posted
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.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- Sparky:: Think! Question Authority, Authoritatively. “Believe nothing of what you hear, and only half of what you see.” EMSparks
Shalamar: To save face, keep lower half shut.
Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
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!
-------------------- Sparky:: Think! Question Authority, Authoritatively. “Believe nothing of what you hear, and only half of what you see.” EMSparks
Shalamar: To save face, keep lower half shut.
Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
EdipisReks
Ex-Member
posted
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.
IP: Logged
posted
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!
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
EdipisReks
Ex-Member
posted
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.
IP: Logged
posted
But who takes credit for the infamous "assualt rifle"?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
EdipisReks
Ex-Member
posted
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.
IP: Logged
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
