wash's maps, they look a lot like a galaxy and there are a hell of a lot of dots for a solar system, even a large one. could this be proof? --xjaymanx 05:47, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)



It may be similar to the star map from the promotional pack. The clues from the show seem to me to indicate that they do have FTL travel, tho if we mention anything of it in the article we should say that it's not known. -- Jeandré, 2004-08-01t11:11z


yes! wash's star maps are identical to that! thanx. right, i agree about the article, but it was nice to find that bit of info. --xjaymanx 16:12, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Also check out the star maps Early and Mal look at in Ois. -- Jeandré, 2004-08-01t22:04z


There's an interview with Joss in which he says that Serenity is not faster-than-light, and that the planets in Firefly are rather close together, indicating a single system. But he's actually rather ambivalent towards this whole line of questioning, leading me to believe that resolving the issue on-screen is not high on his list of priorities. Khanartist 21:41, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)



Blues.


What connects the Blue hands to Blue sun? — Jeandré, 2004-10-22t17:45z



yeah, I was wondering about that unilateral strengthening of the statement myself. Metahacker 02:06, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Listen to the commentary on the discs about the show.  Whedon links the men with "Hands of blue" as working for the Blue Sun Corporation, if indirectly (due to Joss trying to be clever and vague).  "Blue Sun was Coca-cola, it was Microsoft, all in one.  Half the government [i.e. Alliance] was Blue Sun," commentary over the scene where Mal and Zoe are walking back to the ship after dealing with Badger (episode 1), and then "We started throwing in Blue Sun signs because we knew they were going to become a major fator later on in the series." "I wanted it to be a more impressive interplanetary conglomerate that is a part of the mystery that we're all heading too."

Now, let's look at this, compared to the show:

1) These things that are said are purposefully vague.

2) Blue Sun is half the Government, which means half (at the very least)the Alliance is Blue Sun controlled. Therefore, due to Joss' own admission, at least half the Alliance = Blue Sun.

3) It is the "mystery" that "we're all heading to."  In the show, the least explained, and vaguest major plot point was what happened to River, and why she was being chased by the "men with blue hands."  The Blue sun group was going to be a "major factor later in the series.'  

4) River went to a Government sponsered [i.e. the Alliance, i.e. Blue Sun] school where she was horribly experimented on.

5) The Men with Blue hands are able to supercede anyone's command in the alliance( if the alliance is going to be delineated from the Blue Sun corporation), and kill alliance members with abandon (i.e. "The Train Job," and, "Ariel").  Unless they were part of some group in ultimate control (i.e., the Alliance, which we have already seen is Blue Sun), they wouldn't have that kind of power.  Also, there is some speccific reason why they have BLUE hands, and there is a BLUE Sun corporation (which we know is the Alliance).

6) Since we see the men with Blue Hands work for the Alliance (i.e. Blue Sun), and we find that River was hurt in an Alliance (i.e. Blue Sun) school, and now she's being chased by "men with blue hands" who want her back, and have designated her and her brother as fugitives (and are subsequently also being searched for by the Alliance, further proving the men with blue hands/Alliance connection, and since we know that the Alliance is the Blue Sun corp., connecting them to the blue hands men as well,), there are grounds for making the claim that the "Men with blue hands," are part of the Alliance/Blue Sun Corporation.

Gnrlotto 22:28, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)



All good points, but this still amounts to no more than speculation. AFAIK, there yas not yet been any definitive evidence linking the two. Maybe once the film is released, we'll know more (but even then, this article is about the television series, so any such definitive evidence revealed in the film should only be referenced in that context). For all we know, the training center that River attended was not officially within Alliance control - a "black ops" organization, if you will. The blue-hands guys aren't necessarily part of that organization, either; they may want River for other reasons. At any rate, speculation should remain safely outside the confines of the article. -- Wapcaplet 23:11, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Sorry, I see that my post got convoluted, and the main parts got confused.  Here's the facts:


A) Simon says (and since all that we know about the show either comes from the characters, or the show's visuals, or its creators, we must take it as fact) that River went to a government sponsored school.  The fact stands that unless otherwise revealed she went to a government school.


B) By all the other characters' admissions (either referencing Alliance personell, or unification, or in passing) the Alliance is the government.  Therefore, the alliance being the governing body is fact.


C) By Joss' own admission, the Blue Sun Corporation is the government.  Therefore, the Blue Sun Corporation, as revealed by the creator of the show, is the government.  This is a fact.


D)  Now it is all simple math, as the contested point in the article was whether or not Blue Sun is part of the Alliance.


Characters' admissions:  Alliance is the Government.


Joss' admission: Blue Sun is Government.


Mathematical equation:  Alliance = Government.  Blue Sun = Government.


Therefore, Alliance = Blue Sun.


Gnrlotto 23:35, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Joss says "It was practically half the government, was Blue Sun." in the pilot's commentary. The blue hands may not be in the half that is Blue Sun. — Jeandré, 2004-10-24t13:59z


I got the impression that the blue-hands guys were a secret sub-part of *something*, but to definitely identify them with the corp Blue Sun seems unwise. It seems unlikely for them to be publically associated with either the government or Blue Sun. For one thing, the mil officers they chat with don't seem to know who they are; nor do any of the other crew members twig to the brief description of them. But most damningly, the fact that we're here discussing it means it isn't accepted fact and therefore shouldn't be stated as such on the main page. -- Metahacker 15:09, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Well, the contested part on the main page was whether or not Blue Sun and the Alliance were the same.  I proved they were.  The issue of the men with blue hands is for someone else to decide.Gnrlotto 19:07, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)


I don't see that you've proved that they were the same: it doesn't follow logically from your premises. Sorry. --SarekOfVulcan 22:07, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)


As you can see, though, there is some disagreement; I have no problem with the arguments you've made here, but when it carries over into the article as a factual part of the story, it verges on original research, which is discouraged. Joss' commentary could be taken in a number of ways, and to equate Blue Sun with the Alliance in the article seems less than truthful, since the characters don't even mention Blue Sun (though I think Jayne was wearing a Blue Sun T-shirt in one episode), while they talk about the Alliance quite often. I think the current phrasing in the article ("of which the 'Blue Sun Corporation' is either a part or a whole") is adequate, without going too far. -- Wapcaplet 20:27, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)



Listening to Joss' commentary isn't research.  It' not something hard to search for, that takes a long time to find.  Either you listen to it and get his info or you don't, but this is beside the point.  I made that change to the article (either a part of or a whole) to show that Blue Sun is indeed Alliance connected; to say otherwise is being unfactual.Gnrlotto 00:09, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Let's agree that original research is the creation of a thesis statement that has not existed before. In the case of reporting on DVD commentary tracks, then the following would apply:

NOT ORIGINAL RESEARCH


- Paraprashing or indirect quoting commentary, noting it as possible, verfiable opinion or conjecture. Citing someone else's original work or opinion in the proper context is neither original research nor inherently POV biased.


- Citing the commentary as source material for fact checking or reporting


ORIGINAL RESEARCH


- Using the commentary as a basis for editor-created conjecture of any type.


[[User:Davodd|DAVODD «TALK»]] 22:00, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)


If a story element was merely planned but didn't happen in the show itself, it's not canon and not factual. Similarly, anything not found in the primary source is original research. The original hypothetical was the better sentence. Khanartist 20:21, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)



I would think what you're saying held water if the quote didn't come from THE SHOW'S CREATOR, but oh well.  But based on your way of thinking, there should also be no connection between the men with "hands of blue" and the Alliance as no relationship(i.e. chain of command, hierarchy, branch circumvention) is clearly expressed in the show.Gnrlotto 15:13, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)


You are confusing truth with canon, Gnr. What Joss says on a commentary may be truth, but he is free to create new episodes (or, in Firefly's case, movies) that contradict what he says in thos commentaries. His commentaries are his understanding of his creation, but what he actually produces may be something contrary to his own understanding. What gets produced is canon. Serenity may show us that the three concepts of "The Alliance", "Blue Sun Corporation" and the blue handed men may be different aspects of each other, may be allied factions, or may be competing factions working behind the scenes. Or we may get no further canonical facts regarding the relationship. - UtherSRG 16:09, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)


As for no relationship being shown, I beg to differ. When River, Simon, Mal and Zoe get caught in the hospital, the Alliance officers show a distinct subservience to the blue hands, although the blues turn around and kill the officers anyway. - UtherSRG 16:09, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)


UtherSRG, just because they show subservience shows no more connection than Blue Sun being the government just becuase every factory-made product used in the show (food, shipping, clothing, etc.) has their logo on it.  The FBI could come into your house and you would most likely back down; does it mean you work for them?Gnrlotto 02:46, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)


That smacks of fancruft mentality. Wikipedia is not a fan site - it is an unabridged encyclopedia. How are we to fight "The Ecyclopedia that Slashdot Built" albatross if we tolerate fannish POV edit wars on what is and is not "canon" in this case? We are here to document all verifiable facts. This includes unpopular or non-canon verifiable facts. Abridging the article because of edit POV rather than relevance harms the legitimacy of the entire article (as well as the entire Wikipedia concept). If a fact is verifiable and relevant to the topic at hand, it probably should be included - in the correct context. [[User:Davodd|DAVODD «TALK»]] 22:11, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

I think you're exactly right on the first point - this is not a fan site. And I agree with your second point as well, if by "verifiable fact" you mean a real-world fact, rather than a "proof" of an in-story "fact" such as Gnrlotto has provided above. The restriction to canon only really applies to the part of the article that describes the setting and characters; any non-canon facts can of course be included outside that scope (for instance, who plays the characters, when the episodes aired, or what's on the DVD). Restricting the story description to canon avoids the potential problem of including a multitude of fan speculations (each backed by a proof similar to the above) as though they were part of the story. We can say "Joss Whedon said in episode commentary that 'half the government was Blue Sun'", but I think it's dangerous to interpret that into "Blue Sun is part of the Alliance," as if that were revealed in the show. It wasn't. Joss says some kooky stuff, and not much of it can be taken literally. Consider: "I think we'll be bringing you an exciting film that's a powerful statement about the right to be free. Which is not as cool as my original statement about the right to tasty garlic mussels in a cilantro broth, but the freedom thing's okay too."[4] So, do we include in the Serenity synopsis that the movie was originally going to be about tasty garlic mussels?  -- Wapcaplet 00:54, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think we are in 100% agreement in that information (canon or not) is only useful if it is presented in the correct context. [[User:Davodd|DAVODD «TALK»]] 07:04, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)


I just listened to the Serenity commentary by Joss/Nathan. Gnrlotto left out a pretty significant bit of what Joss said: "Sometimes you don't know - I hadn't 100% figured out what I wanted to do with Blue Sun, how I wanted you guys [meaning the cast] to approach it..." and goes on to say that it was "...connected somehow with the mystery we're all heading to." When he says that it was like Microsoft or Coca-Cola, and that "half the government was Blue Sun", it sounds to me as if he is simply alluding to Blue Sun's influence as an interplanetary conglomerate; that it is powerful and omni-present. He may just be hiding facts about Blue Sun that he already knows, but it sounds more as though he didn't have a very precise idea of what Blue Sun would come to represent. I'll be rewriting parts of the article to bring this topic into it (since the current mention of Blue Sun is weirdly out of place amidst a discussion of the series' setting). -- Wapcaplet 18:45, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)



Removals


Some stuff I took out:



  • (about cancellation): [I]t was also suggested that Whedon's additional responsibilities on Angel after co-creator David Greenwalt's departure from that show was a contributing factor

    • I've always been uncomfortable with this bit, since it's not referenced; I fail to see how Whedon's additional responsibilities on Angel could have adversely impacted Firefly. It's not like he slacked off or did a lousy job on Firefly because of it, and most of the episodes were most likely done by the time Greenwalt departed (anyone know when that was?)

      • I've actually heard the opposite, that Whedon was so involved with Firefly that his preoccupation with that show was blamed for Buffy's cancellation. 23skidoo 16:35, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

        • I don't think Buffy was cancelled; it just ended. And if you meant the cancellation of Angel, then that's odd, since Angel wasn't cancelled until almost two years after Firefly was over. -- Wapcaplet 20:46, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • 

  • Some have noted that Reynolds' story appears to be modelled on the life of Jesse James. This may explain the  western theme for a science-fiction show. Others say that Space Westerns are a very common form of the literary device known pejoratively as "used furniture".

    • Unless someone can provide references as to who these "some" and "others" are, I don't see a place for this. I don't see any particular parallels between Reynolds and Jesse James.
    • 

  • (about those who exploited/damaged River): presumably by the agency whose operatives include the "men in blue gloves"

    • Speculation. We don't know who the blue dudes are. They want River, but maybe it's to kill her, recruit her for their organization, etc. I always kind of thought that Jubal Earley was someone from the organization that experimented on River; Earley seemed like a marginally more socially functioning version of River, a partially psychic impartial observer with directed brain damage.
    • 

  • (about River's exploitation): (but with strong hints of brain tampering to bring out a natural psychic ability)

    • Also speculation. Brain tampering fairly obvious; reasons for it unobvious.
    • 

  • (about Book): though there are hints that he is the agent of some organization with an interest in the welfare of River and Simon.

    • More speculation. I always figured he was protective of the Tams because he's a nice guy. I rephrased Book's bio to be more neutral, without diluting his mysteriousness.


I added the "Speculations" section at the bottom. I tried to use neutral, facts-only phrasing here. -- Wapcaplet 19:52, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)



Speculation - Multiple Planets


"It should be noted that the show was, by necessity, not filmed on multiple planets."

What does this even mean?  Of course the show wasn't filmed on multiple planets...I don't see many productions being made on Mars.

On the other hand, if the person means that every planet in the show looks the same because they're all supposed to be the same planet, then this is also wrong.

I'm removing this until someone clarifies what they mean.
Gnrlotto 02:31, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What it means that every planet looks the same not because they were supposed to be the same, but because they are, in reality outisde the show, the same. Griping and speculating about every planet looking the same is fairly pointless because, as you noted, it's not as if the production crew is going to film on another planet for verisimilitude. Khanartist 03:33, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In my revert I also reinstated your removal of the product label mentions, as it wasn't justified. If you have a good reason for why it shouldn't be there, I'm open to it.  Khanartist 03:37, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)



  • Every planet looks the same? I don't really think so. Sure, they did seem to visit quite a few planets that all look like the Wild West, but there was also Ariel, Persephone and others that had a different look entirely. Think of the floating islands from "Trash," or the English-countryside look of the duel scene in "Shindig." Maybe a lot of the planets on which there was human settlement were mostly barren rocks. Maybe we see so many barren desert areas simply because that's where Malcolm Reynolds tends to do business most often. Keep in mind, also, that all of the planets we see are terraformed for human life. -- Wapcaplet 04:16, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


    • I should have pointed out more clearly that this is in reference to light-sourcing, not geology or colonization. Khanartist 04:38, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


If you mean light-sourcing, then you are also incorrect.  They can change the filters on cameras, and use different lighting to give planets different appearances.  Remember the planet in Pitch Black?  One of it's three suns was blue (ironic, huh?), so when it was in the sky, they used a blue filter.  Firefly never changes it's filters for that, and they don't do it by necessity, either. The removal is justified.Gnrlotto 15:40, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The color issue is noted, but the main point of my argument is that size/distance of the suns always appears to be the same. Changing filters has no effect on that. Altering the images with computer graphics coudl, but that was not done, either due to budget issues or apathy. The point is that either way this is an inconsequential issue which does not merit a geeky nitpciking in the article.  Khanartist 17:36, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC) 

There was a comment about not being able to see other planets/moons in the sky: this is incorrect. Look behind Mal in "The Train Job" when he calls Wash for his grand entrance.--SarekOfVulcan 19:00, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)



  • Noted and fixed, althought thw highly tangential reference doesn't change the fact that the light appears the same, and not out of necessity.


Well, considering that humans, as far as we know, can only thrive on a planet that receives heat and light comparable to that of our own sun, it makes sense that most of the colonized planets we see in Firefly have similar lighting. The more geeky, technical shows like Star Trek tended to have more variation in that, but I think the main reason that the lighting appears the same on most planets is the same reason we never get an explanation of whether there's light-speed travel in the Firefly universe - because it's completely irrelevant in telling the story. Let's not nitpick too much here. Every scifi show is likely to involve some hand-waving when it comes to explaining things that aren't of importance in telling the story. Romulans and Klingons, not to mention most other alien races in Star Trek, spoke English a little bit too fluently and frequently, a fact explained away by invoking the Universal Translator or some such (though I think the Babel fish was a better explanation  :-) -- Wapcaplet 22:55, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)



  • But if it fits in a speculation about the type of travel/galaxy in Firefly, then leave it be. Trying to explain away a speculation with a "By necessity they were all filmed on Earth," type of statement is unneccessary and incorrect when referencing lighting which can very clearly illustrate what kind of system the planets are in. Secondly, dismissing all of this "as it's not important to the story," completely misses the point of this speculation in the first place.Gnrlotto 00:32, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)




I reverted this contribution, since it took what I think was a good, succinct NPOV statement and turned it into a rebuttal. If there are objections, please raise them here. -- Wapcaplet 06:18, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Do we have a consensus on the Alliance's character? Obviously they're antagonistic, but that doesn't necessarily make them evil. Khanartist 22:05, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't know that we can really say much about the Alliance. We know they are a large, powerful government/police organization, we know they are imperial in nature, since all the core planets are under their rule, and we know they are well-funded, with big fancy ships and nice uniforms, but little aside from that. We don't know who is in charge of it, whether they answer to a higher authority, or whether they have an agenda other than that expected from an imperial government. It's strongly implied in the series that those planets under Alliance control are typically more technologically advanced and civilized. The only reason they are portrayed as antagonistic in the series is that Mal's crew tends to be on the wrong side of the law for one reason or another, and because Mal and Zoe are veterans of a war against them. -- Wapcaplet 23:40, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)



Release date


Where was it announced that the Serenity release date has been pushed back? The official movie website still says April 22, 2005. -- Wapcaplet 22:58, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Joss himself announced it on his website. You can find liknks to it on the Browncoats site, too. - UtherSRG 23:18, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ah. Bummer. -- Wapcaplet 01:47, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)



Anglo-Sino Alliance?


Nothing major, but a quibble that I'd like to see cleared up one way or another. Is Anglo-Sino the Alliance's official or canonical name? Has that appellation ever been used on the show? As the prefix Anglo- is given to England or the United Kingdom, I find it strange that it would be applied to a merger of the US and the PRC. Khanartist 04:23, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)



  • AFAIK, the state affiliation of the Alliance has never been mentioned. I could be wrong, though. -- Wapcaplet 05:07, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • 

  • I've moved Anglo-Sino Alliance to Alliance (Firefly) and rephrased this article appropriately (that is, unless anyone can provide canonical evidence that the Alliance is known as anything other than "The Alliance"). I seem to recall in DVD commentary the mention that presumably the Alliance consisted of what remained of the U.S. and Chinese governments, but again: let's separate truth from canon. We can be fans without the cruft. -- Wapcaplet 18:45, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


OK, after this edit restoring the presumed Anglo-Sino nature of the Alliance, I've got to ask that this be qualified with a reference to the commentary in which it was stated (since it was never revealed in the show itself). Does anyone have that reference? -- Wapcaplet 05:08, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)



Chinese swearing


I know Chinese is not used just for swearing  (which is why I wrote that it's frequently used for swearing [5]). I think it's important to note the fact that it's predominantly used for swearing, and only rarely spoken for other reasons. There are probably a few others, but the only time I can recall a character speaking (not swearing) in Chinese was in Serenity, when Wash says something to Zoe on his way out of the cargo hold. I think it's misleading to imply that Chinese is commonly spoken in polite discourse in the series. -- Wapcaplet 17:38, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)



From [6]: we're in big trouble, sweetheart, no way, big change, of course, hold on a second, understand?, don't worry, a knot of self indulgent lunacy, nonsense, junk, loopy in the head, life support failure, check oxygen levels at once, mind your own business, jerk, consistently useless, brilliant, horrible old tyrant, go far away very fast, nuts, you're looking wonderful old friend, garbage, now, little sister. The other half's at [7], and then there's also the visible Chinese. — Jeandré, 2005-02-21t11:51z


I watch the DVDs with the subtitles turned on and whenever they use Chinese it puts up [speaking Chinese].  It is used extensively in non swearing situations for most episodes (more in the first 5 or 6).  In Out of Gas the computer announcing the termination of life support repeats every warning in both languages.  In the episode where there is a flashback to River and Simon's childhood both children and the father use it a lot and I don't think any of them are swearing (though they do get scolded).  It is also commonly used for various adjectives and other interjections which are not always vulgar.  Obviously there is not a lot of content since people;e need to follow the story but to say its mostly swearing is misleading.  It is mostly for interjections or signs of amazement of displeasure which can be conveyed with tone of voice etc. Dalf | Talk 06:09, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Collapsing witticisms


As I belatedly got around to watching Firefly (a serious competitor with Buffy as Joss Whedon's best, IMHO), I found myself wondering about something. One of many recurring entertainments of these Whedon shows is the occasional witty line that suddenly dies in the middle, as if the wit suddenly ran out. Here are Buffy and Firefly examples:



Buffy: Giles, it's one thing to be a Watcher and a librarian. They go together, like chicken and… guh, another chicken… or… two… chickens, or… something — you know what I'm saying!

from Buffy, "What's My Line?", Part I




Mal: Well, looks can be deceiving.


Jayne: Not as deceivin' as a low-down… dirty… deceiver.

from Firefly, "Out of Gas"




Jayne: Captain says you're to stay put. Doesn't want you to run afoul of his blushin' psychotic bride. She figures out who you are, she'll turn you in before you can say… "Don't turn me in, lady."

from Firefly, "Trash"; somehow Firefly's always come from Jayne ☺


I haven't seen Angel enough to provide an example, but I'd be shocked if it didn't have plenty to offer. What I'm wondering is whether Whedon-show fans have come up with a term for these collapsing witticisms, like MST3K's "Crow Syndrome" (extending suggestive quips to an extreme, only to be shouted down). The structure certainly isn't unique to Whedon's shows — Blackadder has a good measure of these — but I was hoping that there was a shorthand term among the Buffy/Angel/Firefly crowd. — Jeff Q (talk) 22:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)



Which Show?


An anon has changed a reference in the "Setting" section from Cowboy Bebop to Outlaw Star. I've never heard of either show, so I won't comment, but does anyone more knowledgeable want to take a crack at it? Khanartist 18:51, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

I've never heard of either of these show either, but Wiki does have articles on both of them.  It does look like, however, that Outlaw Star more closely represents the plot and setting.  I suggest we put both references (Outlaw Star and Cowboy Bebop) in, though.  Stanselmdoc 20:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Firefly DEFINATELY reminds me of cowboy bebop in ways. I would not say they are the same, but definately worth mentioning. I have not seen outlaw star, or trigun... Both of which are referenced currently. I added "and cowboy bebop" after the trigun reference to include it. From what i can tell it was originally cowboy bebop, and someone replaced it with outlaw star, then someone added trigun. Someone who has seen all 3 anime series may be better able to write a commentary on the 3 related to Firefly, but for now, all three seem to have enough similarity to firefly to mention.
~ James 07:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)



Tim Minear on out of order airings


Popgurls: There was a lot of talk about some Firefly episodes not airing in order. Whose decision was this, and did you have any say so?

Tim Minear: Well, again I return to the pilot not airing first. This colored everything that came after it. While the network was forever trying to get us to air out of order, in the end it was my notion to pull "Our Mrs. Reynolds" up in the rotation, because I felt it had a lot of great character stuff and was spaceship-bound. This bumped "Shindig" and "Safe" down in the airing order. Our fear was that "Shindig" looked like Gone With The Wind, and again, without the pilot to elegantly introduce the hybrid western/science fiction setting, people would be confused. (And they were, by the way. The most common comment we'd see is "Why the old guns and horses?")

"Shindig" was a fish-out-of-water story, and, without the pilot as introduction, we'd not had the chance to really set up the "fish" or the "water." Also, the original cut of "Safe" was rather troubled and needed a whole lot of reshoots and reworking. It couldn't be ready to air after "Shindig" if "Shindig" came early, and because "Safe" takes place right on the tail of "Shindig," we needed more post production time on these two. This was another reason to push those two episodes and pull up "Our Mrs. Reynolds."

-- excerpt from Popgurls.com interview, posted here by 67.136.145.246 at 08:42, 9 July 2005 (UTC)



Unnecessary disambiguation for character articles


I expect shortly to be creating articles on the currently missing regulars of Firefly (Wash, Inara, Simon, and River), unless someone beats me to it. I noticed that the links to all but Zoë, Wash, and Book have "(Firefly character)" unnecessarily appended to their names. Wikipedia practice normally gives the undisambiguated name as an article title to the most famous person with that name, and so far, none but "Malcolm Reynolds" seems even to have the least likelihood of requiring disambiguation. Other than the technical difficulty of moving "Jayne Cobb" back to the original undab'd position, is there any compelling reason not to have them all without the unnecessary disambiguation? (The fully dab'd links would remain as redirects and against future contention for priority.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)



No one seems to be concerned about this simiplification of character articles, so I've gone ahead and moved Malcolm Reynolds, Inara Serra, and River Tam to their undab'd forms. I've prepped Jayne Cobb (Firefly character) to be moved and requested a move to Jayne Cobb by an admin because both articles have histories. I've left Zoë, Wash, and Book alone, since their one-part names aren't especially unique, and I've left  Simon Tam (Firefly character) undab'd here in anticipation of creating the fully-qualified name and then moving it to short form (which isn't currently in use). Kaylee Frye was already undab'd. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


With the creation of articles for Simon and Wash, and the successful move of Jayne's article, all the regulars now have articles that follow the naming structure described above, except that Simon's was apparently created directly as Simon Tam, which is just as well. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


Dull-witted?


Is the description of Jayne as "dull-witted" accurate? I admit, I've only watched the first three eps ("Pilot" through "Bushwhacked"), but he doesn't seem all that stupid to me -- just very self-interested. --Jay (Histrion) 16:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)



Keep watching. He's stupid. His self-interested plots always fail. The Singing Badger 16:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


Hes not really dull witted, hes actually really smart, if you watch the whole series, hes justtoo selfiish for hat to shine throughGavin the Chosen 22:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


I agree with Gavin, there is a lot more to Jayne than at first appears. He is quite intelligent, but that intelligence is funnelled down certain tracks rather than a general intelligence. He is actually one of the more complex characters in the show if you look behind the facade he projects. Ben W Bell 07:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


Episode list


Now that we have articles for each of the 14 Firefly episodes (however currently stubby), is there any reason to have that honkin' big matrix in the middle of the article? It has a lot of minor details that seem better presented in each show's article (which I've added to them). The only thing missing from each show's Infobox is the channel on which each episode first aired, and that could be added to the show articles, parenthesized in a bulleted episode list here, or both. Any objects to my converting the table to a simple bulleted list? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)



After ensuring that every bit of data from the episode table (including the networks) had been copied into each episode's individual article, I replaced the table with a simple numbered list and placed it at the top of a new section, Episode airing and cancellation, that combines the previous "Airing and cancellation" and "Episodes" sections, hopefully not too artlessly. Added benefit: the A&C text no longer requires jumping ahead to match the episode numbers to the show titles, since they're just above them in a more compact form. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


"Reavers" capitalization


Can anyone provide a canonical source for whether it's spelled "Reavers" or "reavers"? In other words, is it treated as a proper noun? I haven't noticed anything written in the TV episodes, and the comic has dialog in all-uppercase form. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



I'm guessing that due to the strong use of the word that it is capitalised, as in Reavers. I'd treat them as a race in this sense, like Chinese or African, as they are a separate culture to the rest of the verse. Ben W Bell 07:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


Joss has indicated in interview that he conceived of Reavers as a race or culture, akin to Apache in the old west mythos, so I would guess it is appropriate to make it formal. BarkingDoc


Thanks for the info, but I'm looking for something more substantial than "guesses". Has anyone caught Joss Whedon or other canonical authority having published something that clarifies this? As I mentioned, the comics are useless, as they're all-uppercase. Transcriptions of conversations aren't reliable, because they tend to follow interviewers' perceptions and editors' style practices. Blog material is probably unhelpful because it tends to be all-lowercase, but  a posted direct communication from Whedon et al. that included some capitalization might prove useful. A shooting script might be the best source. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


Reference
From the original script for "Serenity" (the Pilot) located at 
http://www.twiztv.com/scripts/firefly/season1/firefly-111.htm 



JAYNE


You trust her?


MAL


Bout as much as I'd trust a baby to


a pack of Reavers. But that don't


matter now. Alliance...


Also, from "Bushwhacked" at FireflyWiki



SIMON


What do you mean?


MAL


That ship was hit by Reavers


I haven't been able to find an instance in any of Joss's posts on the topic, but I will keep my eye out. For now I think this is a reliable reference, and I have not found any instance in any interview, site, or Firefly related source which does not have Reavers capitalized. BarkingDoc 00:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)



Serenity film an "episode"?


I'll repeat here a question I asked at Category talk:Firefly episodes: Should Serenity (film) be included as a Firefly episode? Technically, it's a movie, not a TV-show episode, but it's surely going to be considered a canonical "episode" of the Firefly story. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)



I believe that in terms of raw accuracy that Serenity the film should not be considered an episode of the series, and that any information on the film should be included in the article for the film. Though made by many of the same people. Even the recent article in Entertainment Weekly includes a specific conversation with Whedon about his feelings in finally realizing that "Serenity is not Firefly" --- that the movie by its nature simply cannot be the same thing that the TV show was. While certainly "canon" from an artistic standpoint, I think that just like any other spin-off or after-the-fact project the movie would accurately fall into the category of "works based on Firefly." BarkingDoc 08:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)







Outlaw Star


Wouldn't this section classify as original research?  Wynler 17:06:33, 2005-08-25 (UTC)



Sure looks like it to me (see Wikipedia:No original research). I don't think it's appropriate (as Simon might say) to have such an extensive treatment of this material here. Sure, say "So-and-so has made note of similarities between Firefly and Outlaw Star", and let an external link tell the story. -- Wapcaplet 17:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The section should be removed. Also, it's got some movie information, plus it is out of sync (size wise) to the rest of the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:35, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Ha!  I just saw this.  This is a worse stretch than those stupid Lincoln-Kennedy comparisons.  Oh my God!  Both names have seven letters!!!


I own both on DVD and the comparisons are very, very thin - other than the general idea of River and Melfina being girls with special, mysterious powers both of whom just happened to be in a box at one time.  And the whole outlaws in space thing, which has been around in anime for a little while now.  Outlaw Star doesn't have a monopoly on that concept.


I mean, seriously, comparing Shepherd to Suzuka?  They aren't even comparable!  Suzuka's an assassin!  RADICALBENDER★ 17:52, August 25, 2005 (UTC)


Right, clearly this is a stretch. Two shows about ships with a crew that operates outside the law who take on a girl who awakens from cryogenic sleep in a a box and seek a great revelation about why the government designed that girl and are pursued by said government but a crewmember's love for the girl keeps her around. And every character being connectable. Clearly that's a silly stretch. As for Book to Suzuka, Book is constantly showing assassin-like abilities, he is not just a monk. Staxringold 19:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


My point is, you can find similarities between anything if you squint hard enough.  At most, there should be an article about this that is exactly like Lincoln-Kennedy coincidences.  It says that, sure there are some coincidences, but they're mostly inconsequential.  And, yes, it does border on original research.  The idea may not be new (people have been shooting down comparisons between the two shows ever since the first person ignorantly floated the idea when they had only seen the teaser trailers for Firefly), but your interpretations of similarities are mostly original research.


And I stand by refutation.  Shepherd is no Suzuka, any more than Joe Friday is the same as Andy Sipowicz just because they're both cops.  It is a silly stretch, whether you choose to see it or not.  RADICALBENDER★ 21:16, August 25, 2005 (UTC)


Outlaw Star Reverts


Please stop using the Edit Summary for conversation during reverts.  Come to discussion for consensus please.  I suggest this get split off into a seperate article. - Chairboy 17:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)



I've left a note on Staxringold's user talk page to request discussion here.  This is close to a WP:3RR violation, but let's hope it can be resolved before that. - LarryMac


I disagree that it should be split off. See the above section. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:43, August 25, 2005 (UTC)



You've contradicted yourself, UtherSRG.   For the record, I believe it should be a separate article, which can then be judged on it's own.  LarryMac 17:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

No I didn't. If I agreed it should be split off, I would be stating it should stay on Wikipedia. I believe it should be removed on the grounds of Original Research, not split off into its own article. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:01, August 25, 2005 (UTC)


Sorry, I misinterpreted.  I got confused by seeing "agree" in one section and "disagree" in one section. My apologies. LarryMac 18:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


No prob. I'm always happy to clarify. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:12, August 25, 2005 (UTC)


I think the section should stay. There are so many similarities, and that makes it relevant to the article. (And I found it fascinating.) But I haven't decided completely and am open to discussion. --Fang Aili 18:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)



Why can't this article be split off? You claim it's original research, but essentially every character in Firefly is quite similar to a character from Outlaw Star. As a seperate article it would take up just one small link on the Firefly and Outlaw Star pages, but all that content wouldn't be lost. (I was not aware of the 3RR, sorry about that) Staxringold 19:09, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


I've no problem with it being split off into another article, but your going to have a big fight keeping it due to WP:NOR.  But I'm not going to complain about it as a separate article.   I just don't think it belongs here.Wynler 19:18:05, 2005-08-25 (UTC)


I'll give that course of action a try then. It is not, BTW, original research, it has been discussed numerous times on many Firefly forums. Again, sorry about the repeated reverts, I thought my content was being vandalized. Staxringold 19:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


I did not argue that it's original research. I do not think it is. Also, I've changed my mind about the sections: 1. The comparison section should get its own page because it is quite long, and 2. The "See also Other science fiction/western hybrids" section should stay with Firefly. This section leads people to explore further, and it is not very long. Fang Aili 20:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


Despite my own contributions to this section, I have to agree that this is original research. Just become something appears to be obvious to some doesn't override the clear policy, set out in the first section of WP:NOR, from which I quote two critical lines:

Original research refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication…"


This prohibition does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere (although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate)."


I think you've disproved yourself. A google search of "firefly and outlaw star" yielded multiple sites, each discussing the similarities of the programs. I think that qualifies as "available elsewhere". Fang Aili 02:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


I think if you hadn't interrupted the contiguity of my original posting, Fang Aili, you would have read in the next paragraph why fan sites are unlikely to impress anyone but fans as "appropriate". Why do you think I included the parenthetical text in the second quoted line and also quoted it below? Must I make it blink to be noticed? :-) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


The question of whether the material is true or obvious is irrelevant; it's purely a matter of having reliable sources. I believe that Wikipedia still considers fan forums, however popular or well-known, not to be "reputable publications", and the NOR "police" will almost certainly deem them "disreputable or inappropriate". I have mixed feelings about this policy, but in general, I think it's a good brake to overly enthusiastic fancruft. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


Perhaps we can agree to move the Outlaw Star comparison section to its own article, and then submit that article to VfD and see what others think. Thoughts? Fang Aili 02:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


I concur with the move. I'm ambivalent about VfD, partly because I might feel compelled to vote against it based on policy. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


based on policy--I'd say that's a good reason to vote against it. I myself don't think it's original research, but the fancruft argument may be compelling. -Fang Aili 14:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


Music


I'd love to see a section about the music in the show. Some of it (and not just the obvious Ballad of Serenity theme tune or the Hero of Canton song) sticks in my mind. Any takers? Nearside 21:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)



Viral Marketing


I added a section about the R. Tam videos that have been circulating on the internet.  They may go better on the movie page, but I've been avoiding it because of the spoilers.  If someone wants to check if there's a section over there already, and possibly move this one there if none exists, I'd appreciate it.

Quickbeam 06:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)






news:alt.tv.firefly


Perhaps it might be better to link to something like Google groups instead of a news: link? For a user that has never used newsgroups it is just going to launch confusing programs on their pc, and anyone who already knows howto use newsgroups would probobly prefer to add the group manually anway. --Windsok 11:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)



Firefly and Outlaw Star


A recent deletion discussion was held on the content copied below.  As a result of that discussion, there was a clear consensus that the content did not belong in Wikipedia as an independent article.  Several people argued, however, that the content could or should be merged here.  May I ask you to consider and decide whether this content is appropriate in this article?  Thank you.  Rossami (talk) 03:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Copied text begins
Image:FireflyGirlInBox1.jpg
Image:FireflyGirlInBox2.jpg
There are many similarities between elements of Firefly and anime series Outlaw Star.  



  • Comparing and contrasting River Tam of Firefly and Melfina of Outlaw Star

    • Both are transported in a cargo box taken on by a transport hired by the box's possessor, who doesn't reveal the box's contents. River's brother Simon Tam hires Malcolm Reynolds and Serenity for their voyage. "Hot Ice" Hilda hires Jim and Gene to unknowingly transport Melfina.
      • 

    • Both women are revealed in their series' first-hour cliffhanger conclusion (the midpoint of a two-hour pilot), during or shortly after a gun fight. River is uncrated by Mal after a Mexican standoff with an undercover Fed looking for the fugitive girl. Melfina awakens in the middle of a battle with the Kei Pirates.
      • 

    • Both fugitives have unusual abilities that are programmed in by the military government in their universe. River is a genius child whose brain was experimentally altered by the Alliance, Firefly's military/commercial government. Melfina is a bio-android built by the "Space Forces", Outlaw Star's military government.
      • 

    • Both are aided for the majority of the series by someone other than the person who originally stole them because that person has made a promise to help unlock the mysteries of what the government did to them. Simon promises to unlock what the Alliance did to River's brain, and Gene promises Melfina he will figure out why she was made.


  • Other similarities:

    • Both series present vicious opponents who commit horrific acts of violence. Firefly's feral Reavers have no order, creed, or code of any kind and exist "on the edge of space", outside of the control and even awareness of Alliance law enforcement. Outlaw Star's Space Pirates are broken into ordered clans who live in "Pirate Territory", outside the influence of the Space Forces.
      • 

    • Both series are centered around the activities of outlaws. Just as Serenity's crew performs illegal salvage and smuggling along with the occasional honest transport job to get by, the Outlaw Star crew, part of the "Outlaw" clan, supplements its illegal activities through legal Starwind and Hawking Enterprises jobs.
      • 

    • Both ships are regarded as an additional character to their series, with its own "personality". Serenity is referred to by the cast and crew as "the 10th character", even warranting its own special feature on the DVD release of Firefly. The Outlaw Star has the more literal personality of Gilium, the in-ship AI.
      • 

    • Both ships have a thick-headed, muscle-bound warrior who seeks monetary reward using the fugitive. Jayne Cobb wants to turn in River (and Simon) for a reward, while Aisha Clan-Clan (crewmember of the Outlaw Star) desperately wants the valuable treasure she believes the Galactic Leyline to be, which can only be reached with Melfina's navigational abilities.
      • 

    • Both ships have mysterious, spiritual warriors on board with unknown backgrounds who come and go. Shepherd Book is a Christian monk who demonstrates incredible fighting abilities and an unexplained knowledge of criminal activity. "Sunset" Suzuka is a mysterious assassin with an unknown past (who often quotes Buddhist/Confucianist wisdom).
      • 

    • Both ships have childlike engineers who have an oft-adversarial relationship with the captain, but always make up with him in the end. Kaylee Frye is Serenity's young engineer, whose upbeat attitude and innocence often clashes with the captain's realism and dangerous plans. Jim Hawking is an actual child, a mechanical expert who often fights with Gene over their finances or the latter's wild plans.
      • 

    • Both series feature ominous villains who will stop at nothing to catch the fugitives. River is pursued by the murderous Blue Gloves, an insane mercenary (Jubal Early), and in the movie Serenity, a cruel person known as The Operative. In Outlaw Star, Melfina is pursed by a vicious pair known as the MacDougall Brothers.
      • 

    • Both series feature a repeating character who the captain dislikes, but is forced to visit for supplies. In Firefly, Badger gives Reynolds work on several occasions but Reynolds finds him disgusting. In Outlaw Star, Fred Luo is a rich buisnessman with a homosexual attraction to Gene Starwind which Gene finds disgusting.



copied text ends



I believe the article has merit and widespread (as evidenced by the 8 links I provided in the deletion vote, I can hunt down more if you want) theory amongst both Firefly and Outlaw Star fans. No, 100% of the fan populace will not agree on the view so it should go in speculation, but it is a widely held speculation (and partially confirmed, at least with the Girl in Box section) Staxringold 03:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)




I don't think it lacks interest, at all, it just is not enyclopedic content. It is just an interesting train of thought. I do think it is fine for there to be a single sentence noting that Firefly is similar to Outlaw Star and other Western/Sci-Fi hybrids, and a link at the end of the article to one of the many sites which discusses this in detail. I don't understand why it is such a long discussion, honestly: the similarities are obvious, they clearly exist. But they are not encyclopedic information. Unless the accusation is that Joss Whedon intentionally stole the idea (that is ridiculous) which is not stated anywhere in any of the articles. In the long history of the world, there are several fictional stories which happen to resemble each other. Plus, the specific reason to have a hyperlinked encyclopedia is so that people who are interested in that idea can go to the Outlaw Star article and make the comparison for themselves. BarkingDoc 05:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

While not an editor of this article, I would like to chime in with the opinion that the "girls in boxes" is the only plot element in this list that's particularly unique. The other comparisons seem to me that the author is frevently grasping at straws in order to have something besides "girl in box" to validate some connection between the two series; those plot points are very, very common in fiction of all sorts. --Apostrophe 01:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)









Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Firefly_(TV_series)/Archive_1&oldid=1136727317"