This is coming from someone who hasn't seen all the episodes yet (though I plan to go on a marathon spree with the DVDs before the movie comes out). This is going to be the coolest movie ever.
River just goes all psycho crazy on everyone. Reavers. Assassins. Fleets of ships.
*drooooooool*
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Awesome. Craaaazy River, reavers, and that slightly odd use of English.
So.. from this very short clip, I get the vibe that River might have been modded by Alliance (or the Blue Hands?) to become a fighter, a la Dark Angel...
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
Slightly odd use of English? That's called slang. Hick slang, actually.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
My ass has been kicked by this trailer. I'm looking far more forward towards this than any other SF movie this year, including Hitchhiker and that Star Wars thing.
Mark
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Links to the files themselves for easy downloading, provided for those of you who, like me, are not savvy enough to figure them out on your own. (I totally had to steal these from some dude.)
In small, medium, and large flavors, respectively.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
What is this "Star Wars" thing you speak of, Mark? Whatever it is, it can't be all that interesting...
I'm definitely looking forward to seeing H2G2, but if this new trailer is any indication, Serenity will be THE sci-fi movie of the year. Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Kind of noisy in space.
And where is the blues guitar?
Also: OH MAN SPACE BATTLES OLD TYME SLANG COLLAPSE
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
H2G2? Please tell me that isn't a standard convention.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Well, sort of. I'm not sure if anyone used it prior to that site, but it is sure used now.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
That is, to the whole H2G2 we-can-have-our-own-damn-wiki project, which wasn't connected to the BBC in the beginning.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
So I take it that River never manifested the psycho Matrix karate abilities in the series, huh? I only ever got about a third of the way through, so there's alot I don't know yet.
From the trailer, it kind of looks like the scene in the bar where she whoops on everyone is one of the opening scenes and her new abilities come as a surprise to everyone. Not to mention draws the attention of the assasin.
The shot of her holding herself onto the ceiling by wedging herself between the walls and holding onto that sprinkler head (?) looks great too.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
@Sol: Yeah, it is kind of noisy. Although honestly I won't mind if they ditched the silence in space in order to appeal to a wider audience. I also wouldn't be suprised if that sound was added in only for the trailer. But the silence was cool in the series.
Nice to see they haven't changed the characters! Bad guy: ".... I'm unarmed." Mal "Good!" *BLAM!*
B.J.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Hmmmm.... I see no sign of the Sheperd. Could they, perchance, not get him back for the movie?
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
I remember reading that SOMEONE had to be sacrificed to geive everyone else enough time to shine on this one. As an ensemble piece, even during regular series they occasionally lost a regular so the others have more lines. Nine people is a LOT to juggle, even in a movie, and of the four passengers, I guess Book wasn't as required for the Tam storyline. IF we go back to a regular series following this movie, it's a fair bet that Book'll be back.
Mark
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
But he was one of the characters needed the most explaining. He knew far too much to be just a Sheperd. IMDb seems to think he's in the cast though. Never a very reliable source on pre-production though.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
It's possible that he's just not in the trailer, too. If he actually isn't in the movie, I think we can rest assured that we'll get a plausible reason as to why. This isn't a Star Trek movie after all.
All they'd really have to say is that they dropped him off somewhere for [insert futuristic preacher reason].
New info: According to my colleague, Book is in some of the cast photos for the movie.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Looks like he's at a refugee camp of some kind in the gallery photo they have. Perhaps they drop him off there close to the beginning of the movie with the idea that they'll be back to pick him up later.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Between "Objects in Space" and the movie, Book and Inara move off the ship.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
well, i *know* Inara is in the movie... so they must meet back up with them both at some point.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Hmm, I was re-watching the trailer again (can't get enough of it now!), and I noticed what I think might be a rather familiar ship in a couple of the shots:
It's hard to tell for sure, but I'm pretty certain that the longish ship on the right of the image is either the Varro community ship from the awful VGR episode "The Disease", or else a pretty close copy. Anyone else got a better look than my poor computer and the mid-range quality?
Posted by Johnny (Member # 878) on :
I thought that as well at first, but we get a much closer look at it later on and it's a completely different design. It just looks similar because it's long and segmented with a "head" and "tail" section.
Book AKA thingybob Glass is listed on IMDb as being in the movie, so maybe they're keeping his scenes secret in the trailer. This trailer was mostly "action, action, ACTIONY", so his scenes might not have fitted in well anyway.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Keep in mind that IMDb is based on fan-posted information. It's not always accurate.
Posted by Johnny (Member # 878) on :
True, but an extensive cast is listed, not just the principals, so it seems as though someone in the know has updated the entry.
I hope Book is in it anyway, I've been looking forward to finding out more about his history.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Of course he's in it. Didn't someone post a link in this very thread to the promotional stills which feature him? (Yes, not ten posts above me, I now discover, but who has the time to look up when they are rushing off a response?) Or to Whedon's acknowledgement somewhere or other that the trailer shortchanged Kaylee and Book? (No, as it turns out.) (Though I would imagine the film will as well. I mean, nine characters is an awful lot.)
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
In that first screenshot MM posted, that ship in the lower left is the Reaver ship from the episode "Serenity". You know, the two-part episode that was supposed to be shown first but got shown last instead. I know this because this past Friday I happened to tell my wife that the DVD set has 3 unaired episodes, and she very quickly "insisted" that we buy it immediately.
B.J.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I think Joss should come out in public denunciation of the airing of the series on FOX and tell people that if they want to really know what's going on, they need to buy the DVD set and watch them in that order because the movie will assume you have done so.
FOX angers me. The two-hour pilot was gold. The episode they aired as the pilot was good too, but it retread alot of the ground that was much more subtley covered in the original pilot. Mal's problem with religion, and his apparent connection to Inara for example. There was time in the two-hour epsiode to be nice and subtle with these issues, but they really had to work to get them into the one hour episode.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Sort of near the topic: Jewel Staite is going to be in an episode of Atlantis.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Yet another reason for me to buy the DVDs as soon as I can...
Posted by Arthur 'Frelling' Dent (Member # 1609) on :
this is my 1st post so i'll just start by saying hi to everybody *waves*
This film has me very excited. I was a late comer to firelfly, having bought the DVD boxset out of a bargain bin not really knowing anything about it. I was completely hooked from the word GO, and was totally gutted to find out about its cancellation after so few episodes.
Does anyone think that this film could lead on to another series?
(sorry if i am asking a previously discussed question)
Cheers
Dave
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I had a similar experience, having only seen the series at a friends house while on vacation.
If the movie does well, I'm hoping that either the series will be picked back up by someone or that more movies will be made. Just as long as FOX has nothing to do with it.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
I think FOX has a 10 year lock on any TV developments. So right now, the only option is movies, especially since Whedon won't have anything to do with FOX anymore either.
B.J.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Uh, Fox the production company, not Fox the channel.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
If any of you guys have a faster computer and have downloaded QuickTime 7, you should check out the high-def version of the Serenity trailer. I suggest viewing it on a 30-inch Cinema Display to convey the full effect. Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
100+ Meg? I'll wait until I'm at work. Handy things, USB sticks. . .
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
There really ought to be a law that, if they declare a show isn't worth producing, they aren't allowed to stop anyone else from doing it.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
As I recall, Joss Whedon took Firefly to other networks; none were interested.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Apparently, Quicktime 7 isn't available for PC users yet...
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Networks are stupid.
QuickTime is stupid, too, incidentally.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
So I've been watching the DVDs lately, and I wonder if they'll still be trying to unload that laser pistol stolen in "Trash" when the movie begins.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
I just finished watching the DVDs myself. My wife and I just burst out laughing when the picture for
-ACK! My cat just harfed on my mousepad!-
the "Trash" menu came up. Just Mal, sitting naked on a rock.
And has anyone figured out whether the Alliance is spread throughout the galaxy or if they're all confined to one big star system?
B.J. (Gotta find me a new cat. This one's not long for this world, methinks.)
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Re just what the 'verse looks like: Nobody knows. Evidence internal to the show could go either way.
There are worrisome rumors that the official position is one system, to be perhaps explicitly confirmed in the movie.
(Well, worrisome to me, because that is an awful lot of habitable or nearly habitable planets. ((Taking into account the ones that had to be terraformed, and how extensive their terraforming technology is is another unanswered question.)) I think the number is 70+, from the "Our Mrs. Reynolds" cutscene, but do cutscenes count? Ah, the old questions.)
One, well, sort of problem I guess I have with humans being in just one system is, why couldn't Mal and others like him pick up and move to some other star, if they really wanted to be free of the Alliance? It's been done once, at least, and they've got suspended animation, and if a ship like Serenity can be afforded by an individual, surely a large group of people could get together and purchase something larger and capable of making (much) more distant journeys?
Of course, the whole reason people fight wars when they could just run away is because mere survival isn't always the most important thing to the combatants, but the Independents seem to have well and truly lost, and Mal at least seems to have no desire to continue the fight in any real way, beyond the occasional act of civil or not so civil disobedience.
It didn't help that the original opening narration made the common yet maddening mistake of confusing "solar system" with "galaxy," as I recall.
For that matter, I'd like to know where the "five hundred years in the future" comes from. It's in some of the promotional material for the film, but I can't seem to find any point in the series where it's mentioned. The closest reference is Inara refering to Companion traditions as being "centuries old." I guess the series bible, maybe?
There's some discussion on these topics at this here wiki, among other places.
So I guess somebody knows. Maybe.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
My personal view is that it is just one star system, mostly from my own observations. One, they never show anything going FTL. Two, most of the places they go are moons. And three (for now), they mention several times the "Central Planets", which really could mean anything, but I take it to mean the ones closer to the star, and therefore closer together.
Assuming that there's no FTL and they are in one system, I don't think they could run off to another system. You would need to take a *lot* of pre-packaged infrastructure with you, as well as a lot more people. I'm sure they can find other planets in the galaxy, but who's to say they could make the determination that it's safe to colonize? That's one hell of a gamble.
As for the 500 years, I seem to remember that being part of the first voice-over exposition in the aired episodes. Interesting that they didn't include any of the voice-overs in the DVD set.
B.J.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Infrastructure? A hatchet, maybe a herd. You're all set! (As for locating suitable colony sites, well, it depends on the telescopes available, but if they can resolve individual planets they can tell if they've got oxygen on them, at least.)
But, of course, some group could have very well considered that, and we never got to hear about it on account of the show was cancelled. And we don't really know what the high tech terraforming equipment looks like, or how large a box it requires.
Anyway, the problem with it being in a single system is: that's an awful lot of Earth-sized bodies (or Earth-densitied), even taking moons into consideration. (And I question whether even one of those superjovians we know exist now could have more than a handful of roughly Earth-sized moons.)
Also, there are, I think, several bits of dialogue that suggest a wider scope. But who knows?
(Also also: No one ever mentions how fast they're going, so I don't think that's a point in either direction.)
I think "Out of Gas" might make more sense in interstellar space too, maybe, on account of a star system being big for people but small for radio waves. On the other hand, if they span across multiple systems then their communications network, the Cortex, must do likewise, since they often pick up information from other planets on it.
So, I don't know.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
Their terraforming technique does somehow alter the planet or moon's gravity field. This was mentioned when Mal and Zoe were talking to the sheriff after the heist in "Train Job". So, they don't necessarily have to be the same mass (that's the word you were looking for) as Earth.
As for how they do this, I'm sure Whedon didn't think of it nor planned to go into any detail. He isn't exactly a physics professor.
B.J.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
(Also also: No one ever mentions how fast they're going, so I don't think that's a point in either direction.)"
Except, sort of, when they pass that Reaver ship in the pilot. (Was that in the pilot? I think so.) Except, at that speed, even intra-system travel would take years.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I wasn't actually thinking of the word mass. SO THERE! I kid.
That was in the pilot, yes.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Interested parties may want to check out this preview, available here of the Firefly comic book that apparently bridges the gap between the show and the movie. (You have to scroll down four or five entries.)
Though be warned that I guess there may be, like, spoilers or something, maybe? I haven't looked yet.
Thrill to the always vaguely creepy results when comic book characters are drawn to resemble real people!
Enjoy John Cassaday's cover while possibly recoiling in horror from that Inara one!
I think you need three items to really constitute a "Thrill! Experience! Enjoyify!" type list. Oh well.
There are no spoilers.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
If, like me, you have a bit of an allergy to Quicktime, and at least a passing familiarity with a C++ compiler, the latest snapshot of mplayer plus codec suite also digests the HD trailer, except, you know, without taking your computer hostage for life in the process, which, to me anyway, is a Good Thing, but I am old and grumpy.
[ May 17, 2005, 06:41 AM: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Ok... so Inara's face on that cover isn't *quite* right... but the rest of her's kickin'. Nice tummy.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
There's an argument I read somewhere explaining why people can knock out a tommy tank to images of Sailor Moon and other saucer eyed, tiny waisted caricatures of the human form while being creeped out by poser images. Or why people were more comfortable with the cartoonish looking The Incredibles than the more realistic "The Polar Express". When an image is obviously a caricature, we can appreciate it as one. However, if it's 95% accurate, then the 5% missing becomes extrememly noticable and grates on our subconcious.
Those comic drawings seem to hover the line, which might be why Simon finds them disturbing, but Aban is more than willing to go and get his issue laminated.
(Thinking about it, someone might have actually bought this up before here. In which case, screw you.)
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
"...knock out a tommy tank..."
Huh?
Sailor Moon never did it for me. The annoying voice just makes me want her to go away.
The point you're making is a good one though... it's the subtle differences in the appearance of realism that disturb us, not the glaring ones.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
It's called the Uncanny Valley, though it wasn't quite what I had in mind. I guess it does apply, though, maybe.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I always figured that a show like "Firefly" absolutely HAD to take place across interstellar distances. For one thing, just because we don't see any ships traveling at FTL (that we can be sure of anyway) doesn't mean that they never did at all.
For example, take the usual visual effect of a Starfleet ship's jump to warp speed -- aside from the bright flash at the very end, is there really that much different when it's compared to Serenity's "rapiding" launch? (I'm not proposing that "rapiding" is necessarily even close to the same as warp drive, but that from a "stationary" person's perspective, how can you really tell the difference?)
After all, consider that space is so inconceivably vast that viewing a ship from a distance away, even at FTL speeds, the stars shouldn't necessarily be noticeably moving.
As for that pesky encounter with the Reaver ship in the pilot, I'd just as soon gloss over that.
One final bug to squash: in the pilot's teaser, when the Alliance cruiser's sensor officer picks up the distress call from several "clicks" ahead, I figure that "clicks" no longer refers simply to kilometers or miles once everyone moved into space.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Well, if "click" just refers (in this case, perhaps metaphorically) to the clicking over of the lowest whole number on an odometer, a click would simply be whatever unit of measure you're using. In space, it could easily mean light-years or AUs or something completely fictional.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I thought the word was spelt with a "k" and that it was just shorthand for kilometres. I didn't realise that it referred to the clicking of odometer numbers. Silly me.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I'm not certain it does. All I know is that, as slang, it originated during the Vietnam War. (Or so a nonrigorous search told me.)
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I've been watching the DVDs and have found a number fo clues about one-system vs. multiple systems. Unfortunately, they contradict each other.
1) Inara says she wanted to "see the universe." Obvious exaggeration, but possibly suggests a large venue.
2) Book says Simon was brave to run and hide "on the edge of the system," suggesting it's the only one, ut could also simply refer to the one they found him in.
3) One of the Alliance goons makes reference to something being in "the Georgia System", I think, which would seem to indicate more than one system.
4) Someone else made reference to "the galaxy" indicating a larger venue as well.
5) After Serenity breaks orbit, the nacelle lights always go out, which would seem to suggest they're runing on inertia. This would necessitate an intra-system venue, though they could be waiting to get a safe distance away from the planet before rapiding.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I'm pretty sure mention is made at some point that humans inhabit 70 or so worlds. Definatly interstellar. Still best not to over think such things, since it really has little bearing on the show.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aban Rune: 5) After Serenity breaks orbit, the nacelle lights always go out, which would seem to suggest they're runing on inertia. This would necessitate an intra-system venue, though they could be waiting to get a safe distance away from the planet before rapiding.
Perhaps... except that the nacelles are the engines that tilt and swivel for maneuvering and hovering. There's a lot less maneuvering in space (outside of planetary orbit), so the nacelle engines can be shut down after breaking orbit.
And the danger in the pilot episode of going to "full burn" in an atmosphere is obviously a lot more real than the debatable problem with going to warp in a planet's atmosphere. Therefore, seeing as how full burn is obviously much more powerful than your basic liftoff engines, and a spaceship's greatest necessary acceleration is only when escaping a planet's gravity (such as launching from the surface), it seems obvious to me that the full burn is in some way related to an FTL engine.
And besides, based on various physical limitations, it's impossible to make decisions based on television-determined perspectives of the camera. For all we know, Firefly's FTL method has some sort of minimal time-dilation effect that makes things seem to be moving past at a slower speed than they actually are, or some such. That would help explain the quirkiness of that close-pass with the Reaver ship, anyway. Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I suppose people are now aware that Firefly is going to be on the Sci-Fi Channel, before SG-1 (or after Battlestar Galactica, depending on when in the sequence you catch it)? Like, starting shortly after new episodes of those other shows start.
Re the number of inhabited worlds: from the deleted scene from "Our Mrs. Reynolds:" "There's more than 70 Earths spinning about the galaxy and the meek have inherited not a one."
"Quirky." Yuck. "Jewel Staite ("Kaylee Frye") will appear as a Wraith in an upcoming episode of Stargate Atlantis, 'Instinct.'" A Wraith? Odd.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Reruns, right? Not new episodes...
Ok... the point about the nacelles is a good one. Though I doubt they have anything to do with an FTL drive. They seem to be atmospheric. I would suggest that the big bulge at the aft is probably the rapiding drive, and I'm guessing that it is in fact supposed to be an FTL drive based on the effect they use to show it. Maybe there's a limit on how long they can use it, though. Maybe only for short jaunts.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Woah, wait. A Wraith??? Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I'm currently watching the extras on the DVDs and they mention that, had the series gone on, we'd find out exactly what "Blue Sun Corporation" is. We saw the name all over the place on t-shirts and labels.
The other question I have is, is the bounty hunter from the movie supposed to be the same character as the one in "Objects in Space"? Two sarcastic black bounty hunters back two back would be highly coincidental, but the guy from "OiS" seemed pretty screwed.
Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
I find it interesting that 'the networks' have a bundle of dorky alien invasion shows this fall, but they turn down ingelligent Sci-Fi.
Shrug.. better then Reality shows, I suppose.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
quote:The other question I have is, is the bounty hunter from the movie supposed to be the same character as the one in "Objects in Space"?
No. I think we're looping ourselves. For one thing, the character in the movie isn't, as far as I know, a bounty hunter, but instead is a government agent.
Hence his name: The Operative.
I do not get why people think he is supposed to be Jubal Early. He does nothing Earlylike in the trailer, is for sure.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Well, I didn't think he was, it just seemed odd. You're right, he doesn't act like Early, doesn't sound the same, and he's definitely not the same actor. But I don't know anything about the movie other than seeing the trailer, so as far as I know, they could've replaced him with another actor (which doesn't seem very Whedon-like).
I'm glad it's not Early, since it would've been a stretch to explain how he got rescued. Though, I can't imagine the boy doesn't have remote access to his ship.
Another point about the engines, according to the diagram they showed in the behind the scenes stuff, the little rotating thing in the engine room is actually right at the aft end of the the ball on the back of the ship. Not in the middle like it would be on Star Trek. There's other stuff in that ball too. So the entire ball isn't generating whatever blast it is that comes from the ship when they rapid.
Posted by Nim' (Member # 205) on :
The trailer looked OK, though I hate stunt coordinators that let female pseudoheroes use TAE BO like it is a military combat routine. "Barb Wire" comes to mind. I suppose there are lots of rapists and ne'erdowells in San Fransisco health gyms.
Lots of ships everywhere, that should be fun to watch. Always nice with a crowded orbit, methinks. Something of the look of the group of passengers on the ship reminded me of "Alien Resurrection", the clothing style too. Nothing ever changes in the future. I've never seen "Firefly", so I hope it's good.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Whedon, of course, wrote Alien Resurrection, though this is a fact many regret, including him.
Which is strange, because if it did not exist, and someone came up to me and said that Joss Whedon and Jean-Pierre Jeunet were teaming up to make a movie I would probably be ecstatic. Oh well.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
OK... I think we have a fairly definite answer to the intersteller vs intrasteller argument. The intoduction to the the comic books says that after the Earth was used up, they found a new solar system, the core worlds became the Alliance. It leaves no doubt that it all takes place within one system. So... depending on how official those comics are... I'm guessing that everything in them comes right from Whedon.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Well, yes, and something similar appeared prior to each episode, but A.) it doesn't make sense and nerds get mad and B.) there are plenty of off the cuff references within the series that suggest otherwise.
But, I think the gigantic system scenerio is the "real" one, yes. (Alas.)
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Or that 'new' system only contains the core worlds (Osiris, Ariel etc) and all the other backwater and low rent planets were colonised in the surrounding systems.
Posted by Not Invented Here (Member # 1606) on :
I'm slowly making my way through the DVD, and there is another line in 'Bushwacked' that would imply multiple solar systems. It's near the start when they first come across the ship attacked by Reavers. Book says something like "But those ships are only capable of short range travel" and I think Wash replies with "They can be upgraded just enough to make a one way trip out this far". I'm at work now, but I'll check the exact dialogue when I get home. I know as I've written it above it only implies interstellar travel and could mean that the ships are only normally capable of say, an orbital hop, but I can only remember roughly what the characters say.
In my opinion the series would make next to no sense if set in one solar system, and although Whedon is not an Astronomy Professor (Neither am I), I reckon he thinks that too.
Although having said that, play the game 'Freelancer' for an example of how horrendously wrong people can get the workings of a star system...
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I don't believe you can derive anything about what "short range" and "this far" mean from that, though, beyond the relative. Just that the freighter is out farther than it normally ought to be.
The only thing about Firefly that gets weird when it is limited to one system is the number of habitable planets, even given that many that we see are in fact moons of gas giants. I mean, that's really weird, but I don't think it breaks the show. Nothing ever happens that would have to take place across interstellar instances, or, for that matter, that has to take place within a system. (Except for, maybe, "Out of Gas." In the real world, the kind of radio you could buy and put on a spacecraft in the 1970s is sufficient for communicating across at least 88 AU. And Serenity is, at a conservative estimate, at least as advanced as the Voyager probes. ((Come to think of it, how close were they to Whitefall, in the pilot, while enjoying real-time communication with Patience? Perhaps we can say that they must have FTL radio, at least?)) They wouldn't be out of communications range if they were inside a planetary system, though of course being in the range of any practical help is another matter. On the other hand scientific accuracy was not a particular goal of the show, beyond the incidental. And look how much goodwill no sound in space can generate with the hardcore.)
And, really, every planetary system found these days turns out to be weirder than the last. So who knows?
Posted by Not Invented Here (Member # 1606) on :
quote: I don't believe you can derive anything about what "short range" and "this far" mean from that, though, beyond the relative. Just that the freighter is out farther than it normally ought to be.
I realised exactly this whilst typing my post, which is why I will have to check the dialogue when I get home. Book may have said "Not capable of interstellar travel" or similar. Damn I wish my memory was better.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Didn't Mal say at one point that there were around 70 inhabited planets? Which isn't beyond the realms of possibility for one system, especially if most of those are gas giant moons. The real problem is having them all close enough to the star to support life.
Maybe it's a binary system?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
As mentioned, maybe earlier in this thread, the specific line is from the scene cut from "Our Mrs. Reynolds," and goes something like "There's more than 70 earths spinning about the galaxy and the meek have inherited not a one."
Though I dread it, one could perhaps bring up issues of canon in relation to this.
Posted by Not Invented Here (Member # 1606) on :
I've just watched the scene in 'Bushwacked'. The dialogue only mentions "short range", "this far into space" and "outer planets". Which doesn't really confirm either way, although I can see how they could be argued to imply one large system.
I still don't like the idea of one large system though. Raises all sorts of ugly questions about how they got there from Earth in my mind.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I don't recall the voiceover saying anythign about finding a new solar system. I believe it said the earth got used up and they colonized new earths. The statement in the comics seems a bit more specific, confining the action unquestionably to one solar system. I'm not saying it makes sense.... it just says it in the comic book.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
There are at least two versions. Book's goes: "After the Earth got used up, mankind found a new solar system, with hundreds of new planets," but I did not watch it today, and so that isn't an exact quote.
That Firefly wiki has a different version on its front page there. I don't know if it is an exact transcription or not.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Er...a new solar system with "hundreds of planets" would be incredibly lame.
Possibly one for the history books of Cheese.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
You tell 'em!
Out of curiosity, have you ever seen the show?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Actually....only a couple of episodes here and there- not enough to get the big picture yet. It's not lie Stargate where all the facts and premise are retorted ad naseum each episode.
I hear nothing but amazing stuff about it and have a DVD set on order via Ebay so I'll doubtlesly be hooked soon, but the notion of "hundreds of anything" in a system bodes ill for long term wellfare of a show/idea/whatever.
I'm just critical of the wording here. Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
What sort of reaction do you have to news stories about the Kuiper and/or Asteroid Belt?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
There are not "hundreds" of worlds out there...
Thousands (millions, probably) of rocks, ice, dust composite clumps and a few comets, but not enough to make an extended genre universe out of.
Certainly not hundreds of planets in a system.
Paticularly not places with enough mass for gravity or heat for an atmosphere.
This is where you tell me all about "suspension of disbelief" I'd imagine.
Even the incredible series Cowboy Bebop only ran for two seasons and a movie, and that was about a bunch of misfits living on one spaceship trying hard just to survive, eat and put gas in the tank... Heeeey! What a concept! They could make a live action series like that... Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
quote:hundreds of anything
Just sayin'.
But the reason I asked my earlier question is that this is so minor an aspect of the show that, as one can see, even its fans can't determine exactly what the correct answer is. So, I mean, you know, you should totally check it out. I guess.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Yeah I know- it's just the ambiguity that gets me a bit is all. Either the writers are deliberately leaving room for some knockout suprise....
Or it's a horrible Voyager-esque thing where they dont think "science" has anything to do with writing sci-fi (like Berman/Braga not knowing what a "Binary Star" was when Dan Simmons pitched a story to them).
Hopefully the former: I'm on a roll with this in part because I was watching some Noova special on the possibility of extreaterristrial life and they got into how silly many sci-fi depictions of alens and space travel tend to be.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I don't it's anything along the lines of Voyager in it's lack of forethought. Whedon's not like that. And the quality of the other aspects of the show really don't leave room for us to say, "Whedon just didn't think about it and so it sucks because it was un-thought out." I think, as was touched on above, it simply doesn't matter. The utter coolness of the show is not in any way dependant on whether the show takes place between star systems or within a single one.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I think if anything it shows that this isn't science fiction. It's a character drama, against the backdrop of a sci-fi world, just like Star Wars is a fantasy tale and the new Battlestar Galactica is a military/sociopolitical drama, again both with a Sci-Fi backdrop. In all these cases the science element is all but irrelevant, not being the focus of the storys. For instance, on what basis does Galactica's FTL work? Who cares, it just works! How fast are ships in the Star Wars Universe? As fast as the plot requires of course! The point is, as has been stated, none of this really matters and the vagueness of the geography of the Firefly 'Verse dosen't change the fact that it's a great show.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
The point here is that, if you're going to do drama against any backdrop other than the real world, you should at least build in some semblance of logic (temporal in Lucas' case, spatial in Whedon's), because otherwise people will just be looking at the backdrop and ignoring everything in front of it.
(Well, some people.)
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
No matter how much time they spend figuring out what planets are where, some obsessive fan is still going to poke holes in it, plus establishing a solid "map" of where everything is and how fast a ship can go would REALLY restrict the story telling. The advantage of keeping things vague is you don't have to explain how far Ariel is from Osirs or how long it takes the Dortmunder to get from Persephony to Whitefall at full throttle, because you can't contradict what hasn't already been established. Things like this were part of the downfall of Star Trek, things got so convoluted and established that gaping plot holes started springing up everywhere. So I think Whedon intentionally stayed well clear of that minefield on purpose, but who knows? We only got a dozzen or so episodes, hardly enough time to get into that kind of tedious detail.
Also from a realisum standpoint, how many people stand around discussing geography? Everyone with a basic education knows that if you're in the UK, Australia is half way around the globe. So when you're telling your friends you're going there on holiday, you're not likely to say "I'm going to Sydney Australia, which is 10,500 miles away from London and is close to New Zealand which was mentioned three episodes away!"
You'd just say, "I'm off to Oz, see you next month!"
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Er....I think you can still sdhere to basic science while having a (cough) "character based drama"(cough). the advanced tech (like FTL) is not really something that needs to be explained (except mabye on BSG, here everything else seems so low-tech- mabye proto-cylons made it for the colonies?).
I dont think the obsessive techie side of Trek contributed to it's "downfall" at all, but seeing writers with no idea how or what space might be like probably did (to us fans: see the Scimitar pulling itself off the crashed Enterprise as though gravity were in effect).
BSG does not work for me simply because it's sci-fi trappings are so transparant. They should have just placed the show on an aircraft carrier.
I'd say that Star Wars is far more sci-fi than many shows today- without having to explain anything- by havng the characters take the tech for granted and not explaining it all via technobabble -all the time (as on TNG).
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
Maybe someone else has already suggested this regarding the number of habitable worlds in one system, but think about what a "system" means. The Alpha Centauri system has two main stars each far enough apart to have planets in Earthlike orbits, as the suns only get about as close as Uranus and our sun. If you imagine a cluster of stars each with planets, and you assume that many of the inhabitable ones are moons of gas giants (so you can have several in effectively the same orbit around one star), it's not entirely far fetched. Well, SEVENTY is far fetched, but maybe not a smaller number.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Claiming that Firefly isn't science fiction is plumb bizarro crazy.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)