TiVoCommunity.com
(c)opyright 1995-2005 All rights reserved
indexcheckTC
This area is a static history of posts in the TiVo Community Forum Archive.
This archive history was made for the simple indexing of search sites like
Google.
Pages:1
Ok, I just finished the first two DVDs of Firefly ...
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: GameGuru
... and this show is great. I can't believe I never saw it when it was originally on! Why did they cancel it? I think the characters are really cool and the whole western/sci-fi concept is cool. I think I read on here that there are going to be some FireFly movies, is this true?
Posted by: Skittles
Welcome to the Firefly club. I started a similar thread a few weeks ago, and had almost the same reaction. The show is a work of art.
The Firefly movie is tentatively titled Serenity, and should be premeiring in Summer of 2005. :)
Posted by: ThreeSoFar
Network execs have always been the dumbest people alive.
Until this move by Fox, that network had been the exception.
*sigh*
Posted by: David Platt
quote:
Originally posted by ThreeSoFar
Network execs have always been the dumbest people alive.
Until this move by Fox, that network had been the exception.
*sigh*
:confused: :confused:
You're not counting Undeclared or Andy Richter Controls the Universe? Both of those cancellations happened before Firefly.
Posted by: GameGuru
Joss is a genius writer, he develops very likeable (and no so likeable characters) and yet he keeps getting canceled (Buffy and Angel after 5 seasons and Firefly after 1). I hope UPN picks up Angel and maybe even Firefly. That would be awesome.
Posted by: Rob Helmerichs
Buffy lasted seven...
And the reason his shows don't last forever is because not very many people watch them.
You see, people aren't generally like us. Generally, they're stupid. They watch stupid shows. Whedon writes smart shows. Most people just can't relate to Whedon shows.
Posted by: Peter000
quote:
Originally posted by Medieval Guy
You see, people aren't generally like us. Generally, they're stupid. They watch stupid shows. Whedon writes smart shows. Most people just can't relate to Whedon shows.
So what cable network would you think Joss would be most compatible with? I'm thinking Showtime or HBO. And it would be kind of fun to see what he'd do uncensored. Or, less highbrow/more commercial, maybe even USA.
Posted by: ThreeSoFar
And Buffy wasn't canceled, IIRC. Gellar wanted out I think.
Posted by: GameGuru
I suppose I should have clarified, Buffy and Angel were both canceled after 5 years (althought UPN picked up Buffy for another 2 after that). It seems like he keeps getting canceled even though his fans love his stuff.
Posted by: Skittles
quote:
Originally posted by GameGuru
I suppose I should have clarified, Buffy and Angel were both canceled after 5 years (althought UPN picked up Buffy for another 2 after that). It seems like he keeps getting canceled even though his fans love his stuff.
Well, Firefly *did* get a movie deal. And really, wouldn't the ULTIMATE kick-in-the-teeth to Fox be Firefly returning to *another* network, after a successful movie, and becoming a hit show? That's the kind of irony you only get in real life. ;)
Posted by: JYoung
quote:
Originally posted by ThreeSoFar
Network execs have always been the dumbest people alive.
Until this move by Fox, that network had been the exception.
*sigh*
Oh puuhhleeessee. Fox has been screwing it's shows for a while now. You haven't been paying attention, have you? ;)
Firefly, Futurama, Family Guy, Fastlane (ok, I don't care about Fastlane but I have the F thing going), John Doe, Action, Greg the Bunny, Andy Richter, Undeclared, Action, The Tick, Space Above and Beyond, The Lone Gunmen.
All shows treated poorly and then cancelled by Fox.
Burn in Hell, Fox! :mad:
GameGuru, welcome aboard Serenity! Here's your Browncoat.
Posted by: GameGuru
Thanks, and I just wanted to let everyone know about my upcoming nuptials with Jewel Staite! :)
Posted by: bdowell
Add Keen Eddie to the list too!
Posted by: ThreeSoFar
Sure, I oversimplified. Firefly is the most recent and glaring example I could think of.
But I also think that fully half of the shows you mentioned were pure crap and should have been canceled. Lone Gunmen? Puuhhhhhhleeeeeese.:down:
quote:
Originally posted by JYoung
Oh puuhhleeessee. Fox has been screwing it's shows for a while now. You haven't been paying attention, have you? ;)
Firefly, Futurama, Family Guy, Fastlane (ok, I don't care about Fastlane but I have the F thing going), John Doe, Action, Greg the Bunny, Andy Richter, Undeclared, Action, The Tick, Space Above and Beyond, The Lone Gunmen.
All shows treated poorly and then cancelled by Fox.
Burn in Hell, Fox! :mad:
GameGuru, welcome aboard Serenity! Here's your Browncoat.
Posted by: sschwart
quote:
Originally posted by GameGuru
Thanks, and I just wanted to let everyone know about my upcoming nuptials with Jewel Staite! :)
Back off Guru, she's mine! :)
Posted by: HTH
Herman's Head.
Posted by: GameGuru
Well I just finished all four DVDs and I am longing for more. I can't wait for the movies to start coming out.
The extras said that there Christmas Party turned out to be the wrap party. That had to suck.
Posted by: mcdougll
quote:
Originally posted by JYoung
Oh puuhhleeessee. Fox has been screwing it's shows for a while now. You haven't been paying attention, have you? ;)
Firefly, Futurama, Family Guy, Fastlane (ok, I don't care about Fastlane but I have the F thing going), John Doe, Action, Greg the Bunny, Andy Richter, Undeclared, Action, The Tick, Space Above and Beyond, The Lone Gunmen.
All shows treated poorly and then cancelled by Fox.
Burn in Hell, Fox! :mad:
GameGuru, welcome aboard Serenity! Here's your Browncoat.
[nitpick] Do you realize you listed Action twice? Just wondering... [/nitpick]
:)
Posted by: JYoung
quote:
Originally posted by mcdougll
[nitpick] Do you realize you listed Action twice? Just wondering... [/nitpick]
:)
It was that good.....
Posted by: dmdeane
quote:
Originally posted by ThreeSoFar
Sure, I oversimplified. Firefly is the most recent and glaring example I could think of.
But I also think that fully half of the shows you mentioned were pure crap and should have been canceled. Lone Gunmen? Puuhhhhhhleeeeeese.:down:
Nothing wrong with the Lone Gunmen. Quite a good concept actually, had it been allowed to develop it would have been a fairly interesting and amusing X-Files spinoff, esp. a good thing since X-Files was getting lazy and uninteresting by that point in time. The three actors in question always were fun within the X-Files, and had their moments as well as a spinoff. They were never given a chance to develop.
In retrospect, the fact that one of the episodes featured a terrorist(?) using remote control to pilot a jet airliner into the World Trade Center, sounds awfully suspicious to those inclined to doubt the official version of the events of 9/11/01. It was a bit too eerie. Art imitates life and all that.
Posted by: Tivortex
Just thought I'd point out a nice Firefly fan site over here : http://www.fireflyfans.net/
Posted by: packerfan
quote:
Originally posted by David Platt
:confused: :confused:
You're not counting Undeclared or Andy Richter Controls the Universe? Both of those cancellations happened before Firefly.
Don't forget Family Guy.
Posted by: jwjody
quote:
Originally posted by GameGuru
Thanks, and I just wanted to let everyone know about my upcoming nuptials with Jewel Staite! :)
Morena Baccarin rules!!
J
Posted by: dmdeane
quote:
Originally posted by Medieval Guy
Buffy lasted seven...
And the reason his shows don't last forever is because not very many people watch them.
You see, people aren't generally like us. Generally, they're stupid. They watch stupid shows. Whedon writes smart shows. Most people just can't relate to Whedon shows.
Well, I don't know. People are stupid, but that doesn't mean they can't appreciate quality if they are offered it. Shakespeare was originally "pop" culture, too.
There are still large numbers of people who won't watch TV shows based on fantasy or sci fi, on principle. That's stupid too, but shows like Buffy, Angel, Firefly, etc., will never reach these people, no matter how smart/stupid.
Don't underestimate the power of word of mouth, provided a show isn't totally buried on a bad time slot, obscure network, or moved around a lot. There's a science to killing a show a network does not want, and network execs have gotten very good at doing that.
There's plenty of "space" in our 100+ channel world for Whedon's shows, they don't all have to be mega-mass-super hits to be profitable.
Posted by: murgatroyd
quote:
Originally posted by bdowell
Add Keen Eddie to the list too!
Keen Eddie AND Wonderfalls. :(
Jan
Posted by: SparkleMotion
VR5 and Strange Luck also come to mind.
Posted by: canonelan2
Dark Angel was killed off with a rather large cliffhanger looming.
Posted by: Skittles
And let's not forget Firefly. ;)
FWIW, I got my parents hooked on this as well. They're half-interested in Buffy, but Firefly took up their full attention since they got started on it. They're already lamenting the fact that they've only got one more episode to watch, then it's a full year's wait until Serenity debuts.
Posted by: BeanMeScot
quote:
Originally posted by canonelan2
Dark Angel was killed off with a rather large cliffhanger looming.
The writers killed Dark Angel. The first season was fantastic. The second was just drivel.
Posted by: dcheesi
Fox's formula for sci-fi shows is as follows: Put it in the Friday "death slot", and if it does as well as X-Files, then you can start supporting it; otherwise it gets cancelled. What they seem to have forgotten is that it took a second season of X-Files before the show really found a following; if another X-Files were to appear today (and perhaps it already has), it would be killed off before it ever had a chance to show itself.
Posted by: Rob Helmerichs
quote:
Originally posted by BeanMeScot
The writers killed Dark Angel. The first season was fantastic. The second was just drivel.
Actually, it recovered very nicely in the second half...but by then it was too late.
Posted by: buffan
After just finishing re-watching all of Firefly, including the extra DVD content, I'll post something semi-heretical:
I personally think that Fox did make one good decision: The episode that Whedon planned to show first (Serenity was the title, I believe) was very slow, especially in the first half. I really enjoyed Firefly, but I still found that episode to be slow. So, personally, I don't blame Fox for making Train Job the first episode to hit the air. I think the show would have died even quicker if Serenity had been first. Anyway, that's just my opinion. I fully understand and sympathize with the other side of that debate.
Another thought that I had (which has undoubtedly been addressed here at other times), is that Firefly must have very expensive to shoot. Maybe if it had cost less, Fox could have shown more patience. I'm sure that X-Files cost much, much less to produce in years 1 & 2, so Fox wasn't losing so much money on each early episode produced.
With all that said, I'm still PO'd at Fox that the show is gone. And one of the unaired episodes was one of the 2-3 best overall. The episode where Malcolm's "wife" returned had the best humor of the series. And the brothel episode had some great moments also. Can't wait for the movie.
Posted by: Tivohud
Just my two cents on the Train job decision, but that episode seems to me a little over the top for the whole sci-fi western idea. In some ways the Train Job almost seems to be a parody of Firefly itself (which Joss is able to accomplish with flair) but to go almost over the top on the first episode I think turned a lot of people off.
To most people, even if they don't know it, stories are about the characters not the situations. If you don't have enough time to know and sympathize with the characters you really don't care what the situation is.
Posted by: dmdeane
quote:
Originally posted by Skittles
They're already lamenting the fact that they've only got one more episode to watch
Ah, but that last episode is "Objects in Space", which is, IMO, the best episode of the series.
Posted by: Attack
buffan
I remember that when Train Job aired so many people posted "This was crap, I'm not watching anymore" I then remember showing people / people that only watched Serenity say "how could this show have been canceled?" I have shown my DVD's to three other people and everyone seems to think that Train Job was the weakest episode.
Posted by: dmdeane
quote:
Originally posted by buffan
I personally think that Fox did make one good decision: The episode that Whedon planned to show first (Serenity was the title, I believe) was very slow, especially in the first half. I really enjoyed Firefly, but I still found that episode to be slow. So, personally, I don't blame Fox for making Train Job the first episode to hit the air. I think the show would have died even quicker if Serenity had been first. Anyway, that's just my opinion. I fully understand and sympathize with the other side of that debate.
It's a matter of expectations. If you expect a "sci fi western" to be all about action (which many people do), than you might be put off by Firefly's slower pace (punctuated by unexpected action). Given that Firefly as a whole wasn't intended to be a purely action show, however, I think "The Train Job" got people off on the wrong foot as to what to expect from Firefly as a series. As such, it hurt more than it helped. "Serenity" might have put some people off who were expecting something different, but it sets up the whole series properly and doesn't clash with the overall philosophy of Firefly as a series. As such, it would have helped more than hurt to run "Serenity" first, in the long run. Assuming Fox was really interested in the show finding its audience.
Also it is blindingly apparent, to anyone who watched the TV promos of Firefly that Fox aired, that Fox didn't have a clue about what kind of a show Firefly really was. It was wackiness with some dude playing with plastic dinosaurs and a naked girl popping out of a box (scenes from the "Serenity" pilot which they didn't air until last!). No wonder first time viewers were put off.
quote:
Another thought that I had (which has undoubtedly been addressed here at other times), is that Firefly must have very expensive to shoot.
I don't know why people assume this. Firefly had a lot less computer animation than other sci fi shows, and minimal makeup costs because there are no aliens that require lots of time consuming and expensive prosthetic work. Firefly can't be that expensive to make.
quote:
With all that said, I'm still PO'd at Fox that the show is gone. And one of the unaired episodes was one of the 2-3 best overall. The episode where Malcolm's "wife" returned had the best humor of the series.
That would be "Trash"; a very good episode.quote:
And the brothel episode had some great moments also.
That would be "Heart of Gold", easily the most forgettable Firefly episode. Some good moments, perhaps, but a very predictable plot, and a one-dimensional, uninteresting villain. Far too pedestrian an episode to be really worthy of the Firefly name.
Posted by: pseudonym
As much as I love Firefly, and am looking forward to the movie, I can't for a second imagine its going to be successful. The show was ignored by viewers, featured no big stars... it has bomb written all over it.
Maybe they think they can make it cheaply enough that they'll at least break even on DVD sales, which I'm sure will be substantial. But if I was one of those guys on the Hollywood Stock Exchange, I'd be putting alot of cash on it coming up short.
Still, I hope I'm wrong. I'd love to see sequels or a new series, even if I'd be willing to bet my net worth against it.
Posted by: LoadStar
I'm really not trying to thread crap... but...
I honestly don't see the appeal to this show. I watched some of the episodes when they were first on, but was quickly turned off.
The whole sci-fi meets western bit? Lame, incredibly lame. I honestly have a hard time swallowing a culture that has space travel technology but for some inexplicable reason (at least, inexplicable to me) continues to use covered wagons and similar 1800's era technology. If it would've been a "modernized western," with concepts familiar to westerns (saloons, small towns and "frontier living," farming, "cowboys," etc.) but updated for the century they were supposedly living in, I'd have had an easier time with the show.
And it wasn't a bizarre show concept in the same way as Buffy was. Buffy was another Joss creation with a bizarre show concept - but that was intentionally a corny show concept, turning the vampire B-movie theme on it's ear. Firefly, however, was bizarre yet strangely enough took itself seriously. Unfortunately, I couldn't take it seriously.
The writing was probably top-notch, as Joss shows typically are... and the characters were probably spectacular multi-faceted and multi-layered characters that were worth seasons worth of stories being told about them... but they were packed into a stupid show concept that I found completely unwatchable.
They also established some weird ideas in the world of Firefly, such as the dual English/Chinese language thing... no real strong explanation in the show that I know of (feel free to correct me), they just included it to be different. And when elements are included "just to be different" with no reasoning behind them, it's just distracting. My general thinking is that everything should exist for a reason, and there was just too much in Firefly that didn't seem to exist for a reason.
I can't help but think that I'm not the only one who thinks this way, since the show was cancelled SO fast after such pre-air buzz, and I honestly don't think that the "Friday night death slot" was the only reason. There was SUCH huge promotion before the show came on... then *pfft* absolutely nothing afterwards. I imagine it was like the show came on, and people just stared at the TV going, "What. That's it? THAT'S what all the hubbubb was all about? Wow," right before they turned off the TV.
Anyway - I agree with pseudonym, the movie is going to be one giant collosal humongous flop... I think we're talking a flop of Gigli proportions. I'm sure that the core Firefly fans will go and watch it and enjoy it, but there won't be one bit of interest from the general public.
Posted by: dswallow
It takes significant resources to produce high technology equipment; there's some general "sense" to colonization taking a step-by-step path developing with the resources available to them, perhaps jump-starting a bit with technology they bring. But I wouldn't expect them to be able to build the infrastructure to create the high-tech equipment they came with for some time.
The basis of the English/Chinese mix was backstory in the Firefly universe. Unlike a lot of shows, they just had these things; they didn't feel the necessity to explain everything. You'd pick up clues here and there in passing about the past and what happened and how some things came about.
Posted by: LoadStar
quote:
Originally posted by dswallow
It takes significant resources to produce high technology equipment; there's some general "sense" to colonization taking a step-by-step path developing with the resources available to them, perhaps jump-starting a bit with technology they bring. But I wouldn't expect them to be able to build the infrastructure to create the high-tech equipment they came with for some time.
Nor would I, but theres a level of sophistication and engineering that goes along with the fact that they are at the technological level of trans-planetary exploration and colonization, and that was completely forgotten in the episodes that I saw.
The best analogy that I have: the tent. It's one of the most basic ideas - people have been using tents since the dawn of time, since they realized "Hey. It's not real fun to get rained on. Lets put some fabric over our head to keep the water off." But even such a basic idea has been modernized - now we have things that are barely capable of being called a tent anymore, they're almost collapsible portable houses now, completely waterproof with lightweight standards made of aluminum and fiberglass. Once one knows how to design a modern tent, the only reason one would go back to using a primitive lean-to would be 1) you were aiming to experience a more primitive living style, or 2) you were stranded and had no way of producing a more modern tent.
quote:
Originally posted by dswallow
The basis of the English/Chinese mix was backstory in the Firefly universe. Unlike a lot of shows, they just had these things; they didn't feel the necessity to explain everything. You'd pick up clues here and there in passing about the past and what happened and how some things came about.
The fact that you say "unlike most shows..." should be setting off alarm bells and sirens and all that. If most shows do it, it's usually because it's a pretty good idea. It's generally considered sloppy writing to insert a story element then try and explain it away later on.
I'm not asking them to spell out everything on screen... but the problem was that there didn't seem to be a strong "writer's bible" that set in stone the framework for the series, and explained elements such as the language thing. Throughout the series there was constantly this feeling like the writers and producers were telling the audience "This is the way it is. Deal with it. We probably don't even know why it is the way it is, and if we do, we're not telling you, at least not yet."
Posted by: dswallow
quote:
Originally posted by LoadStar
Nor would I, but theres a level of sophistication and engineering that goes along with the fact that they are at the technological level of trans-planetary exploration and colonization, and that was completely forgotten in the episodes that I saw.
The best analogy that I have: the tent. It's one of the most basic ideas - people have been using tents since the dawn of time, since they realized "Hey. It's not real fun to get rained on. Lets put some fabric over our head to keep the water off." But even such a basic idea has been modernized - now we have things that are barely capable of being called a tent anymore, they're almost collapsible portable houses now, completely waterproof with lightweight standards made of aluminum and fiberglass. Once one knows how to design a modern tent, the only reason one would go back to using a primitive lean-to would be 1) you were aiming to experience a more primitive living style, or 2) you were stranded and had no way of producing a more modern tent.
There had been a war. Populations grow. Just because 5 places were "backwards" doesn't mean there aren't 5 more places that are "modern," and we saw both sorts. There's fabric tents still in use today throughout parts of the world we probably wouldn't want to spend time in, yet we consider ourselves a modern people now. With great wealth comes great poverty.
quote:
Originally posted by LoadStar
The fact that you say "unlike most shows..." should be setting off alarm bells and sirens and all that. If most shows do it, it's usually because it's a pretty good idea. It's generally considered sloppy writing to insert a story element then try and explain it away later on.
I'm not asking them to spell out everything on screen... but the problem was that there didn't seem to be a strong "writer's bible" that set in stone the framework for the series, and explained elements such as the language thing. Throughout the series there was constantly this feeling like the writers and producers were telling the audience "This is the way it is. Deal with it. We probably don't even know why it is the way it is, and if we do, we're not telling you, at least not yet."
I find that the "must explain everything" method is used by writers who have nothing better to say; it's the shows where that's just background info that you're "expected to know" in this universe, and bit by bit it comes to be explained by paying attention to nuances and remarks is aimed at the intelligent audience. There were numerous elements throughout scenes that actually related to another storyline that came up later and was yet to be fully fleshed out. But in a second viewing of the series, you'd notice that there was sufficient consistency in earlier episodes for it. But it had no reason to be "explained." It was just there. One more little detail in the universe matching up with things happening later.
Posted by: Jonathan_S
quote:
There were numerous elements throughout scenes that actually related to another storyline that came up later and was yet to be fully fleshed out
The Blue Sun logos were one of these elements. If you payed attention you noticed them on all sorts of things, minor background detail at the moment, but it would have become important later (Blue Sun the company; not their logo).
Posted by: Hunter Green
We have supersonic jets, keyhole surgery, supercomputers, and genetically engineered supercrops. At least a quarter of the world's population can't get clean water, antibiotics, or sewing machines.
Posted by: dmdeane
quote:
Originally posted by LoadStar
Nor would I, but theres a level of sophistication and engineering that goes along with the fact that they are at the technological level of trans-planetary exploration and colonization, and that was completely forgotten in the episodes that I saw.
You must not have watched too many episodes, I guess. Or the whole "sci fi/western" concept just so badly ticked you off that you weren't willing to pay attention.
I think that's the problem in a nutshell: certain kinds of sci fi fans just weren't willing to see past the conventions, limitations, and cliches of the sci fi genre to understand what Firefly was all about.
quote:
The best analogy that I have: the tent. It's one of the most basic ideas - people have been using tents since the dawn of time, since they realized "Hey. It's not real fun to get rained on. Lets put some fabric over our head to keep the water off." But even such a basic idea has been modernized - now we have things that are barely capable of being called a tent anymore, they're almost collapsible portable houses now, completely waterproof with lightweight standards made of aluminum and fiberglass. Once one knows how to design a modern tent, the only reason one would go back to using a primitive lean-to would be 1) you were aiming to experience a more primitive living style, or 2) you were stranded and had no way of producing a more modern tent.
If that is your best analogy, your "objections" to Firefly are pretty weak.
Point of fact, I do historical reenactment (for instance, the SCA's Pennsic War) and traditional canvas tents are a heck of a lot more comfortable than modern tents, albeit they aren't as easy to pack into a small space.
Modern tents heat up like station wagons parked on black asphalt on a hot summer's day. The only reason to use a modern tent is a) you need to pack it in a very small space and need light weight (ie, packpacking tents), or b) the exact opposite, where you want something almost as good as a modern building, with air conditioning, electricity, etc. - as for example with modern Army MASH units.
But in primitive conditions, if you need something like a MASH tent, it is easier to build a real building. And as far as travel, if you have horses or mules, a canvas tent packs up just as easily as a modern tent; no need for a modern packpacking "lightness at all cost" mentality.
The US military is paying local Iraqis to make traditional canvas tents for US soldiers in Iraq, because of a lack of sufficient tent supplies for US troops in Iraq. Believe me, I'd much rather live in a canvas tent in Iraq than in a modern synthetic heat box. It gets rather hot there; traditional designs are often better. In fact in terms of comfort and liveability, you can't do much better than a yurt (aka: gher) or a tipi, but any canvas tent is more comfortable than a synthetic tent, in any kind of heat. Canvas breathes. Canvas fibers swell up when wet, so even if not waterproofed, canvas still sheds water well. Canvas is comfortable. Other low-tech, traditional materials (felt used to make Mongolian yurts, for instance, or leather used to make Roman legionary tents) have other advantages depending on the kind of environment they are intended for, and the kinds of resources available.
Edit: here's the source of the Iraq story I was mentioning:
quote:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ht...575_iraq20.html
Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - Page updated at 12:16 P.M.
With rebels ruling Iraq roads, U.S. forces feeling pinched
By Nicholas Riccardi and Edmund Sanders
Los Angeles Times
BAGHDAD, Iraq — At a sprawling desert camp in southern Iraq, U.S. soldiers sleep in trucks and Humvees because Iraqi merchants are afraid to deliver tents.
(...)
Military buyers had signed contracts with local vendors to supply everything from water to portable tents. "When the security situation gets bad, they don't want to deliver, and that's what's happening now," said Army Capt. Ron Talarico, who is helping coordinate supplies.
I've known some people in the SCA who have imported tents from the middle east from people over there who make tents for a living. Trust me, these were traditional designs, canvas tents (with maybe the occasional modernity like zippers instead of door ties), not modern synthetic tents. These people don't have the ability to produce that yet; they don't have the industrial base. And frankly they don't have the need for "better" modern tents, either.
Here's some American traditional tent makers: http://www.pantherprimitives.com/, http://www.tentsmiths.com/, http://www.geocities.com/tentmasters/, http://midtown.net/dragonwing/.
Modern ain't necessarily better. You have to consider the needs that are being filled, not some abstract notion of what is "best". Far too many sci fi fans are fixated on "modernity" and notions of "futurism" where everything is always getting progressivily "better", more "modern" and more technologically advanced. It's kind of like the "Whig interpretation of history" as applied to sci fi. Well, things don't move in straight, upward lines in that fashion. History weaves.
You have to not only consider the needs of the user, but also their means. If you were dumped on a primitive planet with nothing but an axe, seeds, some blankets, clothes, other fabrics, some cattle, and a few basic tools (firearms, tools for farming, tools for building houses, etc.), just how are you going to make a modern tent, when you don't have a modern industrial base to produce aluminum tent poles, or synthetic fabrics? It is beyond your ability to produce, and until you start to produce some cash crops (and maybe even not then), it is beyond your ability to pay to import a modern tent.
I imagine shipping costs to the other side of the galaxy are rather steep. You either make it yourself, or you do without.
That's the same situation faced by early colonists in North America and later frontiersmen and pioneers: they had to do without a lot of the manufactured goods they were used to in Europe, at least initially. The closer to the frontier, the further away from manufactured goods and other luxuries, and the more primitive the lifestyle.
So you are settling on some distant world to get away from crowding on the inner planets. Do you bring lots of modern tools that require electricity and spare parts, spare parts that you may never get more of, even if ships regularly visit your new planet (and what happens if the supply ships don't come for years and years, as happened to some early colonists in our own history)? What's the use of a fancy, expensive machine that doesn't work? Bring simple, easy to fix machines instead. 18th and 19th century technology (ie, pre-electricity, pre-internal cumbustion engine) is good in this regard. If your local blacksmith can fix it, it will last longer, stay useful longer.
And why rely on fuel guzzling vehicles that require spare parts, when if you import some horses and breed them, you have an infinite supply of self-replicating animals you can use for transportation?
In a few hundred years you might be ready to get more industrialized and start to produce your own high tech tools, or you might get rich enough off exports to import tools from elsewhere. Until then, you live at a lower level of technology.
Keep in mind that some of the folks we see briefly on Firefly sound an awfully lot like the Amish - in other words, they might have settled these distant planets precisely to live a simpler lifestyle, and practice their religion free from outside interference. It's low tech not just from necessity, but because they like it that way.
Posted by: dmunsil
And on the subject of weapons in Firefly, it's worth noting that even though we have amazingly high-tech weapons available to us, revolvers and shotguns are still being made that are not dramatically different from the original revolvers and shotguns of almost 200 years ago.
When you consider that the settlers of the "old west" were using astonishingly simple tools and technology at a time when the big cities on the coasts had running water, gas (and eventually electric) light, paved streets, tall buildings, cruise ships, yadda yadda yadda, the massive difference in tech between the "core" and "rim" worlds in Firefly doesn't seem that bizarre.
Now, there are underlying implausibilities in Firefly, like the casual way they postulate a solar system with tons of small terraformed planets. Or the fact that they have an artificial gravity generator on their ship, and it apparently works even when the ship is shut down and running on emergency power. But almost all science fiction shows and movies have had this problem, because they need to shoot here on Earth, where constant gravity is hard to work around.
While I certainly think that the appearance of scientific plausibility is more important to Whedon than actual scientific plausibility, I think the world of Firefly is actually closer to what things might "really" be like on a space frontier than, say, Star Trek. I know that's not saying much, but there you go.
It's a fine show. Give it a chance and you'll get hooked.
Don
Posted by: ThreeSoFar
quote:
Originally posted by dmunsil
....
But almost all science fiction shows and movies have had this problem, because they need to shoot here on Earth, where constant gravity is hard to work around.
Oh, man--won't that be cool when (if) they ever start filming stuff in actual Zero-G? What a hoot!
Posted by: dmdeane
quote:
Originally posted by dmunsil
And on the subject of weapons in Firefly, it's worth noting that even though we have amazingly high-tech weapons available to us, revolvers and shotguns are still being made that are not dramatically different from the original revolvers and shotguns of almost 200 years ago.
True. Once the metallic cartridge was invented, containing the bullet, powder, and primer in one self-contained unit, the most fundamental problem of modern firearms design had been solved, and everything since then has been a mere working out of the implications of that innovation.
We haven't had any truely revolutionary breakthroughs in firearms design since before 1900; by then all modern principles for making automatic weapons were understood, all that remained was the inevitable but slow process of practical engineering.
In fact, today's firearm techology is likely to be with us for many, many centuries to come. Laser and particle beam weapons require a lot of energy, so unless someone invents a truely revolutionary source of cheap and portable energy, we are unlikely to see widespread use of portable (that is, hand-held) laser or other portable beam weapons. The fact is, the little metallic cartridge, with modern powders, contains more than enough energy for any practical weapon we can imagine needing for personal, hand-held weapons, for the foreseeable future.
quote:
When you consider that the settlers of the "old west" were using astonishingly simple tools and technology at a time when the big cities on the coasts had running water, gas (and eventually electric) light, paved streets, tall buildings, cruise ships, yadda yadda yadda, the massive difference in tech between the "core" and "rim" worlds in Firefly doesn't seem that bizarre.
Which is why Whedon chose the "Western" analogy.
quote:
Now, there are underlying implausibilities in Firefly, like the casual way they postulate a solar system with tons of small terraformed planets.
Actually, that was the fault of some of the early voice-over intros in the early episodes, which was changed in the later episodes, and not included on the DVD's at all. So I think this was a problem of a hasty intro perhaps written to appease the network, and not sufficiently harmonized with Whedon's overall vision of the series. The fact that it does not appear on the DVDs at all is significant.
Cowboy Beebop had a similar problem (ie, habitable moons around Jupiter and Saturn a mere hundred years from now) and it didn't detract from its overall excellence as a good story.
quote:
Or the fact that they have an artificial gravity generator on their ship, and it apparently works even when the ship is shut down and running on emergency power. But almost all science fiction shows and movies have had this problem, because they need to shoot here on Earth, where constant gravity is hard to work around.
It's clear from watching the DVDs that the spaceship "Serenity" is moving between solar systems, and not just within a single solar system, and yet there is no explanation of a faster-than-light propulsion, or any explanation about artificial gravity.
Whedon deliberately decided not to emphasize the science of the story, thus ticking off the "hard science fiction" types. But after years of Star Trek technobabble, I find Firefly to be a distinct improvement in this regard, as it focuses on the story and not the technology. Stories set in modern times don't discuss the nature of the technology we take for granted today, why shouldn't future people take for granted their own technology?
quote:
While I certainly think that the appearance of scientific plausibility is more important to Whedon than actual scientific plausibility, I think the world of Firefly is actually closer to what things might "really" be like on a space frontier than, say, Star Trek. I know that's not saying much, but there you go.
It's a fine show. Give it a chance and you'll get hooked.
Don
Expectations, I think, are everything. If people can't get past what they expect from TV sci fi, or from what they expect "real" science fiction to be, they will have never give shows that don't meet those expectations (like Firefly) a chance.
I could list a number of things on Firefly that annoyed me, like the writers who thought that a gun has to have oxygen to fire (from the "Our Mrs. Reynolds" episode where they put "Vera" in a spacesuit). Obviously someone was asleep in high school chemistry, else they would know that the very definition of an explosive (or a propellant, ie, gunpowder, or any kind of rocket fuel, solid or liquid - most liquid rockets use liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen, thus they have no need for atmospheric oxygen at all) is a chemical compound that contains its own integral source of oxygen so that it can be contained in an air-tight case, and therefore explode violently. An "explosive" that needs external oxygen to work isn't an explosive; it is merely an inflammable fuel. An "explosive" that needs outside air can't be sealed in an air-tight container or cartridge, and therefore, cannot explode.
Did that knowledge bother me when I saw the goof in question? Yes. Did it ruin my enjoyment of Firefly as a TV series? No.
Posted by: SparkleMotion
quote:
Originally posted by ThreeSoFar
Oh, man--won't that be cool when (if) they ever start filming stuff in actual Zero-G? What a hoot!
See "Apollo 13"...!
Posted by: murgatroyd
Yeah, as someone who grew up with the Apollo program, it was pretty easy for me to distinguish the zero-G footage in Apollo 13 from the soundstage wire-work.
It would have been interesting to see Firefly as orginally intended and watch '"Serenity" as the opener. In retrospect you can see how it was designed to introduce the characters.
As for the sci-fi/western objection, for my part, I got over that a long time ago with The Adventures of Brisco County, plus things like Star Wars with so many parts taken from John Ford movies.
I can see why younger viewers might have genre/culture shock, however.
I thought the intermixing of English and Chinese was fun, but it would have been far more effective if someone had pronounced all the Chinese loanwords for the cast, instead of having them try to learn it off the script. I don't expect Malcom or the other characters to pronounce it fluently, but the 'bad pronuncition' you have from a word that has been heard and borrowed into your language can be very different from a 'phrasebook' pronunciation you've only learned off a page.
Jan
Posted by: vman41
quote:
Originally posted by dmdeane
And why rely on fuel guzzling vehicles that require spare parts, when if you import some horses and breed them, you have an infinite supply of self-replicating animals you can use for transportation?
Ask all the farmers in the first quarter of the 20th century who bought Model Ts as soon as they were able. You have to put a lot of work into a horse to get work out of it.
In general though, the wide range of technology levels in Firefly doesn't bother.
Posted by: vman41
quote:
Originally posted by dmdeane
It's clear from watching the DVDs that the spaceship "Serenity" is moving between solar systems, and not just within a single solar system, and yet there is no explanation of a faster-than-light propulsion, or any explanation about artificial gravity.
It's not clear to me when I watch the DVDs. I get the impression that the 'planets' are moons of gas giants within a single solar system. Hence, no FTL is needed.
Posted by: SparkleMotion
quote:
Originally posted by murgatroyd
As for the sci-fi/western objection, for my part, I got over that a long time ago with The Adventures of Brisco County, plus things like Star Wars with so many parts taken from John Ford movies.
I also remember a short-lived show called "Legend" a few years back with Richard Dean Anderson and the guy who played "Q" on Star Trek.
A fun show. I guess I'm glad it was canceled (else Stargate SG-1 would have happened very differently), but I remember enjoying it at the time!
Posted by: GameGuru
Wow, look what I started.
Posted by: Hunter Green
quote:
I thought the intermixing of English and Chinese was fun, but it would have been far more effective if someone had pronounced all the Chinese loanwords for the cast, instead of having them try to learn it off the script.
Some of the bonus materials available on the DVDs and on the Internet show them doing exactly that. Turns out even that isn't enough to make it sound fluent. But really, does it matter? For as few people in the audience really can tell, it's perfectly within believing that the pronunciation has changed in those years. After all, they don't speak the English the way I do either.
Posted by: Jonathan_S
quote:
like the writers who thought that a gun has to have oxygen to fire (from the "Our Mrs. Reynolds" episode where they put "Vera" in a spacesuit).
I got into a big discussion about that back when it first aired. The upshot of it was several things; first of all the question isn't 'did the writers know that the gun didn't need oxygen', but did Jayne know. He's not exactly the sharpest tool in the box. It is possible that the writers did know, but choose to have the character not know (no real way to prove this).
Second, while the first round would certainly fire, Vera was a semi-automatic/automatic weapon and for various reasons (cold welding, lubricant sublimating/degrading, ...) we could not come to an agreement on whether it would continue firing.
Third, since it wasn't guaranteed to continue firing and it was a situation where they literally had one chance to disable the other ship/station/whatever before it killed them, damaging one spare spacesuit to increase their odds doesn't seem like such a bad idea.
OTOH it is possible that the writers did sleep through high school chemistry :)
Posted by: voripteth
Actually the western motif made complete sense to me. Most frontier people sell everything they have just to get out there so of course they don't have money for high tech gadgets. We did see them in the bigger cities so they do exist but not everyone has the cash for them.
As for using horses and wagons that makes complete sense as well. Horses are capable of self repair and can be fueled by grazing. Bullets are far more reliable and less expensive than energy weapons.
As for having a series bible I'm sure that Josh had definite ideas on how things worked. The series would progress and gradually reveal the background history. I was intrigued by the use of Chinese and expected that it would eventually be explained. The fact that they are the largest population on Earth makes sense that at some point they would influence the world.
For me, Firefly piqued my curiosity so I wanted to see another episode to watch the universe expand. This is one of the things I loved about Babylon 5 as well.
Posted by: murgatroyd
quote:
Originally posted by Hunter Green
Some of the bonus materials available on the DVDs and on the Internet show them doing exactly that. Turns out even that isn't enough to make it sound fluent. But really, does it matter? For as few people in the audience really can tell, it's perfectly within believing that the pronunciation has changed in those years. After all, they don't speak the English the way I do either.
Interesting. A Chinese-American friend had complained to me while the series was on about the pronunciation. There are two different transcription systems for Chinese -- IIRC she said it was if they had transcribed them with one system then tried to pronounce them as if they were using the other one.
I don't know that much about Wade-Giles vs. Pinyin but I know enough to understand, it would be a train wreck.
Sure, not many people in the audience would know the difference, but it bugged her. Think how much more fun it would have been if they had gotten it right. After all, they speak English well enough for you to recognize what the English words are supposed to be -- why not get a little closer to the ballpark with the Chinese too?
Jan
Posted by: Unbeliever
According to the DVDs, they had a voice coach record the lines onto tape, and the cast would listen to them over and over again to try to mimic it. They didn't try to read the script phoenetically, they mimiced. It seemed to me that they forgot to teach the cast members how to pronouce basic vowel sounds and the intonation patterns (down, up, up-down, etc.) before they tried to mimic.
--Carlos V.
Posted by: gtarent
quote:
Originally posted by LoadStar
Nor would I, but theres a level of sophistication and engineering that goes along with the fact that they are at the technological level of trans-planetary exploration and colonization, and that was completely forgotten in the episodes that I saw.
The best analogy that I have: the tent. It's one of the most basic ideas - people have been using tents since the dawn of time, since they realized "Hey. It's not real fun to get rained on. Lets put some fabric over our head to keep the water off." But even such a basic idea has been modernized - now we have things that are barely capable of being called a tent anymore, they're almost collapsible portable houses now, completely waterproof with lightweight standards made of aluminum and fiberglass. Once one knows how to design a modern tent, the only reason one would go back to using a primitive lean-to would be 1) you were aiming to experience a more primitive living style, or 2) you were stranded and had no way of producing a more modern tent.
The difference in technology levels is not as far fetched as it may first appear. For example in El Paso you have modern hotels and convention centers, and only a few miles away in Juarez people live in shacks and crates. People in Juarez certainly know there are better methods to build housing, yet they are forced to use technology available to them. That difference exists within a difference of a few miles.... imagine the possible differential between planets.
Posted by: Tivortex
quote:
Originally posted by LoadStar
I'm really not trying to thread crap... but...
but you kind of did anyway. At great length too.
vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2009,
Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
vB Easy Archive Final ©2000 - 2009
- Created by Stefan "Xenon" Kaeser
Modified by Adam J. de Jaray