Sign Up | Log In
GENERAL DISCUSSIONS
Would a New Firefly/Serenity Work With Only Seven Crew-Members?
Saturday, February 14, 2009 10:28 AM
SCHISM
Saturday, February 14, 2009 10:43 AM
VERONIC
Saturday, February 14, 2009 11:12 AM
AGENTROUKA
Saturday, February 14, 2009 11:15 AM
NEWOLDBROWNCOAT
BYTEMITE
Saturday, February 14, 2009 5:04 PM
Sunday, February 15, 2009 1:13 AM
SIGMANUNKI
Quote:Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat: from my POV, you'd need to replace Book-- you need somebody to voice the moral themes.
Quote:Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat: But you need somebody to step up as the smart Plucky Comic Relief.
Sunday, February 15, 2009 2:47 AM
INSTANTKARMAGIRL
Sunday, February 15, 2009 3:07 AM
ADS
Sunday, February 15, 2009 5:26 AM
Sunday, February 15, 2009 6:35 AM
MAKINGVISIBLE
Monday, February 16, 2009 5:44 AM
PENNAUSAMIKE
Quote:Originally posted by Ads: In a series Joss was always going introduce and kill off characters, even important ones eventually. That's why I like him so much. He makes you fall in love with a character and then kills them in a way that both surprises you and affects you emotionally.
Monday, February 16, 2009 8:36 AM
Monday, February 16, 2009 8:49 AM
Monday, February 16, 2009 8:55 AM
Monday, February 16, 2009 9:32 AM
RALLEM
Monday, February 16, 2009 10:15 PM
JEWELSTAITEFAN
Monday, February 16, 2009 10:41 PM
Tuesday, February 17, 2009 2:47 AM
Tuesday, February 17, 2009 4:16 AM
BROWNCOAT1
May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009 5:25 AM
Tuesday, February 17, 2009 7:01 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Schism: I have to say, stepping back a few posts, that I would probably stop watching a new series or movie if they miraculously brought Wash back to life. One of the reasons I like Firefly when I normally don't like sci-fi is that it takes a realistic approach (given, of course, the variables of uninvented technology). Don't cheapen it with dreams of bad science fiction. ;p
Tuesday, February 17, 2009 7:41 AM
Quote:Originally posted by pennausamike: Quote: Don't cheapen it with dreams of bad science fiction. ;p
Quote: Don't cheapen it with dreams of bad science fiction. ;p
Tuesday, February 17, 2009 7:51 AM
Tuesday, February 17, 2009 8:22 AM
Quote:Originally posted by pennausamike: Quote:Originally posted by Schism: I have to say, stepping back a few posts, that I would probably stop watching a new series or movie if they miraculously brought Wash back to life. One of the reasons I like Firefly when I normally don't like sci-fi is that it takes a realistic approach (given, of course, the variables of uninvented technology). Don't cheapen it with dreams of bad science fiction. ;p Nobody ever said that Serenity was a nuclear ship, and that is just your lack of imagination which labels it so. I honestly think that Serenity probably runs on Hydrogen Anti-Matter which at this time in reality is very difficult to make, but it could be easy in the future to make and the scale of economy could make the hydrogen anti-matter cheap enough. I think it was addressed in the show that a heard of cattle was a very expensive commodity in the ‘verse. BTW if Serenity were a nuclear ship that would actually mean that the ship wouldn’t need refueling but about every thirty years, sort of like our nuclear carriers. If the ship were a nuclear fusion ship it would be even cheaper to fuel. Just to ask a silly question: do you think the U.S. Navy could support a nuclear-powered submarine by selling energy bars? Even if they were salvaged? Maybe if they smuggled some cattle, too. And yet, here we stand, Browncoats happily buying into the premise that a nuclear powered spaceship is paid for and maintained just like that. Author, Orsen Card Scott, said that Firefly was the most realistic SF show out there. But, I think really the realism was in part realistic characters reacting realistically in an often not quite real world. The idea that a single person can keep up after the maintenance on a space-going vessel, especially an old one prone to breaking is unrealistic in the highest order, even in projecting future developments from where we are now. If Firefly were truly realistic, every one of the crew would be in jail or dead. The success of their criminal enterprises, and the fact that they never hurt or kill innocent people while committing crime is far more "Unrealistic" than Wash living through Serenity. Also, this is a crew of identified "cop-killers". In Ariel they broke into a highly secure core-world Alliance medical facility and stole a bunch of medicine. Mal, Zoe, and Wash were almost certainly caught on camera and identified. Jayne, Simon and River were actually apprehended. Jayne personally killed one of the Alliance Feds and I'm sure the half dozen other cops' deaths were hung on the Serenity crew, not on duly authorized, Blue Hands, Alliance officers. Think in Trash; when Saffron was hauled out of the trash container and the priceless Lassiter was gone, do you think she said "I don't know WHAT happened"? Or do you think it is more likely she identified every one of Serenity's crew as having stolen a priceless artifact from a high-ranking, obviously wealthy Alliance officer?! Think the 'verse is realistic far as people coming back from horrendous wounds in the 'verse? Jayne got a 3/4 inch diameter spear through the calf and was walking around on it. But the ALL-TIME-WINNER? Has to be Dobson, He got shot in the head with a pistol that Mal used to DROP A HORSE IN IT'S TRACKS! And Joss brought him back in the comic book. So don't be givin' me this baloney that it's too unrealistic to bring Wash back! If we are going to pick and choose our un-realistic-ness, lets pick and choose what makes for the most entertaining story. I stand by my point that Wash's death didn't make the story any better, and that pretending to be "real" in such an "unrealistic" (but very fun) scenario isn't a benefit. Mike
Tuesday, February 17, 2009 9:16 AM
Tuesday, February 17, 2009 9:39 AM
Tuesday, February 17, 2009 9:47 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Bytemite: From what I remember reading (and this is from the Serenity RP manual, which I understand some people don't consider canon), Serenity's engines have three essential components. She has a fusion engine, which is what lights up when she fires, and which if the core containment is not properly maintained can leak radiation (Reaver ships). She has an electric engine which I think might draw power from the fusion engine and a hydraulic system, which I think in turn runs the electrical systems and possibly the vertical take off and landing engines on her wings. And she has an anti-gravity system which can be used to move somehow and which also helps make things nice and non-fatal for the crew. Algae (gas exchange) based life support is also built into the engine and apparently recieves power from it in some way, but is not a component of engine function. I'll check my book when I get home for any mistakes and for more specific information.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009 9:49 AM
Tuesday, February 17, 2009 10:13 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Schism: The technology side of things I won't get into realistic or unrealistic, cos who knows where we'll stand in 50 years time, given the technology explosion of the last, hell, TEN years. Point in case (or is that case in point?), I was watching an episode of Star Trek TNG (no, i'm not a trekkie, i was just bored), and the captian was with some chick and they were playing instruments. The captian had a whistle or something lame, and the woman he was with unrolled a keyboard. It was rolled up like a long narrow blanket, but once unrolled, it played like a keyboard. My mum, walking by at the time, said "oh how unrealistic is that??". That was in '94 or thereabouts. Skip forward to '08, there was one in the Sears Wishbook and I almost bought it for my daughter for Christmas. ;p A 'nuclear' ship that can be patched up to run through space may not be realistic, or could be plausible in 100 years. It's not the validity of the unknown that i call unrealistic, but rather those unknowns in the real world (like light-speed, for example). Anyway, my point is, bringing someone back from the dead is not realistic. If we found a technology for that then the world/universe would be in trouble, the population boom would be impossible to control, and the moral implications of knowing one's time would be...well...quite interesting really. Let the dead rest.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009 1:23 PM
Quote:Originally posted by rallem: Nobody ever said that Serenity was a nuclear ship, and that is just your lack of imagination which labels it so. I honestly think that Serenity probably runs on Hydrogen Anti-Matter...
Quote:"your lack of imagination"
Tuesday, February 17, 2009 1:54 PM
Quote:Originally posted by pennausamike: Quote:Originally posted by rallem: Nobody ever said that Serenity was a nuclear ship, and that is just your lack of imagination which labels it so. I honestly think that Serenity probably runs on Hydrogen Anti-Matter... Its not my lack of imagination, but my interpretation of my licensed Serenity blueprints, that leads me to believe that Serenity is nuclear powered. But that's not what the thread is about. You are trying to undermine my reasoning Quote:"your lack of imagination" on the point on whether the crew dynamic is better with or without Wash. I'll accept that some folks prefer the darker turn in storytelling of killing characters, but I stand by my assertion that in an already unreal world, better storytelling is more important than audience manipulation. A discussion of the nuts and bolts of the reality of Firefly/Serenity tech is a whole 'nother thread topic. I only mentioned it as an example/point as to why keeping Wash in the crew dynamic (7 vs. 9) was a reasonable thing within the reality of the 'verse. And hydrogen anti-matter...were'd THAT come from? Neither the dialog, production notes nor the officially released info alludes in any way to that.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009 2:33 PM
Tuesday, February 17, 2009 2:45 PM
Tuesday, February 17, 2009 2:46 PM
Tuesday, February 17, 2009 3:09 PM
Quote:You're right and I apologize for my confrontational stance earlier.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009 3:17 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Schism: ...we can get back to concentrating on the fact that you're all soulless dorks for wanting to bring Wash back from the dead! ;p
Tuesday, February 17, 2009 3:41 PM
GORRAMITGIRL
Tuesday, February 17, 2009 8:01 PM
STINKBUG
Wednesday, February 18, 2009 2:46 AM
VERASAMUELS
Wednesday, February 18, 2009 3:23 AM
Quote:Originally posted by pennausamike: Quote:You're right and I apologize for my confrontational stance earlier. The Browncoat community continues to impress me with the quality of folk this fandom attracts. I'd likewise apologize for any piss-y-ness in my response. At some point these things come down to taste. I feel betrayed by authors who kill characters for effect. Some folks enjoy the storylines that grow out of those losses. While I understand that, I feel the original premise of the show, (the loss by the Independents to the Alliance), is enough loss and challenge to overcome for our plucky band of good-guy criminals. Now, where was that "souless dork" post...:-)
Wednesday, February 18, 2009 5:02 AM
Wednesday, February 18, 2009 5:55 AM
Wednesday, February 18, 2009 6:40 AM
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL