This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I didn't see an example of this in the FAQs... anyone know what the appropriate method is for inserting quotation marks in text that is a link? i.e., if I want Captain Malcolm "Mal" Reynolds as a link to the page about the character, what's the right way to go about it? I used parentheses for Kaylee, but as parens are used for disambiguation rules, this might cause some confusion too. -- Wapcaplet
Another thing to consider is how you plan on linking to the articles for the character. For example; wouldn't Kaywinnit Lee Frye be better as Kaylee Frye since this is the full name she is commonly known as on the series? This is similar to the reasoning why why have the article on the US president Clinton at Bill Clinton and not William Jefferson Clinton (this is a redirect). Longer, more complicated names can be redirected to the the more common names (yet still complete with first and last names). --mav
Work in somewhere:
-- B.Bryant 13:48 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Wapcaplet, I think the spoiler warning should go right at the top, incase someone doesn't read the entire article and so misses the warning. I also think we need to somehow incorporate the link to the episodes into the airing section. - Jeandré, 2003-06-22t21:37z
I removed the "?" from Canada, since according to the GEOS site, "The Train Job" aired both in US and Canada the same day. This site in generally very reliable. Lazarus Long 11:08 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Should we remove the movie paragraph until there is? - Jeandré, 2003-06-28t20:46z
I just edited the episode list with what is supposed to be the definitive order. This should be the order the episodes will be on the DVD set. The production code gives some info for the first part of the season ("79" is typical for pilots), while the last part, with unaired info, was already right and has also been confirmed by Tim Minear on the Buffistas forum, where he wrote:
DVDs is:
I also changed the text before the table accordingly. If somebody can gather data about time-slots, we can add them too.
Lazarus Long 12:37 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Can anyone access MundoFox to find out when it will be showing in Mexico and South America? Starting 2003-04-19? - Jeandré, 2003-07-01t23:30z
Anyone know if http://us.imdb.com/ReleaseDates?0303461 is correct with its Brazilian air date of 2003-01-01, and if so what kinda episode order chaos the Brazillians were treated to? - Jeandré, 2003-07-26t23:45+02:00
According to TVTome, "FOX Latin America" (is this MundoFox?) showed Trash on 2003- 06-28 [1], and Heart of gold on 2003- 07-19 [2]. Were these dubbed in Spanish, or shown in English? - Jeandré, 2004-05-15t20:15z
Well, unfortunately I don't recall exactly when the show debuted on FOX in Brazil, but I can guarantee that it was not on January 1st 2003. It was sometime between June and August of 2003. The episodes were shown in the exact same order used in the United States and had subtitles in Portuguese (they kept the original audio in English). The unaired episodes (in the US) were shown after "Objects in Space". Right now, probably as a means of covering holes in their schedule, FOX is rerunning all the episodes, again in that messed up order. The original airing time was Tuesdays at 20:00 (right before Buffy the Vampire Slayer). Present reruns are Mondays through Fridays at 17:00. FOX has separated departments for Brazil and the rest of Latin America, because of the Spanish/Portuguese issue, so some of the info concerning Latin America does not apply to Brazil and vice-versa. I imagine that most of what I've written about the show in Brazil did not happen exactly the same in other South-American countries. Hope this was of any use. Redux 01:56, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Anyone know where the copies available on the 'net of Trash, Message, and HoG were captured from? Were these shown somewhere other than the listed premieres? - Jeandré, 2003-07-13t12:11z
Why do the crew speak Chinese every now and then? Sometimes just words, but sometimes complete sentences. Was the reason ever revealed? Because I didn't see any person important that look East Asian in the show. -- Menchi 10:59 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Yes, the premise is that sometime in the show's past the US and China asimilate each other and a unifed government of the world's only hyperpower backed by corporations like Blue Sun colonise other planets. The idea of cultural fusion and the fact that everyone speaks fluent Chinese is also a convienent way to thumb their nose at US censors! A lot of the names are also oriental sounding (ie Simon Tan) Mark Richards 19:35, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
A more accurate guide is the Firefly-Serenity Chinese Pinyinary, on which Firefly Chinese translator Jenny Lynn has provided some informal assistance. It includes Chinese characters, hanyu pinyin spellings, literal translations, derivations, and some usage notes as well. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Did Fox broadcast all the episodes in the USA and Canada on Fridays at 20:00? - Jeandré, 2003-07-21t01:29z
It's not a television brand, and there's talk of a Firefly comic books series (like Joss' Fray); so, shall we move the article to "Firefly (television series)"? See also Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(television). - Jeandré, 2004-04-10t01:32z
Just curious: why was the link to the hypothetical Firefly timeline removed? Granted, it could be justifiably removed on other grounds (since it appears to just be one fan's random speculation), but the "no original research" restriction only applies to Wikipedia articles. There's no rule saying we can't link to original research. -- Wapcaplet 01:36, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Shame. I thought it was kind of useful, it wasn't pure speculation, and there are interview sources and hints in the series that would at least give the order of events. Mark Richards 19:27, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Also just curious: Why remove the detail of these characters' full names? Is it not considered canon/factual because it hasn't yet appeared in the movie? Rossumcapek 04:18, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Well, the TV series and the film are based on the same characters, so it would seem odd to exclude information about them simply because it does not appear in one of the other. Of course, we should think about how to deal with core information about the characters / ship etc, and not duplicate it in both articles. Mark Richards 18:18, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Ummmm... referring me here would make more sense of there was any actual resolution of the issue. It made sense to omit Wash's full name when there was only the "Alan Tudyk" post, but a FireFlyFans.net (I think) poster known to be Nathan Fillion has confirmed the name. SarekOfVulcan 20:16, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'm almost positive that Firefly takes place in a single system. Is there any evidence in the series, or in Joss's interviews, that contradicts this? Remember, the narrations state that we used up Earth and moved to a new system. -- SarekOfVulcan 18:09, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Yes, but we don't know that that the Alliance solar system is comparable to ours. It may very well have a larger biosphere and a greater number of planets within and bordering that range. We really have no basis for comparison, and if the writers tell us that a system has dozens of habitable and terraformable worlds, it's hard to criticize that without further evidence. Khanartist 20:16, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Wash: Psychic? Sounds like something out of science fiction. Zoë: We live on a spaceship, dear. Wash: So?
I don't think there is any definate statement that they are slower than light. My impression is that, while attention has been paid to some aspects of the physics (like sound in space), others have suffered neglect (like the spaceship power sources and engines). My personal feeling is that the writers are asking for suspension of disbelief in this area, there being an assumption that the engines 'just work'. Mal talks about 'hundreds of new earths' which to me implies many solar systems, but I also don't think it's important. The engine on Serenity seems to have been designed for how it looks, rather than any kind of function. Mark Richards 23:41, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
wait! i think i may have found some good evidence for faster-than-light (FTL) travel in a "galactic" setting (which is my preference). in the episode "Safe", when Book gets shot, if you forward 22 minutes into the show, wash and mal are looking over star maps. and i say "star maps" because if you see wash's maps, they look a lot like a galaxy and there are a hell of a lot of dots for a solar system, even a large one. could this be proof? -- xjaymanx 05:47, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
There's an interview with Joss in which he says that Serenity is not faster-than-light, and that the planets in Firefly are rather close together, indicating a single system. But he's actually rather ambivalent towards this whole line of questioning, leading me to believe that resolving the issue on-screen is not high on his list of priorities. Khanartist 21:41, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
What connects the Blue hands to Blue sun? — Jeandré, 2004-10-22t17:45z
Listen to the commentary on the discs about the show. Whedon links the men with "Hands of blue" as working for the Blue Sun Corporation, if indirectly (due to Joss trying to be clever and vague). "Blue Sun was Coca-cola, it was Microsoft, all in one. Half the government [i.e. Alliance] was Blue Sun," commentary over the scene where Mal and Zoe are walking back to the ship after dealing with Badger (episode 1), and then "We started throwing in Blue Sun signs because we knew they were going to become a major fator later on in the series." "I wanted it to be a more impressive interplanetary conglomerate that is a part of the mystery that we're all heading too."
Now, let's look at this, compared to the show:
1) These things that are said are purposefully vague.
2) Blue Sun is half the Government, which means half (at the very least)the Alliance is Blue Sun controlled. Therefore, due to Joss' own admission, at least half the Alliance = Blue Sun.
3) It is the "mystery" that "we're all heading to." In the show, the least explained, and vaguest major plot point was what happened to River, and why she was being chased by the "men with blue hands." The Blue sun group was going to be a "major factor later in the series.'
4) River went to a Government sponsered [i.e. the Alliance, i.e. Blue Sun] school where she was horribly experimented on.
5) The Men with Blue hands are able to supercede anyone's command in the alliance( if the alliance is going to be delineated from the Blue Sun corporation), and kill alliance members with abandon (i.e. "The Train Job," and, "Ariel"). Unless they were part of some group in ultimate control (i.e., the Alliance, which we have already seen is Blue Sun), they wouldn't have that kind of power. Also, there is some speccific reason why they have BLUE hands, and there is a BLUE Sun corporation (which we know is the Alliance).
6) Since we see the men with Blue Hands work for the Alliance (i.e. Blue Sun), and we find that River was hurt in an Alliance (i.e. Blue Sun) school, and now she's being chased by "men with blue hands" who want her back, and have designated her and her brother as fugitives (and are subsequently also being searched for by the Alliance, further proving the men with blue hands/Alliance connection, and since we know that the Alliance is the Blue Sun corp., connecting them to the blue hands men as well,), there are grounds for making the claim that the "Men with blue hands," are part of the Alliance/Blue Sun Corporation.
Gnrlotto 22:28, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
As you can see, though, there is some disagreement; I have no problem with the arguments you've made here, but when it carries over into the article as a factual part of the story, it verges on original research, which is discouraged. Joss' commentary could be taken in a number of ways, and to equate Blue Sun with the Alliance in the article seems less than truthful, since the characters don't even mention Blue Sun (though I think Jayne was wearing a Blue Sun T-shirt in one episode), while they talk about the Alliance quite often. I think the current phrasing in the article ("of which the 'Blue Sun Corporation' is either a part or a whole") is adequate, without going too far. -- Wapcaplet 20:27, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
If a story element was merely planned but didn't happen in the show itself, it's not canon and not factual. Similarly, anything not found in the primary source is original research. The original hypothetical was the better sentence. Khanartist 20:21, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I just listened to the Serenity commentary by Joss/Nathan. Gnrlotto left out a pretty significant bit of what Joss said: "Sometimes you don't know - I hadn't 100% figured out what I wanted to do with Blue Sun, how I wanted you guys [meaning the cast] to approach it..." and goes on to say that it was "...connected somehow with the mystery we're all heading to." When he says that it was like Microsoft or Coca-Cola, and that "half the government was Blue Sun", it sounds to me as if he is simply alluding to Blue Sun's influence as an interplanetary conglomerate; that it is powerful and omni-present. He may just be hiding facts about Blue Sun that he already knows, but it sounds more as though he didn't have a very precise idea of what Blue Sun would come to represent. I'll be rewriting parts of the article to bring this topic into it (since the current mention of Blue Sun is weirdly out of place amidst a discussion of the series' setting). -- Wapcaplet 18:45, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Some stuff I took out:
I added the "Speculations" section at the bottom. I tried to use neutral, facts-only phrasing here. -- Wapcaplet 19:52, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
"It should be noted that the show was, by necessity, not filmed on multiple planets."
What does this even mean? Of course the show wasn't filmed on multiple planets...I don't see many productions being made on Mars.
On the other hand, if the person means that every planet in the show looks the same because they're all supposed to be the same planet, then this is also wrong.
I'm removing this until someone clarifies what they mean. Gnrlotto 02:31, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What it means that every planet looks the same not because they were supposed to be the same, but because they are, in reality outisde the show, the same. Griping and speculating about every planet looking the same is fairly pointless because, as you noted, it's not as if the production crew is going to film on another planet for verisimilitude. Khanartist 03:33, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
In my revert I also reinstated your removal of the product label mentions, as it wasn't justified. If you have a good reason for why it shouldn't be there, I'm open to it. Khanartist 03:37, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If you mean light-sourcing, then you are also incorrect. They can change the filters on cameras, and use different lighting to give planets different appearances. Remember the planet in Pitch Black? One of it's three suns was blue (ironic, huh?), so when it was in the sky, they used a blue filter. Firefly never changes it's filters for that, and they don't do it by necessity, either. The removal is justified. Gnrlotto 15:40, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The color issue is noted, but the main point of my argument is that size/distance of the suns always appears to be the same. Changing filters has no effect on that. Altering the images with computer graphics coudl, but that was not done, either due to budget issues or apathy. The point is that either way this is an inconsequential issue which does not merit a geeky nitpciking in the article. Khanartist 17:36, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
There was a comment about not being able to see other planets/moons in the sky: this is incorrect. Look behind Mal in "The Train Job" when he calls Wash for his grand entrance.-- SarekOfVulcan 19:00, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, considering that humans, as far as we know, can only thrive on a planet that receives heat and light comparable to that of our own sun, it makes sense that most of the colonized planets we see in Firefly have similar lighting. The more geeky, technical shows like Star Trek tended to have more variation in that, but I think the main reason that the lighting appears the same on most planets is the same reason we never get an explanation of whether there's light-speed travel in the Firefly universe - because it's completely irrelevant in telling the story. Let's not nitpick too much here. Every scifi show is likely to involve some hand-waving when it comes to explaining things that aren't of importance in telling the story. Romulans and Klingons, not to mention most other alien races in Star Trek, spoke English a little bit too fluently and frequently, a fact explained away by invoking the Universal Translator or some such (though I think the Babel fish was a better explanation :-) -- Wapcaplet 22:55, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I reverted this contribution, since it took what I think was a good, succinct NPOV statement and turned it into a rebuttal. If there are objections, please raise them here. -- Wapcaplet 06:18, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Do we have a consensus on the Alliance's character? Obviously they're antagonistic, but that doesn't necessarily make them evil. Khanartist 22:05, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I don't know that we can really say much about the Alliance. We know they are a large, powerful government/police organization, we know they are imperial in nature, since all the core planets are under their rule, and we know they are well-funded, with big fancy ships and nice uniforms, but little aside from that. We don't know who is in charge of it, whether they answer to a higher authority, or whether they have an agenda other than that expected from an imperial government. It's strongly implied in the series that those planets under Alliance control are typically more technologically advanced and civilized. The only reason they are portrayed as antagonistic in the series is that Mal's crew tends to be on the wrong side of the law for one reason or another, and because Mal and Zoe are veterans of a war against them. -- Wapcaplet 23:40, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Where was it announced that the Serenity release date has been pushed back? The official movie website still says April 22, 2005. -- Wapcaplet 22:58, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Joss himself announced it on his website. You can find liknks to it on the Browncoats site, too. - UtherSRG 23:18, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ah. Bummer. -- Wapcaplet 01:47, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nothing major, but a quibble that I'd like to see cleared up one way or another. Is Anglo-Sino the Alliance's official or canonical name? Has that appellation ever been used on the show? As the prefix Anglo- is given to England or the United Kingdom, I find it strange that it would be applied to a merger of the US and the PRC. Khanartist 04:23, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
OK, after this edit restoring the presumed Anglo-Sino nature of the Alliance, I've got to ask that this be qualified with a reference to the commentary in which it was stated (since it was never revealed in the show itself). Does anyone have that reference? -- Wapcaplet 05:08, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I know Chinese is not used just for swearing (which is why I wrote that it's frequently used for swearing [5]). I think it's important to note the fact that it's predominantly used for swearing, and only rarely spoken for other reasons. There are probably a few others, but the only time I can recall a character speaking (not swearing) in Chinese was in Serenity, when Wash says something to Zoe on his way out of the cargo hold. I think it's misleading to imply that Chinese is commonly spoken in polite discourse in the series. -- Wapcaplet 17:38, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As I belatedly got around to watching Firefly (a serious competitor with Buffy as Joss Whedon's best, IMHO), I found myself wondering about something. One of many recurring entertainments of these Whedon shows is the occasional witty line that suddenly dies in the middle, as if the wit suddenly ran out. Here are Buffy and Firefly examples:
I haven't seen Angel enough to provide an example, but I'd be shocked if it didn't have plenty to offer. What I'm wondering is whether Whedon-show fans have come up with a term for these collapsing witticisms, like MST3K's " Crow Syndrome" (extending suggestive quips to an extreme, only to be shouted down). The structure certainly isn't unique to Whedon's shows — Blackadder has a good measure of these — but I was hoping that there was a shorthand term among the Buffy/Angel/Firefly crowd. — Jeff Q (talk) 22:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
An anon has changed a reference in the "Setting" section from Cowboy Bebop to Outlaw Star. I've never heard of either show, so I won't comment, but does anyone more knowledgeable want to take a crack at it? Khanartist 18:51, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
I've never heard of either of these show either, but Wiki does have articles on both of them. It does look like, however, that Outlaw Star more closely represents the plot and setting. I suggest we put both references (Outlaw Star and Cowboy Bebop) in, though. Stanselmdoc 20:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Firefly DEFINATELY reminds me of cowboy bebop in ways. I would not say they are the same, but definately worth mentioning. I have not seen outlaw star, or trigun... Both of which are referenced currently. I added "and cowboy bebop" after the trigun reference to include it. From what i can tell it was originally cowboy bebop, and someone replaced it with outlaw star, then someone added trigun. Someone who has seen all 3 anime series may be better able to write a commentary on the 3 related to Firefly, but for now, all three seem to have enough similarity to firefly to mention. ~ James 07:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Popgurls: There was a lot of talk about some Firefly episodes not airing in order. Whose decision was this, and did you have any say so?
Tim Minear: Well, again I return to the pilot not airing first. This colored everything that came after it. While the network was forever trying to get us to air out of order, in the end it was my notion to pull "Our Mrs. Reynolds" up in the rotation, because I felt it had a lot of great character stuff and was spaceship-bound. This bumped "Shindig" and "Safe" down in the airing order. Our fear was that "Shindig" looked like Gone With The Wind, and again, without the pilot to elegantly introduce the hybrid western/science fiction setting, people would be confused. (And they were, by the way. The most common comment we'd see is "Why the old guns and horses?")
"Shindig" was a fish-out-of-water story, and, without the pilot as introduction, we'd not had the chance to really set up the "fish" or the "water." Also, the original cut of "Safe" was rather troubled and needed a whole lot of reshoots and reworking. It couldn't be ready to air after "Shindig" if "Shindig" came early, and because "Safe" takes place right on the tail of "Shindig," we needed more post production time on these two. This was another reason to push those two episodes and pull up "Our Mrs. Reynolds."
-- excerpt from Popgurls.com interview, posted here by 67.136.145.246 at 08:42, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
I expect shortly to be creating articles on the currently missing regulars of Firefly (Wash, Inara, Simon, and River), unless someone beats me to it. I noticed that the links to all but Zoë, Wash, and Book have "(Firefly character)" unnecessarily appended to their names. Wikipedia practice normally gives the undisambiguated name as an article title to the most famous person with that name, and so far, none but "Malcolm Reynolds" seems even to have the least likelihood of requiring disambiguation. Other than the technical difficulty of moving "Jayne Cobb" back to the original undab'd position, is there any compelling reason not to have them all without the unnecessary disambiguation? (The fully dab'd links would remain as redirects and against future contention for priority.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Is the description of Jayne as "dull-witted" accurate? I admit, I've only watched the first three eps ("Pilot" through "Bushwhacked"), but he doesn't seem all that stupid to me -- just very self-interested. -- Jay (Histrion) 16:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Now that we have articles for each of the 14 Firefly episodes (however currently stubby), is there any reason to have that honkin' big matrix in the middle of the article? It has a lot of minor details that seem better presented in each show's article (which I've added to them). The only thing missing from each show's Infobox is the channel on which each episode first aired, and that could be added to the show articles, parenthesized in a bulleted episode list here, or both. Any objects to my converting the table to a simple bulleted list? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Can anyone provide a canonical source for whether it's spelled "Reavers" or "reavers"? In other words, is it treated as a proper noun? I haven't noticed anything written in the TV episodes, and the comic has dialog in all-uppercase form. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Reference From the original script for "Serenity" (the Pilot) located at http://www.twiztv.com/scripts/firefly/season1/firefly-111.htm
Also, from "Bushwhacked" at FireflyWiki
I haven't been able to find an instance in any of Joss's posts on the topic, but I will keep my eye out. For now I think this is a reliable reference, and I have not found any instance in any interview, site, or Firefly related source which does not have Reavers capitalized. BarkingDoc 00:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
I'll repeat here a question I asked at Category talk:Firefly episodes: Should Serenity (film) be included as a Firefly episode? Technically, it's a movie, not a TV-show episode, but it's surely going to be considered a canonical "episode" of the Firefly story. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Wouldn't this section classify as original research? Wynler 17:06:33, 2005-08-25 (UTC)
Please stop using the Edit Summary for conversation during reverts. Come to discussion for consensus please. I suggest this get split off into a seperate article. - Chairboy 17:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I disagree that it should be split off. See the above section. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:43, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
I think the section should stay. There are so many similarities, and that makes it relevant to the article. (And I found it fascinating.) But I haven't decided completely and am open to discussion. -- Fang Aili 18:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I'd love to see a section about the music in the show. Some of it (and not just the obvious Ballad of Serenity theme tune or the Hero of Canton song) sticks in my mind. Any takers? Nearside 21:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I added a section about the R. Tam videos that have been circulating on the internet. They may go better on the movie page, but I've been avoiding it because of the spoilers. If someone wants to check if there's a section over there already, and possibly move this one there if none exists, I'd appreciate it.
Quickbeam 06:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps it might be better to link to something like Google groups instead of a news: link? For a user that has never used newsgroups it is just going to launch confusing programs on their pc, and anyone who already knows howto use newsgroups would probobly prefer to add the group manually anway. -- Windsok 11:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
A recent deletion discussion was held on the content copied below. As a result of that discussion, there was a clear consensus that the content did not belong in Wikipedia as an independent article. Several people argued, however, that the content could or should be merged here. May I ask you to consider and decide whether this content is appropriate in this article? Thank you. Rossami (talk) 03:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Copied text begins Image:FireflyGirlInBox1.jpg Image:FireflyGirlInBox2.jpg There are many similarities between elements of Firefly and anime series Outlaw Star.
copied text ends
I don't think it lacks interest, at all, it just is not enyclopedic content. It is just an interesting train of thought. I do think it is fine for there to be a single sentence noting that Firefly is similar to Outlaw Star and other Western/Sci-Fi hybrids, and a link at the end of the article to one of the many sites which discusses this in detail. I don't understand why it is such a long discussion, honestly: the similarities are obvious, they clearly exist. But they are not encyclopedic information. Unless the accusation is that Joss Whedon intentionally stole the idea (that is ridiculous) which is not stated anywhere in any of the articles. In the long history of the world, there are several fictional stories which happen to resemble each other. Plus, the specific reason to have a hyperlinked encyclopedia is so that people who are interested in that idea can go to the Outlaw Star article and make the comparison for themselves.
BarkingDoc
05:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
While not an editor of this article, I would like to chime in with the opinion that the "girls in boxes" is the only plot element in this list that's particularly unique. The other comparisons seem to me that the author is frevently grasping at straws in order to have something besides "girl in box" to validate some connection between the two series; those plot points are very, very common in fiction of all sorts. -- Apostrophe 01:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I didn't see an example of this in the FAQs... anyone know what the appropriate method is for inserting quotation marks in text that is a link? i.e., if I want Captain Malcolm "Mal" Reynolds as a link to the page about the character, what's the right way to go about it? I used parentheses for Kaylee, but as parens are used for disambiguation rules, this might cause some confusion too. -- Wapcaplet
Another thing to consider is how you plan on linking to the articles for the character. For example; wouldn't Kaywinnit Lee Frye be better as Kaylee Frye since this is the full name she is commonly known as on the series? This is similar to the reasoning why why have the article on the US president Clinton at Bill Clinton and not William Jefferson Clinton (this is a redirect). Longer, more complicated names can be redirected to the the more common names (yet still complete with first and last names). --mav
Work in somewhere:
-- B.Bryant 13:48 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Wapcaplet, I think the spoiler warning should go right at the top, incase someone doesn't read the entire article and so misses the warning. I also think we need to somehow incorporate the link to the episodes into the airing section. - Jeandré, 2003-06-22t21:37z
I removed the "?" from Canada, since according to the GEOS site, "The Train Job" aired both in US and Canada the same day. This site in generally very reliable. Lazarus Long 11:08 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Should we remove the movie paragraph until there is? - Jeandré, 2003-06-28t20:46z
I just edited the episode list with what is supposed to be the definitive order. This should be the order the episodes will be on the DVD set. The production code gives some info for the first part of the season ("79" is typical for pilots), while the last part, with unaired info, was already right and has also been confirmed by Tim Minear on the Buffistas forum, where he wrote:
DVDs is:
I also changed the text before the table accordingly. If somebody can gather data about time-slots, we can add them too.
Lazarus Long 12:37 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Can anyone access MundoFox to find out when it will be showing in Mexico and South America? Starting 2003-04-19? - Jeandré, 2003-07-01t23:30z
Anyone know if http://us.imdb.com/ReleaseDates?0303461 is correct with its Brazilian air date of 2003-01-01, and if so what kinda episode order chaos the Brazillians were treated to? - Jeandré, 2003-07-26t23:45+02:00
According to TVTome, "FOX Latin America" (is this MundoFox?) showed Trash on 2003- 06-28 [1], and Heart of gold on 2003- 07-19 [2]. Were these dubbed in Spanish, or shown in English? - Jeandré, 2004-05-15t20:15z
Well, unfortunately I don't recall exactly when the show debuted on FOX in Brazil, but I can guarantee that it was not on January 1st 2003. It was sometime between June and August of 2003. The episodes were shown in the exact same order used in the United States and had subtitles in Portuguese (they kept the original audio in English). The unaired episodes (in the US) were shown after "Objects in Space". Right now, probably as a means of covering holes in their schedule, FOX is rerunning all the episodes, again in that messed up order. The original airing time was Tuesdays at 20:00 (right before Buffy the Vampire Slayer). Present reruns are Mondays through Fridays at 17:00. FOX has separated departments for Brazil and the rest of Latin America, because of the Spanish/Portuguese issue, so some of the info concerning Latin America does not apply to Brazil and vice-versa. I imagine that most of what I've written about the show in Brazil did not happen exactly the same in other South-American countries. Hope this was of any use. Redux 01:56, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Anyone know where the copies available on the 'net of Trash, Message, and HoG were captured from? Were these shown somewhere other than the listed premieres? - Jeandré, 2003-07-13t12:11z
Why do the crew speak Chinese every now and then? Sometimes just words, but sometimes complete sentences. Was the reason ever revealed? Because I didn't see any person important that look East Asian in the show. -- Menchi 10:59 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Yes, the premise is that sometime in the show's past the US and China asimilate each other and a unifed government of the world's only hyperpower backed by corporations like Blue Sun colonise other planets. The idea of cultural fusion and the fact that everyone speaks fluent Chinese is also a convienent way to thumb their nose at US censors! A lot of the names are also oriental sounding (ie Simon Tan) Mark Richards 19:35, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
A more accurate guide is the Firefly-Serenity Chinese Pinyinary, on which Firefly Chinese translator Jenny Lynn has provided some informal assistance. It includes Chinese characters, hanyu pinyin spellings, literal translations, derivations, and some usage notes as well. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Did Fox broadcast all the episodes in the USA and Canada on Fridays at 20:00? - Jeandré, 2003-07-21t01:29z
It's not a television brand, and there's talk of a Firefly comic books series (like Joss' Fray); so, shall we move the article to "Firefly (television series)"? See also Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(television). - Jeandré, 2004-04-10t01:32z
Just curious: why was the link to the hypothetical Firefly timeline removed? Granted, it could be justifiably removed on other grounds (since it appears to just be one fan's random speculation), but the "no original research" restriction only applies to Wikipedia articles. There's no rule saying we can't link to original research. -- Wapcaplet 01:36, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Shame. I thought it was kind of useful, it wasn't pure speculation, and there are interview sources and hints in the series that would at least give the order of events. Mark Richards 19:27, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Also just curious: Why remove the detail of these characters' full names? Is it not considered canon/factual because it hasn't yet appeared in the movie? Rossumcapek 04:18, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Well, the TV series and the film are based on the same characters, so it would seem odd to exclude information about them simply because it does not appear in one of the other. Of course, we should think about how to deal with core information about the characters / ship etc, and not duplicate it in both articles. Mark Richards 18:18, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Ummmm... referring me here would make more sense of there was any actual resolution of the issue. It made sense to omit Wash's full name when there was only the "Alan Tudyk" post, but a FireFlyFans.net (I think) poster known to be Nathan Fillion has confirmed the name. SarekOfVulcan 20:16, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'm almost positive that Firefly takes place in a single system. Is there any evidence in the series, or in Joss's interviews, that contradicts this? Remember, the narrations state that we used up Earth and moved to a new system. -- SarekOfVulcan 18:09, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Yes, but we don't know that that the Alliance solar system is comparable to ours. It may very well have a larger biosphere and a greater number of planets within and bordering that range. We really have no basis for comparison, and if the writers tell us that a system has dozens of habitable and terraformable worlds, it's hard to criticize that without further evidence. Khanartist 20:16, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Wash: Psychic? Sounds like something out of science fiction. Zoë: We live on a spaceship, dear. Wash: So?
I don't think there is any definate statement that they are slower than light. My impression is that, while attention has been paid to some aspects of the physics (like sound in space), others have suffered neglect (like the spaceship power sources and engines). My personal feeling is that the writers are asking for suspension of disbelief in this area, there being an assumption that the engines 'just work'. Mal talks about 'hundreds of new earths' which to me implies many solar systems, but I also don't think it's important. The engine on Serenity seems to have been designed for how it looks, rather than any kind of function. Mark Richards 23:41, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
wait! i think i may have found some good evidence for faster-than-light (FTL) travel in a "galactic" setting (which is my preference). in the episode "Safe", when Book gets shot, if you forward 22 minutes into the show, wash and mal are looking over star maps. and i say "star maps" because if you see wash's maps, they look a lot like a galaxy and there are a hell of a lot of dots for a solar system, even a large one. could this be proof? -- xjaymanx 05:47, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
There's an interview with Joss in which he says that Serenity is not faster-than-light, and that the planets in Firefly are rather close together, indicating a single system. But he's actually rather ambivalent towards this whole line of questioning, leading me to believe that resolving the issue on-screen is not high on his list of priorities. Khanartist 21:41, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
What connects the Blue hands to Blue sun? — Jeandré, 2004-10-22t17:45z
Listen to the commentary on the discs about the show. Whedon links the men with "Hands of blue" as working for the Blue Sun Corporation, if indirectly (due to Joss trying to be clever and vague). "Blue Sun was Coca-cola, it was Microsoft, all in one. Half the government [i.e. Alliance] was Blue Sun," commentary over the scene where Mal and Zoe are walking back to the ship after dealing with Badger (episode 1), and then "We started throwing in Blue Sun signs because we knew they were going to become a major fator later on in the series." "I wanted it to be a more impressive interplanetary conglomerate that is a part of the mystery that we're all heading too."
Now, let's look at this, compared to the show:
1) These things that are said are purposefully vague.
2) Blue Sun is half the Government, which means half (at the very least)the Alliance is Blue Sun controlled. Therefore, due to Joss' own admission, at least half the Alliance = Blue Sun.
3) It is the "mystery" that "we're all heading to." In the show, the least explained, and vaguest major plot point was what happened to River, and why she was being chased by the "men with blue hands." The Blue sun group was going to be a "major factor later in the series.'
4) River went to a Government sponsered [i.e. the Alliance, i.e. Blue Sun] school where she was horribly experimented on.
5) The Men with Blue hands are able to supercede anyone's command in the alliance( if the alliance is going to be delineated from the Blue Sun corporation), and kill alliance members with abandon (i.e. "The Train Job," and, "Ariel"). Unless they were part of some group in ultimate control (i.e., the Alliance, which we have already seen is Blue Sun), they wouldn't have that kind of power. Also, there is some speccific reason why they have BLUE hands, and there is a BLUE Sun corporation (which we know is the Alliance).
6) Since we see the men with Blue Hands work for the Alliance (i.e. Blue Sun), and we find that River was hurt in an Alliance (i.e. Blue Sun) school, and now she's being chased by "men with blue hands" who want her back, and have designated her and her brother as fugitives (and are subsequently also being searched for by the Alliance, further proving the men with blue hands/Alliance connection, and since we know that the Alliance is the Blue Sun corp., connecting them to the blue hands men as well,), there are grounds for making the claim that the "Men with blue hands," are part of the Alliance/Blue Sun Corporation.
Gnrlotto 22:28, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
As you can see, though, there is some disagreement; I have no problem with the arguments you've made here, but when it carries over into the article as a factual part of the story, it verges on original research, which is discouraged. Joss' commentary could be taken in a number of ways, and to equate Blue Sun with the Alliance in the article seems less than truthful, since the characters don't even mention Blue Sun (though I think Jayne was wearing a Blue Sun T-shirt in one episode), while they talk about the Alliance quite often. I think the current phrasing in the article ("of which the 'Blue Sun Corporation' is either a part or a whole") is adequate, without going too far. -- Wapcaplet 20:27, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
If a story element was merely planned but didn't happen in the show itself, it's not canon and not factual. Similarly, anything not found in the primary source is original research. The original hypothetical was the better sentence. Khanartist 20:21, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I just listened to the Serenity commentary by Joss/Nathan. Gnrlotto left out a pretty significant bit of what Joss said: "Sometimes you don't know - I hadn't 100% figured out what I wanted to do with Blue Sun, how I wanted you guys [meaning the cast] to approach it..." and goes on to say that it was "...connected somehow with the mystery we're all heading to." When he says that it was like Microsoft or Coca-Cola, and that "half the government was Blue Sun", it sounds to me as if he is simply alluding to Blue Sun's influence as an interplanetary conglomerate; that it is powerful and omni-present. He may just be hiding facts about Blue Sun that he already knows, but it sounds more as though he didn't have a very precise idea of what Blue Sun would come to represent. I'll be rewriting parts of the article to bring this topic into it (since the current mention of Blue Sun is weirdly out of place amidst a discussion of the series' setting). -- Wapcaplet 18:45, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Some stuff I took out:
I added the "Speculations" section at the bottom. I tried to use neutral, facts-only phrasing here. -- Wapcaplet 19:52, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
"It should be noted that the show was, by necessity, not filmed on multiple planets."
What does this even mean? Of course the show wasn't filmed on multiple planets...I don't see many productions being made on Mars.
On the other hand, if the person means that every planet in the show looks the same because they're all supposed to be the same planet, then this is also wrong.
I'm removing this until someone clarifies what they mean. Gnrlotto 02:31, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What it means that every planet looks the same not because they were supposed to be the same, but because they are, in reality outisde the show, the same. Griping and speculating about every planet looking the same is fairly pointless because, as you noted, it's not as if the production crew is going to film on another planet for verisimilitude. Khanartist 03:33, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
In my revert I also reinstated your removal of the product label mentions, as it wasn't justified. If you have a good reason for why it shouldn't be there, I'm open to it. Khanartist 03:37, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If you mean light-sourcing, then you are also incorrect. They can change the filters on cameras, and use different lighting to give planets different appearances. Remember the planet in Pitch Black? One of it's three suns was blue (ironic, huh?), so when it was in the sky, they used a blue filter. Firefly never changes it's filters for that, and they don't do it by necessity, either. The removal is justified. Gnrlotto 15:40, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The color issue is noted, but the main point of my argument is that size/distance of the suns always appears to be the same. Changing filters has no effect on that. Altering the images with computer graphics coudl, but that was not done, either due to budget issues or apathy. The point is that either way this is an inconsequential issue which does not merit a geeky nitpciking in the article. Khanartist 17:36, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
There was a comment about not being able to see other planets/moons in the sky: this is incorrect. Look behind Mal in "The Train Job" when he calls Wash for his grand entrance.-- SarekOfVulcan 19:00, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, considering that humans, as far as we know, can only thrive on a planet that receives heat and light comparable to that of our own sun, it makes sense that most of the colonized planets we see in Firefly have similar lighting. The more geeky, technical shows like Star Trek tended to have more variation in that, but I think the main reason that the lighting appears the same on most planets is the same reason we never get an explanation of whether there's light-speed travel in the Firefly universe - because it's completely irrelevant in telling the story. Let's not nitpick too much here. Every scifi show is likely to involve some hand-waving when it comes to explaining things that aren't of importance in telling the story. Romulans and Klingons, not to mention most other alien races in Star Trek, spoke English a little bit too fluently and frequently, a fact explained away by invoking the Universal Translator or some such (though I think the Babel fish was a better explanation :-) -- Wapcaplet 22:55, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I reverted this contribution, since it took what I think was a good, succinct NPOV statement and turned it into a rebuttal. If there are objections, please raise them here. -- Wapcaplet 06:18, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Do we have a consensus on the Alliance's character? Obviously they're antagonistic, but that doesn't necessarily make them evil. Khanartist 22:05, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I don't know that we can really say much about the Alliance. We know they are a large, powerful government/police organization, we know they are imperial in nature, since all the core planets are under their rule, and we know they are well-funded, with big fancy ships and nice uniforms, but little aside from that. We don't know who is in charge of it, whether they answer to a higher authority, or whether they have an agenda other than that expected from an imperial government. It's strongly implied in the series that those planets under Alliance control are typically more technologically advanced and civilized. The only reason they are portrayed as antagonistic in the series is that Mal's crew tends to be on the wrong side of the law for one reason or another, and because Mal and Zoe are veterans of a war against them. -- Wapcaplet 23:40, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Where was it announced that the Serenity release date has been pushed back? The official movie website still says April 22, 2005. -- Wapcaplet 22:58, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Joss himself announced it on his website. You can find liknks to it on the Browncoats site, too. - UtherSRG 23:18, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ah. Bummer. -- Wapcaplet 01:47, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nothing major, but a quibble that I'd like to see cleared up one way or another. Is Anglo-Sino the Alliance's official or canonical name? Has that appellation ever been used on the show? As the prefix Anglo- is given to England or the United Kingdom, I find it strange that it would be applied to a merger of the US and the PRC. Khanartist 04:23, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
OK, after this edit restoring the presumed Anglo-Sino nature of the Alliance, I've got to ask that this be qualified with a reference to the commentary in which it was stated (since it was never revealed in the show itself). Does anyone have that reference? -- Wapcaplet 05:08, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I know Chinese is not used just for swearing (which is why I wrote that it's frequently used for swearing [5]). I think it's important to note the fact that it's predominantly used for swearing, and only rarely spoken for other reasons. There are probably a few others, but the only time I can recall a character speaking (not swearing) in Chinese was in Serenity, when Wash says something to Zoe on his way out of the cargo hold. I think it's misleading to imply that Chinese is commonly spoken in polite discourse in the series. -- Wapcaplet 17:38, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As I belatedly got around to watching Firefly (a serious competitor with Buffy as Joss Whedon's best, IMHO), I found myself wondering about something. One of many recurring entertainments of these Whedon shows is the occasional witty line that suddenly dies in the middle, as if the wit suddenly ran out. Here are Buffy and Firefly examples:
I haven't seen Angel enough to provide an example, but I'd be shocked if it didn't have plenty to offer. What I'm wondering is whether Whedon-show fans have come up with a term for these collapsing witticisms, like MST3K's " Crow Syndrome" (extending suggestive quips to an extreme, only to be shouted down). The structure certainly isn't unique to Whedon's shows — Blackadder has a good measure of these — but I was hoping that there was a shorthand term among the Buffy/Angel/Firefly crowd. — Jeff Q (talk) 22:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
An anon has changed a reference in the "Setting" section from Cowboy Bebop to Outlaw Star. I've never heard of either show, so I won't comment, but does anyone more knowledgeable want to take a crack at it? Khanartist 18:51, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
I've never heard of either of these show either, but Wiki does have articles on both of them. It does look like, however, that Outlaw Star more closely represents the plot and setting. I suggest we put both references (Outlaw Star and Cowboy Bebop) in, though. Stanselmdoc 20:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Firefly DEFINATELY reminds me of cowboy bebop in ways. I would not say they are the same, but definately worth mentioning. I have not seen outlaw star, or trigun... Both of which are referenced currently. I added "and cowboy bebop" after the trigun reference to include it. From what i can tell it was originally cowboy bebop, and someone replaced it with outlaw star, then someone added trigun. Someone who has seen all 3 anime series may be better able to write a commentary on the 3 related to Firefly, but for now, all three seem to have enough similarity to firefly to mention. ~ James 07:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Popgurls: There was a lot of talk about some Firefly episodes not airing in order. Whose decision was this, and did you have any say so?
Tim Minear: Well, again I return to the pilot not airing first. This colored everything that came after it. While the network was forever trying to get us to air out of order, in the end it was my notion to pull "Our Mrs. Reynolds" up in the rotation, because I felt it had a lot of great character stuff and was spaceship-bound. This bumped "Shindig" and "Safe" down in the airing order. Our fear was that "Shindig" looked like Gone With The Wind, and again, without the pilot to elegantly introduce the hybrid western/science fiction setting, people would be confused. (And they were, by the way. The most common comment we'd see is "Why the old guns and horses?")
"Shindig" was a fish-out-of-water story, and, without the pilot as introduction, we'd not had the chance to really set up the "fish" or the "water." Also, the original cut of "Safe" was rather troubled and needed a whole lot of reshoots and reworking. It couldn't be ready to air after "Shindig" if "Shindig" came early, and because "Safe" takes place right on the tail of "Shindig," we needed more post production time on these two. This was another reason to push those two episodes and pull up "Our Mrs. Reynolds."
-- excerpt from Popgurls.com interview, posted here by 67.136.145.246 at 08:42, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
I expect shortly to be creating articles on the currently missing regulars of Firefly (Wash, Inara, Simon, and River), unless someone beats me to it. I noticed that the links to all but Zoë, Wash, and Book have "(Firefly character)" unnecessarily appended to their names. Wikipedia practice normally gives the undisambiguated name as an article title to the most famous person with that name, and so far, none but "Malcolm Reynolds" seems even to have the least likelihood of requiring disambiguation. Other than the technical difficulty of moving "Jayne Cobb" back to the original undab'd position, is there any compelling reason not to have them all without the unnecessary disambiguation? (The fully dab'd links would remain as redirects and against future contention for priority.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Is the description of Jayne as "dull-witted" accurate? I admit, I've only watched the first three eps ("Pilot" through "Bushwhacked"), but he doesn't seem all that stupid to me -- just very self-interested. -- Jay (Histrion) 16:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Now that we have articles for each of the 14 Firefly episodes (however currently stubby), is there any reason to have that honkin' big matrix in the middle of the article? It has a lot of minor details that seem better presented in each show's article (which I've added to them). The only thing missing from each show's Infobox is the channel on which each episode first aired, and that could be added to the show articles, parenthesized in a bulleted episode list here, or both. Any objects to my converting the table to a simple bulleted list? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Can anyone provide a canonical source for whether it's spelled "Reavers" or "reavers"? In other words, is it treated as a proper noun? I haven't noticed anything written in the TV episodes, and the comic has dialog in all-uppercase form. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Reference From the original script for "Serenity" (the Pilot) located at http://www.twiztv.com/scripts/firefly/season1/firefly-111.htm
Also, from "Bushwhacked" at FireflyWiki
I haven't been able to find an instance in any of Joss's posts on the topic, but I will keep my eye out. For now I think this is a reliable reference, and I have not found any instance in any interview, site, or Firefly related source which does not have Reavers capitalized. BarkingDoc 00:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
I'll repeat here a question I asked at Category talk:Firefly episodes: Should Serenity (film) be included as a Firefly episode? Technically, it's a movie, not a TV-show episode, but it's surely going to be considered a canonical "episode" of the Firefly story. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Wouldn't this section classify as original research? Wynler 17:06:33, 2005-08-25 (UTC)
Please stop using the Edit Summary for conversation during reverts. Come to discussion for consensus please. I suggest this get split off into a seperate article. - Chairboy 17:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I disagree that it should be split off. See the above section. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:43, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
I think the section should stay. There are so many similarities, and that makes it relevant to the article. (And I found it fascinating.) But I haven't decided completely and am open to discussion. -- Fang Aili 18:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I'd love to see a section about the music in the show. Some of it (and not just the obvious Ballad of Serenity theme tune or the Hero of Canton song) sticks in my mind. Any takers? Nearside 21:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I added a section about the R. Tam videos that have been circulating on the internet. They may go better on the movie page, but I've been avoiding it because of the spoilers. If someone wants to check if there's a section over there already, and possibly move this one there if none exists, I'd appreciate it.
Quickbeam 06:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps it might be better to link to something like Google groups instead of a news: link? For a user that has never used newsgroups it is just going to launch confusing programs on their pc, and anyone who already knows howto use newsgroups would probobly prefer to add the group manually anway. -- Windsok 11:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
A recent deletion discussion was held on the content copied below. As a result of that discussion, there was a clear consensus that the content did not belong in Wikipedia as an independent article. Several people argued, however, that the content could or should be merged here. May I ask you to consider and decide whether this content is appropriate in this article? Thank you. Rossami (talk) 03:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Copied text begins Image:FireflyGirlInBox1.jpg Image:FireflyGirlInBox2.jpg There are many similarities between elements of Firefly and anime series Outlaw Star.
copied text ends
I don't think it lacks interest, at all, it just is not enyclopedic content. It is just an interesting train of thought. I do think it is fine for there to be a single sentence noting that Firefly is similar to Outlaw Star and other Western/Sci-Fi hybrids, and a link at the end of the article to one of the many sites which discusses this in detail. I don't understand why it is such a long discussion, honestly: the similarities are obvious, they clearly exist. But they are not encyclopedic information. Unless the accusation is that Joss Whedon intentionally stole the idea (that is ridiculous) which is not stated anywhere in any of the articles. In the long history of the world, there are several fictional stories which happen to resemble each other. Plus, the specific reason to have a hyperlinked encyclopedia is so that people who are interested in that idea can go to the Outlaw Star article and make the comparison for themselves.
BarkingDoc
05:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
While not an editor of this article, I would like to chime in with the opinion that the "girls in boxes" is the only plot element in this list that's particularly unique. The other comparisons seem to me that the author is frevently grasping at straws in order to have something besides "girl in box" to validate some connection between the two series; those plot points are very, very common in fiction of all sorts. -- Apostrophe 01:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)