Talk:Firefly (TV series)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Discussion Archives

Talk:Firefly (TV series)/Archive 1

Time Format

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers) Suggests that the airtimes should be in 24hr format. Australia should be fixed. But I wonder if the use of a timezone isn't indicated, here. In which case, which timezone should be used? For the USA, most national TV programs are tape-delayed. So, when show is reported as being played at "9pm Eastern and Pacific", when does it play in Moutain and Central times? With all this ambiguity, is listing the time really of any use? --Mdwyer 20:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Most users in the U.S aren't aware of the 24:00 clock, so I suggest you use something like "it was shown at 10:00pm (20:00) rather than simply refering purely to the 24:00 clock after all you wouldn't use the expression "the DVD set cost 30 Euroes" if you were discussing price in the U.S you'd say "The DVD set cost 25 Dollars (30 Euroes)" (Just as an example. Also it's kind of useless to mention the times it aired in general as the U.S has so many different timezones the 20:00 statement would only be true for a portion of the country. Deathawk 16:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Speculations

Under the heading of "Be Bold" I have removed the speculations section. As much as it is interesting stuff to think about, there is just no place for speculation in the encyclopedia, it is specifically against the guidelines, and the few items discussed which had a reference (not just original research) were obscure and unnoteworthy. Again, if someone wants to add a link to speculations about Firefly, they are widely available, but the actual content doesn't belong here. BarkingDoc 05:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I assume someone has a counter argument? BarkingDoc

the speculatipns are bassed on scientific thoeries and interviews with good ol joss. i think they are worth keeping ( sorry forhte delay)Gavin the Chosen 05:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

The section is great work. It would be a perfect jumping off point for a Wikicity. It's just not right for an encyclopedia. I've removed it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 05:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

The wikicity where this stuff should go. Hipocrite - «Talk» 05:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

A suggestion about the "See also" section

I noticed that there's a small-scale edit war going on about how many other science-fiction/western hybrids should be included in the "See also" section. Some folks want to include every other sci-fi Western, others want to note only those that have made a significant impact (in their opinion) on the culture at large. Can I make a suggestion? If you're interested in a comprehensive list of science fiction programs (films, cartoons, comics, novels, etc.) with Western influences, why not make a page about that and link to it from here (and from Cowboy Bebop, Jonah Hex, Westworld, et cetera)? I'm not sure what the best name for such a page would be (Science fiction Western, List of science fiction westerns, Science fiction/western hybrid, or something else). You could also link to such an article from Genre fiction#Crossover works and Cross-genre to get the narratology angle.

Of course, I could be bold and start such an article myself, but a) I'm really not sure what the best title is, and b) I'm lazy. :) Anyway, I just thought this might be a possible solution to the edit war.

—Josiah Rowe 05:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, maybe I'll start it at Science fiction Western and see what happens. It can always be moved later if someone thinks of a better title. —Josiah Rowe 06:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Good Idea BarkingDoc

Character names, again

Probably because Serenity just opened, lots of folks are editing the "Cast" section to include the full names of Wash, Zoë and Book (which were never revealed in the series). A previous discussion had concluded with the apparent consensus that this page should have the characters' names as revealed in the TV series only, which is why there's a note in hidden text in the "Cast" section saying:

    <!--Please don't use the names from the film, this article is about the television episodes.-->

Obviously, we can revisit this if a number of users disagree with the previous consensus. What do people think? —Josiah Rowe 02:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Since the film Serenity is canonical in the Firefly universe, and is now released, I think we can probably go with the character names now. We might want to mention in this article which names were not mentioned during the series . It's less awkward for an article title, and one might expect these names to become gradually better known. But that just my 2¢. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Jeff Q. Brand Eks 18:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough: I've removed the invisible text. (I wouldn't want to argue with Q and X!) —Josiah Rowe 22:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment. Ben W Bell 10:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't Kaylee's namr ve listed as Kaywinnit(sp) Lee Frye?

That it should, especially since that name (spelled, I believe, exactly the same as you listed) was revealed during the series, in the episode "Shindig" (it's disc 2 of the Firefly box set, I believe that if you count "Serenity, pts 1 & 2" as two seperate episodes, "Shindig" is number 5, and the first episode on the second disc). 169.139.190.6 22:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Role-Playing Game

I think the section on the role-playing game should be removed from this page and added to the Serenity page. The RPG is based on the movie, not the TV series and hence should be attached to the movies pages and not the TV series. They couldn't get permission to use the TV series as source material for the RPG unless it directly referenced from the movie. Ben W Bell 10:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

theme song

I didn't see the theme song mentioned in the article (maybe I'm just blind). Could someone make an entry about the singer and perhaps the name of the song (if it's available on disc somewhere)? Thanks. Gflores 06:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you Ereinion for the information. :) Gflores 06:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Archived Conversation

I have a feeling the last discussion page was purposefully archived when it was, as it cut off this discussion. I'm happy to keep the content on my user page, but I really feel like it deserves a sub-article. Staxringold 15:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Nobody had participated in that discussion for nearly two months. It's hard to see that as "cutting off discussion". And if you think the Firefly/Outlaw Star comparisons deserve an article, then why not make one? I think that the mention in the "Notes" section of this page is sufficient, myself, but nobody's stopping you from creating Firefly and Outlaw Star. Of course, if you do create it, it'll be subject to the same criteria of notability as any other Wikipedia article, but that's another discussion. —Josiah Rowe 16:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The article was created and deleted in September. - EurekaLott 17:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

In that case, the discussion is over, isn't it? A consensus said that it didn't have merit as an article on its own, and a consensus of editors on this page said that it was worth a sentence in the Notes section. Maybe the rest can go on the Firefly wiki. —Josiah Rowe 17:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I liked my newer solution, but it was immediately removed. I'm leaving the content on my user page, so why not insert it in the Notes section as: "Some fans^[1] believe blah blah blah"? Staxringold 15:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Spacecraft vs Starship

I just reverted back a change that described the Serenity as a 'Starship'. The movie and comics establish that the entire series takes place in a single, odd solar system with lottsa terraformed moons. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 06:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi! OK. However, how about the events in the movie? I don't think this is clearly stated. As well, if the Serenity's drive is faster-than-light, references to starship would be more appropriate. Thoughts? E Pluribus Anthony 06:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Howdy! Even the movie takes place within that same star system. There is no evidence that the drive is faster than light in either the show, movie, or comics. It's just... a drive. Pretty confusing setup, no argument. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 06:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Back at ya! Agreed. It seems like the (fabulous) movie takes place throughout multiple systems (though am willing to admit it does not), since its beginning notes human emigration from Earth using slower modes of propulsion. Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 06:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I also thought that the series and movie took place in more than one system (it certainly feels that way), but several pieces of info suggest that there's only one system, probably the most substantial of which are the references to "core planets" instead of "core systems", as well as the young-River intro segment in the movie. --Pentasyllabic 07:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

It has been stated by Whedon himself and is mentioned in the movie, that the Firefly setting is one solar system with several stars and many planets. Ben W Bell 12:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey there; no argument here! Perhaps if this was referenced or cited in Wp (and perhaps I missed this?), there wouldn't be uncertainty to the contrary about the setting ... particularly in the movie (without that brief glimpse at the very beginning of ships departing Earth, this would probably be a moot discussion)? :) Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 13:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that in the series it was unclear whether the planets and moons were in one system or multiple systems. But the opening narration of the film makes it clear that it's meant to be one system, albeit a rather odd one:

"We found a new solar system: dozens of planets and hundreds of moons. Each one terraformed — a process taking decades — to support human life. To be new Earths. The Central Planets were the first settled and are the most advanced, embodying civilization at its peak. Life on the outer planets is much more primitive, and difficult. That's why the Central planets formed the Alliance..."

The graphic on the teacher's screen shows one system (with an implausible number of planets).

As for the ships leaving Earth: Serenity: The Official Visual Companion has a pre-production memo from Whedon with "A Brief History of the Universe, circa 2507 A.D." It says that "Every person willing and able to leave the Earth migrated to the new system. An entire generation never even saw the outside of a spaceship, the journey took so long." So it seems that there's no faster-than-light travel in this universe, and all those ships at the beginning of Serenity were heading to the same system.

I suppose this info ought to be somewhere either on this page or Serenity (film), but I'm not sure where. Hope it helps, anyway!—Josiah Rowe 17:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey; thanks for this! That covers off both questions: setting and mode of propulsion. Let's incorporate it somehow into the relevant articles (e.g., through a footnote or the like); I wouldn't want to clutter the article with an elucidation of setting for a fabulous movie/genre. Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 18:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I've added notes to both pages. I hope they're sufficiently succinct. :) —Josiah Rowe 18:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks great, and should definitely help clear things up for newcomers. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Great! Thanks so much for 'indulging' me. :) E Pluribus Anthony 19:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

"Not Firefly per se"

Can anyone explain how it would be different to me?

I'm glad someone else mentioned this. I came to the discussion specifically because I didn't understand the meaning or intent of this clause in the article. Why wouldn't it be Firefly, regardless of which network carried it? By the same logic, was Buffy the Vampire Slayer not really the same show when UPN took it over?

Well, it's all about the custody battle, from what I heard, Joss Whedon had problems securing all the rights to "Firefly" from FOX, and one of the biggest problems was the name of the show. That's why the movie was named "Serenity" rather than "Firefly". It wasn't until after the movie was made that he was finally got full custody of the show again. If he does a new TV series he can call it Firefly again, but I think he'll just stick with Serenity. Cyberia23 19:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, I think it's just a matter of principal. That is, it won't be the same series it would have been if they'd just been given a straight run. Or something.

Technology in Firefly

Could we maybe start a section discussing technology in Firefly? Medicine, Weapons, Ship Tech, that kind of stuff. There is an interesting blend between contemporary and futuristic. For example, the use of old shotguns in the midst of a space-faring storyline.

I'm not sure if it is part of the article yet, but it would be good to establish the extreme difference between the level of technology in the Alliance and the outer worlds. For instance, Mal & co. use all old-style weapons, while there are laser weapons in existence. But, these are all in the Alliance and almost exclusively used by the Alliance military. Other than that, I don't know if it would be in keeping with the spirit of the show to go into details about technology (a la Star Trek). --Keno 20:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

From what I read, Joss Whedon never wanted to get super-technical with the Firefly series. They have advanced technology but he left it to obscurity and wanted the characters to tell the story - not the technology. We just know, to live in the core worlds you have the technological wonders of the era. Out on the neglected border planets you have to live off the land and lead a much simpler life. Cyberia23 21:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The lack of supraluminal (faster than light) travel in the series for example. And how everyone is confined to one solar system. The sonic rifles? The laser technology (lasseter?) would be particularly interesting; the lase weapons seem to be ballistic in nature, but are touted as laser weaponry. Or how the men in blue killed the guards in Ariel (one postulate is that Blue Sun consummables have nanites in them that will kill the host when exposed to the instrument used by the men in blue), etc. There's still a lot of stuff that would be enough for a seperate section, and would make the firefly entry more comprehensive. Karmon 01:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I suppose you could have a section describing the technology depicted in the show, but you'd have to be very careful to avoid original research. For example, since it was never explained how the Hands-of-Blue guys killed the guards, and nanites were never mentioned in the show (nor, to my knowledge has this theory been mentioned in any published source), the theory that you mention would be original research, and thus shouldn't be on the page. (Unless one of the show's creators has mentioned this somewhere and I've missed it, or something.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

What if it's consensus among Firefly fans? I remember reading through some posts on fansites and it's a very popular theory, though I am not sure if it was explicitly mentioned or suggested at by any of the show's creators. But yeah, thanks for the heads up. Karmon 06:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I suppose that if it's really widespread it might merit a mention, but if it's at all controversial I'd avoid it unless you can cite either production personnel (maybe a mention on the DVD commentary or something?) or publication in something like that Finding Serenity book. But that's just my take: others may have different interpretations of the original research policy with regard to Firefly. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello ... I agree with JR: if citable, verifiable works can be provided (particularly from the producers of the series/movie or Whedon himself), these could form the basis of a relevant section or article. You'll get similar arguments from other genres – Star Trek being my pet – about what is canon, somewhat, or fanon. E Pluribus Anthony 07:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The episode summaries are just sort of out there

Is there any reason why they aren't consolidated to Firefly/, or at least kept consistent by putting (Firefly) at the end of their names? --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 08:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

They used to all have "(Firefly episode)" appended to the end, until someone decided that this wasn't necessary except in disambig cases such as Serenity or Shindig. --Pentasyllabic 18:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that this is the preferred Wikipedia style, to use parenthetical disambiguation only when it's necessary. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Page naming. As for putting the articles under "Firefly/", that sort of organization is deprecated on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Subpages and links from that policy page for a history of why. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

One Star vs. Many

The map showing the star system in the film "Serenity" clearly shows that the system all orbits around a single star.Shsilver 13:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you did see a display containing numerous planets and one star... However, that was probably supposed to be just the system where Osiris orbits, which is the planets where the Tams are from.

In the Serenity: Role Playing Game they have a chapter called "The 'Verse" wherein lies a map of the colonized planets. "So, heres how it is..." (as Mal would say), the system has about seven stars, five of which have planets orbiting them, and they all sort of orbiting around each other in a big cluster. According to the game, the fastest ships can travel from one of the map to another in about a year 1/2 time. Miranda is a rogue planet that orbits distant from everything with a a nearby drawf star to keep it warm enough to support life.

Now, before someone begins to froth at the mouth and go screaming "NON CANON" as I'd expect from most bloated, fundamentalist sci-fi fans who say "if it ain't on the screen it ain't true", til their blue in the face - the RPG was written based on technical material provided by Joss Whedon himself for the movie. Now, Unless the author of the RPG took a few creative liberties, and I highly doubt it, it should have been a solar system map just like the one in the movie, but it ain't! Someone should probably email the publisher to ask. The RPG however is not based on Firefly due to the different studios involved, it was only licenced for materials in the movie version. Fox played hardball on their intellectual property throughout all of the deals of the licensing.

So, the debate begins... who or what are ya gonna believe? And whatever the belief what is the article here going to say? One or more stars? I guess there is an "offical guide" book to Serenity somewhere, but wether or not it goes into the details of the 'Verse, or not, I have no idea since I have yet to see the book. I also go by what was eventually a deleted scene in the DVD series where Mal says there are over 70 "Earths". This is a cut scene not because of what he said, but was deleted for other content reasons from the episode "Our Dear Mrs. Reynolds". If the 70+ Earths statement is true (and the RPG shows a lot of colonized/terraformed planets), how are they possibly all crammed into one solar system?

Unless you want to give up the suspension of disbelief, there should be more than one star. Serenity is based more on "realism" aka naturalistic science fiction than most other sci-fi shows, so it makes more logical sense if there were more than one star involved here. You can buy the RPG book online as a PDF, and there are torrent sites with it out there if you're cheap and wanna scam a copy of it, anyway, go look it up, read it yourself, and decide what you want to. Cyberia23 23:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh Lord, is this still going on? We're not taking the word of an RPG against on-screen evidence? <font color="green">Khanartist</font> 04:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

You could have just said "Non Canon". Cyberia23 21:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: naturalistic science fiction — Firefly's naturalism is more in its characterizations and worldview than in its scientific approach. Indeed, I suspect that the "no aliens" rule was based as much on the desire to get away from humans-with-bumps-on-their-foreheads of latter-day Star Trek as it was on Joss's belief that we're alone in the universe. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• I can't believe you guys are still arguing over this. This issue was finished off completely before Serenity came out over at alt.tv.firefly. Joss Whedon himself has said, on record, that it is one mega star system with dozens of planets and moons. This annoyed a lot of us physics purists who know such a thing isn't possible, but there you have it, the truth. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 13:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Guess he didn't say that to the RPG guys then. Cyberia23 22:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Why isn't such a thing possible? Njál 17:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

(At least one of) The problems is the fact that each planet is as bright as the rest. Hell, the outer planets seem to get more sunlight than the Core planets. This simply cannot happen in reality. The further out a planet is, the less sunlight it get's. In our solar system, if you were to get out to Pluto then the sun wouldn't be too different than any other star in terms of how bright it is. If you were to make it to Mercury the Sun would take up most of the sky and be extremely bright. The only way the planets could all receive the same amount of light was if they were extremely close together. However, as system maps and the fact that it takes so long to move between planets show, they are spread out fairly well. Koweja 04:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a good reason inside the Firefly-verse (though the Alliance could always have arranged giant mirrors to distribute light), but people were saying 'having 70 planets in a star system isn't possible'. Is that true? Njál 14:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess it is possible, in theory, though it's unlikely. The further away from the star you get, the less affect by its gravitational pull. Even if the planets are spaced a minimum distance apart, I don't thing the pull would be strong enough to hold onto planets so far away. And, like I said before, the planets can't be that close together since it takes a decent amount of time to move between them. Koweja 15:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Found it!

Well cats and dogs here is some proof to a multi star system for Firefly and Serenity. Yes, I'm such a dork... but watch the Serenity movie Time code 1 hour 12 min and 48 seconds into the movie, (Chapter 14 on the DVD). Right where Serenity enters Miranda's atmophere there is a scene with Wash scanning the planet and saying "normal gravity, fresh water...etc". Above his head are two monitors and the one on the left displays Miranda's orbit in the main system map. You will see several stars with dozens of planets orbiting them. This same map appears in the RPG book displaying the 'Verse as several system and not one. So Canon now? Maybe. Cyberia23 00:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Mind you that I'm not disagreeing, but ironing out contradictions. That said, what about at the beginning where the teacher is discussing the alliance. It distinctly shows one system, multiple planets? How does one account for that? Eluchil 01:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

He accounts for that in his comments above, claiming that system is only the orbit of Osiris and its moons. Given Whedon's own comments about the system, as well as Whedon's comments about not caring about the science of the system, I think the one star theory (no matter how much it contradicts known science) should be considered the proper view of the system.Shsilver 02:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I just figured I'd mention what appears to be the source of the map they use in the RPG book. It is hard to make out the screen details from the DVD (might show up better on larger screens) but the bright yellow blobs behind Miranda look a lot like stars to me and match pretty close to the one in they use in book. I understand that Whedon's astronomy science might be way off, espcially if Miranda was so far away - looks like the last planet in the system from the main displays - why is the sun so damn bright? Looks to me like it would be closer to a star than way far out like that. Cyberia23 02:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The brightness on Miranda bother me as well, but then, so does the overexposure used in various scenes of River at school. I wouldn't put it past Whedon to use lighting to achieve an effect (visual or emotional) rather than worry about the physical niceties of it.Shsilver 02:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking if Miranda is so far away, yet the sunlight is so bright, maybe it was part of the terraforming process, and they used unseen orbital mirrors and reflectors to focus more sunlight at it to warm it up enough to support life. In real life, if we ever terraformed Mars, this could be something they might do to rapidly heat it up. Anyway, Joss Whedon says in the DVD commentary, he brightened Miranda to get a "Utopian" look to it. It was supposed to be the Alliance's great experiment of peace and harmony and "blowing out" the exposure of it on film was to help signify this. Cyberia23 20:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Where were his comments on this? Because if what is said is true, then the "system" isn't charted or defined, making it completely up to the imagination. I think that's really interesting and quite daring for someone to do, especially in a movie like this. Eluchil 09:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

My comment is in my first paragraph block under "One Star vs Many". I said the diagram in River's tent classroom was probably just one of the solar systems in the cluster. I would guess the one where Osiris orbits since the Tams are from there and it was River's home. Cyberia23 20:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The 'verse is a single Solar System but it is a multi star system. Multi star systems are very common in our galaxy. The 'verse is simply many planets and moons in a solar system with additional stars in orbit around the systems primary. Ben W Bell 10:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Look at our solar system. What do you see? Unless you believe that Earth is the center of the Universe under a crystal celestial sphere and Galileo Galilei was the spawn of Satan and should have been burned at the stake for his heresy - this is what you'd see: a single star with at least 9 planets orbiting it, (unless you consider Pluto just an Oort cloud hunk of ice) and most of those planets with their own moons - especially the gas giants which have many moons and more discovered all the time.

What does this mean? It means a smaller body is capable of orbiting a larger body, whilst that larger body also orbits another much larger body. This means the moons were small enough to be captured by the gravity of the larger planets and fall into orbits around them rather than the star itself.

Given what Ben says above, we look to the Firefly 'Verse, which like he said, could have more than one star and those stars revolve around each other with a common center or gravity. That could be a super-giant star, or perhaps a collapsed neutron star or whatever; they're all orbiting something or maybe nothing. So, wouldn't it be safe to assume, the stars act like "super-sized planets" and have smaller objects orbiting them? In this case, due to their enormous size and gravity - those would most likely take the form of little solar systems of Earth-size and larger planets, maybe even other gas-giants.

So there ya go, I think it's completely logical to have solar systems orbiting in close proximity to eachother in one super system. I'd consider it more of a "cluster" or stars rather than a system. but whatever. Only Joss knows I guess and maybe never be answered. Cyberia23 00:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

A star cluster system makes sense. Core planets revolve around the big center star, while border planets rotate around stars that rotate around the star. JQF 16:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

How'd this get missed? (from the movie, time index 0:00:00 through 0:00:50): ""Earth-that-was could no-longer sustain our numbers, we were so many. We found a new solar system, dozens of planets, and hundreds of moons." This narration comes as we initially watch ships launching from, and leaving Earth. The very next shot (as the narrator reads, "a new solar system") clearly shows inbound ships approaching a single star along with a couple of planets and several moons in the immediate vicinity. There are also several other references in the preface that support these ideas.

Those images aside, the language itself states that they found a "solar" system, not a star cluster. A solar system, dozens of planets, hundreds of moons. -- Picture our system, bigger star, 4x the planets, 10x the moons (and make all the moons and planets of a size capable of sustaining viable atmospheres and compatible gravities and you have the sci-fi "verse" in which these tales are cast. The physics of it are impossible (although slightly more probable than the same system composed with multiple stars). Joss created the system for the purposes of the story, NOT to satisfy (or necessarily comply with) the requirements of real-world physics.

BTW: the clearest indication (to me) that it is a solitary star at the heart of the "verse" comes from the simple fact that there is NEVER EVER a scene from either the series, or the movie, in which the sky comprises more than a single sun. In a binary, trinary or quaternary star system it would be very difficult to find a point in time where only one star was visible in the daytime sky. Furthermore, to my knowledge, Joss is a fan of Science Fiction; he's certainly seen the "dual sun" effects from the Star Wars movies. If it was his intent that the system be poly-stellar, I'm POSITIVE we'd've seen lots of spectacular multi-sun images scattered through the series. 216.240.7.149 20:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, most of this is taken care of above, but to recap:

• First off, Solar System is technically the name of our star system, NOT for a star that has planets (or anything else) orbiting around it (although this is a common mistake). The settlers could have decided to name the star cluster A solar system (I don't think anybody would have argued the point, what with having been stuck in ships the past few generations). Also, Sun is the name for our star, not a star in general (but again, see previous point)
• Second, the number of planets/moons shown in that shot is not enought to attribute all the names of all the planets/moons named in the show (see the list of planets and moons).
• Third, around 1:12:58, a screen above Wash shows a picture that looks very similar to the way the 'verse is shown in the RPG (as a star cluster, although it is most probably not to scale).
• Fourth, Star Clusters are possible. Whether they are possible the way it is shown, we done know. (Oh the mysteries of the Universe!)
• Fifth, just because you never see a scene with more than one star, doesn't mean it's not possible. None of the stars are hudled together like in other films (because that is virtually impossible). After all, the suns could be the distance of Pluto from one another, and from Pluto, the sun looks like any other star in the sky.
• Sixth, I beleave that Joss was going for a more toned down sci-fi fell, focusing more on Characters and Plot that spectacular, overwellmine, obvious sci-fi shots.

I think that counters all items brought up. Again, all these points are more or less in the above thread. Ya just got ta read it. JQF 21:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

A few points:

• The writers of the movie (ie not me) chose to use the the words "a solar system", as in, "we found a new solar system". Furthermore the retelling is in the view of a historical perspective, not that of the original settlers. In theory it has the benefit of hindsight to enlighten it.
• A quick check reveals that the Merriam Webster online dictionary defines the term (Solar System) as: "The sun together with the group of celestial bodies that are held by its attraction and revolve around it; also : a similar system centered on another star" (emphasis added). Note though, that no stellar pluralities are mentioned (ie "centered around other stars"). I acknowledge that this could just be a technicality.
• Multiple solar systems (ie planetary systems surrounding multiple stars) would not be defined retrospectively as having been found as "a solar system". (It would be like retelling Columbus' journey as culminating by finding an island, but without saying anything at all about North America; who would tell it that way?).
• Stars in asymmetric orbits don't tend to keep planets very long. In multi-star configurations, in order to avoid rapid ejection (or consumation), planets have to lie either very close to the individual stars, or very far from them. The latter doesn't produce conditions suitable for life, the former can, but doesn't give enough space to contain "dozens of planets".
• A star cluster typically refers to a group of stars that are (relatively speaking) close together, but are usually still separated by interstellar-distances (ie 1-3ly). Stars that lie in closer proximity are usually found in binary or trinary configurations. Increasing the number of stars dramatically decreases the liklihood of the cluster (as the chance of amalgamation increases with the gravitational attraction due to mass. A 4-star (quaternary) configuration will almost certainly coallesce into a very large single-star within a relatively short period of time and as such, is a highly improbable combination. Furthermore, those giant masses swirling around each other would spell almost certain doom for any planetary bodies caught in their dance. Even in binary star systems, planetary existence is tenuous as they have a high probability of being either ejected into the cosmos, or absorbed by one of the parent stars.
• Technically, our's sun's name is "Sol". Also, when uncapitalized, the term "sun" can be used in reference to (again, from Merriam Webster), "a celestial body like the Sun". I chose to use "sun" in that context specifically to differentiate a bright star clearly visible during "daylight" hours from stars that are not typically visible at that time.
• Even if you contend that there could be multiple solar systems in close proximity to eachother, nothing from the movie, or the series supports it. The picture on the left-hand monitor over Wash in the scene you reference gives no indication whatsoever of what the ~8 spheroid-looking objects it displays are. In a solar system with "dozens of planets and hundreds of moons", what requirement is there that these be anything but planets and moons? Further, no stellar "map" I've seen on screen displays anything except various spheroids and/or patterns of concentric (or intersecting) circles. Short of guessing the meanings of those objects/circles there's no way to know what's being represented. Inference is not evidence.
• The RPG is either referential, or it isn't. If it is, then what it says the map means should be taken as canon and this whole argument is moot. If it isn't, then what it says is irrelevant, and doesn't belong in the article. Personally, unless Joss or Tim publicly gives it their blessing by asserting that the RPG is based directly off of their work and/or input, I won't consider it referential. Without referencing the RPG, there isn't anything in the original works that proves this theory.
• Joss has used LOTS of CG effects to emphasise his settings. Digitally adding in one or more suns would be childs play for his graphics team and it would add significant "otherworldliness" to his setting with minimal extra cost or effort. If he had invisioned it, I'm sure we would have seen it.

216.240.7.149 23:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Fine then. The next person to see Joss, ask him if the RPG map is canoncal. And if not, what is. That should solve this once and for all. JQF 02:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll ask him this weekend. :P The Wookieepedian 02:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Did you get a chance to ask? --Wynler | Talk 21:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

In Star Wars, you see two "suns" in the sky, but that isn't realistic. If you were on a planet orbiting one of the suns in a binary system, the other star would appear as a very bright star (brighter than the full moon), but not as a second sun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_centauri#Sky_appearance_from_Alpha_Centauri--RLent 15:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Map of the 'Verse

File:Versediagram.png

Unofficial Verse Diagram

Here is an image of the 'Verse I made in my spare time to illustrate the "star cluster" and multiple systems idea. This is similar but not exactly the same as the map of the 'Verse in the Firefly RPG book. But anyway, this is how the arrangement probably looks like and I put it here to illustrate the idea. The map is not to scale, but each star is a few hundred AU's distant from each other. Due to the chaotic gravity of the system, most planets orbit at weird angles. Earthlike planets orbit nearest their star as "Core Worlds", those around gas giants or at the edge of a system are "Border Planets". It is said in the RPG that humans have pioneered terraforming; supposedly forcing even low gravity - no atmophere moons to earthlike conditions, melting ice to produce Oxygen, and possibly amplifying sunlight (orbital mirrors?) to warm them up to habitable temperatures. The star at the center would be a blue supergiant with enough gravity to pull nearby stars into close orbit around itself. Eventually they will all fall into the giant star and create a supernova, but that's a few billion years away. The giant star is surrounded by a stellar debris cloud and a white drawf. The system has four yellow-orange stars like Sol, and two red dwarfs - one of which has a brown drawf companion. Cyberia23 21:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well that's a nice pic. Shows the verse a bit better than the RPG version. You wouldn't happen to have a bigger pic though, would you? JQF 00:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I have a 1024 x 768 verison. Cyberia23 07:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Very pretty picture. Too bad there isn't a single piece of evidence ANYWHERE in the movie or the series to support it (and no, one 3-second shot of four+, static, yellowish blobs on a background monitor ISN'T corroboration). AFAIK the RPG isn't referential, so the whole issue's a moot one unless/until Joss says different. Furthermore (to re-iterate):

• There's no way anyone would refer to what that diagram represents as "a solar system", especially speaking retrospectively! (It's a star cluster with associated planets -- calling it a solar system would be grossly confusing/misleading, something you'd HOPE that a teacher would avoid when lecturing).
• Stars, in such a close proximity would have to be in orbit with each other or they'd simply coalesce. This would produce extraordinarily irregular orbital patterns and would spell the end for those planets in (galactically) short order. They would be consumed or ejected LONG before any of those stars extinguished themselves (to become white dwarfs for example...)
• Joss has stated that Firefly-era ships travel at less than light speed; remembering that 1AU is equal to ~8 light-minutes means that, a ship travelling near-lightspeed (c) over a distance of 100kAU (800,000 light minutes) would take over 550 days (800,000/1440) to complete the trip! Nothing in Firefly hinted at planet-to-planet travel-times approaching TWO YEARS. Add to that the fact that your statement said "a few hundred-thousand AU apart" and with the understanding that "few" is usually interpretted as "3 or more", your diagram would indicate inter-stellar travel periods approaching half a DECADE! (lots more if the velocity is substantially less-than c!)...

I can't understand why people have this deep-seated need for the system to be poly-stellar? Making it so adds ALL KINDS of difficulties (not the least of which is HUGELY increasing the amount of distance they have to travel at sub-luminal speeds). Not to mention that NOTHING in the series or the movie SAYS anything that requires it! (In fact, there are LOTS of indications that it isn't...) Apply the KISS principle here: it's "a solar system, [comprised of]dozens of planets, hundreds of moons", just like the teacher said.

I have no problem talking about it here in the discussion, but there's no way it belongs in the article itself.

216.240.7.149 04:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't understand why people have this deep-seated need for the system to be poly-stellar? - obviously just to "piss YOU off". It's just a freakin example dude, you don't have to have foaming at the mouth conniption fit over it. Go back to taking your pills. Besides if you want DIE HARD SCIENCE involved, then just stop watching all science fiction completely, cause none of it is factual or remotely possible. I admit the "hundered thousand" was a typo on my part. I never said their ships go faster than light, so it would take them months to fly between systems, about a year to cross the whole thing - according to the big bad evil unofficial RPG written by Satan himself. Cyberia23 06:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow. That's some outburst! Where to begin? Tell ya what, lets start by you going back and re-reading my post, then your reply, and thinking hard on which of them would best be described as a "foaming at the mouth conniption fit". Secondly, why did you put quotes around the phrase "piss YOU off"? What exactly are your quoting? Since I never said that phrase, it's not me so I'm kind of confused about your intent there... Furthermore, I'm NOT even po'd! I am, however, staunchly opposing your position (and clearly stating my reasons for doing so). I think that it bears stating that my interest is not personal but rather, it is in furtherance of defending the Wikipedia process -- Despite your apparent perception, I assure you that I bear no grudge toward you personally. Interestingly, my question was somewhat genuine: I am somewhat curious as to what the motivation is for wanting a poly-stellar star cluster as opposed to the much simpler single-star solar system? Anyway, I hope you're somewhat mollified here, there's really no reason for you to get so upset about it: I've made my point(s) and I think that I am well supported both in the evidence, and in the weight of several concurring posts in both the article and the discussion. Also: I totally get that you're completely enamoured of the multi-star configuration, I guess that I can only hope you're able (and willing) to realise that there's just no reasonable foundation in the canonical works for positting it in the article.

216.240.7.149 05:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

216.240.7.149 - Sorry for flying off the handle, but you came off sounding like a smartass. The whole "Very pretty picture. Too bad there isn't a single piece of evidence ANYWHERE in the movie or the series to support it (and no, one 3-second shot of four+, static, yellowish blobs on a background monitor ISN'T corroboration)." I took this as you wanting to get nasty about it, so I responded accordingly. I'm just sick of the whole Anti-Non-canon BS around here. Not just with Firefly but every other science fiction article on this website. If what is discussed can only be about what we see in the show and movie, and we have to completely ignore and never mention what appears in a legitmate and authorized publication like the Offical Firefly RPG, that is completely rediculous in my opinion. The only problem I see caused by including licenced outside show information (not fan conjectured stuff) is that a majority of people have only seen the show and if something is discussed from a 3rd party source, then they might not have any idea of what is being talked about. But to me that is just a minor problem easily remedied by the inclusion of proper source information. My intention was merely to illustrate the idea of multi-solar system, and since the image from the book is copyrighted I made my own and modified it for submission. I never demanded that it be placed on the main page - that's why I put in the discussion board, and I wasn't out to discredit anyone elses ideas with it. As a side note to all this 216.240.7.149, if you want more respect from me, an a majority of other Wikipedians, then get a real login name, not a bunch of numbers - I hate getting into arguments with anon users especially since some use it to be decieving by using several IP addresses at once. They tend to be the same person who just switches computers and pretends to be a another individual supporting the statements of the first, and it looks damn suspicious to me. I'm not saying you are doing this, I'm just mentioning this from separate debates I've had in the past with anon users which is why I get especially snippy with them. Cyberia23 18:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hehe -- well, to be honest, my very first statement wasn't insincere ("Very pretty picture"), but I see that the opening en masse does indeed come across facetiously and I apologise as it was not my intent to be so. Also, just by way of reference, I think that I'm in the Pro-Non Canon camp, whereas you'd be in the "Anti Non Canon" group. Which I suppose it's entirely possible for you to be tired of, but I don't think that was what your intent was ;) Personally, I think, especially with something like science fiction, the canon/non-canon rules have to be even more strictly enforced because the propensity for people to expand upon the original work can be very strong, and an argument about what's original and what's "fanon" can create very blurry lines. The point of the 'pedia is to be accurate about a legion of specific topics. Not adhering to the guidelines can (as I mentioned) blur the specificity of an article, and thereby diminish it's value. I would not object at all to the Firefly RPG having it's own page separate from the TV Series+Movie entry, but without Joss and/or Tim's specific blessing, I don't think information drawn solely from the RPG should be put into this article. As for my choosing, for now, to remain somewhat less attached to Wiki visa-vie not having a user name, my posting history although somewhat recent, is somewhat in evidence as to my lack of intent insofar as "hiding" behind multiple and/or random IP addresses. I lease this address, and all the computers in my residence relate to the internet through it, so I don't anticipate it changing anytime soon. (Besides which, having a user name is hardly a barrier to posting under separate addresses or identities, for those who wish to do so). At the present time I do not have (nor do I anticipate getting) a Wiki sign-on name. This may change at some future date, but I'm comfortable without it for now. I pretty much post entirely from home, and my IP address doesn't change, so if it makes anyone feel better to do so, feel free to think of 216.240.7.149 as my username, it's as good as any other I might've chosen anyway and doesn't really change anything. Anyway, I think we've more or less agreed to disagree about the number of stars involved, and I think we've even somewhat agreed that the conjecture doesn't warrant placement in the Firefly TV Series article. I really do think you should create a page (I'm assuming one doesn't already exist) for the Firefly RPG wherein the differences between the two could be mentioned. In the meantime, I'm off to bed :) 216.240.7.149 06:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Well let's get some rope and string the bastards up. Eluchil 10:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• SIGH*

I'm guilty of being a fanboy but... 1. It's just a damn TV show - you people argue about it like a religion need to go and get a job because you have way too much time on your hands. 2. The nature of everything in science fiction is at the whim of the writer - for example, all spaceships move at one speed - what I call the "SPEED OF PLOT" regardless of being faster then light or slower than light, the ship and the characters get from Planet A to Planet B at impossible speeds. Same thing goes with the argument of how fast an Alien from the "Alien series" gestates in a human host. In AVP the chestbursters explode from the host in like 5 freakin minutes, not days like the original Alien movie. 3. Arguing even over the real nature of the universe as we observe it on earth is also pointless. Everytime Hubble or some other space probe captures an image, it causes scientists to rethink what they theought was impossible. Cyberia argues stars can exists with planets in close proximity - the Anon users says it's impossible. In reality neither would be right or wrong because we simply DON'T KNOW what is really out there, and we won't know until we can go there ourselves, which is something I highly doubt we'll see happen in our lifetimes, so again - pointless to argue over it. 4. Thats all I have to say about that. SkeezerPumba 18:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Cyberia23, the anon user's point about the "a solar system with dozens of planets" quote is extremely valid because it is an explicit statement of fact which appears in the movie, and is definitely more explicit than unlabeled spheroids on a ship display. Therefore it should be taken as the most canon evidence available. 2. Second, why would the Alliance (who is situated on all the Core planets) take over the inner planets of other solar systems instead of taking all the planets in a single system and then expanding from there? The limits on Alliance control are based on physical location and manpower right? So, assuming that the Alliance was formed in system A, wouldn't it make more sense to take over the entire system A first, then move outward? Instead of taking the "core" planets of another distant system and leaving the closer border planets in system A uncontrolled? This point lends even more credibility to a "single solar system" theory. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.148.166.5

First off, the Alliance is on ALL planets - thats why they started the war in the first place becuase they wanted total control of settled worlds. The planets closer to the stars of course would have more military occupation and Alliance presence for two reasons: They are probably more like Earth in size and habitablity and thus have the larger populations. The Outer worlds, being most likely gas-giant moons and the so called "border planets" (What are they bordering anyway?) seem to have less population to deal with. Secondly, because of the limited sub-light drive technology, getting to the outer planets of the systems would take longer so most trade and interaction between worlds lies within the planets nearer to the star since they are more efficiently accessible. Even if the series had multiple stars, whose to say the show only took place in just one of those systems? They could have been within the same one on all missions and in the movie. Cyberia23 19:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey! Just thought I would offer my opinion on the star cluster system. From looking at the RPG map. I would say that the core worlds are the ones that revolve around the star located near the center of the map. The other stars would co-orbit with this star being the "Core star." So the core worlds would be close together, and would take short (less variable) amounts of time to travel between. While the outlying worlds would take longer and more variable amounts of time to travel between, depending on the time of the (year? orbit cycle). --Wynler | Talk 20:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hands of Blue =? Blue Sun?

Has it been officially confirmed that the "two by two, hands of blue" guys were agents of the Blue Sun Corporation/organization? I know that on one of the DVD commentaries Joss and/or Tim Minear says that they had plans for Blue Sun, that it was going to be a megacorporation that effectively owned and operated large branches of the government, etc., but I don't remember the connection to the "hands of blue" being made explicit. It certainly wasn't made explicit in the episodes that were completed. If one of the show's creators has confirmed this connection, we should state the source in the article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall this, either. If it isn't backed up by a canonical citation, we should remove the assertion. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not explicitly stated. A (admittedly weak) case can be made for implied relation - River attacks pieces of Blue Sun merchandise on several occasions: Jayne's shirt in "Ariel", and supposedly ripping off the labels of cans while the crew is playing poker in "Shindig" [1] (can anyone confirm this?), and she obviously fears the Hands of Blue, who presumably want her back and want to conceal any trace of her existence (i.e. killing off anyone who has had contact with her.) The Academy that River attended was also "government-sponsored". --Pentasyllabic 06:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Then it's original research, which is a Wikipedia no-no. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Chinese Firefly Future

Looks like Joss Whedon was headed in the right directions with his predictions for Firefly. Check out this [2] to see the buzz. JQF 17:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Way things are headed - I think we'll all have to speak Chinese one day, anyway. I think it it will be more like "street-talk" or whatever it was called in Blade Runner and Shadowrun, a language that is a mix of everything, English, Spanish, Chinese, Russian and whatever. Being a Firefly dork, I say "gorram" all time without even thinking about it. Cyberia23 20:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Would someone please expound which chinese dialect Firefly proliferates? Cantonese or Mandarin I suppose would be good guesses. --JVirusX 19:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I beleave that Mandarin is the language, but I can't remember were I heard it, so I might be wrong. JQF 17:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It's Mandarin with some Taiwanese slang. The translator for the series, Jenny Lee, is Taiwanese. I believe that Whedon expressed a preference for the "rougher" Cantonese. However, Cantonese isn't used in the series except in one scene. Pettifogger

It sounds like Mandarin. Cantonese is only spoken around Hong Kong and Maccu. The Chinese government made Mandarin their official language for the mainland. What's odd is the town of Canton on Higgin's Moon in the episode "Jaynestown". Canton is short for Cantonese. Could have been named after Canton, Ohio though, but who knows. Cyberia23 22:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Canton has meanings other than the province in China. Canton is also used to commonly refer to townships, municipalities, or other small settlements. It's entirely appropriate that the settlement on Higgin's Moon be called a canton without being a reference to China. Pettifogger

Outlaw Star redux

I see that we're still having problems with the essay on Firefly comparisons with Outlaw Star and other shows. I've just reverted Staxringold's attempt to have an article that was AfD'd as a cited reference for this article. The concept of no original research means that we Wikipedia editors are supposed to assemble published theories, ideas, and conclusions, not manufacture our own. As has been pointed out many times on this topic, it doesn't matter if something appears to be true, it's what we can cite. I reviewed the 8 citations that Staxringold provided in the AfD, and found:

1. 6 are message boards. From Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Bulletin boards and posts to Usenet: "Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources. This is because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them." [emphasis in the original] Message boards are modern equivalent of BBSes and Usenet postings, in that anyone can post to them without revealing their true identity.
2. 1 is an Answer.com copy of a version of the Wikipedia's Firefly article that included the controversial text. An article can hardly cite itself as a source.
3. 1 is a user commentary from Jump the Shark, probably the only one of the cited websites that even rates mention in Wikipedia itself. However, this section is also nothing more than anonymous user postings.

The correct way to establish a theory that one desires strongly to include in a Wikipedia article is to locate reliable published sources for the information, then cite them. If one cannot find something through Google, there are always newspapers, genre magazines, and (heaven forbid!) books, perhaps at the local public library, that might be examined for such information. If none of these sources provide the desired information, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia for now. And if someone can't provide a better fact-based opener than "some fans have compared", we should delete the entire note on Outlaw Star, per Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. As my own edits on the topic have shown, I have nothing against making this comparison, but I believe there are damn good reasons why these policies have been established. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

To solve the problem; go buy a domain name, make a bogus website compairing Fire Fly to Outlaw Star, then come here to Wikipedia and link back to it. Instant reference. I'm sure it's been down already with other subjects. This looks like the biggest argument since the "One star or many" debate. However, all the parallels to Outlaw Star may be damaging. It makes Joss Whedon look "unoriginal" now, and stole a bulk of his ideas from an anime series. I never saw "Outlaw Star" myself so I can't make a decision, which came out first? I have to say, I hate anime these days - however "Cowboy Bebop" is pretty cool. Anyway, maybe it's all just a big coincidence. Cyberia23 20:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

We're not here to protect Joss Whedon's reputation, so that shouldn't be a concern. On the other hand, the fact that this comparison is non-notable and/or original research, and has been discussed at length before is. Wikipedia should be part of the "reality-based community", not in the political sense but in the sense that the encyclopedia responds to and reflects what's out there in the world, rather than changing the world for its own purposes. That's the core of the "no original research" policy. Staxringold is, of course, free to make his Outlaw Star comparisons on his own page, or in his own webspace. But the community has decided that it doesn't belong here, and that should be the end of it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I'm sorry, but that is not acceptable. Please see: Wikipedia:Reliable sources Jacoplane 21:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Cyberia23's suggestion of citing one's own recently created website implies a failure to read the "Using online sources" of the "WP:Reliable sources" article cited above. This demonstrates not only the wisdom of actually reading policy before suggesting ways to get around it, but also why reliable sources are so important — they can be verified and their provenance investigated for agendas and conflicts of interest that harm the Wikipedia goals of verifiability and neutrality. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Give me a break... I been around Wikipedia long enough to know it wasn't acceptable. My suggestion was as stupid as the debate and I meant it as a sarcasm! I was joking people. (And I provided a links in case you don't know what a joke or sarcasm is you can look it up. Cyberia23 08:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Cyberia23; I missed the sarcastic joke. In my defense, I find myself almost daily disabusing suprised and angry Generation-Web editors on WP and Wikiquote of the earnest notion that they ought to be able to cite anything on the Internet as references, including their own blogs. Normally I might have quickly scanned your edit history for a hint of your true attitude, but I was in a hurry. I regret my haste. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

No big deal. Sorry I was misinterpreted. Given the format of Wikipedia and the serious sensitivity of most users, I'm not so much a smartass here than I can be on other discussion boards. I guess sarcastic looking emotes like "rolling eyes" or something, would haved helped. Cyberia23 10:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I missed the joke too. It is, of course, notoriously difficult to catch sarcasm or other emotional tones online, which is part of why emoticons evolved in the first place. (Yeah, they're stupid-looking and often overused, but they do serve a useful function.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

This can be presented in an NPOV fashion as long as you stick to presenting facts side-by-side and let the reader draw their own conclusions. I.e.: "In the pilot episode of Firefly the character River is awoken from suspended animation in a box by the captain of Serenity, Mal. In the third episode of Outlaw Star the character Melfina is awoken from suspended animation in a box by the captain of the Outlaw Star, Gene Starwind." You don't even need to cite this because they are veritable facts directly from the main topic of the article, the television series. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 19:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Could be, but check out the archived discussion page for more on this.Wynler 20:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It may be NPOV, but information on Outlaw Star (or any other non-Firefly program) in an article on Firefly is irrelevant to the article (and would be summarily deleted as such) unless it's making a point about Firefly. Since the point would obviously be a comparison between the shows, it's still an attempt to establish a connection without published references; i.e., original research. One can get often away with one or two such statements, but creating several paragraphs of such material fools no one. Again, the solution is to get reliable primary sources for this thesis. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the "some fans" stuff on Cowboy Bebop and other shows, per my above warning. Come on, folks, it shouldn't be that hard to do some basic research and turn up real sources for this comparison. At the very least, I'm pretty sure there's a published interview where Joss Whedon responds to suggestions of the similarities. That is what we call a source. Discussion boards from IMDb, FireflyFans.net, or WHEDONesque.com are not. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, after reading all this I have to say if anyone should "bitch" about Joss Whedon "stealing ideas" from other people, it should be me. I've had a "space western" storyline of my own in development since 1990 where I started it while I was in highschool, and when I saw Firefly, Outlaw Star, and Cowboy Bebop for the first time I was totally pissed off. Even The Matrix series ticked me off because I came up with some similar concepts. I was going to write a novel or comic book series about it (except I can't draw and was hoping a comic atrist friend could do it for me). Unfortunately, I never got around to getting any of it published or copyrighted so I can't accuse Joss or the anime writers of stealing my ideas because they don't even know me or possibly have access to any of my notes. It's just a bad coincidence. Anyway, if I were to publish it now, Firefly fans especially, would say I ripped Joss off since most of my ideas reflect his: The crew of a tramp freighter (more of a mining ship really, but close enough); it hyperjumped via leylines (like the Outlaw Star); most of the crew were all "war buddies" (except the fought against an alien invasion); they constantly acted against the evil Human Alliance (except I called it the "Human Frontier" and was more a Corporate State); they have a young girl aboard with "special powers" who the government wanted badly (except she was the Captain's daughter and was a half-human/half-alien, (she was also a bit "odd" but not a skizzo); they also had a prostitute aboard (and she lived in the freakin shuttlecraft!) that really ticked me off; they had an untrustful mercenary aboard like Jayne except he was more of a bounty-hunter and took on the "BeBop-like" missions; they have a "motivational character" aboard, much like Book, but he was a retired military commander... It goes on and on... Oh well, 10 years of what I thought was completely original science fiction work went completely down the crapper once I discovered Firefly. But I can say I'm a fan of Whedon's work, just bummed he beat me to a majority of it. SkeezerPumba 22:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

music in the style?

Would someone be able to add a Music section to the article? I picked up the soundtracks (Firefly and Serenity) over the holidays, and I'm jonesin' for.. I don't know what! I'm not even sure what the "old west" sound would be categorised as. Frontier Americana? The violin/fiddle and guitar mix you hear repeated in the show (and also the "landing sequence" track in Serenity). The music was a huge part of the show; a mention about Edmunson(sp?) and the styles used would be really great to read. --Nunix 10:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, a lot of the music, especially the theme song, has elements of bluegrass music in it, which is today considered a subgenre of Country/Western music. -R 169.139.190.6 22:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Firefly template?

I've played around with a template footer for all Firefly articles... I'd want support before I go ahead and edit all the pages. User:-b/sandbox/firefly Let me know. -b 05:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I would favor merging in the forked articles instead, as per Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)#Fiction in Wikipedia. -- Jeandré, 2006-01-07t16:17z

Just to clarify, Jeandré — are you suggesting merging all the articles listed in -b's template into Firefly (television series)? If that's what you're saying, I'd have to say that you're misreading the "Fiction in Wikipedia" guideline. We have pages for the major characters of the series, in accordance with the guideline's Hermione Granger example, and a list of minor characters in Firefly for the others, in accordance with the Lionel Hutz example. The Firefly page is a reasonable 24.6 kB now, but if all the other articles were merged into it it would quickly become seriously bloated. I think that a mass merge in this case would be a truly bad idea, and not in accordance with the guideline you mention. Sorry.

As for -b's template, I think it would be a fine addition to the various Firefly pages. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

"Fictional characters which are cultural icons [...] deserve articles of their own". Hermione, Han, and Yoda are cultural icons; the 9 main Firefly/Serenity characters are not. -- Jeandré, 2006-01-07t20:37z

"Major characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If the article on the work itself becomes long, then giving major characters an article of their own is good practice."

I believe that covers it best. -b 05:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

That was my reading as well. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

"The deletionists take the attitude of Wikipedia is not a junkyard, an area for the cruft of all aspects of humanity that ever existed, turning into an untenable Katamari Damacy-like ball of shit that rolls through the Internet. We should clean up stuff that is not important, not interesting, and we should just get that shit out of there. Who cares what the names of every character in Serenity is? Who cares? So the idea is, delete that." - Jason Scott at Notacon 3. I'm more of a mergist than a deletionist on these character pages. It is my very favorite TV show, but I just don't think that Derrial Book, or even Malcolm Reynolds, is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. A Firefly/Serenity wiki sure. -- Jeandré, 2006-04-29t21:53z

I'll come down squarely on both sides of this fence. (Ouch!) On the one hand, I understand and don't necessarily disagree with the idea of character articles being primarily about iconic characters. On the other hand, if we have enough reliable sources to make a substantive (i.e., non-stub) article for a character, that alone suggests some notability in popular culture, and I like having even obscure but adequately referenced information in Wikipedia. Of course, anything that can't be verified without resorting to fan websites and discussion forums, I say "Off with its head!" ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Firefly in the template should point to the show, not to the insect. Also, the spinoffs should include the RPG.Shsilver 20:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Corrected. -b 05:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

For lack of serious opposition, I'm going to go ahead and impliment this. -b 20:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Placement

Is it appropriate to put this template on all Firefly articles, such as those dedicated to episodes? -b 20:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd say so.Shsilver 20:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Science fiction Western on AfD

The article Science fiction Western, which was created in part as a response to repeated additions of other works in this sub-genre to the Firefly page, has been listed on Articles for deletion. Editors of this page may be interested in the discussion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Featured

What do you think this article needs to achieve featured status? --UVnet 08:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know. But it would be cool. And on that note, I've been doing a lot of cleaning up (I hope it's all for the best) of the Firefly category, merging articles, etc. Feature article is nice, by why don't we make the whole Firefly genre a shining epic of Wikipedia's awesomeness? (I know that is horrible grammer and stuff. It adds to my effect.) -b 03:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Spin-Offs

Should the movie, comic series, book series and RPG be listed under a spin-off heading? Technically, the comic is more about Serenity than the series proper, so it seems like it could confuse people who just glance at the heading thinking there were Firefly comics. 209.51.77.64 01:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. -b 03:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I went ahead and did it and I think it looks pretty nice. The spin-off description I wrote might need some re-writing, but otherwise I think it is a fine addition to the page. 209.51.77.64 04:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Can the Into The Black project be considered a spin-off, since its based on the 'Verse, but not related to the characters of Firefly? EDIT: I just discovered that this is against Wikipedia policy until the production is actually released, so I will remove it from the article until then. Ubergenius

Missing 15th Episode?

I just started watching Firefly as part of COMCAST Digital Cable's "Sci Fi Month" offerings. There are 15 episodes available for viewing.

I've been over the episodes listed here on Wikipedia, and the episode that's missing seems to be the one where the bounty hunter infiltrates Serenity in an attempt to kidnap River and cash in on her reward.

I also notice that the DVD box set only has 14 episodes. Is this episode missing from the DVDs as well? -- 63.118.9.161 20:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I imagine the fifteen episodes include the original pilot split into two episodes since it was double length.Shsilver 21:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

There are only 14 Firefly episodes, period. The bounty hunter episode is number 14, "Objects in Space". There are 15 hours of Firefly in 14 episodes, with the first one, "Serenity", taking 2 hours, as Shsilver said. The only other explanation might be that Comcast is showing the film Serenity as a kind of "15th episode" of the series. (But Fox Television better not catch them saying it's a Firefly episode!) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it is refuring to "Serenity", as most stations refur to as two episodes (usually part a and part b, or something simular). JQF 23:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

When Sci-Fi channel aired the series to promote the movie, they split the pilot into two episodes running part I one week and part 2 the next. This is probably where the confusion lies. Cyberia23 22:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Season 2?

I think the work of http://www.fireflyseason2.com/ should be mentioned somewhere on this page. -- 143.195.159.28 15:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Why, exactly? 209.51.77.64 00:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure this should be mentioned, it's basically a fan production that wishes to charge and has gone nowhere as yet and may well not. Wikipedia's policy on fan films is generally that they do not appear on the site until the films themselves actually appear as so many disappear without a trace. Ben W Bell 07:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I had heard a rumor that there is a possibility of an actual second series being produced (possibly for release on another network, scifi perhaps?). I don't have anything to back this up other than word of mouth.

This is not a fan production. This is something like a petition only a bit more alive. I think it could be added to external links. --UVnet 04:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It's already linked to in the "Notes" section. The Wookieepedian 04:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Episode table.

The Wookieepedian recently started putting the episode list into a table, if there'e support for this we can get info from the original table. -- Jeandré, 2006-01-28t11:39z

Well, I'm already on record as thinking there's no point to having a "honkin' big matrix" of details in the main article when most of that information is more appropriate for individual episode articles. I have no problem with a pretty table instead of a plain list, as long as it only contains a very few useful tidbits, avoiding clutter. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I added the table since it seems to better organize the episodes. And since there are so few episodes, I don't think it hurts anything. The Wookieepedian 20:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The table looks awful the way it is. There simply is not enough information to fit the width. It looked much better when it was just a list of the episodes. 209.51.77.64 02:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The sun, goes dark, and chaos is come again. Bits, fluids. Where are they? -- Jeandré, 2006-04-28t20:31z

Theme song lyrics

In order to stop the ongoing (albeit slow-motion) revert war over the theme song, we need a reliable source for the lyrics, particularly the line:

{There's | Have} no place I can be

Since I found Serenity.

I haven't reviewed the DVDs lately (shame on me), but given the ability for people to hear what they want to in some dialog, I highly recommened finding a reliable print source if possible. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

According to the DVD subtitles, it is "There's." -Shsilver 22:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right about "there's", but just watch any 5 minutes of any Firefly episode to prove to yourself just how unreliable the subtitling is. (Most of the errors are simple omissions, sometimes of entire sentences. But some of the errors are egregiously foolish, suggesting transcribers who had neither access to the scripts nor any real understanding of the show, or perhaps just were too hurried to be accurate.) It'd be better to have a more accurate source. When I mentioned the DVDs, I was thinking of a possible text listing, but now that I think of it, I don't recall any static info on them, even in the bonus materials of disc 4. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I have found what I believe to be a reliable print source for The Ballad of Serenity Lyrics. Serenity - The Official Visual Companion published by Titan Books lists them on page 5, and clearly shows the line in the final verse to be Have no place.... Since the content of this book was written and provided by Joss Whedon, with the possible exception of the photograph sidebars, I am happy to accept this and have updated the article accordingly. I too thought the line was There's no place..., but having recently purchased the soundtrack and listened to the song frequently, I am sure the lyrics given in the book are correct. BoydyB 22:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Name

This guideline suggests using "(TV series)" instead of "(television series)", and the majority of TV shows are already named this way. Are there any objections to renaming this article? Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 21:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

User Reflex_Reaction changed the title just a bit ago (as well as a lot of others [3]), but since this is still a guideline and not a policy I thought it would polite to gain a consensus from the regular authors first. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 23:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think there should be a Wikipedia rule that no one can move an article without committing to fixing the redirects. (It's recommended, but most people seem to ignore this advice.) There are currently 412 Wikipedia pages, including 225 articles and 102 user pages, that should point to Firefly (TV series) but don't, including 16 that won't properly redirect because they're double redirects. (In other words, they're left over from the last time someone moved the article and didn't follow up with fixes.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

All the redirects now point to Firefly (TV series). 'Cause I'm such an upright fella. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your fixing the double redirects so they at least redirect correctly. We should still fix the basic redirects, at least for the 228 (3 more now?) articles. I guess I'll be working on these for a while. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I just updated all the character pages. I'll hit any remaining Firefly pages when I can. EVula 21:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the work. I started on Flan (disambiguation) and got sidetracked into adding sources, a Wiktionary entry, and a Wikiquote transcription of the original Fillion quote for this term that I was previously unaware of. Not much of a Browncoat, eh? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

No worries, Jeff. As of now, I've updated the Firefly links on all Episode, Terminology, Spin-off, and Main Character pages. I'd do more right now, but I'm at work. :) EVula 22:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Did a few more. Figured out that the "incorrect" what links here would be a pretty good list of what is left. EVula 23:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, there. Before you get carried away, you might want to take a look at WP:R#Don't fix redirects that aren't broken. (I was only recently corrected on this score myself.) Seems like the rule for redirects is, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. 'Though I suppose there's no harm if you've already gone to the trouble and all. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

What? Dammit, and I was so excited at the prospect of altering a single link on several hundred pages!

Thanks for the heads up on that, Josiah. I guess I'll refrain from hitting every single page... at least the main ones that are in the table are "right." EVula 04:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've wasted a fair amount of time on that sort of thing myself in the past. I suppose there's still the aesthetic argument that it makes for a prettier user experience if people don't get that little "redirected from" notice at the top of the page, but it's pretty insignificant, really. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'd swear that the "move complete" page says something that urges the editor to fix redirects, but I don't know the MediaWiki page and am not silly enough to move an article just to find out. I surely hadn't seen Wikipedia:Redirect. I must admit that'll save a heck of lot of time. But editors should still be sure to fix double redirects, as you did for us, Josiah. Thanks for the tip! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the confusion actually stems from the "move complete" page — I can't remember its exact wording, but I think it says something like "please check 'what links here' and fix any redirects that may have been broken by the page move". I think that what it means by that is to fix any double redirects, so that anybody clicking on a link that's supposed to go to the page will actually reach it; but I think it's often read to mean "change all the links that redirect to the page so that they go to the page directly". That's what WP:R is saying isn't necessary. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Men in blue are cyborgs/robots? Oh really?

Some anon editor added something to the article about the men in blue being robots/cyborgs, citing the comics. I've read the comics and I didn't see that in there at all? Does anyone else have a source for this outrageous claim? --Cyde Weys 04:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Er... no. Just... no. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

In the comics, Kaylee tears the shirt of one of the "hands of blue" men and reveals blue underneath. It could be a sign that they are robotic, that they are wearing blue body armor or hazmat outfits, or simply that skin-tight blue undies are fashionable in the 'verse. Certainly not sufficient evidence to show that the men are robots! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.147.103.35 (talk • contribs)

Soundtrack

Um, can you move the soundtrack details to a separate article like all the other albums and just link to it, it's very out of place in the middle of this article and really spoils it. Ben W Bell 19:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it at least needs mentioning on here. The Wookieepedian 19:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Should we move the information on the theme song to the soundtrack page? It strikes me it makes more sense there, and it does appear on the soundtrack album. Shsilver 20:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, it looks much tidier now. Ben W Bell 08:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion - watch film or tv first?

Just asking for a quick opinion; I've just bought 'Serenity' on DVD, but passed up on buting the DVD of 'Firefly' at the same time because it's on a two week lead time. Will I be ruining this if I watch the movie before the TV show?

Watching Firefly first will increase your enjoyment of Serenity. Shsilver 13:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. DEFINATELY watch the TV series first, then the film. Although you can really watch them either way, and still enjoy it all, it's most rewarding when you watch the series, then the film. The Wookieepedian 15:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks guys. Just found the series on a (hopefully) 3-day lead time, so I shouldn't have too long to wait :D

Definitely series then film. The film without the series is just an okay sci-fi movie. The movie after the series is a spectacular character driven piece of cinema. Ben W Bell 15:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I had never seen Firefly when the movie came out. Serenity does an amazing job of setting up the fictional universe; you know who is who in a relatively short amount of time, and in such a way that isn't redundant for established fans. That said, if you only have to wait three days, watch the series first. :) EVula 15:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

DVD release

I would like to see the DVD technical details removed from the page, for the following reasons. The specifications listed are for the US release and the details differ for different country releases. For example the UK version has better picture quality but no Spanish subtitles or language tracks plus a different frame rate. The Australian version differs as does the French, German and Italian releases. Unless you are going to include the details for them all then it should be removed. Ben W Bell 09:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Although I understand that Wikipedia shouldn't be US-centric, there is an argument for giving the US DVD info priority: Firefly was a US-created show. Similarly, I would think that the UK DVD specs for Doctor Who would be given priority. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll buy the preeminence of the DVD version from the country of origin, but I see no reason to include all the little details like audio tracks in an article about the TV show. I'd argue that the best reason even to include just the titles of the DVD extra programs is because they may be cited as sources for verifying statements in Firefly articles. Even if we refer to content in the audio tracks or subtitles (e.g., the notorious "Millenium Vulcan" subtitle error), we don't really need to laboriously list every one of these details, as the statement itself implies the existence, and the DVD itself provides the verifiability. I think the real reason this information is listed is because it's easy to add. But since it opens the gate for having to add similar details to other editions, I say chuck it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

OKay, this line in the DVD specs is pointless. "All 14 episodes, including three that never aired in FOX's orginal broadcast" The episodes were broadcast, maybe not in the original run but they were. The line could read "includes the fifth episode and episodes 8-12". The line is telling you nothing, all 14 episodes is enough the rest is just confusing the issue. If there were episodes missing then it is of import but to say it has them all and then say including such and such is just pointless. Ben W Bell 19:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I modified the part about other releases on Amazon's top 25 being "no more than 2 months old" because several are older, including Arrested Development, which is nearly as old as Firefly

Just wanted to nitpick here, so...per the above comment about Firefly and 'All 14 episodes': there were three episodes of Firefly that were not aired by Fox during Firefly's broadcast run, but are included on the DVD release (since they are, after all, part of the Firefly series). I don't agree that mentioning them would be 'pointless', as those three episodes, though never aired, constitute 'Firefly' as a whole.

Easter Egg

Is there a specific reason why the DVD easter egg shouldn't be in the article? Specifically, the instructions on how to get to it. I understand the relatively good-natured spirit of allowing people to discover it on their own, but at the same time, the Wikipedia is supposed to be a compilation of information on everything (within reason, of course). Giving the instructions on how to access an easter egg doesn't ruin anything. EVula 04:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Only thing I can think of is that it's a little too detailed. It's an article about the TV show in general, not that specific DVD release. Barnas 11:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we should have this kind of detail, but if we mention the Easter egg, we should say how to get to it, but surround it with spoiler tags, for the same reason we have spoiler tags around storylines. Some people want to know, and some people want to be surprised/challenged. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Setting

The setting section contains this sentence: An interesting intrusion of Japanese is noted in the form of katakana script throughout the television series and the film. Can anyone confirm that the script that appears is actually katakana rather than Chinese characters? Ashmoo 03:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I havn't looked at anything like every symbol shown during the series/movie, however taking an obvious example (The Blue Sun logo), it's Chinese. It says "Blue Sun" in English, then "Blue Sun" in Chinese/Mandarin characters underneath. (Lánsè rì).

If this is any indication, it's chinese characters used in the series. I stand open to corrections if I'm wrong. Barnas 18:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Also be careful to avoid presuming that all katakana is Japanese. In today's world many Cantonese writers especially in Hong Kong, use katakana within Chinese and not for Japanese. Ben W Bell 07:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Serenity Movie Numbers

I took out "The film itself was considered a financial failure, with a domestic gross of $25.5 million (and a total take of $38.8 million) against a $39 million budget."

I think this is possibly relevant to discussion of sequels, but it's phrased in quite a POV way- failure by whose standards? If the grounds for success of a film is to break even, you have to include DVD sales. Otherwise, you have to state that it didn't recoup its expenses solely on sales of tickets. Barnas 17:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that would belong in the Serenity entry, anyway.Shsilver 20:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Movie financials & bottom-line numbers against a film do not include DVD numbers. The film did not gross back its budget. Ergo, by Hollywood financial standards, it was a failure.

1) That may have been the case once, but it's certainly not the case today, when films often make more money from DVD sales than from theatrical release.

2) As mentioned above, the success or failure of Serenity belongs on the Serenity page, not here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

1) Wrong. A film's Total Gross does not reflect DVD sales. While DVD sales are closely watched, they are not combined on the accounting ledger with box-office receipts.

2) Agreed.

Extended gag reel

I was given a link to an extended gag reel for Firefly. I absolutely love it; it contains some of the stuff that is on the DVD, but most of it I'd never seen before. I added it to the External links section (under Miscellaneous). Enjoy! EVula 15:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It's cool, but not very helpful as an external link, IMO. The Wookieepedian 16:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

*shrug* I can certainly understand an argument for removing it; I was a bit torn about whether I should or not, but I figured it'd be better to be bold and add it than do nothing at all. :) EVula 18:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

What is a gag reel? Njál 18:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Alternative name for a blooper reel. EVula 21:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Fox broadcast the last 3 episodes?

The page says "with 11–13 unaired in the USA during the series original run (Fox aired the episodes the summer after the series was cancelled). ".

When did Fox air these episodes? I don't have any information on this, nor do I recall it. Nor do any of the sources I can find for episode airing dates (epguides.com; sftv.org; geos.tv) mention Fox broadcasting these. Nfitz 01:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

That is incorrect, Fox never aired those episodes and they were, in fact, promoted as unaired on the DVD release. The episodes aired for the first time on US TV when Sci-Fi reran the complete series in the summer of 2005. (sorry no username yet, haven't gotten around to signing up yet) 140.147.156.184

My thoughts exactly. I've edited the page then. Nfitz 19:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

11 episode cancel or 14 episode cancel

The line "The series was broadcast on the FOX network and was cancelled after only eleven episodes." in the second paragraph has come under some discussion, so here is a discussion. Should this say eleven episodes or fourteen episodes. Now the series was cancelled after 14 episodes were made, but only 11 episodes were ever broadcast in the US in the initial run. All 14 episodes were broadcast elsewhere in the world on the original run. The issue I have is that the show wasn't cancelled after 11 episodes were broadcast, the show was cancelled before 11 episodes were broadcast but after 14 episodes were made. Also the following line that states "However, strong sales of the DVD collection of all fourteen episodes" which seemingly contradicts the initial line of the paragraph. The line that states it was cancelled after only 11 episodes is incorrect on so many levels, it was cancelled before the initial US run of 11 episodes was complete and after 14 episodes were made. Ben W Bell talk 14:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem if it was changed to "The series was broadcast on the FOX network and was cancelled after only eleven episodes were aired but fourteen made." or some version of that, although it is a bit unwieldy. Since the first half of the sentence is specifically talking about broadcasting and FOX, I don't think the airing in other countries is applicable to this sentence and since it is talking about broadcasting, to say fourteen implies all fourteen were broadcast. If we change the sentence to "The series was broadcast on the FOX network and was cancelled after only eleven episodes were aired." does that address your concern about the later seeming contradiction? Shsilver 14:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's what I just edited: "The series was broadcast on the FOX network and was cancelled after airing only eleven episodes. Strong sales of the DVD collection of all fourteen produced episodes allowed Whedon to convince..." I think that draws a better distinction. That work for everyone? EVula 14:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. Shsilver 14:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Much better. One thing, I think (personally) it implies that the decision to cancel was taken after eleven episodes were aired whereas it was before. Other than that it's fine (and I could live with it :) ). Ben W Bell talk 14:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

A valid argument, but I think that sort of information is better served elsewhere in the article. This is just the part for "Oh yeah, and FOX was being a dipshit and cancelled it well before its time" (POV? moi? Never!) without being bogged down by too many details. EVula 14:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Firefly (TV series)/Archive 2 has failed, for the following reason(s):

(For a full list of issues and suggestions, please refer to the "to do" list at the top of this page.) Davodd 05:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to put this on my watch list and volunteer to help with some of the cleanup as I have time. I should be able to polish the writing, at least, and go from there. Tony Fox (speak) 05:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I made some edits based on the list today. Hope they helped. Barnas 13:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Made some more too, but does anyone know what items still need to be sourced, so we can get that "failing" removed? I can track down sources - plange 22:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you think it's ready to renominate? -plange 15:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you all have done an outstanding job. - Davodd 20:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

K, guys we just have a few more things to do-- does anyone know when the ad ran, and where? (see to-do list on Images) -plange 23:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm honestly astonished that this article failed GA. It's very near FA status, IMO, and way beyond the quality of many FA articles. While I do believe that escalating standards for GA and FA are generally a good thing, I'm not sure this article has been treated entirely fairly. Great work to the regular editors of the article for getting it up to its current level of quality. Keep at it, and since I don't regularly watch it, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page when it's up for nominations in the future so I can show my support. - dharmabum 09:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

cast picture

i think we should put the character names instead of the actors names: a la here, here, or here... -Xornok 03:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It says in the improvements needed above that the picture should be captioned with the actors' names. Barnas 10:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

They can both be included, though with nine it would make for a long caption. BarkingDoc 00:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Weekly Standard Link

is bad-- goes to an ASP error page.... Who put that in and can they find the right link?

When is Firefly set?

In the Official Visual Guide to Serenity there's a section called A Brief History of the Universe, circa 2507 AD. What is the source for the 2517 AD date? Is it from director's commentary? Deleted scenes? RPG?

The original episodes (with Book and Mal's opening narration) originally gave that year. The Wookieepedian 03:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Can this be found anywhere on the DVDs?

Nope. The televised versions weren't Joss' original vision, so the intros were removed on the DVDs. The Wookieepedian 23:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Then I question whether 2517 is a valid date. Perhaps we should change it to 2507 since A Brief History of the Universe, circa 2507 AD was written by Joss Whedon. Does the 2517 date exist in any other source? Is it in the regular televised versions or was it only in the original airing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.214.143.84 (talk • contribs)

It's on every TV airing of the episodes, the very beginning (Before the teaser opening and theme song) features a voice-over by either Mal or Book giving the history of the Firiefly Universe with the date on the bottom of the screen. It's not included on the DVD's because the DVD's are sold as a box set and the viewer really doesn't need an introduction before watching each episode. All supporting material also gives that date, I assume 2507 is merely the publishing date of A Brief History of the Universe, which was written years prior to the series events (I myself own several history books from the early '90's) JBK405 20:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

New WikiProject!

Calling all Browncoats! I just started a WikiProject for us so that it's easier to collaborate, etc... come join us!
-plange 04:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Very cool. Count me in! The Wookieepedian 04:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Expansion Idea

From WP:Television they suggest these sections too, so I thought I'd take a stab here and we can edit here first before putting it full-blown on the article:

Impact of show on society

Per WP:Television: If the show created a craze, popularized a word (Seinfeld with "yada, yada, yada", etc.), revolutionized the medium (Sesame Street in children's television, or the mini-series Roots), or something else (many stores and businesses closed early on Mondays for allowing employees to get home on time to watch I Love Lucy). When this resulted in merchandise, movies, books or computer games be sure to name those.

Now we need to avoid talking to just the fans, so keep that in mind... How about this:

While Firefly had no impact in general pop culture, it did garner a cult following and was one of few "failed" TV shows to actually produce a major motion picture.

Critical reviews

Per WP:Television: Preferably from major syndicates (Associated Press, REUTERS, Canadian Press) and major newspapers (USA Today, The Toronto Star, The Times [London]) and major periodicals (TV Guide, TIME), these quotes can either critique the show, or comment on its impact. They should not just be descriptions of the shows, and preferably should not exceed three or so sentences.

Anyone want to take a stab at this?

I've got a few links that might be useful for this, though unfortunately it seems any reviews from the original release are pretty thin. Something from the New York Times. From MSN.com. And from Hollywood Reporter. Much of the discussions here are about the DVD release, but they do get into the fan response to the show and the revival on DVD. Tony Fox (speak) 04:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)