Talk:Serenity (2005 film)/Archive 2

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

GA status

I have passed this article in request for review on the GA nominations page. Its lovely, but I'm concerned there are no citations for the production section, which I feel would be quite appropriate. -ZeroTalk 20:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Article removed from Wikipedia:Good articles

This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because This GA article has had its GA revoked, for the following reasons:

  • No references in the production section
  • Themes section looks uncooked. Are some of those things really themes? For example, Sin. (Original research feel)
  • Synopsis is too long with a play-by-play feel
  • Pictures do not have explainations as to why they are fair-use
  • There is a massive sprawling trivia section
  • It needs to be copyedited.

This is clearly not a GA.--P-Chan 06:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)reason

Themes

I'm sorry but the whole themes section is blatant original research. TruthCrusader 18:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm against OR, but I've seen other films, such as V for Vendetta and Blade Runner cover themes. I agree that it had to go, but if we get sources we can add a Themes section back, right? Just curious plange 02:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
of course! I wasn't against the ideas presented in the Themes section, just the fact that there was nothing to back it up. It was very well written, I might add, it just needs to NOT violate Wiki policy thats all! Hope it helps. TruthCrusader 07:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course you can. (I think TruthCrusader was being a bit rough on you guys). References (hopefully not from forums or blogs) will go a long way to solidifying the Themes section. I think the fear is that, without the proper tone, the section could turn into a big bowl of user opinions about what the film is about. Did you writers of the show or movie, actually say ever what the theme of Serenity was? If they did, that should help move the section forward. --P-Chan 02:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Will investigate! BTW, do you think the changes we made today are getting us closer to being able to renominate? I think we still need to pare down the synopsis (a misnomer in this case) some more (did a lot of wholesale trimming today), and have recruited a guy who worked on the summary for one of the Star Wars films that got it to FA status -- he's ordered the film from Netflix and hopes to prune it within the week plange 03:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good.--P-Chan 05:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, am working to find more sources for the Production area and if I can't dig those up we will delete the parts we can't source plange 03:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Do articles from magazines exploring the themes count? plange 03:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Most definetly.--P-Chan 05:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Here's what I found so far - a review from the Libertarian magazine Reason and another review from http://www.troynovant.com/ - the first discusses liberterian themes and the latter the theme of love plange 03:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Could you link the two articles directly for us?--P-Chan 05:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Sure, here's one: http://www.reason.com/hod/js093005.shtml and http://www.troynovant.com/Stoddard/Whedon/Serenity.html -- also see the page link in my comment below where I gathered some smaller bits from reviews. Tried to stick to just the big papers/mags
I just looked back and noticed that 2 of the subsections under themes had been left in (I'd wondered why film allusions was under Cast!) so we made each a top-level section, but should I reinsert the Themes header as an umbrella for those 2? Also, thought I'd copy the last version of what was cut and try to work out the section sourced -plange 04:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
anyone want to help out on this? just follow the link I have above for a "scratchpad" to work this out....plange 17:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I've put a very, very brief, highly skeletal, almost useless draft of what a new themes section would look like if I were to write it on the scratchpad page.

Briefly, my thoughts are that: "Belief" and "Sin" need to go. They're either a load of nonsense, original research, or both. I've watched the film probably too many times, and don't think that either is an overriding theme- and therefore can't see the grounds for their inclusion, especially unsourced.

I also think a lot of the current totalitarianism section needs to go now, as well.

"After waging the Unification War and bringing the whole planetary system under their rule, it set out to make life better for the common people. It brought in a system of government, cheap and available public services (health-care, police forces, etc.) and an enlightened way of thinking. However, the drawback of all the Alliance's benefits is that it demanded the sacrifice of basic personal freedoms. People are taught how to think about the world around them and the people in it. In effect, the Alliance is a benevolent Orwellian society." Just screams "SOURCE ME"- and I actually disagree. The Core Systems were likely already highly developed before the Unification war. I'd also like to see people being taught how to think- people, not River. And who's "the alliance". Who's benevolent? The people doing it, probably. What about the people ordering it? We just don't know, and it shouldn't be in there.

The second paragraph, as well. WHO SAYS that they're more horrified by one aspect than they are by the other? Who says that they all agree on the matter?

The third paragraph is just random history, as well. It's not even a theme. So that can go too.

All in all, I don't think that a themes section is a bad idea, but we can comfortably ditch everything that we have so far. Barnas 18:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree - I only put the existing one on the scratchpad as a sort of "history". One thing that I remember from the director's commentary that might be worth mentioning is Joss saying the main theme (I'll need to double check that it was "main") was that people have the right to be wrong, which I think is HUGE and rarely explored in popular media. Obviously we'd leave out my opinion, but his statement should be noted and can probably stand on its own. plange 18:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
If we've got a source for that, it has to go in. "Their aim is to misbehave" was one of the taglines of the film... so, yeah. That's a "must include". Barnas 18:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Was thinking of getting a Firefly/Serenity fix tonight anyway, so will watch the commentaries and make sure my memory is correct about the right to be wrong quote from Joss. I know he said it, as it struck me BIG TIME, I just want to be sure of the context and if it was THE main theme, etc. plange 18:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I like the new version on the other page. Might need to be fleshed out a little more, but it's now solid, referenced, and not too long and full of OR rambling. Nice 'un. Barnas 01:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Wow, you're fast! Was just going to come here to make a note that I have a new version :-) Should I go ahead and add? plange 01:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Sure thing. Still needs some tweaking, but even barebones it's better than what's in the article now. Barnas 01:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I just recently watched the commentary to the film. A couple of things Joss mentions as being themes / goals of the film are:

  • Family (ie, the crew as a family)
  • Everything has consequences (which Joss says in just about every commentary on everything he's worked on)
  • There is no Grand Plan (just a lot of people doing things)

I think the best place to go for themes is the commentary and the special features. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 11:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

I readded the trivia section, although other things will have to be put up. I see no harm in having a trivia section. I put in it something I found out; they included the original reaver ship at the ion cloud scene. I think this is more of a trivial thing and that we can add things like that to the section. Drewboy64 01:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed these, as they're not really trivia, but things that can be observed when watching the film. If you feel they need to go in there, let's discuss. Want to get this back to GA status....

  • During the short television run of the Firefly series, it was not made clear whether the planets and moons depicted were located in one planetary system or many (the latter of which would suggest that Serenity's propulsion was capable of faster-than-light travel). The opening narration of the film makes it clear that the planets and moons are in one system with "dozens of planets and hundreds of moons." This is supported by production documents published in Serenity: The Official Visual Companion.
  • The Blue Sun logo is marked on cargo crates in Serenity's hold. Blue Sun is a mega-corporation in the series that has close ties with the government. In one scene Jayne also drinks from a blue bottle with the The Blue Sun logo on it.
  • Despite the Alliance officially denying the existence of Reavers, The Operative mentions them several times. Note, however, that the Alliance officially denies the existence of the Operative as well.
plange 22:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
There's no harm in leaving a trivia comment stating where Blue Sun logos can be found- isn't that the sort of thing that trivia sections are for? It's the mega-corporation-with-close-ties-to-government (Source? It's presumed by most, but never stated) that needs to be removed. Barnas 00:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
We moved it to the Blue Sun article. To me trivia are things that are little known facts that you wouldn't know or has the "oh, cool" factor. The Blue Sun one was kind a "shrug" thing and since the long Trivia list was keeping us from getting GA, I decided to be ruthless :-) if there's strong support from others, we can put it back in plange 00:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. As long as somewhere in the articles we keep the whereabouts of Blue Sun stuff, it's all shiny. If it's in the Blue Sun article, definately no need to keep it in the trivia section. Barnas 02:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I THINK I may have added the "mega-corperation with close..." bit. I've seen it EVERYWHERE on FireflyFans.net, every single BLue Sun-related discussion. Now, that it's a mega-corp isn't probably indisputable, though. It's practically the WalMart of the 'verse, minus the actual storefronts (that we know of). Its trademark has been seen on: shirts (Jayne's), drink bottles, cans, crackers, crates/walls (look at the backgrounds in "Serenity, pt 1" pilot episode. Joss even brings them up in the DVD commentary for the episode). And, as I just mentioned in the previous sentence's parenthesis, Joss notes that it was going to be a bit of a big, ubiquitous thing in the series. However, I cannot recall where I heard it had "close ties to the government" (even though I could swear it was Joss or someone in a commentary, and even though it would make sense, as large corperations usually at least have lobbyists and seem to support candidates that will support laws in favor of them), for which I do apologize. I still think noting where Blue Sun products are seen in the film is worthy trivia, though, considering it was common in the series as well, and considering it happens an awful lot. Similarly, if there isn't one already, shouldn't there be some sort of trivia bit on Fruity Oaty Bars, another apparently popular brand in that 'verse (or at least, a brand with money behind it. After all, the ad was distributed to TVs on a LOT of worlds, meaning it can't possibly be just a local product)? At least, I mean, on Joss' stated inspirations for it (Mr. Sparkle from The Simpsons, Japanese commercials). Just a thought. Runa27 01:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Synopsis is too long

Hi there. I just wandered into this article, having seen a link here from here. I read the synopsis and I think it is too long and detailed. The only people interested in such a long and detailed plot synopsis will be fans of the film. Despite the spoiler warning, I think that anyone reading the synopsis will come away feeling that they've read an abridged retelling of the film, and either don't need to go and see the film, or won't find it worth watching the film any more. Just a few thoughts, and a reminder that non-fans do read plot summaries, even with the spoiler warnings there, and even those that obey the spoiler warnings will want to read a more concise plot summary. Also, some non-fans will want to read the article even though they haven't seen the film, and will not want to be overwhelmed by a long synopsis. All part of the "writing for fans" and "writing for readers of a general encyclopedia" issues. Carcharoth 11:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I am a major fan of the film and the series, but I must agree with Carcharoth. In fact, I made the point, when I wrote most of the detailed synopses of the Firefly episodes, that I thought they were too long and needed to be trimmed down. (My thinking was that my synopses were first drafts that needed serious winnowing.) Sadly, the trend is not in this direction, as the concerned editors of such articles are, unsurprisingly, usually fans of the shows who naturally enjoy expounding on the subjects. As Wikipedia editors, we must rein in our fannish tendencies and apply more critical judgment to these articles. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree - I tried yesterday twice to cut it down - I summarized huge swaths! You should have seen how long it was yesterday ;-) If you'll look at the edit history, you'll see that I said it still needs trimming. It's just so hard to do, not because I don't want to, but it's not my forte. We've enlisted the help of a non-fan who did the plot summary for one of the Star Wars films that reached FA status and he's getting it from Netflix and should hopefully have something more succinct within the week. Previously it was literally a blow-by-blow! I think what I might attempt to do is write my own separate from here since I think what I find hard is trimming the existing writing. Perhaps if I just started from scratch I'd have an easier time of it. plange 15:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I understand what you are going through. I tried to write a synopsis of one of my favorite films, The Black Hole, and it ended up being about 45 paragraphs (big ones) long. I finally had to give up and let someone else do it! TruthCrusader 18:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the summary is still a little too long.

how do we archive?

talk page getting kind of long :-) plange 18:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. There are two main ways: Cut and paste inactive discussions to a subpage (e.g., /Archive 1), or move the page to Talk:Serenity (film)/Archive 1 and copy active discussions back. There are advantages and disadvantages to each method; as I'm not actively involved here, I'll leave it up to you to decide. :) — TKD::Talk 22:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I recommend the first method for active discussion pages like this one, as it's disruptive to break all the active threads. The main downside, I think, is the lack of editor credit in the history of the page that displays the archived discussions, but the history of the main discussion page can always provide that when desired, if the signatures in the actual discussions aren't sufficient. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Um, I just re-read TKD's post and realized he'd addressed the active-discussion issue, which I somehow missed. Brain cells must be leaking out my ears. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Languages

Out of curiosity, why does it say English, Chinese, Russian under languages in the infobox?--P-Chan 01:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The majority of the film is in English, but Mandarin and Russian are also featured- for swearing and a single phrase respectively. They don't really need to be in the infobox, the film is in English, but meh... if having a couple of phrases in other languages qualifies, so be it. Barnas 01:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
LOL! Would a Mandarin or Russian speaker be able to understand the movie simply with the swearing and one-liners? I wouldn't think so.... So they gotta go. Sorry, man. --P-Chan 01:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
You say it like I want them in there! I'm a picture of indifference, over here. All I will say is that someone without knowledge of Chinese couldn't understand all of the Serenity comics... but they're not even part of the film, so it's even more moot than it would be otherwise. (I can see all the depressed fans who missed out on a couple of choice Chinese insults now... no, really, I can! Honest..)Barnas 01:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. That's very interesting and I believe you. The article itself has a section on the language in popculture thing, so it could take the place of the infobox languages info.--P-Chan 01:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
About that, was wondering if you think the future culture bit should just be worked into the cultural, literary and film allusions section? plange 01:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't think so- there's a difference between the in universe development of culture and the out of universe influences on the show, surely? They're closely linked, but I think quite distinct and worthy of their own sections. Or, maybe a new heading with two subsections. Barnas 01:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Hard to say. Honestly I've never seen the film, so this would be a call best left to the subject matter experts (you guys).--P-Chan 01:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Release

The section name release doesn't fit with the content inside. You might want to choose another section name. I'm just going to list a few here... Promotion, Publicity, Advertisements, Promotion & Release, Publicity & Release, etc. Totally your call.--P-Chan 01:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

"Release" covers all of that. That is why it is titled that way. The Wookieepedian 01:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm thinking would a viral marketing campaign, be under release? What about chatter on forums? I think we may be cutting hairs here, but I think the current definition might be too narrow. Not 100% sure, Wookieepedian and am open to your thoughts on this.--P-Chan 02:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I like either "Publicity and Release" or "Promotion and Release" plange 02:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd go with "Promotion and release" Barnas 02:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok let's go with promotion and release for now.--P-Chan 02:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Done! P-Chan, do you think we're getting closer to GA? User:Filmaker has promised to help us whittle down the summary... I also want to try and weave Trivia into the article as I know that's frowned on in FAC...plange 02:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes I do. You guys are definitely getting closer. In regards to the trivia, that's a good idea.--P-Chan 02:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Filmaker is going to help you out for the Synopsis? That's good. When you think the article is getting stable, I think you should mark it for clean-up. Wikipedia:Cleanup This seems to work well, if you give it some time and write a good invitation. --P-Chan 02:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

I just trimmed the Trivia some. Feel free to add anything back in if you think I've gone too far. Barnas 02:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fine-- I'd worked some into the article and when I saved, you'd beat me to it, so I just moved the only other one that was left up into the article. What to do with the last three? Maybe either have a section called Fan influences or move them to Browncoats, and then move the scar to Train Job? If we ever want to get to FA, we apparently can't have a Trivia sectionplange 02:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
If you two find that there are points that you think are valid, but don't know where to put them in the article, put them in the talk, in a section at the top called "Orphaned Points". That way, it won't mess with the article, and you can put it back when you need to.--P-Chan 03:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair-use

Start completing the fair-use tags on all the pictures here. (For an example, see November (film)). Also, the picture in production has no source in it. (Where did that thing come from?)

When selecting pictures, try using pics that give the most encyclopedic value... for example, depicting the characters well, showing key points in the film, etc. --P-Chan 03:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, someone needs to take a couple of proper screenshots from the DVD. The Wookieepedian 04:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Had just started before you posted this, but this gives me more of an idea on how to proceed. We may have to lose the production photo as I have no idea where it came from. Someone else uploaded it. I'll see if they're still active....plange 04:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
There's quite a few production stills around, for example here: http://www.movieweb.com/movies/film/08/2508/gal1797/01.php . That page says that they're copyrighted to Universal, which may or may not help with Fair Use. I've no idea about Copyrights. (Other than a philosophical disagreement with how they work at the moment, which probably stems from the fact that I don't understand them at all and have no real desire to learn.)
The current "production" image seems to be one of the "stock" publicity production stills which're floating around the web. Barnas 18:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Yep, I heard back from the guy who originally uploaded it and he added the source.plange 18:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain these would count as promotional images. You may want to check this out: [1] I highly highly recommend using this photo to help the cast section. It looks perfect. (I'm going to make a guess and say those are the main characters nicely lined up for us). Great for illustrative purposes, so unless you have a better one, this should be the one to use. --P-Chan 18:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that's the crew of Serenity at the start of the film. Could be good in the cast section, though I don't know how to "do" images here, so I'll have to leave that to someone more qualified. Barnas 19:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll upload it for you guys, and you can label it.--P-Chan 19:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. I recommend labelling who those people are, like from the article: Casablanca_(film)#Production--P-Chan 19:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks-- though it is missing Book and Inara...Not sure how to handle that one, since Book and Inara left the crew before the movie's timeline started, but at the end, Inara is back with the crew...plange 19:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't quite understand what you're refering to exactly, but let's just say that no picture will be perfect. If Book and Inara don't appear in the film, and are not main characters, then they should don't need to be included. However, if they are, then by all means include them somewhere.--P-Chan 19:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
They're much more minor characters in the film than in the original series. I don't think it does a lot of harm to not have them in the picture, which is good. I've added a caption to it. Thanks for putting it in. Barnas 23:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
No problem. The captions look good.--P-Chan 06:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The hovercraft picture with Adam in the production looks great and I think really fits the section, but the first picture in the production has little encyclopedic value. Why? For all intensive purposes, all you can see is the clip board with the world Serenity on it. You may want to consider removing it or replacing it.--P-Chan 16:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, it's lame. EVula 17:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
okay, sorry, just thought it kind of said "production" to me... will find something else.plange 17:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
It isn't that it needs to say "production" (which that image does). It's that it needs to actually contribute something. A picture of a clip board is fairly generic (regardless of it having "Serenity" written on it); a behind-the-scenes picture of one of the film's actors standing on a set piece is very specific and relevant to the article, which is why it works as well as it does. EVula 17:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

External Links

If I'm not mistaken, a link like this Interview with one of the special effects team Zoic would have some good stuff in it for the production section. (If you soak up all the goodness in it, you shouldn't have to put it back into the External Links section anymore.)

--P-Chan 06:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I know there's a link to the film's IMDb page in the infobox at the top of the page, but I've added one to the External Links section as well, my reasoning being that anyone reading the bottom of the page might not have seen the link in the infobox and/or might expect to find such a link in the External Links section.

Hyperflux 00:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

good idea-Threewaysround 01:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Production

Is this kind of stuff useable somehow in Production? These are 2 posts from Nathan during the filming:

http://forums.prospero.com/foxfirefly/messages?msg=15921.1

http://forums.prospero.com/foxfirefly/messages?msg=16008.1

plange 02:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say no, just because I didn't see any encyclopedic material there. If you want to get an idea as to what belongs in a proudction section, the ROTS article has a good example.--P-Chan 06:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

A Filmaker Synopsis

I'm going to begin working on the synopsis to get it down to a length close to what I have the Revenge of the Sith article at. Those who have been working on this article should feel free to edit my prose, as I'm not ever thrilled with it. However try not to add anymore content unless I've accidently removed critical info. :) The Filmaker 23:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, I've done one run through so far. I still need to tweak it to get it down a size that at the very least is under a one page of length. I'll also see if I can capture better photos (which for the record, there should only be one or two per synopsis). :) The Filmaker 01:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
This is so much better. Thanks a lot. Barnas 01:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks so much Filmaker!! This is soo much better! plange 01:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Production

We need to re-work the production section. Either by removing the uncited information or get cites for them. I think this could be a FA if we just clean it up. I'd like to achieve this goal with the entry. TruthCrusader 13:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

This is the production paragraph as it stands with the uncited information:

Jane Espenson, one of the writers of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Firefly, announced in June 2003 at a Buffy convention in the UK that Whedon was writing a script for a Firefly movie.[citation needed] Actors Nathan Fillion and Adam Baldwin confirmed this on the official Firefly forum, as did Whedon in several interviews.[2][3][4] Universal Studios acquired the movie rights to Firefly.

On March 3, 2004, according to an article in Variety, the movie was officially greenlighted to enter production and in a later article it was revealed to have a $40 million budget.[5][6] Principal photography started on June 3, 2004. Joss Whedon said that the film would be released as Serenity, in order to differentiate it from the TV series.[5] All nine principal cast members from the television series (Adam Baldwin, Alan Tudyk, Gina Torres, Jewel Staite, Morena Baccarin, Nathan Fillion, Ron Glass, Sean Maher, and Summer Glau) returned for the movie.

The entire Firefly set had to be rebuilt from scratch for the film, using frozen images from the Firefly DVD set.[citation needed] ZOIC, the CG-rendering company that produced the graphics for the series, also had to perform a complete overhaul of their computer model of Serenity, as its television model would not stand up to high-definition cinema screens (and future HD DVD resolution).[citation needed] The set for the failed colony, Miranda, was filmed on location at Diamond Ranch High School in Pomona, California.[7] (The building into which the Alliance ship is crashed is the DRHS Band and Orchestra's rehearsal room.)

Renowned comic book artist Bernie Wrightson, co-creator of Swamp Thing, contributed concept drawings for the Reavers.[8] Other comic book artists who contributed to the production design include Joshua Middleton and Leinil Francis Yu (Visual Companion).

According to Adam Baldwin, the minigun Jayne uses at the end of the film is nicknamed "Lux", after the message board handle — LuxLucre — of devoted fan Kerry Pearson. Pearson died of complications from diabetes. Pearson was best known for creating fan art that featured the characters from Firefly in a "South Park" cartoon style.

On September 17, 2004 Joss Whedon announced on the movie's official site that shooting had been completed.

This is how the paragraph will read without the uncited information:

Actors Nathan Fillion and Adam Baldwin confirmed this on the official Firefly forum, as did Whedon in several interviews.[2][3][4] Universal Studios acquired the movie rights to Firefly.

On March 3, 2004, according to an article in Variety, the movie was officially greenlighted to enter production and in a later article it was revealed to have a $40 million budget.[5][6] Principal photography started on June 3, 2004. Joss Whedon said that the film would be released as Serenity, in order to differentiate it from the TV series.[5] All nine principal cast members from the television series (Adam Baldwin, Alan Tudyk, Gina Torres, Jewel Staite, Morena Baccarin, Nathan Fillion, Ron Glass, Sean Maher, and Summer Glau) returned for the movie.

The set for the failed colony, Miranda, was filmed on location at Diamond Ranch High School in Pomona, California.[7] (The building into which the Alliance ship is crashed is the DRHS Band and Orchestra's rehearsal room.)

Renowned comic book artist Bernie Wrightson, co-creator of Swamp Thing, contributed concept drawings for the Reavers.[8] Other comic book artists who contributed to the production design include Joshua Middleton and Leinil Francis Yu (Visual Companion).

Obviously, without the uncited information the paragraph needs to be re-done gramatically and logically. TruthCrusader 13:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Redid, but still need to hunt down more sources. Took out some unsourced and probably irrelevant statements, as well as some other things.plange 01:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, worked on it some more-- still one unsourced statement (about having to redo Serenity model). Haven't found source yet, but found something close:
"Was the team able to reuse the assets from the series for the film? What were the issues involved in doing so/not being able to do so?
We were able to use few assets from the TV show. The Serenity herself was one of the biggest challenges. The model looked good and Joss did not want to really change it, but we needed to add some serious detail to it compared to the TV show. We had one of our texture artists, Peter Pace, paint on top of the old Serenity all the detail we needed in the new one. We had the same modeler who built the TV show model, Pierre Drolet, build this new movie version as well. He started with the old one as the template, and then began adding details such as rivets, handholds, vents, etc. This applied to every aspect of every model in the show. The only ship we used from the TV show that made it through was the Reaver ship from the pilot, which we used as a background ship." http://www.newtek.com/lightwave/profiles/Serenity/index.php


Very big improvement, also now the Spin-Offs section needs to be sourced as well. I'll try and find some stuff for it too. TruthCrusader 07:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

How does one categorize this film?

I think the issue came up recently, with the deletion of its label "Science fiction Western" for the film. Myself, I'm perfectly ok with that name, either that or "Space Western". What do you guys think? (Judging by the Wikipedia articles, Space Western seems more established, but either one is fine).--P-Chan 17:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I like "Space Western". TruthCrusader 17:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I prefer "Space Western". "Science fiction western" is... well, it's longer, and since they're saying almost exactly the same thing (Since science-fiction and space are pretty much synonymous), the shorter one just sounds better to me. Barnas 22:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok that sounds great guys, let's go with Space Western then.--P-Chan 22:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
"Space Western" actually describes a specific subgenre within "Science Fiction Western", as the latter could technically cover both Serenity and The Adventures of Brisco County Jr. (another really good long-defunct TV series for all you SF Western fans), but the former could not. "Space Western" however is an excellent genre descriptor for Serenity, as most of Serenity does in fact take place in space. Also, it sounds cooler. :P But, really, seriously, it's more accurate, so I also say let's keep it under "Space Western". Runa27 01:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Cast

I've edited and tried to flesh out the mini-bios in the "Cast" section, but I'm really not happy with what I came up with. Anyone else want to tweak it some more? Also, if we can find some out-of-universe comments about the casting, that might be good to get in there. Maybe, at the least, a note about the cast being returns from the series? Barnas 12:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

  1. I've did some copyediting of "Cast" to try to help improve it later. -- danntm talk 00:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Themes

I'm not sure if Totalitarianism is the best term to use, when describing the first theme listed. It's too technical of a term to use in a film like this. "Freedom" is a little less specific and I think would capture the essence better. That's my 2 cents.--P-Chan 02:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Fruity Oat Bar

The IMDB mentions the Simpsons tribute here- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379786/trivia It doesn't mention anything about its creators, though. I tried to edit in that as a source for the first statement, but messed it up. So, here's a link instead. Sorry. Barnas 16:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I can fix it for you. Have a minor question first though... can you verify that the fruity oat bar comments come from the DVD as the imdb entry says they do? --P-Chan 16:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Easy. Give me 15 mins or so- always assuming I can find my disk. Barnas 16:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
... which I can't, because a somewhat annoying young relative has decided to take it off on holiday with them. Sorry. Barnas 16:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I can take a look tonight-- it was in the Easter Egg, so hopefully I can remember how to get to it...plange 16:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Hehe. No problem. :)--P-Chan 17:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
It'd be better if there was an alternate source as IMDb frequently has either accidental or deliberatly incorrect information. So 'According to IMDB.com' doesn't really amount to much on a professional standpoint.Kingpin1055 23:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Yep, I know, we're actually going to get it straight from the DVD extra.... I just have some more work to do at work before I'm free to check it...plange 23:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
finally got around to checking this and he does not mention Brooks and Gilstrap - he just says Chris Buchanan (that's what it sounded like to me) created the jingle and "they made the animation". He does acknowledge that he owes more than he'd like to admit to Mr. Sparkle.... - plange 01:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
He definitely says the Mr Sparkle thing. Also, I edited it to add that it's also in the european version, not just US and Canada- the disc in front of me is labelled "region 2,5" and I just watched it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.137.170.96 (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

In the Serenity_(film)#Cinematic_and_cultural_allusions section, the Fruity Oaty Bar item seems out of place. I admit ignorance: although I've seen this movie several times and own the DVD, I have no idea what it's talking about -- I guess it must be what was on the video River was watching when she got "activated"? (I was also slightly confused by the mention of it in the section about the home release, but at least there is said it was an Easter egg so I wasn't quite as jarred by my unfamiliarity.) Other items in this section are either major plot points (Miranda) or have context ("In the scene where Mal meets the Operative in the temple, the poem to which he refers..."). Can someone who knows the context please add it? ScotS 04:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Passed

Good job guys. You really made a lot of improvements in the last few weeks to move this article up to GA status. In my opinion, most of the problems from before have been addressed. You still have a ways to go before you get to FA status. But I think it's certainly possible. Keep in mind, that if you choose to accept this... don't want to jump-the-gun and submit it early. This is because once the FA process begins, film articles have a tendency to lock-up and focus becomes mostly on Copyediting, referencing, and POV issues. Do your creative work now. Have all the rest of the browncoats seen this yet? Plange and Barnas, the two of you seen to know the Wikiprocess pretty well now, you might want to peer review this with the rest of your crew and brainstorm any new content. (With respects to wiki-principles, of course). Cheers. --P-Chan 16:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

WOO HOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!TruthCrusader 17:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Thanks for the advice too, as this is my first time "going up the ladder" and I think we definitely have some more things we'd like to add/do so we'll wait until then and do a peer review and then FA nom... Thanks so much P-Chan for all your assistance! -plange 18:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Miranda

I don't see how anyone'll ever find a citation for this, since it's just- literally- a translation. It's the feminine form of the gerundive of miror (-are, -atus) (To wonder at, be surprised by, admire), which translates as "Something that must be wondered at", or "Should be marvelled at", or similar implying obligation. But, yeah. I'm not sure how you can cite a translation- unless you want to cite a Latin dictionary? (Not intended to sound sarcastic, if it does.) Barnas 04:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, that was a lame {{fact}} tag. EVula 06:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Um, come on-- am I supposed to just take it on faith that it's the correct translation? I was just trying to be faithful to the To-Do list at top that said that section needed sources. If I carried it too far, fine, but calling it lame is a little unfair. -plange 15:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Calling it lame is unfair.
As for taking it on faith, well... fortunately, it seems wikipedia has a page on the gerundive, with a section on its use in Latin. Amanda and Miranda are two names used as examples. :) Barnas 15:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Cool, what's the protocol for that? Do we do it as a wikilink or can we footnote wikipedia itself? We had a source for the safe word in Russian, so just thought it might be good here too. I'm a new editor on here, so if I take things too far, just let me know :-) -plange 15:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Shouldn't the allusion's sources include the translation so it's not original research? We can see many more allusions, but if we can't source 'em, tough. -- Jeandré, 2006-07-16t19:29z
Simply translating one word isn't OR. It can't be, can it? Barnas 19:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

That said, here: A source, if we decide that it needs one: http://www.thecapras.org/mcapra/miranda/derivation.html Barnas 19:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

perfect! I'd rather err on sourcing too much than not enough... plange 20:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Miranda Galadriel Capra, a charmingly minimalist webpage author, is not a reliable source. On the other hand, her page references Behind the Name: Miranda, which does appear to be wiki-reliable (Alexa rating ~12K). It states the following:
Derived from Latin mirandus meaning "admirable, wonderful". The name was created by Shakespeare for the heroine in his play The Tempest. This is also the name of one of the moons of Uranus.
~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Cool that we found a decent source, then. Thanks, and nice one! Barnas 20:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Literary, cultural, and film allusions

I think there still might be some OR lurking in here.... Anyone want to take a stab at weeding it out or sourcing? plange 20:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I just tried to take some of the less important, not sourced, bits out. Hope it helped. Barnas 20:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Cast, again

Should we rewrite cast to give a brief bio and status at the start of the film, and nothing else, like they've done at Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith (A FA)? Barnas 21:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like great idea! Their's just sticks to role and doesn't get into describing personality. -plange 22:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Honestly

The article's lookin' great guys. But I hope you don't mind if I do a copyedit. Honestly some of the Production section and the rest of the article reads a little.... fanboyish. And I use that term affectionatly, passion is a good thing. But it's not a good idea for an FAC to read like it's subject is the best thing sinced sliced bread. So I'm going to run down and see what sounds a little POV and what doesn't. :) The Filmaker 03:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Filmaker! BTW, you never told us if you liked the film after we made you watch it... -plange 04:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I thought it was a good yarn, worth the price of admission (if I had seen it in the theater). I went ahead and ordered the Firefly series from Netflix. The Filmaker 13:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Original research/Pax

I understand most of the recently added {{or}} tags, but how is it original research to say that "Pax" is derived from "pax", Latin for peace? Surely we don't need to find someone from the production saying "Pax is Latin for peace" — what else would the word be from? Maybe it just seems obvious to me because I did a little Latin in high school, but it's hardly the most obscure Latin word. (I think every novel set in an English school between about 1880 and 1960 has a scene in which the characters make up after an argument by saying, "Pax?") —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that seemed weird to me to. Are they disputing that it translates into peace, or that they named the drug after the Latin word for peace? That's the only split hair I could find on that one.plange 02:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
It's like Miranda all over again. I refuse to believe that a translation of a single word requires a source. It's easy to cite a dictionary, though, I suppose. Pax, pacis= peace. Collins Latin Dictionary and Grammar, page 153, ISBN 0-00-472092-X. I just can't see a source being needed.Barnas 02:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
What I want is a source stating that the drug was named pax because it translates to peace, not that pax is Latin for peace. As I stated in my edit summary, I see the connection, but we need sources to verify that the connection was intentional, or that other people have made the connection and published it somewhere. --Lethargy 03:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
So if we find reviewers that have made the connection, we can use that? plange 03:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
It would require slight rewording to something like "some have speculated that the name of the drug "pax" may have been used because...", but yes, you could use that as a source. --Lethargy 03:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Gotcha-- funny thing is-- am finding people likening it instead to Huxley's Soma :-) plange 03:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't familiar with what that was, but I found this article, and now I think I need a copy of Brave New World which I have heard of but never read. --Lethargy 04:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's definitely a must-read, especially today! plange 04:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Best. Book. Ever. The Wookieepedian 04:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I put a hold on the book on CD (which may or may not need to be hyphenated) at my library, now I get to wait for it to show up. --Lethargy 04:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I've gone into this subject a bit more in "Miranda" below, but I urge us all not to include anything that starts with "some have speculated", even if it's sourced. (See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words on how to add sourced theories without this dangerously vague phrase and others like it.) The possibility of a sourced comparison between Pax and Huxley's Soma is intriguing, but please consider whether and how it can fit into the article without distracting from the flow and the focus. Just a caution. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Miranda

We've found a source for Miranda. Unfortunately, it's wrong. Miranda and Mirandus, unless I'm very much mistaken, are entirely seperate words. Miranda is a gerundive from Miror, meaning "Something that must be marvelled at"- see also Amanda "She who must be loved." Mirandus is an adjective, meaning wonderful. They're different words, with different meanings. (See here for a reference with Gerundives- http://www.dl.ket.org/latin3/grammar/participles_explained.htm) Barnas 03:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Saw your change, then we'll need to add a different source since the one currently there gives an erroneous translation (if that's what you're saying). I don't speak Latin and never took it, so I'm not much help on this one. plange 03:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Does it even make sense to have "The name of the planet "Miranda" translates from Latin as "something which must be marvelled at"?
This would imply that the reason it was named Miranda was because of the translation, which seems to contradict this:

Joss Whedon explains in the DVD commentary track that the planet "Miranda" received its name in reference to a line spoken by Shakespeare's Miranda in The Tempest, Act V, scene I: "O brave new world, / That has such people in't!"

To me it seems like Joss Whedon stated that it received its name from the character Miranda, not because it translates to "something which must be marvelled at." --Lethargy 03:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Re-reading that, I'd have to agree. A translation might well not be needed- though at the same time, the name does have a meaning which is seemingly so relevant that it seems strange to ignore it. Barnas 03:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
If we can find and cite a source that states that they also see it as significant, we can use it. Believe me, this original research stuff is a pain in the neck... --Lethargy 03:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I too was wondering if we even needed the translation, esp. given Whedon's statement. plange 03:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes it frightens me how fast people respond. :P --Lethargy 03:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Good work on sourcing this, folks — Joss's statement is the definitive one for his work. Let me make two points for those who itch to include "obvious" translations. First, Wikipedia's rule on no original research is not meant to make life hard on us editors, of course, but goes to a central tenet of the encyclopedia: that we cannot hope for this project to be as useful as desired unless we require that all information stated has been throughly examined by professionals who have reputations to uphold, editorial boards who have careers and money on the line if they're wrong. (It's not a panacea, but it does improve the quality of information.) By forcing us to cite specific sources of such information, we relatively-anonymous editors put the burden of proof on others, so we can concentrate on the mission: rapidly building the world's most useful encyclopedia. There are other ways to establish and propagate encyclopedias, but this is Wikipedia's way.

Second, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of information. Not every true thing belongs in an article. To be a well-written article, the prose must start with a concise introduction, list a comprehensive set of topics with a meaningful organization, and address each of those topics concisely and thoroughly without wandering off into side-issues. This is a major challenge for any work written by committee, as everyone has s slightly different take on what is important. But we should always try to remember that well-sourced brevity nearly always serves the article better than tacking on anything that may be of interest to a reader. It's easy to add to an article; it takes more thoughtfulness and judgment to trim and edit it to be concise. In general, if a translation is fundamentally related to to a term used in a fiction, chances are the work itself, or a reliable source outside the work, has made that connection explicitly. If we can't find a reliable source, it's probably just an interesting idea that doesn't belong in a concise text.

I hope this gives a better perspective on this annoying but necessary requirement. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Novelization article?

Should there be an article concerning the novelization done by Keith R. A. DeCandido? DrWho42 07:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

There's an article on Star Wars's novelisation ("Star Wars: From the Adventures of Luke Skywalker"), so that seems to play a good example of a novel based on film. DrWho42 03:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Production section

The production section looks like a decent length, but you guys should copyedit it so that it flows better. More or less from the beginning to the end of the production rather than little tidbits as it is now. :) The Filmaker 23:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Grimble?

Is that really the intended word? I believe it should be "gimbal".


Fulfillment of Request

Influences section have been expanded on (what influenced set design, costumes, apparent religion, special effects, character personalities, society, one reference of possible influences on a line of dialogue) as well as extensive references cited. Edit as necessary.

Sequel News / No Sequel News

Given the recent spate of sequel/no sequel rumors and follow up posts by Joss, I thought it relevant enough to add to the sequels section. --Mhudson3 09:22, 6 October 2006

Trivia redux

Drewboy64 said in an earlier "Trivia" topic above, "I see no harm in having a trivia section." As The Filmaker just reminded us by removing the erstwhile "Trivia" section in this article, Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles suggests that there is indeed some harm to having a disorganized collection of "interesting but not important" information, often made even worse by failing to have reliable sources, which is required of all material. On the other hand, WP:AVTRIV specifically does not suggest deletion, but rather considering the information as yet-to-be-integrated material. We should always consider whether it makes sense to integrate any items into the main article. If not, then they probably should be deleted. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

  • A Reaver ship from the pilot episode making an appearance is not paticularly notable enough for any of the sections. Hence, why I deleted it. The Filmaker 13:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Filmaker - if it can't be worked into the prose, it doesn't need to be in the article... --plange 00:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It's kind of unfortunate that there isn't a trivia section. I was hoping to add a bit about how River's fighting style is a kung fu/kickboxing/ballet hybrid, as Summer Glau herself stated in interviews....141.154.160.85 01:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I wish this hadn't been added. There's nothing there that can't be learned by simply watching the film, and I don't see any reason for including it. On the off chance that it might be relevant in some way, it should be added in a proper place where it is relevant to the topic. - Corporal Tunnel 14:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean? If you're talking about River's fighting style (which is what you appear to be replying to), then no, the average person would never know what fighhting style she uses by just watching the movie. There are many martial arts, and most people can't tell one from the other. I only found out what River's fighting style was afer reading some Summer Glau interviews. I myself am always interested in finding out what fighting styles are used in different movies (I am a martial arts enthusiast), and I feel the information is relevant. 141.154.185.186 18:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The fighting styles of characters are only relevant if they are hybrids which I believe you stated so above. In that case, the information can be added to the "Production" like The Phantom Menace's information on the swordfighting styles used in the film. The Filmaker 01:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, What do you think of this:

"Stunt coordinator Chad Stahelski created a costumized fighting style for Summer Glau to use in the films fight scenes. It was a hybrid of Kung Fu, Kickboxing and elements of Ballet, all combined to create a "balletic" martial art. ([2], [3])"

If that's alright, i'll add it to the "production" section, and remove the Trivia section.141.154.185.186 02:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks mighty good to me. - Corporal Tunnel 02:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I added the info. 141.154.185.186 02:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Big Damn Movie?

What does this have to do with the episode "Safe"? LordAmeth 20:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I added an explanation to the lead for this... --plange 00:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Fante and Mingo

The characters Fante (Fanty?) and Mingo draw their names from the 1955 movie The Big Combo (IMDB). In that film, Fante and Mingo are two enforcers for the crime boss, Mr. Brown. The Big Combo is a classic in the film noir genre - is there any significance to these names being drawn from it? Is Whedon a fan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.195.105.238 (talk • contribs)

I wouldn't be surprised at all if there was a connection like that, though we can't make the assumption. EVula 05:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article Nomination?

Has anyone ever nominated this article for a Featured Article Award? Sharkface217 03:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

not yet-- we're in the middle of working on getting Firefly (TV series) through it right now, and will work on this after that :-) --plange 05:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

hey since Firefly (TV series) is a featured article now, maybe we should start trying to get this artile to FA status as well. Any thoughts????

peace-Threewaysround 20:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this article is getting pretty ripe. If you do decide to go FA Nom, an expert Firefly user (like Plange, etc) is going to have to babysit until it's over. (This can be a pain if you can't spare the time.) That's my 2 cents. --P-Chan 05:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Why am I cited?

For some reason I'm cited in this article for something I once said about Buddhism. Citation 61 "None, Aridiris (2006-09-17). [http:// www.infidelguy.com/ftopicp-465432-American_Buddhism_on_the_rise.html American Buddhism on the Rise]. infidelguy.com. Retrieved on 2006-09-26." The sentence is comes from reads "The remainder of one of lines in Serenity appears to be possibly influenced by other views voices by American neo-conservatism[60] or Buddhism.[61]" I can't remember what I said and can't think of how anything I've ever said about Buddhism relates to this movie. While I might know a lot about Buddhism, I'm certainly not knowledgeable enough to be cited on it. So what's going on here?

I don't know, but that link happened to be in a section I was just about to remove for being too opinionated/speculative, not to mention borderline incoherent. So it's gone.--Nalvage 16:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I've been meaning to go through that section after someone added all that stuff. They added other things too, so we might want to re-read that whole section for WP:OR --plange 16:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
For reference, here's where all this was added, that I never did have time to review: [4] and [5] --plange 16:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Changes from Television Series Canon?

Would it be possible/beneficial to include a section that discusses the changes to the history of the series from the television show? The example that comes to mind is that in the television show Simon (presumably truthfully) describes paying an underground movement to retreive her sister from the Alliance forces, while in the film he is shown infiltrating the organization and enacting a daring rescue in person. I think it's signifigant, but I'm not sure if it would best fit in this article or another Firefly related article. -- Mikepwnz 06:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

That's more of a retcon, in that the film reveals that Simon himself is involved, while in the series he doesn't specify. Additionally, the novelization attempts to smoothe out the alleged discontinuity between the two depictions. The Wookieepedian 07:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
It's also possible that Simon just lied to the crew of Serenity, downplaying his involvement. I'm not sure if arguments about canon can be based on what characters say, as opposed to what we see. After all, people don't always tell the truth. Everyone's got motives, ETC ETC, blah blah blah. Barnas 20:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
To put it more in an encyclopedia context than a fan context, this question should only be addressed if we have one or more reliable sources for the analysis (e.g., canoncial Firefly references like Finding Serenity, DVD commentary, Joss Whedon accounts published not on fan websites but rather in mainstream publications). Much as we want to resolve this question, Wikipedia is not the forum to do it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Meh, I'm going to read the novelization before I do anything. As far as the "Simon lied" theory goes, that's not what we're led to beleive in the show -- so while that may be the working theory in the film, it's still a change from the previous storyline. And for all I know, there might have been other story elements/character history changed to make the leap to the big screen. I'll get through the visual companion and the novelization, and research what else has been said on the topic to see if there's enough to justify a section. -- Mikepwnz 06:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

At a Serenity Q&A in Melbourne, Joss said:
JOSS: -- Man, I haven't even noticed that [laughs]. It is the one place where I broke cannon, because I started to write the movie with people we have never met, breaking the material out, and I thought "My God, this is uninvolving" and realised I had to switch it for the movie to make it Simon himself who broke her out. So. My fan wank goes out as follows, he was lying about when he said other people broke her out, and I haven't gotten why yet... Im working on it.
I grabbed that from here, which, as a forum, isn't up to Wikipedia's reference criteria, but I thought I'd let you know that there is at least a comment out there, on the off chance a better source for it can be found. --Nalvage 07:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this doesn't measure up to a reliable source, so we must look further. But it's in line with other of Whedon's comments on being more interested in storytelling than the ultra-continuity required by us rabid fans. ☺ ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Editing and re-tool layout

The opening of the article itself seems overlong, with too much minutia about box office and minor awards. The only reader likely to enjoy reading such dross are fans themselves. The intros to articles need to be short, simple and to the point. There are sections below where they can get other details about box office gross, the story, etc.

Also, most articles begin with the synopsis (which I agree is too long by maybe half) because that is what the article is about: the actual item, in this case a movie called Serenity. Everything else is backstory details. If you go to article about Moby Dick you don't want to read five paragraphs about what Herman Melville did before he wrote it or why he wrote it. Or if you look up the city of Boston, you don't want to read an entire passage about how the French and Indian Wars influenced it. --RoyBatty42 23:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It looks to me like the current first paragraph is quite sufficient for the introduction. Anything else should be moved to appropriate sections in the article (wherever it doesn't already exist). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Shortening the Synopsis

Perhaps the bit about Mal meeting Inara and the Operative can be removed to shorten the synopsis? --OGoncho 00:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

  • The synopsis does not need to be shortened. The Filmaker 01:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
It said so in a note under the Synopsis header. --OGoncho 11:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Beating out star wars - not even an Aprril Fools

Someone needs to add this[6] amazing result for Serenity into the intro somewhere.~ZytheTalk to me! 18:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

maybe not nessicarily the intro, but at least somewhere in the article. -Threewaysround 19:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps worth a mention but it's not that big a deal. It was an online poll, and Browncoats have enough of an internet presence that they can win any poll they turn their attentions to. --Nalvage 19:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Mal blooper?

Mal's datafile, as looked up by the Operative, lists him at the rank of "Captain" in the Independent Army, 57th Brigade. However, he was of course a sergeant...is this an error or a reference to the fact that he is now captain of the ship Serenity? Wikifried 07:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Whedon covers this in the collector's edition commentary. As not to confuse any newcomers, he simplfied Mal's rank to "Captain". 204.115.253.51 (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Legally, it cannot return to TV.

At I-CON 24, Jewel Staite said that Firefly returning to TV was not possible because one of the terms Joss agreed to to have Universal make the film was that another TV series could not be made. She explained that Universal was afraid that, since they were the ones taking the risk by funding it, if the film turned out to successful, FOX would want to revive the series and would reap the benefits. She also said that they were not against making sequels if it did well. So besides the fact that Joss refuses to work with FOX again, (and FOX still owns the TV rights to this, so Universal could not produce a TV series), contractually, it cannot return as a TV series. Someone should find sources confirming this and add it, unless she was mistaken.

I don't know that this precludes it from ever being on TV again if Universal wants to bring it to TV. True that Firefly will never be brought back to TV. But then Universal doesn't own the rights to Firefly. They do own the rights to Serenity. Gateman1997 15:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, the way Jewel explained it, and the way I understand it (though I don't have a concrete source to back it up), is that Universal was sold the rights for film production only. So, legally, at this point, neither company is allowed to produce episodes of a Firefly or Serenity television series.
Taking everything at face value, it really doesn't mean anything at all. A contract between Joss and Universal doesn't bind Fox. It just means that Joss couldn't be legally responsible for making it (and there are a number of ways around that). It also likely wouldn't prevent Universal from buying the TV rights from Fox (not that Fox would actually sell the rights). Medevilenemy 04:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Good point. But then that basically means that it can only return to TV if FOX makes it without Joss/Mutant Enemy or Universal purchases the TV rights from them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.18.173.142 (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Now things are looking a little more interesting... Universal is allegedly interested in making another movie, and Joss is apparently working with fox again. 68.199.6.138 (talk) 06:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

25 greatest sci-fi legends

i don't think this reference is accurate. when i clicked on it, i was sent to a forum discussing about how cool it was that firefly made the list, but i didn't see the list itself or a link to it. if it was there and i missed it, then it was too hard to find. can this be fixed?

FireflyFans.net is a fan website, and the link was to a discussion board, making it doubly unreliable by Wikimedia standards. I've replaced the citation with a fact tag. A proper source would be the TV Guide issue, date, page number(s), and author (if any given). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't quickly find any specific reference to the TVG issue. To aid the hunt, the FireflyFans.net post, dated 26 July 2004, said "The new issue of TV Guide has the '25 Sci-fi legends'. #18 is Captain Malcom 'Mal' Reynolds." This should narrow it down to one or two issues to check on. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Are page numbers really needed? August 1-7, 2004 [7] ~ WhiteHatLurker 17:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Considering that that link doesn't refer to Mal, yes, I think we should have something more substantial. Croctotheface 17:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Just to be explicit, WhiteHatLurker's link suggests our partial source is:
  • TV Guide, August 1-7, 2004, unidentified article, unidentified page
The article title might be "25 Greatest Sci-Fi Legends", but that's by no means sure. Hopefully we can complete the reference shortly. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

New Editor

I have attempted to update the discussion on the production of a serentiy sequel, based on Josh's already cited August 3, 2007 remarks. I also suggest that the links could be expanded, particularly to include Fireflyfans.net. Additionally, I believe the SFX magazine poll as reported by the BBC should be cited.

I am new to editing, and my additions were quickly removed, but I don't know why, or by whom.

I would appreciate some help in understanding how to do this without my additions being removed.

Laurence R. Hunt, Kenora, Canada 15:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed your edits, simply because the information (the BBC link to the SFX poll and Joss' sequel comments) are already contained within the article. However, hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: *The five pillars of Wikipedia *How to edit a page *Help pages *Tutorial *How to write a great article *Manual of Style I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Steve T • C 16:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for clarification. I note that while the August 3 comments have been cited, this now requires editing changes in other areas (Reception, Sequels), that indicated that Mr. Whedon's last comments were dismissive of producing a sequel and that interested parties are "waiting" on DVD sales results. Those comments remain, and are now outdated. Also, Fireflyfans.net is in my view an important and relevant link, and it was removed both here and on Firefly TV. Finally, I don't know how to find "my" talk page. Sorry if I know nothing of the process, since I only started today. Laurence R. Hunt, Kenora, Canada 16:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Plot section

Based on the edit summary at this diff, it appears that at least one editor is very determined to get his version of the plot section implemented, to the point that he's willing to mark a substantial edit as minor and have the summary read only "grammar edits". Ironically, one of his changes introduced a misspelling. As I've said, I'm not married to my version or phrasing, but I do believe it's superior and would like to hash these matters out on the talk page. Croctotheface 03:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding recent changes, I think we're getting someplace. The changes I don't like are switching "who promises" to "promising" becuase "promising" doesn't inject any kind of break, so it reads sort of like "a message from the operativepromisingmoreofthesame". Mal received a message from the Operative, and he promised more of the same. I also don't like use of a quick adjective before the noun to introduce relatively important information. "An aggression-suppressing drug" is not better writing than "a drug designed to suppress aggression" because it puts mention of the drug after a convoluted and complex adjevtive. My formulation requires only nine more letters and serves the readers immeasurably better. I don't see the harm in spending three words on "Mal anticipates this" to explain his actions. Transitions are important in writing; without them, prose can just read like a series of disconnected statements clumsily assembled in paragraph form. The bit about the ending really needs the fuller treatment, or else it doesn't make sense. Some of the changes were improvements, and I think that this process is helping the article. Let's try to discuss here a bit more. Croctotheface 23:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The first cracked & uploaded HD-DVD title. Is this worthy of inclusion?

As cited here and in many other places noted by Google, Serenity was the first HD-DVD movie to be cracked & distributed as a pirate torrent. Is it worth noting this fact in the article? It's a minor claim to fame at best but still interesting IMO. --Sapphire Wyvern 03:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd say maybe commenting that it was the first HD-DVD movie to be pirated is interesting, but going into the specific details on how it was done and distributed is really unnecessary.--MythicFox 05:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd lean towards leaving it out, but if someone wants to put it in I'm not so concerned that I'd be bothered to remove it. Though perhaps it would be better in a specific article which deals with HD-DVD "piracy" (rubbish word)? If such an article exists, that is. Best regards, Steve T • C 08:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Confused about this paragraph in the "themes" section

This paragraph confuses me:

The characters' sense of belonging, relatively relaxed approach to conflict, natural disregard for authority, mixture of prudishness and passion, physical courage and sharp materialism appear to be heavily influenced by their author.[69] Visual and literary Wild West influences, informed by a gritty sci-fi sensibility, provide the movie's most obvious tropes, from its characters to its aesthetic. The morality of all characters, however, is far more ambiguous than the source material usually allows.[70] Mal's character is perhaps the most complicated of these morally ambiguous characters; for example, his almost paternalistic relationship to his crew stands in stark contrast to the casual ease with which he kills people.

The first two paragraphs in the section are an accurate description of the movie's central conflict, as Whedon articulates it in the commentary. The above paragraph, however, reads like a list of three or four unrelated opinions, somehow cobbled together in paragraph form. I don't want to just delete this material outright, but it doesn't strike me as well-conceived or informative. The first sentence comments on things in the movie that "appear to be heavily influenced". That's not a very strong statement, and it's not all that informative either, even if a stronger corresponding statement were true. Authors, by definition, "heavily influence" their own writing. The second sentence reads like the thesis of some film major's paper on the movie. The third sentence reads like the thesis of a different film paper. The fourth sentence is just totally out of the blue. I'll have to check if that was just added recently, since it reads like something that should be reverted but hasn't been yet. Croctotheface 00:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


Shouldn't "Thesmes" and "Cinematic and cultural allusions" follow the "Plot" section. Those are all about the literary aspects of the film. It seems odd that it goes from plot to promotion to cast and back to themes. A little disjointed I think. Ohsoh 01:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes to the plot section

I like the leaner feel as a rule. I think some of the cuts clunkified a few of the sentences, which I tried to address with my edits. The one part that I don't like is that we don't really take the time to explain who River is or acknowledge her arc. Since it's more about her inner emotions than events, it might appear unnecessary, but I think it's pretty close to essential. Her character changes completely from the beginning of the film to the end. Croctotheface 05:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that does read much better. However, according to WP:MOSFILM, there should be an introductory sentence describing the premise of the film before the plot is described in detail; it was this which I inserted, but which was subsequently lost during the recent round of edits. If there are no objections, I'll retool the opening paragraph to include it, or something like it, once more. As for the point about River's character arc, I do feel that the plot summary should be just that: a summary of the plot. Unless it's necessary for a basic understanding of the story, character beats should be left out. At approximately 900 words, the summary is on the edge of being too large as it is. Best regards, Steve T • C 07:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I would argue that character development is very much part of the plot. Croctotheface 07:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I would too, for some of the characters. River's reasons for acting as she does is I suppose very much part of the plot. Other stuff isn't. The line about Simon's giving up his career doesn't particularly matter here, for example. No matter how much I'd like to see a full and detailed summary which is twice as long as it is now (and believe me, I would). Best regards, Steve T • C 08:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I guess we just have conflicting visions about where the movie is really going for. I think the three main arcs are the Operative/Alliance losing a battle, Mal's discovering faith, and River's becoming a whole person again. The purpose of the events, in my mind, are to achieve these ends, not the other way around. Croctotheface 08:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Lead sentence

Liquid, I admire your desire to bring this section more in line with the guideline, but I don't think that your version really gets the job done. As it stands, we don't explain terms like outer rim and Alliance until after the audience reads a fairly complex sentence about them. I don't think that the premise of the film is that Serenity dodges both the Alliance and the Reavers. I think the premise of the film is, actually, that we're 500 years in the future, living on terraformed planets, and there is tension between this strong interplanetary government and people who want to live out on their own. To that end, I think the prior verison is more fitting with the guideline anyway. If not, I think I would want to go with WP:IAR because that first sentence doesn't really make sense out of context, and we will lose readers who get confused and don't want to read on to get it. I don't want to revert you right now without more discussion, but I really don't like the current version. Croctotheface 08:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand, and I agree about the "outer rim" part - I knew it was out of context and I've been scratching my head wondering what to replace it with. But as for the lead itself, this is to my mind the kind of thing which needs to be said. Paraphrased: "Here we are, with a crew on a quasi-legal spaceship, and they get more than they bargained for after taking on these two fugitives." The current version is simple, to the point, and gives the basic premise in few words. By all means, reword it; I'm sure you'll do a better job of it. But I feel sure about its inclusion, or at least something like it. Best regards, Steve T • C 08:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Is your issue that the prior version didn't mention the ship until the second sentence? I'm willing to go with WP:IAR here, since I really think that it's better with setting the stage first and getting specific afterward. An alternative could be a completely out-of-universe sentence that just says in the most declarative way possible that this is a story about X. Croctotheface 08:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I absolutely agree that without the lead, it did read better. I was just trying to get it to conform to WP:MOSFILM, so someone doesn't come along later and do the same thing, perhaps making a worse job of it than I did. I think, to conform to that, it's important to mention in the lead: 1) the crew and the ship, and 2) the Alliance's desire to capture River, and why. However, I'm willing go with WP:IAR for now, and see how we fare. Best regards, Steve T • C 08:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll try to think of ways that we can get the ship into the first sentence. Take care. Croctotheface 08:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

"Contractees"

I recognize that I am alone in liking this word. I have puzzled over what to do with that sentence, and I don't like the anything as much as the current formation. "Employers" isn't the worst possibility, but suggests more of a permanent, subservient relationship. To me, it's basically a contract relationship, so you have a contractor and contractee. There really isn't a word that I know of for "those who hire a band of criminals to steal things", but it could just be that I can't think of it. Croctotheface 08:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The only alternative I can think of is paymasters, which doesn't seem to cut it either. We may as well leave it as it is; maybe someone else can come up with something better (or, indeed, agree with you that contractees is perfectly OK). EDIT: Or the sentence could simply be slightly restructured to read, "Simon assasults Mal and the siblings are put off the ship at its next stop. Here, the crew make their way to a bar to meet the men who hired them for the heist." Or some variation of that. Best regards, Steve T • C 11:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The Magic Blade

Hey folks

I was just watching a Shaw Bros. Film from 1976 called the Magic Blade.

In it, the hero is poisoned by a witch so that he cannot fight back until a stick of incense his enemies used to time the poisons effects burns down. Just before the incense is burned up, the meticulous chess playing bad guy punches the hero in his seven pressure points to paralyze him. The camera pans down to the hero's arm, displaying that his hand is twitching, then back up to one of the baddies who is about to stab him. Just before he is stabbed, the hero picks up his sword with his obviously functioning nervous system and fights his way free, explaining that he moved the seven pressure points through twenty years of martial training.

sound familiar?

It's a pretty good film as far as cult martial art flicks go so one can understand why joss would want to pay homage. Should something about it be included in the Cinematic and cultural allusions section? 121.44.219.239 09:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it should, should you be able to locate a good source which says that was Whedon's intention. Best regards, Steve T • C 09:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

he made no metion of it in commentary so there might be no relation betwene the two(220.236.143.175 (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC))

Another plot rewrite I don't much care for

I appreciate that some chaff was cut, but I think the latest version introduced some weird constructions. I also really bristle when editors omit the detail about Mal recognizing the trap but feeling that confrontation is necessary. It makes Mal look like a fool to just say "well, he sees the trap but walks right into it anyway" without explanation. I think that this version does some things well, but that my version from back in November did some things better. Croctotheface (talk) 07:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Scenes info

I'm adding summaries of the deleted scenes into the article. If anyone thinks they're too detailed(I know they're more detailed than the plot), feel free to rewrite them but don't remove them altogether. 218.215.168.23 (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't give orders on the Wiki. Thanks. Now, why are these being added? I don't find them relevant; if there needs to be a mention of deleted scenes at all, I think it is sufficient to mention that they exist and are included on the various editions of the DVD. They add as little to the article as they would have added to the movie, and there's a reason that Joss Whedon took them out. - Corporal Tunnel (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, can I at least include the names of the deleted scenes? Observatorr (talk) 03:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I also wrote descriptions of deleted scenes in some of the Firefly episode articles if you want to delete them too. The 'Our Mrs Reynolds' deleted scene description was not written by me, I just reorganized descriptions that were in other sections of the article already. Observatorr (talk) 04:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
You know what, I've just noticed the R. Tam sessions article which has descriptions of the videos that are just as detailed as my descriptions of the Serenity deleted scenes. Why do the sessions get detailed descriptions and the deleted scenes, which have similar length, get nothing? Observatorr (talk) 22:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea; perhaps you should ask over at that article. We cannot patrol every article for the same things we do this one. All the best, Steve T • C 23:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

missing plot information

The plot summary does not mention the Operative killing Dr. Mathias, Serenity's first landing on Haven or the fact that River was suicidal from the burden of carrying the terrible secret of Miranda. I think these are important plot points. Does anyone want to put these in? 218.215.168.23 (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No. The plot section is supposed to be a brief summary of the events of the film; essentially, enough for a reader to understand the article and little else. It's already too long as it is. Steve T • C 22:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it's about the right length as is, but it certainly shouldn't be longer. I don't think we need to put the Simon/River background in the first paragraph, if we're looking for places to cut. Croctotheface (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The plot section currently has 830 words. That's not long at all compared to the plot section for the Firefly episode 'Objects in Space', which currently has 1429 words. Star Wars Episode III and War of the Worlds (both 2005 movies) have plot sections with 991 words and 1130 words, respectively. 218.215.168.23 (talk) 05:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the point you're making is. Plot summaries should be as long as X or Y? Those could be too long, or there could be different considerations involved that merit a longer summary. Croctotheface (talk) 05:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The point I'm making is that there are plenty of other summaries that are much longer than this one, so we can afford to make this one longer too in order to include some important plot points. I don't understand what you mean by "different considerations". 218.215.168.23 (talk) 05:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Those other plots could be more complicated, with could necessitate more space devoted to the summary. I don't think any of the events you want to include are important enough to the story to increase the length of the section. Just my opinion, of course. Croctotheface (talk) 05:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
As an example, I've made a small edit which trims one paragraph of the plot. This is the kind of thing I mean when I say it's slightly too long. While information is missing as compared with the previous version (for example, Simon Tam's admonishment of Mal prior to the heist), nothing is actually lost which would hinder a reader's understanding of either the plot or the film. Take a look, give me your thoughts. All the best, Steve T • C 09:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Croctotheface, your 06:49 edit causes three sentences in a row to start with the word Mal. It doesn't look good. 218.215.147.180 (talk) 09:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Steve, I think you've removed too much in your edits. Maybe it was too detailed the way it was but now it's not detailed enough. Perhaps you can edit it again and reach a balance. To give you specifics, I think we should keep the mention of Simon pretending to be an Alliance officer to rescue River and the heist sequence deserves a little more than "When a heist on". Anyway, as I've mentioned above, the section doesn't need to be shorter since there are plenty of plot summaries on Wikipedia that are just as long or even longer than this one. If you want to reduce the detail, so you can add more information in other places, that's fine, but don't do it just for the sake of making it shorter. I prefer "too detailed" to "not detailed enough" so I might revert it if it stays the way it is. 218.215.147.180 (talk) 09:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
If you feel there is something within an article that needs improvement, for instance repetitiveness, we encourage you to be bold and fix the problem. However, as I said before, I don't think your argument, which seems to be something like "because there exist longer plot summaries, this one necessarily should be longer" has much merit. Those plot summaries could be too long and need trimming. There could be something about those plots that requires them to spend more words explaining what's going on. You would be better served explaining why the details that have been cut are so essential that we must restore them. Croctotheface (talk) 10:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, let's take this one at a time. Why is it necessary at all to keep the mention of Simon's pretending to be an Alliance officer to rescue River? "Merely" saying that he rescues her doesn't lose any understanding of the plot; the rest is unneeded detail. The plot section is merely supposed to supplement the real-world context of the rest of the article; there are plenty of other places online where one can find a lengthy blow-by-blow account of the film. If other film articles' plot sections are longer, then it's highly likely that they require trimming in some manner. Just because other articles may disregard the guidelines, that's not to say we should do it here. Steve T • C 10:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Croctotheface; the scenes where the Operative kills Dr. Mathias and where River feels suicidal, help to show the reader what the characters are like. I guess you could argue that it's already covered in the list of Firefly characters article. Generally, I feel that if some event had a long scene showing it in the film, it deserves at least one brief mention in the plot summary. 218.215.147.180 (talk) 10:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Steve; just saying that Simon rescued her doesn't provide a good enough description of what happened. Did he storm the facility with heavy weapons and hired mercenaries or did he use deceit and cunning? I can't find anything in the guidelines that says a plot summary has a maximum limit on how long it can be. I'm not saying we should make it extremely long and ridiculously detailed but I am saying that it's far below the length of other plot summaries so it doesn't need to be shortened. If I'm wrong and there are guidelines about how long plot summaries need to be, please show me. 218.215.147.180 (talk) 10:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The guideline, here suggests a length, but more importantly, when taken with guidance as to the use of primary sources, gives instruction as to the content; for example, interpretation is strictly disallowed (such as saying "such and such feels guilty at...") because this is classed by Wikipedia as original research. Again, to reiterate, the plot section should be a short summary which merely contains enough information for a reader to understand the article, not the film. All the best, Steve T • C 11:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I see. So the general limit is 900 words and the current plot summary is 769 words. There's plenty of room. 218.215.147.180 (talk) 11:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
No, the general limit is 400 to 700 words, with 900 words should more be needed for understanding of an excessively complicated plot. Serenity's plot does not fall into what the guideline would class as excessively complicated and common sense should be used to determine its length. Just because there is a limit, it does not mean that limit should be met if it is unnecessary to do so. Steve T • C 11:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
In addition, how does your recent edit add to what was already there? How is saying "Serenity lands on an outer rim planet to rob a local security firm of its payroll" any better than the shorter line explaining that the crew is on a robbery/heist? All it does is give unnecessary detail. Steve T • C 11:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually the guidelines say that plot summaries should not exceed 900 words unless the plot is very complicated, meaning that if the plot is not very complicated it can go up to 900 words. Do you really have such a big problem with the plot summary being long? Isn't more information a good thing? My edit provided the information of who they were robbing and it gave the situation a beginning instead of starting from the middle. Do you understand what I mean? 218.215.147.180 (talk) 11:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
But what does it matter if the specifics are missing as long as the broader understanding is there? This is an encyclopedia, not a repository of indiscriminate information. The plot is the least important part of the article; it's there to provide context to the real-world information in the rest of the article and little else. Steve T • C 11:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, your argument seems to be something like "because it can, it must be". As Steve has said, it does not follow that because there is no guideline that says that the plot summary must be shorter than it is, it is therefore too short. Also, Steve is correct that the purpose of the plot summary is to help readers understand the story so that they can better comprehend the rest of the article. It is not designed to be a substitute for watching the movie. Croctotheface (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

crosses in the shuttle windows

In the deleted scenes Escape From Companion Training House, Mal and Inara Shuttle Chase and Mal and Inara Shuttle Improv there are crosses visible behind the windows of the shuttle. Is this an unfinished visual effect? 218.215.168.23 (talk) 04:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Better Days and followed by

I noted that the upcoming comic Serenity: Better Days is listed under "followed by" in the right column. It's also noted within the article that the comic's events take place before those in the movie. Does "followed-by" mean by release or by timeline? Gudlyf (talk) 15:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Serenity_(2005_film)/Archive_2&oldid=1153740880"