i didn't get home in time to watch Firefly, and i was wondering if anyone did. i got to see most of John Doe, and it seems promising. anyone have any opinion on the "new Fox Friday"?
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
I missed the first twenty minutes, but the rest was quite cool. Certainly a very different take on things than Trek, and I really liked that. I'm sure it will be compared endlessly against Enterprise when really they're very different shows trying to do very different things. It also had the nice polished feel to it that most non-Trek sci-fi out there just doesn't have (predominantly a budgetary thing, I suppose. The verdict so far is a very enjoyable hour of entertainment that will be watched for the forseeable future.
And, um, spoiler, but the last scene involving Mal and Mr. Quasi-Maori was sheer brilliance.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
I saw it. My recommndation? Go and find "Cowboy Bebop". It's the better show, and has JAZZ to boot.
Mark
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
That was poo.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
well, i own the perfect sessions, so i don't need to "find" Cowboy Bebop. from what i heard, it [Firefly]was a lot like a live action Outlaw Star.
Posted by Free ThoughtCrime America (Member # 480) on :
Firefly made sense, though.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Well... it's certainly very different for a sci-fi show. When Whedon was touting it as a "sci-fi western," I didn't think he meant that literally. In a way, it puts Roddenberry's "Wagon Train" analogy to shame, the way the colonies were portrayed in "Firefly."
Not that that's necessarily a good thing. I'd like to think that I'm not hung up on the cool technology and whiz-bang laser fights, but I really missed the "clean" look that just about every sci-fi show has -- Trek, B5, even Star Wars and Farscape. But Firefly was downright gritty. I'm not sure if I agree with the idea that colonists would be living Wild West-style, literally. I think that if we're going to have the technology to make it to other worlds and even terraform them as alluded in the episode, there's likely to be a bit more technology available than suggested here.
Still, it's a different view of the future, and that's nice to see. I'm definitely going to give the show a chance. Although the characters seemed a little too "paint-by-numbers" to me, there were some interesting questions that were left unanswered by the show -- things like the background on the civil war, and what the heck those blue-handed guys were doing to Simon's sister. I'm a sucker for detailed backgrounds and mysteries.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Well, give it a chance soon, because I'd bet a whole lot of money that "Firefly" will be cancelled by May. Or sooner.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
i think that half of this seasons new line up is going to be cancelled by november.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Because that's what always happens?
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Shows that will probably die: In-Laws Hidden Hills American Dream Do Over That Was Then A whole bunch of CBS shows Some of those new medical dramas/comdeies Fast lane 8 Simple Rules for blah blah blah... Perhaps, if ratings are not good, the Twilight Zone
Maybe one or two of these will become hits. But, remember last year we had: Thieves American Embassy Citizen Baines Education of Max Bickford First Monday Watching Ellie Wednesday 9:30/8:30 central Wolf Lake
And a host of other shows that bombed...
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
Not total poo, mind you, but definitely having distinctly poo-like attributes. I've only just found out that the original 2 hour pilot did not contain enough 'action' for the Fox executives, and so Joss et al decided to quickly slap together a new one rather than recut their original. I thought this might be a pretty good third or fifth episode, but it sure as hell wasn't a pilot. Apparently this pilot will be shown to us some time in December should the show still be around...
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Far as I can tell, Odyssey 5 sounds like Touched by an Angel meets Robocop.
Posted by Magnus de Pym (Member # 239) on :
John Doe was interesting. Push, Nevada seems to be as well.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poet: Far as I can tell, Odyssey 5 sounds like Touched by an Angel meets Robocop.
O5 is pretty cool. its chock full of sci fi references. also, it is rated TV14 but it has nudity and sex. kind of a weird rating, there.
Posted by Treknophyle (Member # 509) on :
Damn - I was hoping to put in the 'Wagon Train' comment.
Which they did well. So far - only that one world was 'western'. The next may be Hong Kong-based.
Still, I liked it better than the original Trek pilot 'Menagerie'.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
True, but we've seen only two worlds so far. You can get plenty of hints from the "prologue" sequence that starts at the beginning (not the opening credits).
We see a team of horses pulling a plow. We see "regular" guns that fire bullets instead of beams. Hell, the barfight in the pilot's opening scene (twenty bucks says it was mandated by FOX, just like the opening mutiny in "Crusade" was mandated by TNT) could've been ripped from any of a hundred western movies. Except for the spaceship flying up out of the gorge, of course. And the only thing that made the train heist a sci-fi robbery was that the train itself was propelled on electromagnetic rails.
Then there's general themes and scenery. Tell me that Simon's (the doctor) starched white shirt with a dark vest doesn't come straight out of old westerns. Wasn't one of the guys wearing a western-style cowboy hat?
This week's episode was actually a bit better. It wasn't bashing us over the head with the morality about returning the stolen goods. This week, they were respectful of the dead people, but still gave into the practicality of salvaging the cargo.
Did this episode remind anyone else of ENT's "Fight or Flight"? The second episode, ghost ship story with the crew finding dead bodies hanging from the ceiling... (At least there wasn't a girly-shriek scream!)
Perhaps I simply misunderstood some of the exposition from the pilot, but I had previously believed that most of the entire crew were fugitives from the Alliance in some way. Obviously they all had no love for the Alliance and wouldn't seek them out especially because of Simon and River, but it seems now that everyone but those two are actually legit. Interesting... it'll make things a bit more complex since they're not automatically on the run every time the Alliance shows up -- they just have to tread carefully and make sure that the undoubtedly-pompous ship commander doesn't lock them up on general (lack of) principle.
Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
I saw the second ep of Firefly, and liked it well enough, for a brand new show. Something about the idea of carring a regular "Slug Thrower" as Garabaldi called them, on a spce ship, just doesn't sound like a good idea. I think it will be OK given a chance, but the rateings are low, 4.0 for the first ep, and less, about 3.5 for the second. Might have made it on UPN for a while, but that's not going to last long on FOX.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Y'know, I can't believe I didn't think of that! B5 did say that having "slugthrowers" on a space ship or station were a bad idea because they could punch a hole in the outer hull. (Of course, enough concentrated PPG or phaser fire can do the same thing -- but I think the purpose is that a PPG or phaser can take down a humanoid without causing major damage to internal components. (Of course, that argument goes out the window when we've seen troops use their weapons to cut down doors and so forth...)
I guess you could say that Firefly is going for "effect" here by using slugthrowers instead of the classic beam weapons.
Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
quote: (Of course, that argument goes out the window when we've seen troops use their weapons to cut down doors and so forth...)
Phasers are adjustable, at least. I don't think PPG's could be used the same way. I guess if you shoot a door or something of that nature, enough times, it would heat it up to the point where you could kick it off it's hindges. But, B5 doors slide like trek doors, so maybe not!
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
There is a Simon on this show? I will tune in WEEKLY! Maybe. I saw an episode. It was fun.
Posted by Free ThoughtCrime America (Member # 480) on :
I thought the reason phasers are so popular is because they look really science fictiony and stuff.
Because, if they want to have gunfights on a spaceship in space, it will only present a containment issue if the writers want it to.
Having just watched a few episodes of Stargate SG-1 that were set on a alien vessal, I can readily say that even grenades seem to have little effect on the overall structure of a starship. I don't think a hull breach was even considered as a potential problem.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
I just saw the pilot ep pf Odyssey 5, I actually quite enjoyed it. It'll never survive though.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Well, it's on Showtime. Since they're charging people just to watch their channel, they can afford to let things last longer than they would on a broadcast network.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
Odyssey 5 is actually doing quite well, and as Sol System said, they don't have to worry quite as much about ratings as other shows on other channels.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
On the issue of projectile and percussive weaponry... it just occurred to me that most spaceships are going to have to worry about micrometeors and other little bits of space junk -- and most of that stuff is likely to have a LOT more momentum. Since momentum equals mass times velocity, even though the micrometeors are mostly a lot smaller than bullets, they're traveling at a much greater relative velocity.
So maybe bullets wouldn't really have that much of an effect on a well-built starship hull. That is, bullets from normal hand weapons, not your ultra-heavy assault rifles.
Of course, there's also other variables to consider, like what kind of futuristic advances might be applied to said hull. Trek, for instance, uses the navigational deflector to push micrometeors out of the way, and the structural integrity fields to strengthen the hull. (And in one of the few technological aspects of "Enterprise" that I actually LIKE, there's the polarized hull plating, which is a cool idea for a non-forcefield-based defensive system.)
But on the flip side, there are places like Babylon 5 that are space stations rather than ships, and don't necessarily have to withstand the extreme stresses that a ship would have to withstand.
So I guess it still boils down to -- whatever the hell the writers want! Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: That is, bullets from normal hand weapons, not your ultra-heavy assault rifles.
most "assualt rifle" ("assualt rifle" is a hollywood term, not a real one) ammunition (like 2.23 NATO) penetrates building material less well than a 9mm handgun.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
I think you'll find that Hollywood didn't invent the name "assault rifle."
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
But who takes credit for the infamous "assualt rifle"?
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poet: I think you'll find that Hollywood didn't invent the name "assault rifle."
the "Hitler dubbing the mp44 the Sturmgewehr" thing is apocryphal. it never happened. Hitler didn't name anything an "assault rifle". the MP44, later StG44, was indeed the Sturmgewehr, but that isn't quite the same as "Assault Rifle". the proper name for a weapon such as an M-16 is a "select fire, automatic rifle". the closest actual thing to an "assault rifle" is an "assault gun". this was a self-propelled, predominantly horizontal, artillery piece used by the Wehrmacht in World War II. the Assault Gun was kind of a poor man's tank. it was sometimes also used (rather ineffectually, due to a very small gun traverse) as a tank killer.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Hitler didn't invent the term, so it must have been Hollywood? One of your classic Flareite leaps of logic, there. . . 8)
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
it's a hollywood term. even Ian Hogg, despite the innumerable small factual errors in his books, says as much. come on, Ian Hogg is the "British father of gun history". if you don't believe him then i don't know who you will. hitler maybe . btw, is there going to be a phase rifle addition to phaser pages? such a great site.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
. btw, is there going to be a phase rifle addition to phaser pages? such a great site.