Full Burn? by manwithpez

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Full Burn?

POSTED BY: MANWITHPEZ
UPDATED: Sunday, April 24, 2005 13:15
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 5065
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, April 19, 2005 2:26 AM

Important people don't do field work.

What exactly does the term Full Burn mean? In the early episodes, it would seem to mean when the Firefly's engine is activated in such a way as to project the "fusion explosion" behind them to propel them at a high rate of speed.

Zoe's lines in Serenity when they are trying to escape the Reavers would seem to bear this up (Full burn in atmo?)

But, (and I know this might be being nitpicky, but I gotta know!) in The Message, just before he flies into the canyon, Wash says "Full Burn!"
And, the Firefly does not light up, plus, we've seen the effects of this before in Serenity. There was no such devastation on St. Albans.

So, which is which?

Kaylee: "What's so damn important about being proper? It don't mean nothing out here in the black."
Simon: "It means more out here. It's all I have..."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 19, 2005 3:33 AM

EMBERS

Joss did say that if you ask him science questions he will cry.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 19, 2005 3:46 AM

MANWITHPEZ

Important people don't do field work.

I only ask because it might figure into my fanfic...

Kaylee: "What's so damn important about being proper? It don't mean nothing out here in the black."
Simon: "It means more out here. It's all I have..."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 19, 2005 4:20 AM

BYTETHEBULLET

My theory is that when they were pulling the Crazy Ivan they would not be at full atmo speed, whipping a u-ey, as it where. The tail of the ship would be pointing towards the ground. When they are in the canyon they are at speed in a normal trajectory, hence full burn would boost the current speed. That is my rational and it helps me sleep at nite.

ByteTheBullet (-:

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 19, 2005 4:41 AM

CHRISISALL

Full Burn referrs to the angle at which the hydrogen atoms are being 'sliced' with regards to the local gravitational pull of a nearby body; this type of fusion horizontal to the plane of G-pull produces speed only, while the same reaction perpindicualr to that plane produces combustion of oxygen molocules...
By now you must know that I have no clue what I'm goin' on about. That's what a Star Trek past does for ya, anything can be explained with technobabble.

I think Wash was speaking figurativly in the canyon, similar to someone in a car yelling,"WARP SIX!"- Full Burn in that canyon would have destroyed them, wouldn't it?

Techy an' all Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 19, 2005 4:47 AM

MANWITHPEZ

Important people don't do field work.

Yeah, that's what I was gettin' at...And Wash saying it without really doing it...(He would need someone's help in the engine room, wouldn't he?) is a very, very satisfactory explanation...

Kaylee: "What's so damn important about being proper? It don't mean nothing out here in the black."
Simon: "It means more out here. It's all I have..."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 19, 2005 5:41 AM

THATWEIRDGIRL

I just ignore the crazy flying in the message since they threw out the flying rules for that day. I figure he/they wanted to be extra dramatic.

www.thatweirdgirl.com
---
Can we not revel in our cyber-love?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 20, 2005 4:23 PM

REAVERINA1985RIVIERA

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Full Burn referrs to the angle at which the hydrogen atoms are being 'sliced' with regards to the local gravitational pull of a nearby body; this type of fusion horizontal to the plane of G-pull produces speed only, while the same reaction perpindicualr to that plane produces combustion of oxygen molocules...
By now you must know that I have no clue what I'm goin' on about. That's what a Star Trek past does for ya, anything can be explained with technobabble.

I think Wash was speaking figurativly in the canyon, similar to someone in a car yelling,"WARP SIX!"- Full Burn in that canyon would have destroyed them, wouldn't it?

Is it weird that what he said made perfect sense to me?

---------------------------------------------
The real-life box droppin', man-ape gone wrong thing, now without the pesky falling boxes

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 20, 2005 5:00 PM

CHRISISALL

You must also be a fellow Star Trek fan, I culled that babble outta my hearin' that junk for over 30 years. Makes sense if you ain't a scientist, or the like.
Thanks for the compliment, though.

Crammed with Chronoton particle nonsense Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 20, 2005 5:47 PM

REAVERINA1985RIVIERA

Actually, I was referring to the second paragragh.

I was wondering why he said "full burn" without the big bang. The "warp 6" was similar to something I say when I shift out of Overdrive to pass someone (but I yell "88 Miles Per Hour!").

I'm more of a Back to the Future fan than a Trekkie (god, I want a Delorean so badly...wanted it since the 3rd grade). After watching Firefly, Star Trek seems like a comedy (especicialy Next Generation, those uniforms!)

---------------------------------------------
The real-life box droppin', man-ape gone wrong thing, now without the pesky falling boxes

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 20, 2005 7:27 PM

the movie is not the Series. Only the facts have been changed, to irritate the innocent; the names of the actors and characters remain the same

Quote:
Originally posted by thatweirdgirl:
I just ignore the crazy flying in the message since they threw out the flying rules for that day. I figure he/they wanted to be extra dramatic.

I'm with you on that. It's pretty clear to me that Tim didn't care about anything but the dramatic scenes, & Alan didn't care about anything @all, including showing up on time. Neither of them cared what their sloppiness was doing to Firefly.

Keep the Shiny Side Up . . . (wutzon) Allman Bro's, "In Memory of Elizabeth Reed", from "Live from the Atlanta Int'l Pop Festival 1970"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 20, 2005 7:41 PM

the movie is not the Series. Only the facts have been changed, to irritate the innocent; the names of the actors and characters remain the same

Quote:
Originally posted by embers:
Joss did say that if you ask him science questions he will cry.

But this isn't a science question; it's a consistency question. It's pretty close to a writing question but, if it isn't in the script, it's direction. Anyway, it's Tim's mistake.

But we should try to keep in mind that, aside from the pilot that had a 24 day shooting schedule, with more time for script development & post production, the other eps were shot in five or six days.

Keep the Shiny Side Up . . . (wutzon) Robert Plant, "Big Log", from "Sixty-six to Timbuktu"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 20, 2005 7:52 PM

DEADMAN

Basically the person who said "warp six" was right, and said it before I could.

Think of "Full Burn" as a term that has come to mean full throttle. Only cooler sounding.

Space wheat? Space...corn?

Anyway, while it probably generally refers to the main engine kicking in, in that instance wash was likely using the term figuratively. In fact, I THINK there was one or two other places in the series where they said "Full burn" but the firefly effect didnt go off.

"Also? I can kill you with my brain."
-River

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 21, 2005 2:01 AM

HAWKMOTH

In The Message, the line is:

WASH

Get ready for hard burn --
(leans on controls)
They'd be crazy to follow us in here.

Which seems to indicate that a hard burn is a less powerful, less dangerous bit of engine firing.

(And I think the term "hard burn" is used in another episode...)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 21, 2005 3:52 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by ReaverInA1985Riviera:

I'm more of a Back to the Future fan than a Trekkie (god, I want a Delorean so badly...wanted it since the 3rd grade). After watching Firefly, Star Trek seems like a comedy (especicialy Next Generation, those uniforms!)

STTNG looks to me now like the original series looked to me in the eighties. Firefly will not date itself like that, though.

Do you at least have the Sun Star diecast of the Delorean? It's so sweet, wheels even fold under for flying!
BTW I can't stand when people say 'BTTF3 was stuck in one place, it wasn't as good as the other two.' It was ONE long story; three points of perfection!

You talkin' to me Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 21, 2005 5:13 AM

MANWITHPEZ

Important people don't do field work.

Besides, part 3 wasn't stuck in one place...ITs starts in 1955...goes back to the old west, and ends in 1985 not far from where we started...Then again, they were always stuck in one place...geographically speaking...Heh

Kaylee: "What's so damn important about being proper? It don't mean nothing out here in the black."
Simon: "It means more out here. It's all I have..."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 21, 2005 5:59 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by manwithpez:
, they were always stuck in one place...geographically speaking...Heh

In one place relative to the Earth...do you realize that the time circuits in the Delorean have to compinsate for not only the rotation of the planet but also it's orbit around the sun?
One slight miscalclation, and they're in space, baby.

Never thought about that, huh? Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 21, 2005 6:06 AM

MANWITHPEZ

Important people don't do field work.

I thought about it...I mean, it is a trilogy based on the concept of a Delorean as a time machine...Its not rocket science. Most time machine fantasy movies are intrinsically flawed to begin with, which, is what makes them such great fantasies...99% of the time, when it comes to time travel technology in movies, I take the Austin Powers approach and try not to go crosseyed...Which reminds me...there is a great website...
www.mjyoung.net/time/
I have thoroughly enjoyed this website, if I don't happen to agree with all of its conclusions...its a lot of fun.

Kaylee: "What's so damn important about being proper? It don't mean nothing out here in the black."
Simon: "It means more out here. It's all I have..."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 21, 2005 7:02 AM

CHRISISALL

Manwithpez, thanks for that facinating link. The explanation for the Terminator anomaly will take some time to absorb, but at this moment it seems...fanciful.
The Back to the Future points were right on the mark, but it's a comedy/fantasy, so I can easily let it slide.
My head is gonna explode like that guy in Scanners, now, so I gotta go.

Overloaded Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 21, 2005 1:18 PM

MANWITHPEZ

Important people don't do field work.

Its not that hard, I don't think...What he's saying is that there had to be two different timelines in order for The Terminator to work. We are not ever shown an original one, but two factors about it remain the same. One is that machines will rise up and try to capture/kill as many humans as possible. The second is that a man named John Connor, son of Sarah Connor is the rebel leader that will the biggest concern for Skynet. In this original timeline, he will meet someone named Kyle Reece, send him back in time to protect Sarah (protect himself, actually) where Reece will replace the original man (we are never shown) to become John's father. This necessitates that John does not know that Kyle will become his father. And, he doesn't, in the original timeline. But, afterwards (In what is described as an infinity loop) John does know, because Sarah tells him. After the first timeline(not shown to us, remember)John MUST send Kyle back, or the version of himself we are presented with will never be born. This does not mean that some version of John Connor will not be born...he already was...See, infinity loop! So, two things remain the same...Someone named John Connor puts a hurting on Skynet, and there will be a machine/human war!

Kaylee: "What's so damn important about being proper? It don't mean nothing out here in the black."
Simon: "It means more out here. It's all I have..."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 21, 2005 2:58 PM

REAVERINA1985RIVIERA

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:

Do you at least have the Sun Star diecast of the Delorean? It's so sweet, wheels even fold under for flying!

I got it at the Chicago Auto Show last year! Still mint in the box, and I also have the Sun Star model of the regular Delorean.

---------------------------------------------
The real-life box droppin', man-ape gone wrong thing, now without the pesky falling boxes

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 21, 2005 4:47 PM

CHRISISALL

Absolutly shiny!

I can't drive...55 Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 21, 2005 4:52 PM

CHRISISALL

That's sorta what I got out of it, but it has that ring of 'Trek talk' about it...

That and 'the Governorship' are what makes it REALLY hard for me to watch those flicks again...

I must mull it over some more...

Plasma rifle in 40 watt range Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 21, 2005 5:29 PM

ASTRAGYNIA

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
STTNG looks to me now like the original series looked to me in the eighties. Firefly will not date itself like that, though.

Um, I hate to break it to you - but the costumes and hairstyles of Firefly are very much those of OUR time. We don't notice it so much now, but 20 years from now... well, we'll see.

Besides, by then we'll be looking at the costumes of several films as well, spread out over several years, right?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 21, 2005 5:41 PM

DEADMAN

Actually firefly's costumes and the designs thereof are loosely based on the period of the civil war. It could be argued that much of the cloathing in firefly is ALREADY dated.

While that may be part of its charm, it doesnt change the fact.

"Also? I can kill you with my brain."
-River

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 22, 2005 4:58 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Astragynia:
Quote:
I hate to break it to you - but the costumes and hairstyles of Firefly are very much those of OUR time. We don't notice it so much now, but 20 years from now... well, we'll see.

I was referring to the overall production, but since you mention costume and hairstyle...

Setting Firefly in a future that has echoes of the past is genius. As mentioned, it's already dated and has a definite look that, in part, was a real look in the real world. Star Trek, tv and films, was always pure creation and as such, subject to the concept of what appeared to be futuristic at the time, thus the danger of looking dated later.

Example: Airwolf, slightly futuristic look, but based upon existing technology and uniforms. Take out time refrences (and a couple of Farrah doos from certain episodes) and you'd have to examine it closly to determine exactly when it was made. Men's hairstyles were mostly short and neat, a timeless look that keeps coming back.
Kirk's high hair in ST2 just yelled eighties. Mal's cut is definitly traditional short that will never look "ones". Zoe, Kaylee Simon all have looks that keep coming back. Nobody's hippie or 90's military crew cut.
And Serenity is Functional funky. All rusted and dark lit, no plastic lookin' walls or ultra lit up dizzy display panels, a real look that says 'transport', not 'star cruiser'.

Example: 2001, no bellbottoms, no flowers, no sound in space, conservative hairstyles (one stewardess on the Pan Am shuttle has her hair up a tad too high, but she's not a real character in the film). In short, hard to place if you didn't know.

Think of shows that instantly have already dated themselves. Andromeda, anyone? And as good as Farscape is, turn of the century muppets?

I respectfully submit that Firefly is in a (dateless) class of it's own.

Here endith the sermon Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 22, 2005 5:04 AM

CHRISISALL

Hey! Why'd my post come out grey?
Edit:Okay, thanks to a kindness shown me by a fellow independant, it's all right.Makes this post sorta just an object in space now.

Perplexed Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 22, 2005 5:10 AM

FANTASTICLAUGHINGFAIRY

You know Kaylee is supposed to be needed in the engine room to do a proper full burn (with the flashy lights n stuff) how come at the beginning of the Train Job Wash goes into full burn whilst Kaylee is on the bridge? Has anyone else noticed this?

...and we will call it...this land..

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 22, 2005 5:21 AM

MANWITHPEZ

Important people don't do field work.

Maybe the preparations had been done beforehand?

Kaylee: "What's so damn important about being proper? It don't mean nothing out here in the black."
Simon: "It means more out here. It's all I have..."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 22, 2005 5:35 AM

BARNEYT

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Hey! Why'd my post come out grey?

Perplexed Chrisisall

Because your post is missing some of the closing quote tags... a bit like remembering all the closing braces in computer programs, things go weird when they're forgotten or mis-placed!

---
"I think the right place to start is to say, fair is fair. This is who we are. These are our numbers." Mr Willis of Ohio - The West Wing

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 22, 2005 5:35 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by manwithpez:
What exactly does the term Full Burn mean?

Had "Full Burn" last night. I don't recomend Dominos new Cheeseburger pizza.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 22, 2005 5:36 AM

MANWITHPEZ

Important people don't do field work.

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

I always associate Full Burn with Beer Poop!

OUCH!!!

Kaylee: "What's so damn important about being proper? It don't mean nothing out here in the black."
Simon: "It means more out here. It's all I have..."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 22, 2005 6:24 AM

CHRISISALL

Quite kind of you to help, it's okay now.

Sometimes we all are in need Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 22, 2005 6:32 AM

CHRISISALL

Manwithpez, I value your thoughts. What about this 'lookin' dated in twenty years' issue that's been brought up? Will our beloved Serenity and crew look 'ones' in a couple o' decades?

Curious hrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 22, 2005 6:46 AM

MANWITHPEZ

Important people don't do field work.

I don't think so at all...I think some pains were made to kinda keep the show with a out of time/timeless look. Nobody's hairstyle is really in or out, the clothes are functional, rather than fashionable, with the exception of Inara's and they're just timeless fashions. I have stated on this site many times that Zoic's CGI is the best I've ever seen anywhere, movie, or TV, and I think that too will stand the test of time.

I think of it this way. Buffy's wardrobe, etc. was about being either with fashion, or trendsetting. Because it was something that she cared about. I mean, watching some episodes now, the only characters whose looks tend not to change in extremis are Giles, Spike, and Angel. And, Spike's look was reaching the end of any kind of fashionability. Giles looked changed, but stayed kinda out of fashion (more than likely on purpose)a switch from stuffy and bookwormish to comfortability, and Angel had the one look that worked the best for him, and it stuck. But, Buffy, and Angel for that matter were two shows where the fashions involved seem to work in reverse to the functionality of their roles on the show. More than once, Buffy had problems high kicking in a skirt.

Something like that would never happen on Firefly, because the crew, given what they do, dress the part. Wash is almost always wearing a flightsuit, because he's a pilot. Kaylee's almost always wearing coveralls, because she's a mechanic. To me, the least functionally dressed member of the crew is Simon, and that can be explained by his taking what he had with him when he left his affluent lifestyle. The vest, with the buttondown, or a suit never really ever goes out of style, does it?

Take this as an example, because I know for a fact that the fashions presented in the film were a conscious effort to keep them timeless. But, Ghostbusters was a film made 21 years ago, and when you watch it now, it doesn't seem that dated to me. The effects hold up, for the most part, and when you look at what the core cast is wearing at work, or off, you don't think "Man, that looks like it came straight from 1984", do you?

Short answer, no, I don't think Firefly will look too dated later on.

Kaylee: "What's so damn important about being proper? It don't mean nothing out here in the black."
Simon: "It means more out here. It's all I have..."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 22, 2005 7:33 AM

CHRISISALL

Thank you kindly for that most lucid response.
(and thanks for backin' me up, dude!)

All out of fashion Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 24, 2005 1:15 PM

the movie is not the Series. Only the facts have been changed, to irritate the innocent; the names of the actors and characters remain the same

Quote:
Originally posted by fantasticlaughingfairy:
You know Kaylee is supposed to be needed in the engine room to do a proper full burn (with the flashy lights n stuff) how come at the beginning of the Train Job Wash goes into full burn whilst Kaylee is on the bridge?

In the pilot, Kaylee was needed in the engine room to do a full burn in atmo, which was a dangerous (@least to others) maneuver. Perhaps she had to defeat a safety interlock or two, which wouldn't have been necessary for a full burn in space.

Keep the Shiny Side Up . . . (wutzon) the Word, "I'll Fly Away", eponymous

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE