Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:52, 18 July 2004

Character names, double quotes in links.

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

The software won't let you. The title really should be Malcom Reynolds or Mal Reynolds anyway. Titles like "Captain" aren't good in general since a person's (or fictional person's) title can change over time. --mav

Good point. Thanks for the tip! -- Wapcaplet

No problem. --mav

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

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

Data to include.

Work in somewhere:

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

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

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

Position of spoiler notice.

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

Most of the time it's placed just above the place where spoilers actually begin; that way, even if someone doesn't want to read spoilers, they can learn about what Firefly is and then stop when they reach the spoiler warning. -- Wapcaplet 21:34 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I now see how the spoilers are handled Wapcaplet, thanks. See Talk:List_of_Firefly_episodes for pre-merge discussion. - Jeandré, 2003-06-28t04:04z

Canada.

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

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

Movie.

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

It is certain that Joss is writing it, Jane Espenson is a reliable source. Of course we won't know for sure they'll really make a movie until Fox approves it. Lazarus Long 11:37 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

According to IMDB, Hollywood reporter, and this article, the Firefly movie is definitely "in production"... obviously it's possible that it won't come together in the end, but I'd say it's past the point of being only in the talk stage. -- Wapcaplet 19:13, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Episode order.

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

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

DVDs is:

Trash,

The Message,

Heart Of Gold,

Objects In Space

Joss made a minor adjustment in "Objects" when we aired it, and restored said change for the DVD order

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

Lazarus Long 12:37 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Spanish tv.

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

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

1AGE13 The message, 26 de julio, 2003. - Jeandré, 2003-07-21t01:18z

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

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

Trash, Message, and HoG first broadcast where?

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

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

Chinese language.

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

I don't think they ever explained this. Could be all sorts of reasons - maybe China grew to become very influential in the history preceding the show and Chinese became a second language for many people. Though, it seems that the characters on the show only use Chinese to swear. I'm sure there is a fascinating reason for it... -- Wapcaplet 12:06 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think curses are one of the very first non-native words we learn! Somehow, they're easy to remember and whose meaning can be very inclusive.

What I remember the most is actually their use of Aiya! (see interjection).

--Menchi 22:14 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I recall a print review of the show saying the Alliance was essentially the US and China. So yes on the influential in history hypothesis. -- Jake 11:06, 2003 Nov 7 (UTC)

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

Fox broadcast at 20:00?

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

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

Article title.

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

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

Hypothetical timeline

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

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

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

Wash & Zoe's full names

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

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

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

Setting

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

It seems unclear, there are occasional mentions of 'a whole galaxy of new earths', the details of the distances and capacities of the ships are not really clear. Mark Richards 18:19, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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

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

To some degree, depending on how accuate the writers want to be. For reality, a solar system with, let's say, a dozen habitable/terraforing, the star would need to be larger and/or hotter to support a wider zone of life. The more potentially habitable planets, the larger the life zone needs to be, putting the zone furhter and further from the sun, and making the sun larger and/or hotter. There's no evidence in the writings suggesting that the system is so large as to have a sun that is distinctively different from our own. The better assumption is that typically the worlds are orbitting different suns much like our own. The writers do give us the hint that they want us to take the science seriously, but to be as amazed at somethings as the characters are:

Wash: Psychic? Sounds like something out of science fiction.
Zoë: We live on a spaceship, dear. 
Wash: So? 

But anyway... you are right that we can argue as much as we want about this, and the writers are free to come up with any decision they want to, whether its based in reality or fantasy. Until the writers do make it explicit that the Alliance system is just a single sun or many suns, we should note this lack of information in the article somehow, and leave it at that. That would be in keeping with NPOV. - UtherSRG 20:59, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've editted the Setting paragraph to remove references to a single planetary system, hopefully making it as ambiguous as the TV show itself is. *grins* - UtherSRG 22:46, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I like your edit on this issue. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan 18:52, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hrm... there's a note that the ships are all slower than light. Is there a specific reference to this in the show? - UtherSRG 22:52, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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

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

A quote from Official Serenity Fan Site:

A small band of skim the outskirts of the galaxy unnoticed until

they find themselves caught between the unstoppable military force of the

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

savages who roam the very edge of space.

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