posted
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.
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.
-------------------- “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 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.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
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.
-------------------- “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'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
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.
-------------------- joH'a' 'oH wIj DevwI' jIH DIchDaq Hutlh pagh (some days it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps in the morning) The Woozle!
Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
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.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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
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.
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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
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.)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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
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...
Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
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.![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
