TiVo Community Forums Archives - Firefly: Joss Whedon's new space show (SPOILERS)

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

Firefly: Joss Whedon's new space show (SPOILERS)
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: Pan Chun

Okay...not gonna type a lot to start with, but I really liked it. A lot. Certainly MUCH more than I expected to.

It ain't no Star Trek...it's more of a "future past" sort of approach. As Earth "winds down" hundreds of years from now, colonists terraformed and settled other planets.

(So far anyway) There are no "aliens"...it's humans in a sort of wild-west frontier style from planet to planet. Whatever tenuous alliance that holds the planets together (apparently a somewhat fascistic, imperial cabal) is fairly ineffectual thanks to the great distance between planets and the relative SIZE of the Alliance as a whole. They can't be EVERYWHERE all the time, so many of the planets are just eking out a subsistence and making a lot of their own rules along the way.

Malcolm and his crew are NOT "the good guys"...they're just a group with a cargo vessel that "does jobs" to get by. They're also not "the bad guys", either as tonight's episode showed...when they found out the mag-lev train cargo they lifted was badly-needed medicine for a town stricken with illness, they went back on the deal with the guy who hired them and then returned the goods.

They made a few friends...and a really nasty enemy in the process. It was written smartly and well-performed (co-written AND directed by Joss, btw) and I think it looks VERY promising. It combines some of the best of the old western-type shows of the '60s with futuristic tech and attitudes, creating a fresh combination of the two. Like I said...it ain't no Star Trek. And these days, that's NOT a bad thing! :up: :up: :up: I'll be back next week and the SP stands, TFN.

Posted by: jradosh

I just wish they hadn't taken the western style so literally. :rolleyes: I think it's a great notion to combine space/sci-fi with western plots and story lines (like "Outland"), but the actual visualization of (for example) the train's interior, the costumes of the people in Paradiso, and the weapons were just too old-style western to look right in the future setting. JMHO, YMMV.

But I did like the characters (so far) and am curious where they take this show.

And the best bit was at the end when the capt. tries to return the money to the first henchman. He refuses, gets kicked into the ships engine :eek: and then the capt. says the same line to the next guy who gladly takes the money. Classic :p

J

Posted by: Pan Chun

quote:
Originally posted by jradosh
I just wish they hadn't taken the western style so literally. :rolleyes: I think it's a great notion to combine space/sci-fi with western plots and story lines (like "Outland"), but the actual visualization of (for example) the train's interior, the costumes of the people in Paradiso, and the weapons were just too old-style western to look right in the future setting. JMHO, YMMV.

I was sort of imagining that perhaps it was a stylistic CHOICE on the part of those areas...perhaps OTHER planets we visit will have a completely DIFFERENT approach.

I thought it was interesting to see the contrast, though...the semi-high-tech seats on the train with the old-style carpeting on the floor...the old-west countryside, but a high-speed futuristic mag-lev train, and so forth. (BTW, hated Outland...but that was 21 years ago. Maybe I should give it another look.)

Posted by: tmk01

What happened to the girl in the box? What about all those cool trailers we've been seeing for the past 3 months? Why wasn't any of that in the first eppisode? I know that Fox passed on the original pilot, but come on, I feel like I've been cheated here...

Posted by: Guyy

I liked it, and was not really expecting the whole wild west theme, but hey it works. So it's getting a SP..

Posted by: jradosh

quote:
Originally posted by Pan Chun
I thought it was interesting to see the contrast, though...the semi-high-tech seats on the train with the old-style carpeting on the floor...the old-west countryside, but a high-speed futuristic mag-lev train, and so forth. (BTW, hated Outland...but that was 21 years ago. Maybe I should give it another look.)

They had a good notion, just took it too far (IMO). When I noticed the wooden chairs and dining table on the Firefly ship... well, I just didn't think it belonged there. And then I noticed the stenciling on the walls; a country pattern fresh out of Martha Stewart. :rolleyes:

Yes, maybe the locales will have different looks. But I don't think so based on (1) the ship's decor won't change, and (2) the theme music is decidedly western.

Hey, I'm nit-picking to a degree here. If the stories are good and presented well, I might get over this "issue". Stay tuned...

J

PS. BTW, I was pretty much on the fence about "Outland". It was the only example of a space/western I could remember.

Posted by: Pan Chun

I didn't see a single advance promo for the show and only knew a little about it going in...so I don't know ANYTHING about a "girl in the box" story. However, I do know that the episodes aren't being shown in the order they were shot (the two-hour pilot is supposed to have been re-worked and shown later in the season), so it could be upcoming yet.

Posted by: harvscar

The girl in the box was shown in the promos but it's not unusual to include bits from other episodes. Given Fox's track record with good shows, you'll probably be cheated worse than this.

I really liked this and John Doe, good Friday night lineup. Adam Baldwin, Ron Glass and the whole Whedon package (one liners and fun fight scenes), what's not to love? I like the whole western theme, especially the Bonanza style intro. Damned if Bruce Campbell wouldn't have been great on this. Brisco County, Jr. 2517 AD

Posted by: Pan Chun

I never watched Brisco (with Bruce Campbell, right?), but I DID watch Michael Piller's Legend with Richard Dean Anderson and John deLancie. Fun stuff! Would love to see someone repeat that single-season show sometime.

Did anyone recognize the cute mechanic on Firefly? That's the lovely Jewel Staite, who previously played "Catalina" on a show called Space Cases and she was also "Becca" on a Disney Channel show called Flash Forward. Her brother Brent Staite played "Rev Bem" on Andromeda.

Posted by: ClutchBrake

I wasn't real impressed with it. However, I thought the first few episodes of Buffy were really bland and now I can't go without it. I will definitely give this at least half a season (if Fox lets it go that long :rolleyes:).

Posted by: WinBear

I liked it, although the western angle was a bit disturbing at first. I found Nathan Fillion as Mal a bit distracting at first because he kept reminding me of Gale Harold as Brian on Queer As Folk.

Posted by: TiVoPony

We liked it. It's season pass material.

And it's good to hear that I'm not the only one that felt that Brisco vibe.

I was really, really hoping that when they opened the cargo container they'd find a golden orb.

Now THAT would have been cool. :D

Pony

Posted by: spartanstew

Well, obviously I'm in the minority here, but I couldn't sit through more than 15 minutes of it. The western stuff seemed very lame (although that's what I liked about the premise). I thought the whole opening scene in the "bar" was terrible. After 5 minutes I gave my wife "the look". She said, "give it some time". After 10 more minutes, she said "OK, that's enough time". We cleared it and deleted the SP. My first dumped SP of the season.

Stew

Posted by: UnionBuster

Reaction based on various places, puts the episode at a B or C grade. With a roughly equal minority absolutely loving it or hating it. But most seem willing to give it a few more weeks worth of their time.

Interesting.

Posted by: ehopper

quote:
Originally posted by Pan Chun
I didn't see a single advance promo for the show and only knew a little about it going in...so I don't know ANYTHING about a "girl in the box" story. However, I do know that the episodes aren't being shown in the order they were shot (the two-hour pilot is supposed to have been re-worked and shown later in the season), so it could be upcoming yet.

How in the world did you miss any of the 7 zillion promos Fox has run for this (and John Doe) for the past 4 months?

Posted by: Pan Chun

quote:
Originally posted by ehopper
How in the world did you miss any of the 7 zillion promos Fox has run for this (and John Doe) for the past 4 months?

I got this little thing called a "TiVo"...you should check it out...it's pretty cool!

Plus I don't watch FOX or F/X much, so even if I was to forget to skip through a break, the odds I'd hit one were greatly diminished.

In fact, I can't think of a single show I watched on FOX for the past couple of months prior to the new fall season (American Idol? Get thee behind me, Satan! :eek: ;) )

Posted by: murgatroyd

Now here's a curious thing I've discovered over the years. Some people do a kick-ass job of writing first episodes, and some don't. If I see any reason to stick with a show, I always watch multiple episodes before I make final judgement.

The original pilot movie for Babylon 5 stank as a pilot. (I haven't watched JMS' remake). Watched later on, after I had seen a couple of seasons of B5 and already knew the characters and universe, it wasn't anywhere near as bad.

This is Joss, after all, so I'm going to cut him some slack and watch and wait for the show to gel a little. I didn't see Buffy #1 or the movie as my intro to Buffy -- I only saw them later, after I already knew the universe and characters, so I can't judge in the same way how the Buffy opener compared to later Buffy. My gut feeling, though, is that the cast of Buffy improved hugely in the first season, so we'll see what happens with Firefly as they get up and running.

Jan

Posted by: jchan

quote:
Originally posted by tmk01
What happened to the girl in the box? What about all those cool trailers we've been seeing for the past 3 months? Why wasn't any of that in the first eppisode? I know that Fox passed on the original pilot, but come on, I feel like I've been cheated here...

As mentioned before, the pilot was pulled and is being reworked. If you must know, the wierdo girl was the girl in the box. She was probably shipped in it or something.

Who knows. I did feel like I was jumping into the middle of the story without the intro.

I for one like the western stuff. I personally like a little piece of anime called Trigun...post apocolytpic wild west set in the future.

The only thing I DIDN'T like, was the prolific use of the Starship Troopers uniforms for the Alliance soldiers. Those uniforms are EVERYWHERE!

Bottom line = it's in the Holy Sanctum of Season Passes.

Posted by: DaveLessnau

The show was barely tolerable. I set up an ARWL for it, but I'm probably doing that just out of desperations for something to watch (after two years with a TiVo, when there's nothing on, you KNOW there's nothing on). One of my biggest gripes, and pardon me for being old, is the age of the people. I don't know how old that "Captain" really is, but he looks like he's about 25 years old. His chief (only) mechanic, the person responsible for keeping his ship running and the warp core from exploding, looks like she's about 15. So, again, put her in her early 20s. Sorry folks, but people don't fight long drawn out wars and end up as ship Captains (and chief engineers) at that age. This was one of the very big things that caused me to hate that Babylon 5 "Rangers" movie: no one was over 25.

Also, this circa-1800s western world has a maglev train on it. Ok. I can see that maybe someone dropped it in as part of a basic infrastructure package for new planets (though how it would be maintained without the rest of the supporting infrastructure is beyond me). But, why are the cars on that train rickety old wrecks with holes in the sides? Those holes are either wear-and-tear damage or some kind of ventilation/lighting system. That seems like a pretty stupid thing to have on a state-of-the-art maglev train. Especially when you think about the wind going by at 200+ mph. Also, I believe the train was rocking and bumping like some standard old west train. Kind of hard to do with a maglev.

And I loved how the Captain, bare handed, attacked and beat a fully armed and armored soldier on that train. Goodness! He didn't even hurt his hand while hitting that armor.

I also agree with jchan about the uniforms those HQ Alliance soldiers were wearing. Bright, shiny plastic uniforms (with garrison-type caps worn indoors) seem like a pretty stupid and uncomfortable thing for soldiers to wear. If the producers of this show want to include a military presence (and that seems to be one of the main foci of the show), the least they could do is study how a real military looks and acts. Heavens! Maybe they could hire someone who's actually been in the military. Of course, since this is the future, everyone KNOWS that people are supposed to wear stupid looking plastic clothes with funny hats (oh, except for people on maglev containing colony planets who wear homespun natural fibers).

Posted by: TiVoLance

Nathan I thought Mal looked like Brian too. My take on the girl in a box is that it might be from the 2 hour premire that they will show later on. Maybe it is the Doctor's sister from when they "kidnapped" her.

Overall good show only wish the Western Aspect is toned down.

Posted by: DLiquid

I thought it pretty much sucked. But to be fair, I only saw the first half of it because a baseball game pushed it 30 minutes late. But what I saw, was dumb. I'm shocked any of you guys liked it. Of course, I never could get into Buffy (not in the slightest), so maybe this is just not my kind of show. They totally overdid the western thing, at least in this episode.

But, I am gonna keep watching it for a few weeks and give it a fair chance.

Posted by: Pan Chun

For people having trouble "placing" Nathan Fillion (who played "Malcolm", the Captain on Firefly), he was previously a regular on Two Guys and a Girl (after "the Pizza Place" I think...I never watched)...and he was also the "wrong" Private Ryan (different middle name) in the Spielberg movie Saving Private Ryan.

Posted by: JohnJr

I'm watching it because I missed out on the whole Buffy thing, and with all the enthusiasm about that product I'm hoping this will be good too. Also, I don't think I have ever had anything that I liked to TiVo on a Friday night, so this is a no-brainer addition to my SPs.

In general I thought last night's episode was pretty good. I loved the kick into the "turbine" routine! :) I also think the girls are cute :) Finally, the guy that plays I think first mate or something (the other male kick-butt guy) I recognize him from some other show/movie, Alien or one of its offspring? I kinda like him too.

-John

Posted by: Pan Chun

The "Jayne" character is not the first-mate...that's the "Zoe" character (married to the pilot). He thought he was in charge because both the Captain and First Mate were missing.

He's a Baldwin boy...! :eek: Not sure what other movies or shows he's done off-hand, but hopefully his relation to Alec won't dissuade you from enjoying him.

I know *I* enjoyed his whole drugged-up shooting match bit. :up: :)

Posted by: stormsweeper

Undecided. I'm not a Buffy fan, though. This show does have potential. I actually didn't mind it jumping in like it did, although it is possible they had too many of the characters invoilved in the story line.

Posted by: JohnJr

quote:
Originally posted by Pan Chun
The "Jayne" character is not the first-mate...that's the "Zoe" character (married to the pilot). He thought he was in charge because both the Captain and First Mate were missing.

He's a Baldwin boy...! :eek: Not sure what other movies or shows he's done off-hand, but hopefully his relation to Alec won't dissuade you from enjoying him.

I know *I* enjoyed his whole drugged-up shooting match bit. :up: :)

I enjoyed the shoot-out too :) He has this sort of irreverent, happy-go-lucky air that I enjoy. Thanks for pinning him down for me, Pan.

Aha, found where I recognize him from...

"...Baldwin�s additional film roles include a soldier who truly loves war in Stanley Kubrick�s �Full Metal Jacket,� ..."

One of my favs :)

With the exception of Jane Fonda I don't allow politics to interfere with my entertainment viewing. (My Dad on the other hand does.) After all, they are fantasy figures; some, in more than one way ;)

The one other thing that excites me about this series is the "blue hands" thing. That looks to be an interesting sub-plot.

-John

Posted by: esperantisto

That show was the worst! Why didn't they just make a western? I have never used the 3xFF so much!

Posted by: RGM1138

quote:
Originally posted by Pan Chun
The "Jayne" character is not the first-mate...that's the "Zoe" character (married to the pilot). He thought he was in charge because both the Captain and First Mate were missing.

He's a Baldwin boy...! :eek: Not sure what other movies or shows he's done off-hand, but hopefully his relation to Alec won't dissuade you from enjoying him.

I know *I* enjoyed his whole drugged-up shooting match bit. :up: :)

Actually, not part of the Baldwin klan. But, some other works you may have seen him in:

X-Files - Knowle Rohrer
Independence Day
Predator 2
The Visitor
The Cape
Full Metal Jacket - Animal Mother
Radio Flyer
My Bodyguard

Bob

Posted by: Maui

I liked the show alot.

I will definitely have it on my season pass list. It had Wheden's typical humorous lines and the plot was good at giving you an idea of all the characters attitudes.

Bottom line is that it is Wheden so I am willing to watch even though I am not a huge fan of Science Fiction TV. It also does not hurt that it is on friday and is not on opposite any other show I want to catch

Posted by: cello

I thought it was okay. I'm going to give it a few episodes to kick in... I'll give it until halfway through the season to decide if I want to keep the season pass or not. I wasn't enthralled by the story line for this episode, but some of the characters seem to have a lot of potential to be interesting and complex. I'll trust in Joss for the moment, and hope that I soon start to look forward to sifting through my now playing list on saturday mornings.

I really liked the small touches like the Tiffany lamp and the stencils on the walls. I've never really been able to buy the super modern looks of star trek or star wars and all those other futuristic space shows and movies. Styles change, but not that drastically, I don't think. It's nice to see that Joss has taken a realistic view of what the future might look like.

Posted by: jradosh

quote:
Originally posted by cello
It's nice to see that Joss has taken a realistic view of what the future might look like.

Wooden chairs and tables on a space ship are realistic??? :eek: Some things I can buy (the soundtrack, the dusty mine town, etc.) but some things seemed a bit of a stretch. But I'll stay tuned to see where it goes from here.

J :)

Posted by: JohnJr

quote:
Originally posted by jradosh
Wooden chairs and tables on a space ship are realistic??? :eek: Some things I can buy (the soundtrack, the dusty mine town, etc.) but some things seemed a bit of a stretch. But I'll stay tuned to see where it goes from here.

J :)

Wood is a darn abundant, renewable, cheap, natural resource. What is so off about it being very prevelant in the future?

-John

Posted by: Fleegle

I loved it. I watched the teaser, (Before the intro credits), and said "Ohhh, this is gonna be GOOD!"

One thing that seems very interesting to me... It seems that teh show isn't going to have interstellar travel. The intro monolouge sounded like humans moved to ONE star system with a whole bunch of planets. Now THAT's an intereting concept. Who knows, maybe they had a caravan travelling at sub-light speeds until they reached this solar system they had found. Also, nobody had energy weapons! This is a really refreshing take on an old concept.

Posted by: stevel

My wife and I, both Buffy fans, liked it. I found the confluence of "old west" decor and future technology (nobody here has yet mentioned the saloon's force-field window that Mal was thrown through) rather puzzling, but I'll gladly "willingly suspend disbelief" for a show with good writing, such as this one.

We set up a SP for it and will be interested to see where it goes. The concept is sort of Star Trek like, in that they keep hopping from place to place, so, unlike Buffy, there isn't a continuous environment to develop.

And yes, there were a few things that really strained credibility - like nobody on the train noticed this huge spaceship following them and then swooping out past the front of the train?

Posted by: JohnJr

quote:
Originally posted by stevel
...
And yes, there were a few things that really strained credibility - like nobody on the train noticed this huge spaceship following them and then swooping out past the front of the train?

And or the Mag, in Mag-Lev blocks simple radar :)

-John

Posted by: Sinuralan

quote:
Originally posted by DaveLessnau
One of my biggest gripes, and pardon me for being old, is the age of the people. I don't know how old that "Captain" really is, but he looks like he's about 25 years old. His chief (only) mechanic, the person responsible for keeping his ship running and the warp core from exploding, looks like she's about 15. So, again, put her in her early 20s. Sorry folks, but people don't fight long drawn out wars and end up as ship Captains (and chief engineers) at that age. This was one of the very big things that caused me to hate that Babylon 5 "Rangers" movie: no one was over 25.

Eh, I don't agree completely. But that may come from having founded an internet colocation company with two other guys when I was 16 and I was the lead network and system administrator. (The company is still in business and profitable today, by the way, though after 2.5 years I moved on to other things). And having friends who were working at the same age in jobs where people relied on their skills greatly.

In societies where people have to work from early and eek out a living, rather than getting pampered in high schools and colleges, people pick up trade skills quickly. I have no doubt that a 15-20 year old girl who grew up working on fixing ships could be tasked with being chief mechanic on a ragtag pirate ship. That's EXACTLY the environment where you'd find someone like her -- a group of people (thieves much of the time) who can't afford to pay someone with a ton of credentials and 15+ years of work experience, but still need someone good.

On the captain, I can agree a bit more, but we don't know his circumstances. Maybe it was his father's ship and it was eventually passed down to him. Hard to say.

One of life's interesting things is that not everything happens by the cookie cutter pre-defined path set by suburbian society. That's one of the things that makes post-apocolyptic and frontier type shows interesting -- you're breaking away from what's set and making your own way.

As for all your other (unquoted) nitpicks, I agree full heartedly. I gave this ep a C+, but I think it can get better, so I'll keep watching. I'm not a western fan though..

Posted by: Rob Helmerichs

Whedon sez there will be six stand-alone episodes to begin with, followed by the original pilot, and then the long-term storylines will kick in. So I would recommend giving it about 12 episodes or so to get a feel for what it's gonna be like in the long run...

Posted by: unoriginal

From the promos I thought it was going be an Outlaw Star rip-off. Maybe that is why they cut out the girl in the box for the first episode...

Overall I really liked it.

Posted by: harvscar

The "unaired pilot" is going up in a.b.m.scifi and a.b.m right now.

Posted by: T-Wolves

I caught the first episode tonight, and frankly thought it was just one tiny step above boring. But I'll give it a few more episodes, just because it is Whedon. The "space-western" slant really did nothing for me.

Posted by: ThreeSoFar

spartanstew, and anyone else who bailed on this after 1 ( or less ) episode, you might want to reconsider.

Go read the "I have never seen Buffy" thread and maybe reconsider.

Joss Whedon is a huge talent.

Someone mentioned "susbend disbelief". Give it more time to get to know the characters. That's where Whedon excels.

Posted by: jradosh

quote:
Originally posted by JohnJr
Wood is a darn abundant, renewable, cheap, natural resource. What is so off about it being very prevelant in the future?

You're more likely (IMO) to find metal out in space than you are a good pine tree. But I'm not a scientist... maybe the outer planets are covered in forests? ;)

J

Posted by: unoriginal

quote:
Originally posted by jradosh
maybe the outer planets are covered in forests? ;)

J

Well they would have to be to keep people from, suffocating... ;)

Posted by: murgatroyd

quote:
Originally posted by Medieval Guy
Whedon sez there will be six stand-alone episodes to begin with, followed by the original pilot, and then the long-term storylines will kick in. So I would recommend giving it about 12 episodes or so to get a feel for what it's gonna be like in the long run...

So we're not seeing the normal rollout; the network has probably disrupted the ordinary character setup that Joss would have done, left to his druthers. Figures.

Jan

Posted by: Pan Chun

Personally, I wasn't all that bothered by the sort of "joined in progress" approach...

Shows USED to be like that all the time...even the original Star Trek debuted in 1966 with the "salt vampire" episode "Man Trap". No set up, no explanations, no pilot (even though they'd shot two of 'em).

Of course, both pilots aired later on (the first one was re-edited into the two-parter "The Menagerie" and the second was shown as a regular episode called "Where No Man Has Gone Before")...but I'm hoping the same relative level of success comes from this show as well.

Posted by: Rob Helmerichs

...although in one sense, this is less of a "joined-in-progress" approach than Whedon wanted. Apparently, the pilot as originally shot did not give any of the world's background that was pounded into us at the beginning of the premiere; we were expected to pick it up as we went along, and Fox objected.

Posted by: murgatroyd

quote:
Originally posted by Medieval Guy
...although in one sense, this is less of a "joined-in-progress" approach than Whedon wanted. Apparently, the pilot as originally shot did not give any of the world's background that was pounded into us at the beginning of the premiere; we were expected to pick it up as we went along, and Fox objected.

Yes, that's my point exactly. A clever writer (which we know Joss is) can set things up so that casual viewers will look at that first episode and feel that they have just been dropped into the middle of things. Only in retrospect, after you know the universe and characters, can you go back and see how much information has been put out for you to pick up on the fly.

For instance, the first shot of Marg H.'s character on CSI shows her saying goodbye to her daughter before she goes off to work. Her sister is taking care of her daughter, so right away we know, she's a single mom.

If your network insists that you pound background into the viewers by firing expository lumps at them, it consumes time you could be tossing out info on the fly, doing it the more elegant way.

Edited to fix a typo.
Jan

Posted by: doom1701

My wife and I loved it. I'm not much of a western fan, and I didn't really get into the "old west, everybody toting six shooters" feel of the show, but everything else more or less worked for us (of course, my wife's #1 season pass is "Young Riders", so she's just digging this).

One thing that didn't really click for me was the economics of the universe, though. "Get the job" seems to be incredibly important to everyone. We see that Mal doesn't put money into fixing his ship like his engineer feels he should. So funds must be tight.

That kinda jives with the idea of having a train; even today, trains are not an economical method of transit, but with a mag lift train, mass transit across a planet would make more sense.

But (yeah, I'm going somewhere with this)--our penny pinching captain seems to have plenty of dough to expend flying his ship right along with the train for who knows how far. If flight is this inexpensive, I would think the purpose of the train would be pointless, as the cargo delivery people could just deliver everything by ship.

One thing that did stick out like a sore thumb for me, though (but someone's suggestion of "1 system with a lot of planets" would fix this) is that the VIP said something to the effect "I didn't fly 83 million miles just for this". That's definately not interstellar.

Posted by: Rob Helmerichs

They came right out and said one solar system with 100 planets (or however many) -- I assumed that was a mistake, but maybe not...which would be another mistake (how would such a solar system exist?!?). I assume the six "exposition episodes" will make it clear.

Posted by: Pan Chun

It would be VERY easy, assuming a collection of gas giants, each with MANY multiple life-supporting moons.

Unlikely? Damn straight. Impossible? Not really.

BTW, just read elsewhere that this premiere episode was pretty much "ordered" by FOX and Whedon then went off and wrote it OVER A SINGLE WEEKEND to their specifications. In the "grand scheme of things", it then is the THIRD episode and not the first. A very good reason to continue giving the show a chance.

(edit: added link to support assertion)

Posted by: dmdeane

Ummm, I thought they said something about mankind spreading across the galaxy, and that drunken fellow in the bar was boasting about unification day, and the Alliance bringing unification to the galaxy; am I misremembering something?

Also, you can hardly have an Alliance so spread out that the frontier areas are effectively lawless, if you are only operating within a single solar system. In fact, if this were only in a single solar system, it would be very easy to maintain centralized control, and thus less likely for independence movements to try to break away.

No doubt this will be explained in time.

Personally, whilst watching this, I was half expecting to see the Cowboy Bebop fly up, with Spike, Jet, Faye, Ed, and their dog Ein.

I'm on the fence re: Firefly. A so-so intro, but I have enough faith in Joss for me to give this an honest chance. It was a much better intro than Enterprise, for one thing.

Posted by: stormsweeper

HFC!

Ben Edlund (creator of the Tick) wote ep 106 "Jaynestown"

Posted by: doom1701

quote:
Originally posted by stormsweeper
HFC!

Ben Edlund (creator of the Tick) wote ep 106 "Jaynestown"

He was also listed as a producer on the Premiere. Trust me, those of you that have just given up on this show are making a HUGE mistake.

Posted by: Rob Helmerichs

quote:
Originally posted by dmdeane
Ummm, I thought they said something about mankind spreading across the galaxy, and that drunken fellow in the bar was boasting about unification day, and the Alliance bringing unification to the galaxy; am I misremembering something?

Yeah, but they also said solar system. I suspect these are the kind of people who don't know the difference, although I hope I'm wrong...

But aside from that, the show is a good start, and being Whedon, I'm optimistic for the future...

(I saw a review of the original pilot that said something like, "I used to think I was a Buffy fan, but now I know I'm a fan of whatever is occupying Joss Whedon's attention at a given time." Works for me!)

Posted by: doom1701

Regarding the planet thing: I just read Pan's link to Scifi.com above, and they do say in that article (for what it's worth--SciFi.com isn't exactly the holy grail of news sites, from my experience) that it is one solar system with LOTS of planets. The inner planets in the system make up the core alliance, and the outer planets are the ones that Firefly will focus on.

Posted by: Pan Chun

quote:
Originally posted by doom1701
He was also listed as a producer on the Premiere. Trust me, those of you that have just given up on this show are making a HUGE mistake.

I have no first-hand knowledge, but I'm told that the upcoming Edlund script is somewhat reminiscent of The Tick...so, who knows? I'm along for the long run anyway (or for as long as I am able).

Posted by: unoriginal

quote:
Originally posted by Pan Chun
It would be VERY easy, assuming a collection of gas giants, each with MANY multiple life-supporting moons.

Unlikely? Damn straight. Impossible? Not really.

BTW, just read elsewhere that this premiere episode was pretty much "ordered" by FOX and Whedon then went off and wrote it OVER A SINGLE WEEKEND to their specifications. In the "grand scheme of things", it then is the THIRD episode and not the first. A very good reason to continue giving the show a chance.

(edit: added link to support assertion)

Remember they said they terraformed the "planets".
They did call the first "planet" they were on a moon at some points, and there was that massive "moon" in the sky at the very begining of the show...

Posted by: MarkofT

Okie...just watched the original pilot titled Serenity. It seems to have explained quite a lot about the "world" of Firefly. I'll put most of this post in spoiler tags but put in headings so if you want to know about subject A but not subject B then you know what to read and what not to.

Intersteller or Innersolar?

Spoiler Alert! (highlight to read)
I'm going with Innersolar. The term moon seems interchangeable with planet. Also in Serenity the first mate said, "There are other moons in the belt we have not seen." I'm going to say that this is a single solar system that just didn't get it's act together or is in the middle of doing so. Instead of planets in orbit there are belts of moons and asteroids. This would allow for 100's of terraformable moons. A lot of work and they become habitable, not Eden-like. They are still harsh places.

Revolvers and wooden tables

Spoiler Alert! (highlight to read)
They just finished with the war within the last decade, the opening to Serenity mentions 6 years specifically. Large scale war in a newly colonized solar system would strain the resources of the worlds. All the metal went to build spacecraft so other materials had to be used for other items. Since wood would be easier to obtain and not terribly useful in the making of spacecraft or weapons, they used it where ever they could.

In the last 6 years of "peace" they have not yet had time to change from war building to peace building so they have most likely not yet developed any new weapons. So they rely on guns. In Serenity we there is a lawman who we see with an automatic of one type or another. Just personal preference it would appear. Sniper rifles are used in Serenity and they look rather advanced. I'm also thinking I saw an M203 or the like.

So far as the decoration of the kitchen. At times they will take on passengers and have common meals in the kitchen. Decorations would make it seem more homey and be a soothing influence on passengers. Can't always be thieving, might have to lay low and keep making money.

Maglev trains?

Spoiler Alert! (highlight to read)
These are new worlds. They didn't have to evolve like Earth did. Some engineer sat down and said "Towns here, here, here and here. Trains to connect them and we won't have to build highways." They only have so much weight they can transport to a new colony. The train cars were probably used at cargo holds. The colony ship only has to go one way really. Make use of every part of the ship once you land and you just increase the amount of weight you just hauled a very long distance.

Youth

Spoiler Alert! (highlight to read)
The war was fought hard. On the battlefield that the ship was named after many many died. And that was just one battle out of many. Over the course of the war I don't doubt that the elders were in battle first and therefore they were the first to die. Mostly just the youth left to carry on with life after the show. The chief engineer's age was brought up in Serenity. She seems to be someone that just knows and was raised where her talent could be utilized. No idea how she found her way onto the ship just yet.

Side plot spoiler

Spoiler Alert! (highlight to read)
Times are hard. In Serenity the crew salvaged 3 crates from a wrecked alliance vessel for a job. The crates held bricks of something. Unfortunately the bricks were marks as Alliance property and this made them hard to sell with the original backer found out and cancelled the job. When they found another buyer they met and the new buyer sampled the goods. Each brick could feed a family for a month. It was food. It wasn't anything extravagant.

Hopefully when Fox finally airs the pilot it will be a special "How it all began" movie. Then they won't have to cut it. From my understanding Fox didn't hate the pilot, they just didn't want it to be the pilot. It isn't bad and there are several humorous spots.

Parting spoiler

Spoiler Alert! (highlight to read)
Between the two pilots I have seen only one crew member not get shot. I haven't seen any passengers get shot but it should just be a matter of time.

Posted by: doom1701

Mark, thanks for the synopsis. That does explain a few things (although I'm still not sure about the economics of a train, while a freighter just lumbers along in the air above it).

As for wood, J, don't forget, even if metal is more common, wood is much easier to work, especially when you have more primitive tools. In one of my woodworking books, I read that they used to burn down old houses to salvage the nails and other metalwork from it; the wood was easily replaced and worked, but nails were so difficult to make that they were often recycled.

It's also a LOT more attractive.

Posted by: jradosh

OK, I'll soften my stance on the wooden furniture. :)

Anyway, when we finally get to the next bar room brawl scene, a wooden chair over the head shatters much more dramatically than a metal one. ;) I'm sure we'll see that eventually.

J :)

Posted by: Pan Chun

Heh...I'd be afraid to SIT in one of those flimsy old-west saloon chairs! ;)

Posted by: dcheesi

RE: age - I would guess that the captain is about 29, with a baby face. If you assume that he fought in the war in his early twenties, then it fits. And I'm sure a lot of old Indy military ships either went merc or were sold off cheap when the war ended. If the captain was on a ship during the war, he may have found it easy to transition to running a merc ship.

As for the wood thing: hey, maybe 'rustic-western' is in fashion right now! Not everyone enjoys linear modern decor, you know :D

Posted by: jgickler

I was really beginning to wonder about this show for the first 15 or 20 minutes. Being a Buffy fan, I was antivipating it, but the first quarter of the show seemed flat to me. The sound was kind of flat as well, but I think that was a problem with our local Fox channel.

The thing that turned it around for me was the scene where the captain was discussing the engine room, and asked if the problem was monkeys. To me that was classic Wheadon dialog, and after that the show seemed to pick up. I also enjoyed the bad guy in the engine sceen. I agree that we should give it a chance, and hopefully it will pick up after a few episodes, and we begin to see the long range plots that Wheadon has used so well in Buffy and Angel.

Posted by: Pan Chun

I'm about half-way through the "Serenity" pilot...the video quality is AWFUL and it makes it kind of difficult to follow in a couple of places (who's that? is it...no wait, it's...etc.), but generally speaking, I guess I can understand what was up with FOX wanting more action and humor.

There IS some of both, but not a whole lot. Despite that, it's VERY GOOD drama. I would hope they wouldn't change it much at all...and I would hope that audiences are clever and smart enough to enjoy a DRAMA that just happens to have something of a science fiction setting (IOW, make the sci-fi more incidental than key).

quote:
Spoken at the opening of the pilot:
The War to Unite the Planets was six years done, and the victorious Alliance was spreading its control further and further throughout the galaxy.

Those who had fought for independence and so bloodily lost were forced to live by Alliance law.

Some never would, and those few found themselves drifting, flying to the furthest reaches of the galaxy, to the worlds less civilized...some barely settled...where the Alliance might not control their lives.

These were hard worlds, and work was where you found it. Those who got by lived by a simple creed.

Any job. Anywhere.

Posted by: jerobi

Engh...

I feel like I sat through it more than I watched it. The "space western" vibe came out of left field for me. So they're a transport shio...and they sometimes do shady work. It's like real-life Futurama, only w/o Bender and with fewer gags.

It had its moments, but man...how many characters can they introduce in the first episode? I know it was only 8 or 10, but it made my brain hurt. I'm not good with names. If you're going to start a crew, pick a few people up per episode at least. (Yes, I know it wasn't the pilot, but it aired as one).

I'm debating my SP. If it comes out the same as last week, it's getting deleted. Horses, shotguns, sheriffs...and a starship? C'mon...

I did enjoy the part with the bad guy getting kicked into the engine. That was well done and unexpected from the "hero" character. Letting the hero actually get hit with a thrown knife was also a plus.

Posted by: DaveLessnau

Kicking the bad guy into the engine was a good laugh, but it should have been darn expensive. They should have immediately shut the engine down and done a total overhaul on it. The last thing I'd want is to be flying my spaceship on atmospheric thrust 10 miles up and have a rotor blade come ripping through the fuselage because the Captain thought it would be cool to use it as a food processor.

Regarding the location of the planets, I'd assumed the intro was just poor writing and they ended up with a misplaced modifier or something. First of all, whether or not all the planets are in one solar system, all those people had to get there (well, maybe not THOSE people, but a significant fraction of the Earth population). So, I assume somone, sometime, had economical extra-solar space travel (FTL). Since they had to have FTL to get anywhere, any "frontier" would NOT be at the edge of a single solar system. It would have to be at the edge of explored space so far out that even FTL ships couldn't get there reasonably. Also, unless the Bode-Titius Rule ( http://astrosun.tn.cornell.edu/cour...1/bodes_law.htm ) is merely a local happenstance, there's no way to have a single solar system with 100 planets. Even if they mean "moons" instead of "planets," I doubt it could happen. Bode-Titius also applies to moon distances from their primaries. To get a large number of moons about a planet (and they'd have to be BIG moons for them to be terraformable), the planet has got to be a giant. Assuming a gas giant, if Bode-Titius is correct, there's only about 5 slots available for them. That means 20 BIG moons each. I'm not smart enough to work the math, but those moons would be so far away from their primaries that they'd get no light (too close in and they'd fry in the primary's EM). Thus, they wouldn't be terraformable.

Where that reference to 85 million miles (or so, I can't remember the exact number those blue-handed guys mentioned) leads, I don't know. That kind of distance is inner-solar system stuff. It won't get you anywhere in the outer solar system (ANY outer solar system if Bode-Titius is right). So, if that planet were a "frontier" planet in a single solar system, Blue-Hands' distance must have been pulled out of a (stupid) writer's posterior-dorsal. If the planet is in some "frontier" solar system, then that writer is even more stupid.

I hope the writers at least TRY to clean some of this stuff up. Right now, they've written themselves into a big box of stupid.

Posted by: dcheesi

If the above post is right, then the original pilot is about a galactic alliance, with planets spread throughout the galaxy (makes sense, but requires FTL). But the first episode intro and dialogue both indicate a single solar system within which all these worlds exist (no FTL, but highly unlikely). So which is it? I wonder if Joss changed his mind, or simply goofed?

BTW, you really don't need FTL if it's one system. They could have originally colonized via sleeper ships. If Earth/Sol was dying or used up, they would have had plenty of volunteers for even such a long term, dangerous mission.

Posted by: Pan Chun

DaveLessnau: Note my post two above yours. The QUOTE in it is from the (as yet) unaired pilot. It DOES mention planets across a GALAXY, not a system, so yes...SOME form of FTL motivation must exist. It simply hasn't been addressed yet.

Posted by: MarkofT

quote:
Originally posted by jerobi

I'm debating my SP. If it comes out the same as last week, it's getting deleted. Horses, shotguns, sheriffs...and a starship? C'mon...

Would you rather have a mechanical beast that if it breaks down you need to aquire parts from somewhere, most likly far far away?

Or would you like to have a horse. That you can breed to make more horses. That can much easily handle rougher terrain then something wheeled.

In both pilots you see an ATV with a trailer. It is used to cart the various cargo when the ship lands. You never see them running about on it, it used for work only. ATVs are really rather low tech compared to even the simplest cars. You could easily buy a mid range tool set from Sears and completly tear one down and then put it back together. But they still resever their use for work.

Same thing for revolvers and shotguns vs automatics. There are a lot of parts in an automatic and most have tight tolerances. Revolvers and shotguns are very simple to make and maintain.

Doom mention still having doubts on the maglev when they were flying the freighter above it.

Moving parts on a MagLev train = 0
Moving parts on a spacecraft = 1.5 billion (Yes I did count ;) )

The propulsion is done by the same but that levitate the train. Nothing moves but the train over the maglev track. Also remember they were ripping off the cargo and illict goods are more expensive then normal 'cause they are usually not picked up at the corner store.

I'm still leaning toward one system with many planets or moons. There does seem to be a method of fast communication so it could be that there are several systems but very little travel between. Just communications back and forth between the systems.

Posted by: DLiquid

I hate to propose a believable reason for all the wooden stuff, since I thought it was corny as hell, but maybe humans used up all of the trees on Earth to the point where wood was considered a luxury item. Then, when we found these new planets, wood was abundant and it was still considered highly valuable and stylish. I still think the whole western thing is way overdone, and the show would be much better if it was more subtle, like in Outland.

Posted by: johnjohn

quote:
Originally posted by jradosh
I just wish they hadn't taken the western style so literally.

Hmmm... 5 minutes in, I was thinking to myself, "They better not rob a stagecoach." Boy was I off base!

Posted by: jerobi

quote:
Would you rather have a mechanical beast that if it breaks down you need to aquire parts from somewhere, most likly far far away?

And have it require a wacky adventure to the far reaches of some intriguing border colony...of the criminally insane?

Heck yes. (And bonus points if someone gets stabbed with a sharpened space pickle)

Posted by: rkcarter

quote:
Originally posted by murgatroyd
Now here's a curious thing I've discovered over the years. Some people do a kick-ass job of writing first episodes, and some don't. If I see any reason to stick with a show, I always watch multiple episodes before I make final judgement.

The original pilot movie for Babylon 5 stank as a pilot. (I haven't watched JMS' remake). Watched later on, after I had seen a couple of seasons of B5 and already knew the characters and universe, it wasn't anywhere near as bad.
...
Jan

Actually, you really oughta watch the remake -- it's really a re-edit, and it's a good lesson in how much difference editing makes. JMS talked about it online a bit, and people asked him about the pilot, and he said that, being the producer for the first time, he hadn't trusted his own instincts, and trusted the director's, and directors tend to like long sweeping shots to show off their great camerawork. The re-edit uses more close-ups, keeps more character moments. The original felt very dry and cold -- I realize now that it's because it has very few close-up shots -- you're watching everything as if from a distance.

I'd give the original pilot a 3 out of 10. I'd give the re-edit a 6 or 7.

Come to think of it, a similar thing applies to Star Trek: The Motion Picture. The new Director's Edition DVD is a much better movie than the original, again because of some re-editing which changed the plot very little, but paced it properly.

- Rick

Posted by: Pan Chun

The B5 re-edit also adds a line or two (Kosh's greeting to "Sinclair" is prophetic) and, most importantly (IMO), it was RE-SCORED by Christopher Franke, who scored the entire rest of the series.

The original version was scored by Stewart Copeland of The Police. His score is "okay", but it is in stark contrast to the rest of the series. Franke's sweeping score is much stronger and has much more "scope" than Copeland's "futuristic" quirkiness.

Despite what it says on the box (which is incorrect), the DVD with "The Gathering" is the re-edited version and not the original.

Posted by: Rob Helmerichs

I would give the original a 2 and the re-edit a 3. It still really stinks up the room, and is one of the reasons why it took me three years to get into B5 (the first few episodes of the regular season are the other reason).

Posted by: murgatroyd

re: Babylon5 the Gathering:

quote:
Originally posted by rkcarter
Actually, you really oughta watch the remake -- it's really a re-edit, and it's a good lesson in how much difference editing makes.

Oh, I know -- I just haven't gotten around to it yet. And we had to move a bunch of stuff around, I've mislaid my copy. One of these days I'll get another copy or find my old one and watch it.

The point is, those of us who watched the old stupid edit on the first broadcast had a particular experience as our intro to the show. We can prevent others from suffering the same way by making sure they see the new improved version, and we can watch the new improved version ourselves and enjoy it, but it's nearly impossible to know how we would have experienced it ourselves if JMS had been able to show the new improved version back then. We have too much knowledge of the universe now.

In the same way, if there were ever a DVD set of "firefly the way Joss originally envisioned it" then the folks who had never seen any would watch it and get an entirely different experience than those of us who are watching the patched-up-business now and then watched the new 'fixed' version.

Perhaps a better example might be to watch Crusade the right way around -- but you get what I'm driving at, I'm sure.

Jan

Jan

Posted by: rkcarter

quote:
Originally posted by Pan Chun
The B5 re-edit also adds a line or two (Kosh's greeting to "Sinclair" is prophetic) and, most importantly (IMO), it was RE-SCORED by Christopher Franke, who scored the entire rest of the series.

The original version was scored by Stewart Copeland of The Police. His score is "okay", but it is in stark contrast to the rest of the series. Franke's sweeping score is much stronger and has much more "scope" than Copeland's "futuristic" quirkiness.
...

Y'know, I was always curious if it had been the other way around, if people (including me) would've said "that Christopher Franke guy was too operatic, I'm so glad they went back and re-scored it by Stewart Copeland, like the rest of the series." I've noticed that a *lot* of what people like is what they're used to. I was just thinking about that, remembering when _Star Trek: The Next Generation_ hit the airwaves, people were dissing it in advance because without Captain Kirk and co., there was no way it could be _Star Trek_ or any good.

Just my thought about human nature -- it's what you're used to. I first noticed that back in college in the dorms -- some dorms had community bathrooms for a whole floor, others had a bathroom shared by two adjoining rooms (4 people). Whichever style people started out in and got used to, they'd talk about how much better it was ("ewww, you have to get together with your roommates and decide who's gonna clean the bathroom??? Ours is professionally cleaned daily." "ewww, you have to share your bathroom with 75 other people? We only have 4.")

OK, now I'm off-topic on an off-topic -- just a philosophical point I happened to be thinking about lately. :D

- Rick

Posted by: murgatroyd

quote:
Originally posted by Medieval Guy
I would give the original a 2 and the re-edit a 3. It still really stinks up the room, and is one of the reasons why it took me three years to get into B5 (the first few episodes of the regular season are the other reason).

Okay, I don't mean to hijack the thread, but just wanted to mention that it was sheer curiosity to see what Billy Mumy would do as a grown-up actor, and curiosity of what Andreas Katsulas would do in a character that wasn't the thug-type he is so often cast in, that got me through Season One of B5.

By the end of Season One I had gotten enamored enough of some of the other characters like Garibaldi that I kept on watching.

It was not until Season Three that I became hooked.

So I owe Andreas Katsulas and Bill Mumy a big one; if they had not cast them, I might have missed B5 altogether.

Strange how these things work out.

It remains to be seen how Firefly will turn out. If I'm lucky, I will be writing the same kind of paragraph somewhere else but it will say,

"if I hadn't wanted to see Gina Torres again, and of course, watched for Joss' writing, I might have missed Firefly altogether."

Jan

Posted by: rkcarter

Sounds like enough discussion fodder to find/start a _Babylon 5_ thread here....

Posted by: Rcrew

Just watched the first episode last night. Hadn't read any of this thread before. Interesting comments.

Don't like Adam Baldwin, one of those don't like because of characters he's portrayed. Wasn't sure until I looked at the bio, Radio Flyer stands out...

On the kicking into the engine scene... my GF laughed (it's her idea to SP the show and watch it). I was a little surprised considering the brutality of it. She's pretty much anti violence in shows. And, I know, I know, what do you do with a guy that basically says your harm/death will be his life's objective... but it just put me off.

She liked it enough to keep the SP, at least it's on the bedroom TiVo, so it won't compete with the really good stuff...

Posted by: TiVoLance

Ok tonight the Western overtones were getting on my nerves. Being from Texas any "country" accent done badly gets on my nerves. I still think the show has potential but PLEASE drop that old western country pseudo drawl.

Posted by: unoriginal

Tonights episode doesn't air around here until 11:00pm because of some stupid Baseball game. :mad:

Remember to pad it for at least 30 minutes. Sports really mess up the schedule.

Posted by: kilcher

I'm not a big fan of sci-fi or westerns but I really wanted to like this show. I even went into it knowing I'd have to give it a few weeks to see if I really liked it or not. I watched all but the last ten minutes of the first episode and decided to give up on it. There was just nothing in this show that struck me as being special. I thought the fight scene (bar room brawl) in episode 1 was pretty lame and the characters just didn't draw me in. Hopefully I'll be sorry later (like I was with Buffy) but with the other shows I'm watching right now I just didn't feel like taking an hour each week to watch this one. I mean, just because it's from Joss doesn't mean I have to like it, right? :)

Posted by: Cathy/Vik

I liked tonite better than last wk.

And I really like how they use music in this show... Very effective imo.

Posted by: Rob Helmerichs

quote:
Originally posted by kilcher
...I just didn't feel like taking an hour each week to watch this one...

I assume you really meant 45 minutes, TiVo owner! :D

Posted by: Dawghows

quote:
Originally posted by kilcher
...I really wanted to like this show. I even went into it knowing I'd have to give it a few weeks to see if I really liked it or not...There was just nothing in this show that struck me as being special.

Same here. I haven't watched the second ep yet, but the first one didn't seem very promising. I am going to stick with it for a few weeks, though. One of my pet peaves with the networks is that they don't give a lot of shows the time they need to catch on, so I try to not do that.

And, FWIW, Ken Tucker just gave the show a good review in Entertainment Weekly, and I can usually trust his judgement. (I'm assuming he's seen more episodes than I have.)

I can take a 45-minute-a-week gamble for a few awhile, in case somthing good develops.

Posted by: jradosh

Do you think that Joss paid John Carpenter for stealing his Ghosts of Mars story for ep 2? ;)

Posted by: ariscris

I think ep 2 was better than ep 1. Maybe they should've made it the pilot, I would've preferred a pilot that was set in space... I certainly think that this show has potential... Keeping my SP for now...

Posted by: Pan Chun

The pilot still hasn't aired and won't for a few more weeks (the part of companion Inara was recast and her scenes need to be re-shot, and they need to do some "clean-up"). Perhaps you mean "premiere"?

I was pissed that the idiots at FOX have already abandoned letterboxing the show. :mad: But other than that, I still like it. Of the new shows this season I'm watching (there aren't very many), it's still right near the top of my list.

I like the fact that there's no SOUND in the space shots...no ships whizzing by, no explosions rumbling, etc. The western thing doesn't bother me a bit, either. The performers are really QUITE good...and that's what has me hooked so far. I don't expect the early stories to be much more than expository (who are the Reavers? What is the Alliance like? How did these people come together? and so forth)...though how Simon, his sister River, and The Shepherd joined the ship is a story that is told in the pilot.

I guess I'm just so SICK of Star Trek that a story that DOESN'T involve a crew who works for the government or has a "directive" (like ENT is rapidly moving toward) or a "mission statement" seems like a breath of fresh air. No exploring for exploring's sake, no spatial anomalies, no alien-of-the-week, etc. I'm in for the long haul on this one. :up: :up: :up:

Posted by: Rob Helmerichs

I'm with Pan.

Oh crap.

I'M WITH PAN!?!

Oh crap.

Does anybody know a good psychiatrist?

Posted by: Dweller

quote:
Originally posted by Pan Chun
I guess I'm just so SICK of Star Trek that a story that DOESN'T involve a crew who works for the government or has a "directive" (like ENT is rapidly moving toward) or a "mission statement" seems like a breath of fresh air. No exploring for exploring's sake, no spatial anomalies, no alien-of-the-week, etc. I'm in for the long haul on this one. :up: :up: :up:

Hi. My name is Dweller and I am a recovering Star Trek Addict. :p

I too am "in for the long haul" with this show. I have seen the unaired pilot and both broadcast shows and just keep liking it more and more.

When we finally get to see the "real" pilot there is one scene in paticular that will show the "no sound in space". After seeing that scene I noticed it alot more in the other space scenes and I like it. :)

The one thing I am still getting used to is the "over focus, then correct" that they do alot when showing us the ships. Its not a bad thing, just something I need to get used to I guess.

Posted by: DLiquid

I thought this week's ep was pretty good. Decent story, good acting (liked Doug Savant's character), and very good special effects. The Baldwin dude's accent is still annoying, but I'll probably get used to it. Other than that, the western thing didn't bother me at all in this episode. Now, if they can just avoid old west style towns and saloons my SP will remain intact.

Posted by: DaveLessnau

I agree with DLiquid all around. I also paid closer attention to the intro verbage and they're definitely talking about a single system with a 100 terraformed worlds (sigh). When they talk about the frontier, they mention the "edge of the system," not the edge of known space or the edge of the Galaxy. Though, when talking about Reavers, the Captain says something like they've gone out to the "edge of the Galaxy." I wish they'd figure out where they are and what their technology is before writing these shows.

Also, do they have some type of gravity technology or do all the ships have gravity simply because it's too much trouble to simulate a non-gravity scene on screen? Their ship has a standard gravity field and doesn't seem to be bothered by drive induced inertia. Though when they run into things they feel a bump. The derelict ship had no lights (or only the "spooky" setting of lights), but still had gravity. Neither ship seemed to be affected by the rotation of the first once they docked with each other. And, why didn't they initially try to salvage the whole ship if, as the Engineer woman said, there wasn't anything mechanically wrong with it (meanwhile tearing an essential component out to a shower of sparks)?

But, still, a good episode.

Posted by: Pan Chun

Re: "Galaxy" vs. "System", agreed...I'm sure now they'll change this when they finally air the pilot:

quote:
Spoken at the opening of the pilot:

The War to Unite the Planets was six years done, and the victorious Alliance was spreading its control further and further throughout the galaxy.

Those who had fought for independence and so bloodily lost were forced to live by Alliance law.

Some never would, and those few found themselves drifting, flying to the furthest reaches of the galaxy, to the worlds less civilized...some barely settled...where the Alliance might not control their lives.

These were hard worlds, and work was where you found it. Those who got by lived by a simple creed.

Any job. Anywhere.

As far as the transport, remember that they pointed out that the vessels were purchased as surplus and then only made fit to make a single one-way run...so that's probably why they didn't go for more of a salvage job. Pieces and parts, but as a whole, it probably had minimal value for re-use.

As far as gravity, until ANTI-GRAV gets really cheap and easy for TV budgets, think of it like having aliens speak English...it just has to be done that way. "Let it go", 'cause it's not an important detail to the entertainment. :)

Posted by: RGM1138

I think that it would be much easier to get into this show without the "Let's create a Universe for our characters to inhabit" voice over at the beginning. I still grimace when I hear it:

"The Earth was used up." - Okay, so the governments of the world, with their usual foresight, planned ahead by building numerous (FTL?) spacecraft to transport the population to another star system. (To eventually defile and use up, as well). Of course, only the best people get to go. I imagine the glitterati saying to those left behind: "Here are the keys to Earth. Lock up when the last tree dies."

"We found a new solar system, and hundreds of new Earths were terraformed and colonized." - Did they stumble upon a Minshara-class planet right off or have to circle the galaxy looking for a place that was just the right distance from its sun to support life? And of course, they sat aboard ship playing cards for a few decades while the terraform factories, (which they brought from Earth), built up an atmosphere. And, of course, the flora and fauna. Did they bring along a box of old-growth Sequoia seedlings and some horses, cows, pigs and chickens, or just clone them?

"The Central Planets formed The Alliance . . . " - Yeah, and apparently stole the uniforms of all those dead Starship Troopers as well. Okay, we'll skip that for now.

Still, the premise does seem vaguely familiar: A cargo ship captain, (a bit of a scoundrel-type), and his shaggy(haired) first mate, spend their time doing what's necessary to keep their craft in dilithium crystals, (or Jet A), and stay just below the radar of the evil Imperial guys who just want to rule the Universe . . . . Hey! Wonder if there's a guy in a black helmet and cloak and a young moisture farmer/wanna-be space pilot, with a unknown twin sister, (who turns out to be a princess), that will be introduced in later episodes? _ :) :)

Sometimes I crack myself up.

BTW, it looks like Whedon is borrowing liberally from Trek as well:

Kaylee - "Cap'n, he called the Ent . . (er, Serenity) a garbage scow!" (Paraphrased).

:)

Bob

Posted by: dmdeane

How exactly does the Earth get "used up"? If they can all travel however many hundreds or thousands of lightyears to a new solar system, and terraform "hundreds" of planets, why not just stay put in the Earth's solar system, and terraform the planets that are already there?

Why talk as though everyone left the Earth's solar system and migrated to another? The obvious pattern of colonization would be for people to spread out across the galaxy in all directions, looking for habital planets. I highly doubt there was only one other suitable solar system in the galaxy, after earth.

If FTL travel does not exist, then human colonization of the galaxy is going to take millions of years, as each group slowly travels to a new system, colonizes it, overpopulates it, then starts the colonization process over again.

If that is the case, then the Alliance in the Firefly story is simply the local authority in this particular system, since it would be impossible to enforce any kind of interstellar government without FTL travel. Each solar system would have its own government, or governments. The other solar systems would be impossibly far away, and therefore, almost mythical. There might be radio or laser communication between solar systems (at the speed of light, taking hundreds or thousands of years, one way), but hardly any travel at all, except for one-way colonization missions.

Finally, even ignoring the unlikelihood of there being hundreds of suitable planets to terraform, the fact is that the outer planets (where our heros are hiding) would get far too little sunlight to be terraformable (if by outer system we mean something like Jupiter or Saturn). People would not be living in the outer planets in breathable atmospheres with warm, livable climates.

If by "outer planets", the writers mean, not planets out by the equivalent of a Jupiter or a Saturn orbit, but rather, the equivalent of a Mars orbit, then perhaps these planets would be terraformable, but then you have the problem of having hundreds of planets orbiting close to each other in the "warm belt" between the equivalent of a Venus orbit and the equivalent of a Mars orbit.

This implies not only that the colonists terraformed whole planets, but that they also moved their orbits to make them habitable (since such a solar system is very unlikely to occur naturally). Possible, perhaps, but it implies a much greater degree of technology and organization than we have seen so far - not to mention a "colonist/terraforming" time scale thousands of years long - perhaps it was done by AI robotic terraformers, whilst the human colonists were in transit at sub-light speed? But then we haven't seen much in the way of any kind of computers, AI, or robots.

I know Joss has a habit of "making it up as he goes along" vis a vis Buffy and Angel, but he has to make some attempt at consistency.

Posted by: Worf

I found this week's episode much better than the pilot as well - partly because I'm not really interested in western style shows, and putting on a western-style set just puts me off.

But that's me :).

I finally noticed that they recycled the Starship Troopers (movie) costumes for the Alliance uniforms here :). Appears to be almost the same uniform, just a few cosmetic changes (white down the center).

Posted by: DanT

I also liked this second show more than the premiere, and I liked the premiere to begin with. I'm looking forward to seeing the pilot. I dl'd it, but after hearing Pan complain about the quality, I decided to wait for an actual broadcast. But I might change my mind.

As for the Starship Trooper outfits, I'm of the opinion that it's intentional. The earth government in Starship Troopers was definitely fascistic, and the Alliance has similar leanings, so I think it's a bit of an inside joke or even an attempt to subtly influence viewers' opinions of the Alliance.

Posted by: Pan Chun

DanT: The copy of the pilot I downloaded was really poor, but I'm viewing on a 55" screen. I've found that a lot of the stuff that looks really crappy to me looks LESS so on a smaller screen.

Either way, keep in mind that there WILL be changes made to the "Serenity" episode when it finally airs, so it might be worth the trouble to check it out for the "oddity factor" as well. :)

Posted by: RGM1138

quote:
Originally posted by DanT

As for the Starship Trooper outfits, I'm of the opinion that it's intentional. The earth government in Starship Troopers was definitely fascistic, and the Alliance has similar leanings, so I think it's a bit of an inside joke or even an attempt to subtly influence viewers' opinions of the Alliance.

Well, that, plus it's also cheaper to pull existing costumes from wardrobe than to design from scratch. :)

Bob

Posted by: DanT

quote:
Originally posted by Pan Chun
DanT: The copy of the pilot I downloaded was really poor, but I'm viewing on a 55" screen. I've found that a lot of the stuff that looks really crappy to me looks LESS so on a smaller screen.

I watch on a 50" Mitsubishi 4:3 HDTV, so I'm in pretty much the same boat. OK, I just popped the file into WinDVD on my PC here, and it's pretty bad there. It's gonna be real hard to watch on my TV. Maybe I'll watch from all the way back in the kitchen or something.

quote:
Either way, keep in mind that there WILL be changes made to the "Serenity" episode when it finally airs, so it might be worth the trouble to check it out for the "oddity factor" as well. :)

Yeah, I'll probably watch it anyway. It's just a question of before or after the broadcast, and whether or not I'll get through the whole thing without getting a headache from trying to focus too hard.

Posted by: DaveLessnau

I'd also like to know how the Alliance ever won a war if they put bozos in charge of their major ships (I assume that Alliance thing was a ship and not a station). Seems to me, a person wouldn't be made a Captain of a major ship until he knew every subsystem of that ship's class inside and out and had held various upper-level positions on that type of ship. Plus, he'd have to be a senior officer (I didn't catch the bozo's rank) and, thus, have attended various service schools (specifically, a senior service school, probably in residence). Of course, there's the minor detail that competition for a spot in those schools and especially for such a Captaincy would be tremendously fierce. Yet, here's a guy who's had to have gone through all that, and, apparently, has "never been in space before" (or "out here" (I'm not sure of the quote)). Simply amazing.

Once again, couldn't these writers/producers hire someone (or even talk to someone) who's been in the military? In this case, a nuclear submarine Captain would probably be a reasonable equivalent.

Posted by: Rob Helmerichs

Well, in the Soviet military (e.g.), it was not at all unusual for high military postings to be given out for "political" reasons...perhaps Whedon considers the Alliance to be less enlightened than the United States (not entirely unlikely, considering he made them the villains).

Posted by: Pan Chun

I think the point is supposed to be that the Alliance military has gotten so bloated that the Peter Principle is in play in a big way...people getting promoted to their level of incompetence. Also, it is said that all military-based "empires" tend to collapse back on themselves...IIRC, the Roman Empire grew so large that maintaining central control became impossible due to the time involved in communications, the difficulty of keeping the local populace content, from more or less bleeding dry newly-acquired resources to feed the existing infrastructure, etc. Perhaps the Alliance is suffering from similar problems.

It's far too earlier to know for sure (and considering the premise of the show will prevent them from traveling to the "inner worlds" too much, we might not learn a WHOLE lot about those details for a while yet).

Posted by: dmdeane

I think we are suffering from a misapprehension, here. The quote in question implied that the Alliance captain had never served in the "outer territories" before, not that he had never commanded a space ship before. As such, he had no experience with "reavers", which caused him to dismiss what he was being told about the abandoned ship.

Posted by: DaveLessnau

I'm no expert in history (recent or otherwise), but I don't have the impression that high Soviet military positions were handed out for political reasons. High political positions, yes. But not military positions. Especially not military positions where that person was essentially on his own for long periods of time in multi-billion dollar platforms with whopping great weapons.

In the Alliance's case, it hasn't been all that long since they won the war. I doubt they would decay that far that fast. Also, I assume the ship that guy was Captaining was of a class that patrolled the area. If he had experience enough to be given the Captaincy of such a ship, he should have been familiar with its operational mission. As I mentioned above, no government is going to throw such an expensive and dangerous position to someone as a political sop. Plus, those service schools would have been studying the reavers as a potential enemy.

Posted by: doom1701

Good ep. Kinda slow at times--could have gone for fewer "Focus on the determination on the crew's faces" shots. And the "Zoom out, then focus" CGI work is a little annoying (although it is something that I first saw on Babylon 5).

DaveLessnau, I listened for the "edge of the galaxy" comment, and I think it could easily be taken as sarcasm. Just like I say that my friend seems to live on "the other side of the planet" because it takes me 45 minutes to get to his house.

Posted by: kdmorse

The bad guy from the pilot (The one that shoots Kaylee) - where do we know him from? It wasn't so much his face, but I *know* I've heard that voice before...

Naturally, the copy of the pilot that's going around doesn't seem to have the credits attached...

-Ken

Posted by: TreborPugly

One way they could have a "System" with lots of terraformable planets might be to have this system much closer to the galactic core, where there are 5-10 suns in a cluster, far enough apart to each have their own planets, but close enough together that travel between them is feasible.

Alternatively, if they are committed to this 100 planets, 1 sun scenario, I will consider this a fantasy show rather than Sci Fi. Then they can come up with whatever sort of bizarre physics/magic they need to get 100 planets livable around one sun, and run with it. (Kind of a Terry Prachet universe)

Treb.

Posted by: TimC

For centuries (until professionalization in the mid 1800s), the officers of European armies were the sons of major nobles, minor nobles and their sons, and sons of wealthy merchants who either bought commissions, inherited them, or were given them for political reasons. They had no military training at all and often got their commissions as children. Professional armies with training, service schools, etc, are a fairly modern invention.

If an 18th century Duke needed a profession for his fourth son, he could purchase a colonels commission for him. You could, and did, have 20-yr olds with no military experience or training leading thousands of men into battle. The enlisted men were from the lower ranks of society and in for life, but the officers were untrained gentlemen part timers. If the men were lucky, the officers would be mearly inexperienced and not stupid and get them all killed.

Heres's the Brittish rank purchase system (abolished in 1868) complete with dollar values for each rank:
http://www.cwreenactors.com/~crimean/purchsys.htm

Perhaps the Alliance society and military is set up more like 18th century Europe.

Posted by: RGM1138

quote:
Originally posted by TreborPugly
One way they could have a "System" with lots of terraformable planets might be to have this system much closer to the galactic core, where there are 5-10 suns in a cluster, far enough apart to each have their own planets, but close enough together that travel between them is feasible.

Treb.

And, how many of those systems might be in existence in the Milky Way? At what distance would they have to be from each other without them (or their associated planets) bumping into each other like billiard balls? And also, close enough for travel between them, but not so close that you'd fry from the solar radiation.

Inquiring minds want to know. :)

Bob

Posted by: dmdeane

quote:
Originally posted by TimC
Perhaps the Alliance society and military is set up more like 18th century Europe.

Of course, there were enough "lifer" non-coms and some "lifer" officers, to make the system work. This system produced the Duke of Wellington, after all. It worked okay when there was a large and active aristocracy which was generally warlike in its inclinations, and trained from youth in warlike sports (hunting, shooting, etc.); and when there was plenty of time for the aristocratic officer to learn his job whilst on the job. By the late 19th century you have a more middle class society, and the officer class becomes more of a meritocratic group of career professionals, rather than aristocratic amateurs.

Posted by: dmdeane

quote:
Originally posted by DaveLessnau
Plus, those service schools would have been studying the reavers as a potential enemy.

Every commander was green at some point in his career. I think the point of this episode was that "seeing is believing". Whatever he might have learned in the academy, until he stared into the face of madness, he had no real idea what a "reaver" was. Notice that he ended up taking Mal's advice, and destroyed the abandoned ship.

Posted by: TreborPugly

quote:
Originally posted by RGM1138

And, how many of those systems might be in existence in the Milky Way? At what distance would they have to be from each other without them (or their associated planets) bumping into each other like billiard balls? And also, close enough for travel between them, but not so close that you'd fry from the solar radiation.

Inquiring minds want to know. :)

Bob

Well, I can't speak with strong authority on this one, but from my Scientific American educated, lots of hard SF reading position:

As you get closer to the core of any galaxy, stars are more and more closely packed, with the hypothesis of a black hole at the center. Therefore, there must be some distance from the center of the galaxy where say the average distance between stars is 5 light years. Therefore, in that region there will be clusters that are all within 0.1-0.5 light years, with some larger space to the next region of stars. 0.1 light year is still plenty enough space for the local star to be the dominant gravitational force. (Pluto is about 300 light-minutes out by my calc, Ort cloud goes out to 100 AU (800 light minutes) So we could actually probably get some stars only a few light weeks apart without interference enough to prevent colonization. (Say 1 major event every 10K years?)

There is already plenty of hard SF out there with planets around two stars in a binary system, where the second star would just be the brightest star in the night sky, but not sun-like at all. So I wouldn't have too much trouble buying a multi-star cluster. But one with 100 planets? That's hard.

Treb

Posted by: DaveLessnau

quote:
Originally posted by TimC
Perhaps the Alliance society and military is set up more like 18th century Europe.

But there's a big difference between the military then and the military now (and the future). Back then, the officer was responsible for providing his own weapon system (i.e., himself, his horse, his armor, his sword, etc.) and training. As far as the powers that be were concerned, if he killed himself and those under him, there's no loss. The capital expenditure was his and babies came into the world for free. Today (and in the future), all weapon systems are provided by the state and are EXTREMELY expensive (a good chunk of the Gross Domestic (Planetary/Alliance) Product). Ditto for training. Even today, an aircraft carrier will cost about $4.5 Billion; a nuclear submarine about $2.2 Billion; the initial training for a pilot is supposedly on the order of $1 Million; a space shuttle launch costs somewhere between $0.5 and $2.2 Billion. A huge Deathstar-type spaceship has got to be orders of magnitude greater. Plus, the cost and damage of a "boo-boo" back in pre-Industrial days was fairly limited. An "oopsie" with a Deathstar is too high to bear.

TreborPugly: another problem with a galactic core scenario is transport. I believe the galactic core is around 50,000 light years away. To get there, you'd definitely need FTL travel.

Posted by: ClutchBrake

My God, no wonder you people can't enjoy television. :rolleyes: ;)

Posted by: Pan Chun

Of course, FTL "warp drive" and "subspace communications" are also impossible...same with "Universal Translators" and aliens speaking English everywhere. No wonder no one ever watches Star Trek.

Just admit you can't wrap your mind around an adequate suspension of disbelief to enjoy the show and move on...there's no shame in it. It happens all the time.

Posted by: DaveLessnau

I could suspend disbelief just fine if reality weren't staring me in the face. These aren't esoteric or non-well-known things these "writers" are messing up. We're talking basic high school physics and Jr ROTC "how the military works" stuff here. Heck, it's also high school English: if I had written an essay back in high school with these kinds of thematic/plot/background holes, I'd have been given a bad grade. Yet, the "professional" writers who write these shows for millions of people to watch can't do it right.

Why is it that there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of excellent, top-quality Science Fiction books out there, yet darn near every SF show on TV is filled with dreck? Why don't the producers of these shows go find one of those excellent books and produce a series out of it (and do it RIGHT)? For instance, Peter F. Hamilton's "The Reality Dysfunction"/"The Neutronium Alchemist"/"The Naked God" saga is excellent and is thematically pretty close to this "Firefly" show. The captain of the ship and his girl(s) is(are) young (understandably and believably), there's a lot of action, sex, horror, drama, and other stuff that TV audiences want. If every chapter were turned into a single episode (properly), they could run a series for years. Why pay "professional" TV writers who don't know diddly about science or science-fiction (or writing, for that matter), to come up with concepts when excellent stuff is already sitting there waiting for someone to use it?

And, as ClutchBrake said, it's a wonder I can enjoy any television (but I'm coming at it from the other side :) ). Even with its current holes, this show is one of the few that are tolerable.

Edited to include the full titles of Hamilton's work.

Posted by: murgatroyd

quote:
Originally posted by DaveLessnau
Why is it that there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of excellent, top-quality Science Fiction books out there, yet darn near every SF show on TV is filled with dreck? Why don't the producers of these shows go find one of those excellent books and produce a series out of it (and do it RIGHT)? For instance, Peter F. Hamilton's "Neutronium Alchemist" and its sequels is excellent and is thematically pretty close to this "Firefly" show. The captain of the ship and his girl(s) is(are) young (understandably and believably), there's a lot of action, sex, horror, drama, and other stuff that TV audiences want. If every chapter were turned into a single episode (properly), they could run a series for years. Why pay "professional" TV writers who don't know diddly about science or science-fiction (or writing, for that matter), to come up with concepts when excellent stuff is already sitting there waiting for someone to use it?

Where to start, where to start....

Well, with the obvious. You can't just take a book and 'do a chapter a week' -- you guessed that, I bet, because you instantly qualified the statement by saying "properly".

#1 -- Because if you do, you get a leaden, sorry mess like the A&E version of Austen's Pride and Prejudice. The way you tell a story in a long book like Hamilton is writing and the way you tell a story on TV/film is completely different. The best explanation I've seen of this is in Robert McKee's excellent screen-writing textbook, Story . For your exercise, class, try to come up with a filmable script for a mini-series of Frank Herbert's Dune.

#1a -- Since many screenwriters can't do the trick of telling a good story *and* handling the extra requirements of an SF story (like trying to pat your head, rub your stomach, and walk around the room backwards and twirling at the same time), the stories which survive the process above still turn into a leaden mess.

#2 -- Because Joss isn't writing a science-fiction show, he's writing a Western with spaceships instead of wagons. (See Ursula K. Le Guin's essay "Frem Elfland to Poughkeepsie" and where she says that all the writer wanted to do was play around with certain fantasy elements substitute 'spaceships' for what she said; the argument still holds.)

#3 -- Because Peter F. Hamilton and many many many of the other writers of SF can't write decent characters or believable dialogue? Once you move to the screen where they can't talk about the big ideas, but you have to SHOW things, you have nothing left. ;)

#4 -- Because when the usual Hollywood guys come up against a writer like Ursula K. Le Guin who can write both good ideas and good characters, they're afraid of it and don't know what do to with it, so immediately they start changing it to be something like the stories they already know, and reduce it to a pale shadow of what it was, thus negating the virtue of using a good book in the first place. (See A&E's Lathe of Heaven.)

That's good to start with. I'm others can come up with plenty o' reasons why it's just not that easy.

Jan

Posted by: Rcrew

Just going back to the Western Theme one more time. Finally finished watching the 2nd episode last night. After pausing and ranting about the first 3 blatent and so bad western dialogue instances my GF said if you do it again, you're out of here... ok, I made it to the end, but only becase chuckling was still allowed.

I can accept much of that theme, but do they have to talk like Roy Rogers, Butch Cassidy, & The Sun Dance Kid, ALL the time?

Please don't ask for a specific example. Once you hear one, you'll catch every one, and it will detract from the experience...

Posted by: Crrink

If they're gonna insist on using regular old guns, why are they using the same props from Bonanza?? Couldn't they at LEAST use some updated looking guns like you might find in a good Clancy novel or something?

Posted by: bdowell

quote:
Originally posted by Crrink
If they're gonna insist on using regular old guns, why are they using the same props from Bonanza?? Couldn't they at LEAST use some updated looking guns like you might find in a good Clancy novel or something?

I haven't paid close enough attention to the guns that are in use by the Alliance troops and such, those very well could be closer to the current higher tech weapons you may be referring to, but...

I have no quibbles with the guns that are used by the main characters. There's something to be said for the simplicity of the old six shooters, which would last virtually forever, and were easily maintained, cleaned, repaired, reloaded, and highly dependable when a shot was to be fired.

Ask anyone that has spent time toting an M16 around how trouble free it is, and they'd probably put in a good word for an old six shooter.

Posted by: Lori

quote:
Originally posted by kdmorse
The bad guy from the pilot (The one that shoots Kaylee) - where do we know him from? It wasn't so much his face, but I *know* I've heard that voice before...

Naturally, the copy of the pilot that's going around doesn't seem to have the credits attached...

-Ken

You know, even when you put "spoilers" in the title, that doesn't mean that you get to talk about unaired episodes without tags. :(

Posted by: Pan Chun

Heh...I've already seen it so it wasn't a spoiler to me, but you're right of course.

Posted by: trojanrabbit

Just watched ep #2 last night (missed the first one).

I'm willing to give it a couple more episodes. Wonder how many times it will get pre-empted / moved in the next weeks because of baseball.

Posted by: Lori

quote:
Originally posted by trojanrabbit
Just watched ep #2 last night (missed the first one).

I'm willing to give it a couple more episodes. Wonder how many times it will get pre-empted / moved in the next weeks because of baseball.

Well, according to this site, not very many:

quote:
With only one baseball preemption in October, Friday nights are a big opportunity for FOX to premiere in September and continue with original episodes! The two new action-packed series FIREFLY and JOHN DOE will have the benefit of promotion in baseball playoffs and the World Series!

Posted by: murgatroyd

In case anyone's interested in what a real SF writer (who has also written for television) thinks of the show, check out Locus Online for a review of Firefly, John Doe, and the new Twilight Zone by John Shirley.

I found his comments especially interesting because he points out that modern shows have way more commercial breaks than older ones, and that plays merry hell with both pacing and the amount of story you can put into a TV show these days. Worth pondering.

Jan

Posted by: hfwarner3

I have really enjoyed Firefly so far. Yes, it is going a little overboard on the Western thing, but mostly works for me, so no serious compliants. Enterprise is gone, Firefly is in.

Posted by: Sinuralan

quote:
Originally posted by Rcrew

Please don't ask for a specific example. Once you hear one, you'll catch every one, and it will detract from the experience...

While I don't really like Westerns, I have to say I don't really catch any of the western phrases. As long as they're not on a dust covered planet with a saloon and revolvers, I tend to forget the western bit (thankfully).

Posted by: zechman

I predict that in a couple of years, this will be the very thing that fans insist is the reason it's so good.

To put it another way, the weird thing that doesn't sit well today may be considered innovative tomorrow, once you've had a chance to get used to it.

Kinda like the 5-year pre-planned story arc of Babylon 5. OH! JUST when you thought the thread was getting back on track.... :D

And in general, I try never to pass judgement on a new show until it's second season has started.

--Dwayne

(Looks like I have a long wait ahead of me for Crusade, huh?) :(

Posted by: hfwarner3

quote:
Originally posted by zechman
[B]Kinda like the 5-year pre-planned story arc of Babylon 5. OH! JUST when you thought the thread was getting back on track....

But look at all that was right about B5 and then watch Firefly this Friday and keep that in mind. I'm telling ya, Josh is getting it right so far. Keep it about the characters and don't fall into the techno-trap.

Meanwhile, Enterprise continues to be on a mission to do nothing less than violate the entire original canon. It's like they are *TRYING* to violate it. (SIGH).

Well, Firefly has won me over.

Posted by: DaveLessnau

quote:
Originally posted by hfwarner3
Keep it about the characters and don't fall into the techno-trap.

I heartily disagree. After all, it's called SCIENCE Fiction.

Posted by: bscald

quote:
Originally posted by DaveLessnau

I heartily disagree. After all, it's called SCIENCE Fiction.

I'm not sure Joss WOULD call it "science fiction".

-ben

Posted by: hfwarner3

quote:
Originally posted by DaveLessnau
I heartily disagree. After all, it's called SCIENCE Fiction.

Yes, but I think it has been proven that people much prefer science FICTION to SCIENCE fiction. When you get right down to it, you can only do so many shows on the technology where a good show can go on forever telling stories about the characters. The science is an means to the fictions ends.

For example. In Firefly, they obviously have faster than light travel, faster than light communication and single stage to orbit technology. They have not explained how, but they have it. That is cool with me. I don't need to know how they got from A to B as long as it is consistent and makes for a good story.

The Star Trek universe has become both inconsistent and a poor story. Many shows are about the science for the sake of the science. Character development is poor and tired. If they were a series of books instead of tv episodes, few would put in the time or money to read the next one.

That is all I was trying to say.

Posted by: DaveLessnau

bscald: Well, someone put that category on the listing. According to my TiVo, it's listed under "Action and Adventure, Science Fiction." I'd think the Creator, Writer, Director and Executive Producer of the series might have had some input into that.

hfwarner3: I'll agree that you've got to have the fiction to make the science work. But, if a writer is just going to do "magic" instead of science, there's no point in calling it science fiction. Just call it fantasy and be done with it. Better yet, just get rid of those (apparently) marginalizing categories like science fiction or fantasy and just call it a soap opera. Star Trek became bad when they lost what little science they used and went to the convienience of "magic" whenever they wanted. That's why the serieses (How do you pluaralize that? Just series?) became bad. Babylon 5, on the other hand, seems to have done the science right. It wasn't hard science, but at least it was reasonable and consistent.

Sorry for any oddness about the reply. I'm having terrible problems with this forum today.

Posted by: hfwarner3

quote:
Originally posted by DaveLessnau
Babylon 5, on the other hand, seems to have done the science right. It wasn't hard science, but at least it was reasonable and consistent.
[/B]

I agree. I consider B5 a success and think Firefly will be right there with it.

Posted by: Lori

My vote for line of the week:

Spoiler Alert! (highlight to read)
"But she was naked...and articulate!"

:D

I a digging it, which isn't surprising since Joss Whedon is my personal TV God. But still, it's better than I thought it would be and, to paraphrase Herc from Ain't It Cool News, it's probably better than we deserve. :)

Posted by: JYoung

Damnit!
Baseball ran long and Fox LA prempted it. Will try a manual record for the later hours....

Posted by: Crrink

I'm in LA too, was this rerun already? My guide data shows NOTHING for Firefly :(

Posted by: jradosh

OK, please correct me if I'm wrong...

They put the gun in the spacesuit so that it would have air around it, and then they shot a hole in the suit with the first bullet yet were able to keep firing after the air escaped into the vacuum of space?

What did I miss?

J :confused:

Posted by: JYoung

quote:
Originally posted by Crrink
I'm in LA too, was this rerun already? My guide data shows NOTHING for Firefly :(

since baseball ran longer then scheduled, the guide data wouldn't be correct.
KTTV ran Firefly after John Doe and the news in the 11-12 timeslot.

jradosh, I'm assuming that the suit's oxygen tanks supplied enough oxygen for the gunpowder's ignition even though it was streaming out the faceplate.

Posted by: Ladd Morse

quote:
Originally posted by jradosh
OK, please correct me if I'm wrong...

They put the gun in the spacesuit so that it would have air around it, and then they shot a hole in the suit with the first bullet yet were able to keep firing after the air escaped into the vacuum of space?

What did I miss?

J :confused:

I allowed myself to believe that the assumed suit air tanks contained sufficient air to keep the suit pressurized for the short duration required.

:-)

Posted by: Cathy/Vik

I *wondered* why the thing was in the suit.... *duh!*

Posted by: DLiquid

Good episode. Very funny. :up: :up:

Kind of an acquired taste, but I'm liking this show so far.

Posted by: Crrink

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JYoung [B]

since baseball ran longer then scheduled, the guide data wouldn't be correct.
KTTV ran Firefly after John Doe and the news in the 11-12 timeslot.

Hmph. Thanks for the info. Stinks that I was at home, but enjoying the company of my wife instead of watching TV, so I missed out. That'll teach me!! :D

Posted by: Crrink

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JYoung
[B]

since baseball ran longer then scheduled, the guide data wouldn't be correct.
KTTV ran Firefly after John Doe and the news in the 11-12 timeslot.

Hmph. Thanks for the info. Stinks that I was at home, but enjoying the company of my wife instead of watching TV, so I missed out. That'll teach me!! :D

Posted by: dmdeane

quote:
Originally posted by JYoung
jradosh, I'm assuming that the suit's oxygen tanks supplied enough oxygen for the gunpowder's ignition even though it was streaming out the faceplate.

Has everyone forgotten even the most basic elements of chemistry? Don't argue over the finer points of the spacesuit premise when the premise itself is bogus!

Explosives, propellants, gunpowders, etc., are defined by one essential fact: they all contain their own sources of fuel and oxygen. That's what makes them explosive, rather than merely flammable! Think about it: if oxygen in the air was required for ammunition to go off, it would never go off, because the gunpowder is sealed in an air-tight metal cartridge! This is true as well of older, blackpowder, muzzle loading weapons, or of any explosive or rocket, which gains its explosive nature by being tightly contained and segregated from the surrounding atmosphere. Gunpowder which is poured out and exposed to the atmosphere doesn't explode; it burns.

Modern ammunition can be ignited in the vacuum of space, for the same reasons that rockets can be ignited in the vacuum of space: because they both contain their own, integral sources of oxygen.

The writer(s) got this point really, really, really wrong. Frankly, I would have preferred that they not try to be this "clever" unless they actually make a real effort to get these sort of things right. It would be better not to try, than to try, and mess up so badly like this. This ranks right up there with JMS's "Gray 17 is missing" episode, where he has the steam tube ignite Garibaldi's revolver cartridges in serial fashion, like a machine gun. Actually, this is worse.

Posted by: Pan Chun

I'm really sad for you. Something tells me YOU think ENTERPRISE is dead on for science...! :eek:

Posted by: dmdeane

quote:
Originally posted by Pan Chun
I'm really sad for you. Something tells me YOU think ENTERPRISE is dead on for science...! :eek:

Well, if someone is going to make a point about how good the science is on a sci fi show, then they had better deliver on that promise.

Also, this is not speculative, "out there" science, where you can pretty much make it up as you go along. This is basic chemistry.

Do you understand? Basic chemistry.

It's got nothing to do with Enterprise, which I find too boring to watch. I certainly don't worry about science when I am watching sci fi, afterall: I am a Farscape fan, for instance, and there is very little in that show which is scientifically valid.

I think you have me confused with someone else.

Posted by: Pan Chun

I think you believe my comment was directed to YOU.

Posted by: dmdeane

quote:
Originally posted by Pan Chun
I think you believe my comment was directed to YOU.

You might want to use the quote tags to make it clearer who you are addressing.

Posted by: Fleegle

quote:
Originally posted by dmdeane
Well, if someone is going to make a point about how good the science is on a sci fi show, then they had better deliver on that promise.

I don't think Joss ever said he was making a show with hard science. The fans have made a point about it because they don't use technobabble to worm their way out of sticky plots. In fact, i think he's trying to focus far less on his technology than most Sci-Fi.

Posted by: lordsutch

quote:
Originally posted by dmdeane
The writer(s) got this point really, really, really wrong. Frankly, I would have preferred that they not try to be this "clever" unless they actually make a real effort to get these sort of things right.

Then again, maybe the characters got it wrong. I doubt any of them have a PhD in Chemistry... certainly Jayne doesn't. Granted they live and work in space, but the dialogue suggests that they don't shoot a lot of stuff in space (if they did, I'm sure there'd be much more effective weapons mounted on the ship).

My personal guess, in ignorance of the chemistry, is that you could probably fire a gun in a vacuum, but honestly it's something that never came up in science class. And I consider myself a pretty well-educated person.

Posted by: Pan Chun

quote:
Originally posted by lordsutch
Granted they live and work in space, but the dialogue suggests that they don't shoot a lot of stuff in space (if they did, I'm sure there'd be much more effective weapons mounted on the ship).

Great point. This isn't a science expedition...it's not "the top of the class at the academy"...they're more like "lower-middle" on the intelligence scale (remember in the premiere when the ship appeared on the cliff behind 3 crew members and the townspeople scattered for fear of getting blasted? Then the crew jeered at the people for being too dumb to realize that their little FREIGHTER doesn't even HAVE any weapons mounted on it!).

Some folks are still just not "getting the premise": this isn't Star Trek. It's more like Space TRUCK...working stiffs hauling materials from place to place to make some dough. And they aren't overly concerned with how LEGAL their cargo happens to be either. They also happen to find themselves involved in some of the less savory aspects of their time...shootouts, disputes, and general lawlessness in a system that's got too much sprawl to be adequately governed by "The Alliance". And really, that's about IT. They won't be meeting aliens, they won't be negotiating government treaties, they won't be making "first contact". You totally have to lose the Trek brainwashing before coming on board the Serenity...or it just ain't gonna fly! ;)

Posted by: Jonathan_S

Also, while the propellant for the gun would work in a vacuum, they were shooting a burst or full auto assault rifle, not a six shooter revolver. The lubricant for the bolt, and auto-reloading system probably would have failed if exposed to a hard vacuum, so the gun would have jammed after a couple of shots.

The tolerances on a gun like that are pretty tight and if the crew didn't usually fight in vacuum they might not have bothered to have space rated seals and lubricant on the gun.

Of course since the crew only had once chance at shooting the net they may have opted for better safe than sorry, wasting a space suit is a minor issue compared to not disabling the net and all dying shortly thereafter. Could have figured they _might_ not need the suit, but why risk it.

[edited to add last paragraph]

Posted by: Rockbugg

Firefly is my favorite new show and fox has already officially cancelled it. There are a handful of unaired episodes that fox may or may not air in the future. Mutant Enemy is shopping the show to other networks and UPN is the front runner to pick it up. Looks like UPN will have to save yet another brilliant Joss Whedon creation.

Someone mentioned that they dont know what happened in the orginal pilot. Fox aired a special 2 hour "origin episode" on 12.20.02 that was the pilot. It was fantastic. There are several letter writing campaigns to save the show but the only thing that will help is a network that doesnt have it head up its ass and a lot of money.

Posted by: rkcarter

Yeah, ironic isn't it -- Fox picked arguably the least good episode to show first, and showed the two-hour pilot *last*. I did see a one-sentence mention that Fox execs acknowledged they slipped up on promoting the show, but no further explanation of what they thought their own problems were.

- Rick