Talk:Firefly (TV series)

Archives
/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3

Production notes

Per WP:Television: Any behind the scenes information is encouraged. This includes things like Running gags and important Trivia, but also Emmy, Golden Globe, and similar nominations and awards. Keep in mind though that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and that where possible you should use prose instead of creating long lists of trivia.

There are many running gags on Firefly.... It also spawned catch phrases amongst the fans such as "Shiny".

GA passed

Meets all criteria Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 17:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review

Well, I've set this article to be peer reviewed, which means that Wikipedia editors from all over will come in and help us to improve this article. It might involve some changes, but it will help to get this article to FA status. Tuvas 19:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Tuvas!plange 20:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Broadcast history

See peer review for the reason I redid that section into prose which just got reverted back into basically a list again, just without bullets. If chronological is better, that's cool, but still think it needs to be written with prose. Each country does not need its own paragraph. -plange 15:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I see. I didn't revert, I added extra references and info for SA, at which point the English paragraph seemed too big; but I guess if the country name is in the 1st few words of the 1st sentence discussing that country, we can have larger paragraphs again. By first airing year? -- Jeandré, 2006-07-16t19:36z

Perfect! plange 20:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Dead or Alive?

ive read on some pages about a script for an unmade episode titles Dead or Alive... does anyone have any links to where i can find this script? -Xornok 02:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't heard of one...Let us know what you find out -plange 02:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

http://www.fireflyfans.net/feature.asp?f=45 script for Dead or alive..... 20:06 21 July 2006

Theme/Element missed?

its been a while since i've seen the series, but... doesn't mal get hurt in just about every episode, if not every episode? if so, should this be in the 'theme' or 'elements' section at all? JoeSmack ^Talk 05:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Serenity: shot in the arm in the Patient shootout.

Ttj: bar fight, bleeding knuckles.

Bushw: ?

Shin: stabbed.

Safe: ?

OMR: drugged, falls over.

JT: ?

Oog: shot in the belly.

Ariel: ?

Ws: tortured something nasty.

Trash: bloody nose from Yolanda.

Tm: ?stuff falls on him in flashback?

Hog: ?broken heart?

Ois: gets knocked out by Jubal.

Those left behind: Book punches him, hard.

Serenity movie: Tussles with the operative.

See also gloomy Joe's Firefly injury scorecard ;)

That said, even if he was injured in all the episodes, that would just show that he's putting himself in dangerous situtions, which is pretty common for TV shows. -- Jeandré, 2006-07-18t20:20z

I don't really see it as any kind of thematic thing-- persistent plot device maybe? It's more like trivia, which is not encyclopedic, right? -plange 21:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

re: Kaylee

Thanks Josiah-- that actually is a direct quote from the DVD that I had in there, so perhaps adding your disclaimer in front adds more authority to that. -plange 21:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Peer review

Hey everyone-- I've been begging and pleading on various projects (Television, MOS (Writing Fiction), etc) for peer reviews and we have some more in... wanted to have you guys take a look at the feedback and see what you thought, etc., I've never participated in a peer review so wasn't sure if we're supposed to do all or if they're just suggestions, etc. -plange 20:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone had a chance to look at it yet? I'd like to address these, but wasn't sure if they were just suggestions. Also, does anyone have the "Space hookers" book as perhaps it has some stuff to help flesh out the Themes section.... plange 01:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I have a copy of finding Serenity, but most of it's painful to read - poorly written and lots of mistakes. I've read better essays and criticism on fff. Here's the contents:

1. Introduction
2. The Reward, the Details, the Devils, the Due
3. The Heirs of Sawney Beane
4. Asian Objects in Space
5. The Rise and Fall (and Rise) of Firefly
6. Who Killed Firefly?
7. "The Train Job" Didn't Do the Job
8. Serenity and Bobby McGee
9. Firefly vs. The Tick
10. We're All Just Floating in Space
11. More Than a Marriage of Convenience
12. "Thanks for the reenactment, sir"
13. Whores and Goddesses
14. The Captain May Wear the Tight Pants, but It's the Gals Who Make Serenity Soar
15. I Want Your Sex
16. Just Shove Him in the Engine, or The Role of Chivalry in Joss Whedon's Firefly
17. Mirror/Mirror: A Parody
18. Star Truck
19. Chinese Words in the Verse
20. Listening to Firefly
21. Kaylee Speaks: Jewel Staite on Firefly
22. Unofficial Glossary of Firefly Chinese [1] -- Jeandré, 2006-08-02t20:26z

Wookie, Barnas, and the rest of the crew-- can you guys take a look at the comments we got back from the peer review? plange 00:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I'm just busy getting back from holiday at the moment, should be able to in the next day or so. Barnas 01:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Being released in HD

Just ran across this, but gotta run out. Would make a great addition to the article http://www.tvweek.com/page.cms?pageId=212 plange 21:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• It already is. :) The Wookieepedian 23:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Cool! plange 19:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

What is "UHD"? "UHD" gets me "University of Houston–Downtown". — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Universal HD. The Wookieepedian 16:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Brief The Onion mention

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/50902 where it'll be for a month until the archive page goes pay-only.

Since Firefly is capitalised and italicised, I think they're referring to the spunky TV show and not the insect. I'd mention it at the top of the talk page with one of those websitemention boxes, but I don't know if an appropriate one exists. It wasn't linked directly by a high-traffic website. Nor is The Onion a news source in this dimension. TransUtopian 16:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right about the meaning of "Firefly" here, but this really isn't something worth posting a note about at the top of the talk page. The primary purpose for this page is to discuss article content, and the Onion reference, even if it were verified as a reference to the Whedon show, is not worth adding to the article. (Thanks for the notice about the amusing article, though.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Point of interest, Jeandre notified us about this last week on our project talk page :-) plange 19:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point, and cool. I've been shying away from any project because I edit teensy things on anything I happen to land upon, but I might stop by and get sucked in. :) TransUtopian 22:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Some little things that might need attention?

The show explores what happens to people who fought on the losing side of a civil war, as well as the pioneer/frontier culture that exists on the fringes of their solar system.

The fandom seems entirely mixed on the issue of whether or not the 'verse is one system or mulitiple, mostly thanks to the fact that the canon is thoroughly confusing on the matter. The introduction by the teacher in Serenity (the movie, of course, not the episode) is usually cited as evidence for the 'verse all being one system - but technically, it says almost nothing about it, because of course, it's a history lesson, not an astronomy or geography lesson. It says they moved to a system with multiple planets and moons and what have you, but what it doesn't say is whether or not they stayed in that system or expanded into neighboring systems. The fact that Joss never did seem able to publicly decide whether or not ships in the 'verse could reach light speed (they just move, as one person put it, "at the Speed of Plot") does nothing to help matters (if he had chosen one, it would make it relatively easy - thanks to a handful of noted travel times - to determine if the planets were more likely in the same system. Unfortunately, though, we don't have that luxury). The map shown on the com screen in Serenity does not, as a point of fact, help either, because (having talked to a few folks who actually know a thing or two about physics and astronomy) either it's a.) the most beautifully stylized map EVER, e.g. not accurate unless you interact with it (as River does when she points out a certain planet *ahem*) and/or with distances that are more than a little "off" as far as scale, and/or with more star-like objects than there are actual stars, b.) depicting a system that will probably collapse under its own gravity within a few thousand years (one guy I talked to - whose scientific judgment I very truly do not doubt - said "5,000 years, tops"), or c.) "it's a really pretty picture" (same guy who said 5,000 years), and is almost completely meaningless - artistic, more than scientific in nature. Of course, exact distances between planets are never mentioned, even when travel times or arrival times are. And, of course, the characters never refer to where they live and work as "the solar system" or, IIRC, "the system"(though I could swear that somewhere, there's a mention of "galaxy", though that could have been hyperbole in the dialogue, and can't be trusted either). Furthermore, I have a copy of the Serenity Visual Companion. The SVC says absolutely nothing concrete about whether or not the current setting of the 'verse is or is not one system.

In short, from what I can tell, it simply hasn't been proven, nor is it even at this point proveable one way or the other that it's still only one solar system. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I may have missed something, but I don't think I have.

However, barring my being mistaken and there being truly concrete information on it, this is easily remedied by changing solar system to "'verse". After all, that's the word the creator and characters actually use, and putting it in quotation makes that clear and avoids OR issues of any kind completely. :)

If I find any other things that bug me, I'll bring 'em up here. :) Runa27 17:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I was never ever under the impression it was only one system. I'm not sure I know anyone who is. But if you try to apply any kind of logic to it, no system could have enough planets in the right temperature range to support life, terraforming or not. I'm pretty sure that the Serenity RPG also explicitly mentions systems. If only I had the energy to scan the DVDs, the Comic and the RPG book to look for exact evidence. :P - BalthCat 00:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, I was never, ever under the impression that it was more than one system. It's something that's simply never adressed solidly in canon- the brief mentions and map in the movie seem to imply one system, but really. Who knows? Barnas 01:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Editors attempting to apply logic to theorize details not explicitly given by reliable sources are engaging in original research. But if you insist, here is the most relevant logical argument about the number of systems:

• Joss Whedon is on record as refusing to let technical details get in the way of telling his stories.
• The canonical material in Firefly/Serenity is at best ambiguous on this subject.
• Astrophysicists have repeatedly had to acknowledge that that there is much about the universe that they still don't know, so Wikipedia editors attempting to argue that something "must be" or "is impossible" is patently absurd.

Must we be hit in the head with a hammer to get past this debate? In short, as Mystery Science Theater 3000 likes to point out, "repeat to yourself, 'it's just a show, I should really just relax'", and not reach beyond the sources. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the Serenity RPG, all of the inhabited planets and moons are in a single system, and there is no FTL. UncreativeNameMaker 01:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, well... colour me stupid. - BalthCat 03:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Moving Film to Own Section

Prompted by one of the comments from the peer review, I was thinking that the discussion of Serenity should be relocated it's own section, in front of the general spin-off section. In the Alternative, the film could be given a subsection in the spin-off section. The film is unique in its importance as a spin-off and should get at least a header setting it off from other spin-offs. I would appreciate any input or commentary on this proposal.-- danntm ^T _C 00:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought that suggestion from the peer review made sense too... plange 01:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Those left behind is really a spin-off of the movie - while taking place before the events in the movie, and published before the movie was released, it was specifically written to bridge the gap from the series, and written after the movie script. Same with the R. Tam sessions, the RPG (tho Out in the black was published after), and KRAD's novelization. Maybe all these spin-offs should go to the movie article.

The only series spin-offs are Finding Serenity, the 2 Firefly companions (not yet published), the original novels (not yet announced with any real info), and the "Critical Studies in Television" book (not yet announced with any real info). -- Jeandré, 2006-08-16t19:40z

• Jeandré, that is a most interesting point. I might be getting too technical, but should not the spin-offs the pure spin-offs of the film be handled in Serenity (film) article. I, however, favor mentioning the R. Tam Sessions and comics in this article because they were released before the film, occur in the fictional chronologically before the film, and I believe they are considered canon. But I think something can be written in the article in the article to the effect of what you said, to note that the comics and R. Tam Sessions were designed to bridge between the series and the film.-- danntm ^T _C 01:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Book's name

ok, i was just watching Serenity's extra features and it does say his name is Meria. its on Re-lighting the Firefly on the extra Features... pause the movie and youll see it DOES say Meria... -Xornok 01:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Pause the movie and his tombstone says DERRIA. I think evidence in the actuall movie is to be counted over special features, especially since the special features have been know to be wrong (Calling the Millenium Falcon the Millenium Vulcan is one of the more well-known mistakes). JBK405 01:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

actually, the most you can 100% make out is ERRIA... the D does not even match the D in Shepherd as it does not fully close at the bottom... not to mention there is another line that could make it an M... granted, it wouldnt look like N or W from Hoban Washburne, but it could still be an M nonetheless.... I say we just call him Shepherd Book and make a note on his page that there is a debate about his first name citing different sources for Derrial, Meria, and/or Derria.... -Xornok 15:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

As noted on the Book talk page, Meria was an early version of his name and changed prior to the final version of the film, just as an early version of Zoë's name was Warrren. By the time the film came out, Whedon had changed both and in all official published sources (the novel, the RPG, the Serenity Companion and Firefly Companion (both written by Whedon), the name is given as Derrial.Shsilver 15:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Uncited statement removed

"Whedon himself maintains that the series' trademark splash (featuring Reynolds' ship Serenity soaring over a corral of unshod horses) was intended to serve as a readily digested five-second condensation or representative summary of the show."

This was removed for being uncited. (I didn't add it.) I thought having it here might prompt someone to remember where it might've been said or written down. TransUtopian 20:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel like that's from the DVD commentary on the pilot episode? I'd be willing to give it a look-see and find out. (Oh, an excuse to rewatch Firefly!) -- Merope 20:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that would be great-- I remember it from somewhere too, but I removed the statement so that we can encourage contributors to provide sources first instead of leaving it all up to us in one big mammoth search for sources like we had to do to get our GA nom. --plange 21:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the back of my mind says that this is a Joss comment from the pilot. EVula 21:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Changed logo

I thought that the logo looked somewhat unclear, so I changed it to a scanned copy of the DVD cover. Is this okay with everyone? ChunkySoup 19:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

My change was reverted with the following comment: "rv back to opening titles logo as is standard on Wikipedia."

Although it's generally standard to use the logo from the title sequence, I don't feel as though the animated logo translates very well into a still image. The image from the DVD cover seems as though it would be what Whedon would have used had the logo been a still shot.

Opening sequence	DVD cover

ChunkySoup 19:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I prefer your change, I say you change it back unless some one explains why (or where it is said) that the opening credits logo is standard (?) - BalthCat 22:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the opening logo looks better as the main image. The Wookieepedian 22:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Shall we have a vote then? Here's one for the DVD cover ChunkySoup 23:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

you dont know thats what Whedon wouldve wanted, but if we're voting, i say the opening logo stays... -Xornok 23:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I said that it might be what Whedon used, had it been a stationary logo, as it is on this page. I've never seen any site use a screenshot of the opening for promos. [2] [3] Note that the Fox site uses the same as the DVD cover, just slightly different saturation.ChunkySoup 00:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm with the DVD cover, designed as a still image. The other logo is designed to be animated, and doesn't look quite right as a still. Barnas 01:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)