Why Firefly deserved to die by xed

Just because they've putted it on hiatus doesn't mean it's dead. I admit it doesn't look good for the show but as long as FOX doesn't announce cancelation the show is still alive and (almost) well.

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

Sunday, December 1, 2002 10:14 AM

SERGEANTX

I suppose everyone is entitled to their own stupid opinion, but as far as I see it, the only reason Firefly deserves to die is the way it makes most other television seem moronic by contrast. I've seen every episode so far and not once felt depressed -- quite the opposite actually. Despite the network's bone-headed scheduling, I haven't been confused about the characters at all. In fact, my only complaint has been that the character development has seemed slightly rushed at times, a seeming necessity given the short attention spans of the network execs. The pacing on the show is wonderful.. and wonderfully atypical. Firefly is not a sitcom nor the A-team and I find it refreshing that they allow the 'action' to be interlaced with more contemplative and thought provoking dialog.

As far as your critique of the downbeat nature of the show, I couldn't disagree more. Firefly is science fiction, but it's not fantasy. The characters aren't larger than life heroes changing the epic flow of history, and everything doesn't always work out in the end. But thats exactly what makes it all so immediate and believable. They struggle with isolation, alienation, regret and rejection... the real issues all of us have to deal with in one form or another... and while you might find it depressing to consider, personally I am joyously moved to see others fighting to maintain dignity if the face of all that would drag us down.

I quite watching TV when Quantum Leap went off the air, precisely because of the trite, idiotic nature of most of the rest of television, where you can't tell the difference between drama and Pepsi commercials.. and my TV goes back in the closet if they toss Firefly aside.

SergeantX

"..and here's to all the dreamers, may our open hearts find rest." -- Nanci Griffith

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

Sunday, December 1, 2002 11:09 AM

AINEIN

I agree with a large part of what Sarge said. FF does make the rest of television look a bit moronic. Everything doesn't come out fine in the end, life's challenges can't be solved in 18 minutes plus commercials. FF's characters are flawed...and fabulous. Like we all are. But it doesn't deserve to get cancelled or changed. There's bunch of us Browncoatz that like it just the way it is. I'd love to say F$%@ television demographics...but they could put a Nielsen box on every TV set and then they could see who's really watching what. And I bet they'd be surprised.
I've been'planetside'for 2 Fridays in a row now, I'm jonesin' really bad for the next ep. War Stories.
Oh yeah...and if XED is still pondering his decision whether to 'watch Firefly or slit his throat'?...maybe he can ask Jayne Cobb for the loan of his knife.

Ainein Kurogane

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

Sunday, December 1, 2002 11:20 AM

RINGWRAITH

Quote:
Originally posted by xed:

[1] unebelievably depressing (Joss Whedon's fault). Imagine a future where the Nazis won. Fill a weekly show with French resistance members hiding out in Tieera Del Fuego. This ain't a recipe for fun, kiddies.

So every episode is supposed to be fun and upbeat? Ever hear of Babylon 5? Ever hear of Angel? Jeremiah? X-Files? Millennium? I like the idea of a universe where it's not Star Trek, where people's rights have been taken away and government and bureaucracy rule the day. Not that I would want to live in this universe but because it creates interesting storylines and dilemnas for the characters.

Quote:

[2] We have no idea who these characters are (Fox networks' fault). Without the pilot episode, the screenwriters found themselves forced to insert exposition that clobbered every episode. The whole second episode made no sense (What's a Reaver?). "Out Of Gas" tried to substitute for the pilot -- did a darn good job. But way too late. Faced with a universe we dont' understand populated by folks we don't know in situations we're not familiar with, most viewers chose to tune out. Thanks, Fox. Brilliant decision to avoid showing the 2-hour pilot.

So all of the characters and their motivations are supposed to be revealed in one episode? Yes, Fox should have aired the pilot FIRST but they didn't. Personally I like the way the characters are being revealed, layer by layer. I don't want to see all the cards on the table at once. Ditto the storyline.

Quote:

[3] Clunky screenwrtiing. Any professional writer worth hi/r salt knows you don't slam the brakes on the action to segue to irrelevant and annoying exposition. Whedon's always had this problem, and the canceled pilot made it worse. "The Train Job" offers a superb example of how NOT to write a script. Start off the episode with a long irrelevant flashback involving River. (Irrelevant to this episode -- perhaps necessary for expositin down the line, but that doesn't count. Each episode must grab and HOLD the viewer's attention, else the series fails.) Bog down the episode with a long discussion with Book. Then, the minute Mal & company get ready to pull the heist on the maglev, slam the brakes on the narrative by cutting away to a long irrelevant discussion twixt Book and the companion.
Kiddies, that's bad screenwriting with a vengeance.

Riiiiiiiiight, because you're a professional screenwriter, right? Is your name Joss Whedon? Joe Michael Straczynski? David E. Kelley? Alan Sorkin? Howard Gordon? Stephen Bochco? David Chase? Someone else? I take it you know all the "rules" of screenwriting and since many other people here, including me, enjoy the show and how it's written we must be stupid or something because we don't understand the innerworkings of screenwriting like you do. Can we see some examples of the work you've done? Or if you're not a screenwriter I'll assume you're a professional critic for some major media company or newspaper.

Or you could just be a troll.

Quote:

[4] Avoid upbeat endings like the plague. Good idea. We already start with a grim premise -- the bad guys lost WW II/the Civil War. And on top of that, what? Every episode seems to involve some new downer -- a universe in which justice never ever prevails, a Buffy The Vampire Slayer in wh ich Buffy can never slay a vamp...or even keep 'em from greasing civilians. Case in point: in "The Train Job" the supervillain on the skyplex gets away scot free. He's still out there, still hanging folks from the ceiling. Wonderful. Instead of watching "Firefly," how's 'bout I just cut my throat?

Writers can write whatever the hell they want to write, depressing or not. If it's what they want or need they'll put it in. Maybe we don't feel it's necessary but it's not what we want, it's what the writer wants.

We tend to put our expectations into shows and when we don't see what WE want to see we throw hissy fits, even though the writers know (or should know) what they're doing.

It's not our show. If you want total control over what gets done, go write/create your own.

************************************************
"How will this end?"
"In fire."
--Babylon 5, 'The Coming of Shadows'
************************************************

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

Sunday, December 1, 2002 11:28 AM

ALLRONIX

To quote Monty Python "I'm not dead yet!" FF's in a bad way, but Berman stressed that the show wasn't canned...yet. This is a great deal more optimistic than most. Most of the time, the suit would not go out of their way to stress that.

Quote:

[1] unebelievably depressing (Joss Whedon's fault). Imagine a future where the Nazis won. Fill a weekly show with French resistance members hiding out in Tieera Del Fuego. This ain't a recipe for fun, kiddies.

No, it isn't. Whedon said he wanted to make something about the people "history steps on." Yes, it is a tad pessimistic, but so were other shows I liked. X-Files couldn't have had a happy ending. Neither could the mother-of-all nasty endings, Blake's 7.

XF ends with the heroes scattered or dead, the alien/human deal cancelled and the alien invasion inevitable and unstoppable. The leads have lost their careers, their quest - even their child, and the final scene is the pair of them in a fleabag hotel in Roswell. Blake's 7 ends with one of the leads killing the other, then all of the so-called "heroes" get brutally gunned down.

And judging from what I've seen of Whedon's style, he seems to prefer a darker, sadder style. For all of the demons Buffy has slain, she still has so many of her own - dead family members, a destiny she never asked for, friends that betray her, and a fetish for vampires. she was even ripped brutally from the gates of heaven. In Titan AE, humanity is reduced to a group of homeless space bums. Now, in Firefly, we have a group of burned-out refugees and veterans who have lost damn near everything.

Honestly, though, I do hope the series gets a bit of optimism and an arc other than "survival." "Ariel was a huge step towards a mytharc and direction for the series.

Quote:
[2] We have no idea who these characters are (Fox networks' fault).

I dunno, I picked up a lot on the characters quickly. The interrogation scene in "Bushwacked" not only had me on the floor laughing my a** off, but gave me some great insights on who these folks were.

Quote:

Without the pilot episode, the screenwriters found themselves forced to insert exposition that clobbered every episode.

Ever see season 1 of TNG, DS9, or Voyager? Pre-made universe, two-hour aired pilot, and still a lot of exposition to wade through.

Quote:

Faced with a universe we dont' understand populated by folks we don't know in situations we're not familiar with, most viewers chose to tune out. Thanks, Fox. Brilliant decision to avoid showing the 2-hour pilot.

The universe makes pretty good sense to me. I had to go chewing through fan sites for information on episodes I didn't get to see, but it all pieces together nicely.

Oh, and the decisiuon to not run the pilot. Boneheaded, yes. Without precedent, no. Indeed the other space western I am a fan of aired the third episode first when TIIC thought the pilot "too dark" or "too talky" for a cartoon in 1986. Granted, it wasn't the BEST introduction for the characters, but it's not as bad as it could be.

Quote:

[3] Clunky screenwrtiing. Any professional writer worth hi/r salt knows you don't slam the brakes on the action to segue to irrelevant and annoying exposition. Whedon's always had this problem, and the canceled pilot made it worse.

I've not noticed this as much. Again, Wheadon's got an odd style, but it's one that can get the most out of a character and play the situation with honesty. There are other methods other than Archplot, and most screenwriters find some place that fits for them.

Quote:

[4] Avoid upbeat endings like the plague. Good idea. We already start with a grim premise -- the bad guys lost WW II/the Civil War. And on top of that, what?

This part is depressing, but I'm not sure the Alliance is as stable as it looks. To be honest, they seem to be stretched mighty thin, and need the resources of the backwater worlds to sustain its cities. Now, checking history, that was one of the reasons Rome collapsed.

Also, from what I gather, there are underground movements, riots, and various other cracks in the dam. An underground movement helped the Tams in the unaired pilot. A group of "mudders" rioted and gained a little respect for themselves in "Jaynestown." Also, judging from the upper class exapmles we have seen in "Safe" and "Shindig," we have another Roman analogy - a slave economy, and a decadent upper class with massive disparity between wealth and poverty.

Quote:

Every episode seems to involve some new downer -- a universe in which justice never ever prevails.

I dunno. sometimes small victories have merit. Mal stood up for his honor and destroyed an upper-crust git with no regard for people. ("Shindig"), Jayne accidentally grated a town dignity. Simon screwed over a large hospital and found a way to help his sister.

Point is - we don't know yet. It's a big universe and early in the game, and Wheadon also likes pulling a few surprises on his audience. I'd like to wait and see.

Co-founder of the Evil Writing Crew - causing hell, one hero at a time!

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

Sunday, December 1, 2002 11:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by xed:
[2]The whole second episode made no sense (What's a Reaver?).

The reavers won't be explained in the pilot...if you watched attentivly instead of only finding reason to bitch(wait maybe it's just that you don't have a big enough attention span to follow a show like that) you would have understood what the reavers were, they explained it very well and the guy they found on that ship pretty much became a reaver himself after what the reavers did to him...

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

Sunday, December 1, 2002 4:48 PM

HOOK

I hate to say it but xed has a point. His reasons are valid as to why the show could fail....the show doesn't appeal to a mass audiance. Saddly Xed represents the majority of people who consume mass television...I wouldn't go as far as saying it deserves to fail. But xed illistraits very clearly why it could fail....I wish he was wrong. :(

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

Sunday, December 1, 2002 5:32 PM

LIVINGIMPAIRED

Hey Haken! I think we have another thread that needs to be deligated to Troll Country!

And here's an idea: If you don't like a show, DONT GO POSTING ON FAN SITES. Go to www.ihatefirefly.com and post there. Or make your own website. But to go on a fan site and the only opinon you have is, "Dude, this show sucks" is just rude. If you aren't smart enough to pay attention to the episodes and form inteligent opinions about said episodes, then go somewhere else, cause you're cloging up my bandwidth.

________________

"Dear Diary, Today I was pompous and my sister was crazy. Today we were kidnapped by hill folk never to be seen again. And it was the best day ever!"

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

Sunday, December 1, 2002 6:51 PM

HOOK

Quote:
Originally posted by LivingImpaired:
Hey Haken! I think we have another thread that needs to be deligated to Troll Country!

I could not disagree more. The only real problem with the original post is its tone...the points he /she made could just as easily been posted under the title of "Why I think firefly will not get renewed for a next season" And then posted the list as examples as to why the show doesn't appeal to a mass audiance. Although I do find it strange that a person would spend all the time Xed did just to say he how much he hates a show let alone all the time he spent watching it, the points he made are legitimate for discusion here in the forums.

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

Monday, December 2, 2002 2:29 AM

EVANS

All,

Misterogers said, "It's the people you love the most who hurt you the most." (Yeah, it's been said many times, but his saying so just stuck with me.) Xed watched the show. He found the board. He joined. He posted. If "Mutant-X" went into hiatus tomorrow, I could not care less; I wouldn't join a board; I wouldn't post. Something about "Firefly," besides being awful in his view, caused him to think about it. Think about it.

m.
------------------------------------------------
"But ... not boring, like she made it sound." Wash, in ARIEL

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

Monday, December 2, 2002 7:33 AM

If it looks like a troll and smells like a troll, it usually is a troll. If Xed meant to simply spark a dicussion, why did she/he post once and vanish?

Simple answer. And while I'll discuss/argue till Doomsday with someone I know has honest questions or issues, this isn't that person.

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

Monday, December 2, 2002 11:09 AM

FIREFLYFAN

It seems to me that a very angry person wrote those comments. Maybe you are angry about other things that are going on in your life and are powerless to change them. Therefore, you take the time and effort to watch the show and then spend 30 minutes blasting it. If you can't blast the situations or persons that are making you miserable, you can take your frustrations out on a website and then sit back and chuckle when fans come to the rescue. So you know some screen-writing jargon. Big Deal! I must agree with others who say you must not be paying attention. We have had no problem following storylines. You are probably so stressed out you can't keep your mind on the show. So why don't you chill out, keep your comments to yourself and let the rest of us enjoy the best scifi show in a decade.

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

Monday, December 2, 2002 11:09 AM

FIREFLYFAN

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

Monday, December 2, 2002 12:46 PM

UFO

Quote:
Originally posted by Docebo:
But I betcha everyone on who reads this board loves the show

Bzzzzt! Wrong. I certainly don't love the show. I think it has major problems being offered as a sci-fi show in its current form. I'm not a mindless fan who accepts a flawed show as brilliant. This show has major problems...but I still enjoy it for the most part. I also don't live on these boards...I stop by once in awhile to get news.

And why come down so hard on this XED guy, he has some decent points. Take off your "I LUV FF NO MATTER WHAT!" shirts once in awhile.

Hopefully they will put their hiatus time to good use and make some changes.

And FWIW the best sci-fi show in the last decade was Babylon 5...hands down, no contest, the fat lady is singing.

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

Monday, December 2, 2002 1:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by xed:
So Firefly's dead. We may get to see the long-touted pilot...or we may not. Either way, this series has taken the big dirt nap.

as said before... Firefly is not as of yet dead. If it was, I would probably hear about it too. I have a friend on the cast.
Quote:

[1] unebelievably depressing (Joss Whedon's fault). Imagine a future where the Nazis won. Fill a weekly show with French resistance members hiding out in Tieera Del Fuego. This ain't a recipe for fun, kiddies.

Depressing? Hardly. Just because it's not your regular happy happy joy joy show doesn't mean it's depressing. This is almost classic space-era sci-fi where the characters AREN'T in a overpowered ship or somehow sanctioned by the ubiquitous government. You gotta brush by on your own. Malcolm Reynolds' crew show a great example of doing so in a less than ideal environment.
Quote:

[2] We have no idea who these characters are (Fox networks' fault). Without the pilot episode, the screenwriters found themselves forced to insert exposition that clobbered every episode. The whole second episode made no sense (What's a Reaver?). "Out Of Gas" tried to substitute for the pilot -- did a darn good job. But way too late. Faced with a universe we dont' understand populated by folks we don't know in situations we're not familiar with, most viewers chose to tune out. Thanks, Fox. Brilliant decision to avoid showing the 2-hour pilot.
Having no idea what/who/where someone is or something is doesn't mean its bad. In many cases such a device is called a "hook." I've seen many shows who do a lot worse (and few that do better) with character development. Firefly has a very good storyline progression as far as overall story goes and learning what someone can do or something is is half the fun in this type of tv show.
Quote:

[3] Clunky screenwrtiing. Any professional writer worth hi/r salt knows you don't slam the brakes on the action to segue to irrelevant and annoying exposition. Whedon's always had this problem, and the canceled pilot made it worse. "The Train Job" offers a superb example of how NOT to write a script. Start off the episode with a long irrelevant flashback involving River. (Irrelevant to this episode -- perhaps necessary for expositin down the line, but that doesn't count. Each episode must grab and HOLD the viewer's attention, else the series fails.) Bog down the episode with a long discussion with Book. Then, the minute Mal & company get ready to pull the heist on the maglev, slam the brakes on the narrative by cutting away to a long irrelevant discussion twixt Book and the companion.
Kiddies, that's bad screenwriting with a vengeance.

As has been said... Pray tell where you got your expertise. Joss, though I don't like his other shows, does an excellent job as I've seen so far. Also irellevant? In a show stressing STORYLINE instead of merely microcosm of human life has "irrelevant" bits of information. What's more most sitcoms you already have a basic grasp of the stituation. Not so in Firefly where as I've said before we are in a learning environment.

Quote:
[4] Avoid upbeat endings like the plague. Good idea. We already start with a grim premise -- the bad guys lost WW II/the Civil War. And on top of that, what? Every episode seems to involve some new downer -- a universe in which justice never ever prevails, a Buffy The Vampire Slayer in wh ich Buffy can never slay a vamp...or even keep 'em from greasing civilians. Case in point: in "The Train Job" the supervillain on the skyplex gets away scot free. He's still out there, still hanging folks from the ceiling. Wonderful. Instead of watching "Firefly," how's 'bout I just cut my throat?

I'd say that this thing doesn't have the "happy ending" as you put it because well.. it's not ended. And its being realistic. Life's not fair. We live. We go on. However, every episode has its own upbeat ending. Not "lived happily ever after" and not everything is resolved but there is definite upbeat end to each one. Most things are resolved usually with a happy feeling. Examples:
Select to view spoiler:
Ariel, River may be healed. Train job: townsfolk are saved. Safe: Mal cares about crew
and so on and so forth.

Despite what I've said, I do appreciate your viewpoint. This site has a little too many gushers and though I highly disagree that Firefly has fatal flaws... (no more than that of ANY other show i've seen) such an exposition gives avid fans and viewers (as well as possibly directors and writers) an idea into flaws that other people who have their eyes open can percieve. In closing, try to view Firefly with an open mind. It's not your run of the mill show. Remember that.

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

Monday, December 2, 2002 1:57 PM

ALLRONIX

Flaws - name a Season 1 that isn't a clunker in some regard. TNG's season one was dreadful. Babylon 5's put me to sleep. FF has bugs in the system, but they're tolerable bugs.

The elements that are most important to me are there - interesting universe, well-done characters, and a situation that screams for fanfic.

The pessimism - yeah, I'm kinda in the boat with that. I'm a fan of stuff like early DS9, Blake's 7, and X-Files. And my favorite fanfic fodder of all time had the good guys flat out LOSING in the original pilot. However, for every time our heroes get stepped on, they tend to sneak out with a minor victory, or benefits they didn't expect.

Screenwriting - hey, bub...I've got some screenwriting cred, too. Mostly low-budget shorts in this area. My big weakness in "going pro" is my love of fanfic - if it's known you write the stuff, you're pretty much screwed professionally.
But if you wanna talk sctructure, I'm game.

Co-founder of the Evil Writing Crew - causing hell, one hero at a time!

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

Monday, December 2, 2002 4:08 PM

OUTLANDER

It seems absurd to criticize the screenwriting of Firefly when the reason why most people love Firefly is because of screenwriting. Firefly Doesn’t Follow the normal screenwriting rules and that why it is so refreshing, If it did then it would be like every other show on TV. The fact that a show dose something differently doesn’t me that it is doing it wrong.

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

Monday, December 2, 2002 4:09 PM

OUTLANDER

Imagine a show about doctors set in the Korean War, This ain't a recipe for fun, kiddies. Unless you call it M.A.S.H. XED your argument isn't convincing at all you say so many good things about the show and give explanations for most of the problems like the fact that the pilot episode was not show. You also seem to be in the absolute minority when it comes to criticising the screen writing. All you criticisms seem rather lacklustre and are aimed at only one episode (The Train Job) which was the first episode after the pilot. I wonder why there aren’t any criticisms of any other episodes. Probably because it's so hard to find any problems with any of the other episodes. I’d be amazed if you could find any faults with the screen writing of the episodes Out of Gas and Arial (which were the last two episodes produced). Anyway I don’t know why I am bothering responding because you are obviously not as bright as you think you are.

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

Monday, December 2, 2002 5:26 PM

Quote:

If it looks like a troll and smells like a troll, it usually is a troll. If Xed meant to simply spark a dicussion, why did she/he post once and vanish?

Well, by the same token, if he's a troll then why does it show him as having signed up for an account all the way back in September? IF he'd been a troll we'd have seen something from him well before now (self-control is not high on trolls set of characteristics). Also, the fact that he used genuine examples to back up his points, as opposed to the usual vague canned criticisms, would indicate that he could be serious in his statement. Do I agree with him? No, the fact that all his examples came only from the first episode completely undermines his case. But I don't think we can completely write him off as a troll either.

Nathan
"It looks like a great adventure...That's what it is; that's what it feels like. When I saw the pilot, it was really engaging. It was exciting. It was unusual. It threw me off every now and then. I think people will be grabbed by it." - Ron Glass, on the pilot, during an interview with the Indianapolis Star

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

Monday, December 2, 2002 5:26 PM

Quote:

If it looks like a troll and smells like a troll, it usually is a troll. If Xed meant to simply spark a dicussion, why did she/he post once and vanish?

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

Monday, December 2, 2002 5:26 PM

Quote:

If it looks like a troll and smells like a troll, it usually is a troll. If Xed meant to simply spark a dicussion, why did she/he post once and vanish?

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

Monday, December 2, 2002 5:26 PM

Quote:

If it looks like a troll and smells like a troll, it usually is a troll. If Xed meant to simply spark a dicussion, why did she/he post once and vanish?

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

Monday, December 2, 2002 5:27 PM

Could someone explain why I got a "could not authenticate login" reply leading me to double post (of which this is a hasty edit to ask instead of double posting)?

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

Monday, December 2, 2002 6:18 PM

WEBWARRIOR

Quote:
Originally posted by fireflyfan:
It seems to me that a very angry person wrote those comments. Maybe you are angry about other things that are going on in your life and are powerless to change them. Therefore, you take the time and effort to watch the show and then spend 30 minutes blasting it. If you can't blast the situations or persons that are making you miserable, you can take your frustrations out on a website and then sit back and chuckle when fans come to the rescue. So you know some screen-writing jargon. Big Deal! I must agree with others who say you must not be paying attention. We have had no problem following storylines. You are probably so stressed out you can't keep your mind on the show. So why don't you chill out, keep your comments to yourself and let the rest of us enjoy the best scifi show in a decade.

Lets get this strate,1.BABYLON 5 is the best sci-fi show ever!!!

Then its FARSCAPE, after that its the PRISINOR,then FIRSTWAVE,then CURSADES,then BLAKE 7, after that FIREFLY may get the node, but firefly is origins in nature and story but IF i HAD TO CHOOSE,I would go for "STARGATE" instead sorry but you need a reality check.
I watched all the episode twice and taped them and must say it nneds some polishing up to break into the top 5 "SCI-FI" show and its still early, but who knows after two or three years it may just do that,and then you can say its one of the best .
But untill then let thing roll on and hope it make the "CUT" of "FOXES" sharp knives!!!

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

Monday, December 2, 2002 6:19 PM

WEBWARRIOR

Quote:
Originally posted by fireflyfan:
It seems to me that a very angry person wrote those comments. Maybe you are angry about other things that are going on in your life and are powerless to change them. Therefore, you take the time and effort to watch the show and then spend 30 minutes blasting it. If you can't blast the situations or persons that are making you miserable, you can take your frustrations out on a website and then sit back and chuckle when fans come to the rescue. So you know some screen-writing jargon. Big Deal! I must agree with others who say you must not be paying attention. We have had no problem following storylines. You are probably so stressed out you can't keep your mind on the show. So why don't you chill out, keep your comments to yourself and let the rest of us enjoy the best scifi show in a decade.

Lets get this strate,1.BABYLON 5 is the best sci-fi show ever!!!

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

Monday, December 2, 2002 6:19 PM

WEBWARRIOR

Quote:
Originally posted by fireflyfan:
It seems to me that a very angry person wrote those comments. Maybe you are angry about other things that are going on in your life and are powerless to change them. Therefore, you take the time and effort to watch the show and then spend 30 minutes blasting it. If you can't blast the situations or persons that are making you miserable, you can take your frustrations out on a website and then sit back and chuckle when fans come to the rescue. So you know some screen-writing jargon. Big Deal! I must agree with others who say you must not be paying attention. We have had no problem following storylines. You are probably so stressed out you can't keep your mind on the show. So why don't you chill out, keep your comments to yourself and let the rest of us enjoy the best scifi show in a decade.

Lets get this strate,1.BABYLON 5 is the best sci-fi show ever!!!

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

Monday, December 2, 2002 7:16 PM

WEASEL

Maybe my nitpickishness is excessive, but I think I remember them saying the world of Firefly was modeled (at least in part) on the post US Civil War era ("reconstruction" I believe). In this case the main characters are in a position similar to that of Confederate soldiers after the war.

Personally I'd love to see the show last long enough to be able to play with other views of the Alliance, but...

(Not that any of this really addresses what the poster was saying.

)

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

Monday, December 2, 2002 10:16 PM

FIREFLEA

I love the show, but admit there's things that made me realize it couldn't last.

- the overdone cowboy dialogue really wears on me. Ya'll ain't might reckon not.
- guest characters are more interesting than the regular cast.
- half-explained plotlines or situations. What is this power that River has? What is Book's past? (I realize these would/have have been explained at some point, it's just getting dull)
- using guns that would be considered antique even in 2002, let alone the distant future.

Hopefully the show is just on hiatus and comes back even better because I really think it doesn't deserve to die.

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

Monday, December 2, 2002 10:16 PM

FIREFLEA

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

Tuesday, December 3, 2002 5:10 AM

OUTLANDER

I GET IT, VERY FUNNY. YOU OBVIOUSLY WANT TO TURN FIREFLY IN TO STAR TREK........HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.

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

Tuesday, December 3, 2002 8:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by millernate:
Could someone explain why I got a "could not authenticate login" reply leading me to double post (of which this is a hasty edit to ask instead of double posting)?

Happened to me too. In fact, I kept get an error message and actually posted 6 times (no double posts for me!) before I figured out it was actually posting.

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

Tuesday, December 3, 2002 8:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by FireFlea:
- the overdone cowboy dialogue really wears on me. Ya'll ain't might reckon not.
Most people who talk like that are poor/uneducated people it reflect the reality cause many people like them talk like that today so it gives the character some reality
- guest characters are more interesting than the regular cast.
Opinion not a fact
- half-explained plotlines or situations. What is this power that River has? What is Book's past? (I realize these would/have have been explained at some point, it's just getting dull)
If they start explaining every mistery in the first 5 hours of show what will be left to tell in the future really? It would be like if John Doe found out who he really is during the pilot it doesn't make any sense to rush those thing.
- using guns that would be considered antique even in 2002, let alone the distant future.
Just because it's 500 years in the future doesn't mean that old/inexpensive and good working technology can't be used. What really tell us that laser will be cheap by that time?

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

Tuesday, December 3, 2002 8:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by millernate:
Quote:

If it looks like a troll and smells like a troll, it usually is a troll. If Xed meant to simply spark a dicussion, why did she/he post once and vanish?

Well, by the same token, if he's a troll then why does it show him as having signed up for an account all the way back in September? IF he'd been a troll we'd have seen something from him well before now (self-control is not high on trolls set of characteristics). Also, the fact that he used genuine examples to back up his points, as opposed to the usual vague canned criticisms, would indicate that he could be serious in his statement. Do I agree with him? No, the fact that all his examples came only from the first episode completely undermines his case. But I don't think we can completely write him off as a troll either.

Millernate, you're obviously a more charitable person than I am.

In my online experience (which goes back to 1983 and The Source, which predated CompuServe), when a person wants to start discussion they usually stick around to um...discuss. Any time someone drops deliberately inflammatory statements and vanishes I smell a troll. Call me an ornery old bitch.

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

Tuesday, December 3, 2002 8:41 AM

BOBKNAPTOR

Rhea:
Ornery old bitch!

just kidding. I'm with you. What's with the "i hate firefly" post on a firefly fans board? I'm thinking Troll.

______________
That kid was tox-ic when he came in here tonight. Heavy on the “ick”.

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

Tuesday, December 3, 2002 9:15 AM

ALLRONIX

- the overdone cowboy dialogue really wears on me. Ya'll ain't might reckon not.

Actually, since I'm a fan of both sci-fi and westerns, it's something I really don't even notice. Heck, I take calls from Texas and Montana all day. "Cowboy-speak" apparantly never went out of style in some places.

Plus, if you've heard Jerry "Lt. Lenny Brascoe" Orbach try to do a John Wayne accent (I am so not kidding), Mal sounds normal in comparison.

- guest characters are more interesting than the regular cast.

I think the regulars are quite fascinating!

- half-explained plotlines or situations. What is this power that River has? What is Book's past? (I realize these would/have have been explained at some point, it's just getting dull)

Dude, it's SEASON 1! If this show lasts, we are going to find out the answers to these questions. Heck, XF didn't launch its "conspiracy" mytharc until the end of Season 1. DS9's Dominion wasn't seen until Season 2, Babylon 5's Season 1 left a lot to be desired, too.

- using guns that would be considered antique even in 2002, let alone the distant future.

Now here, I'll grant another point. Even now, we have tazers, and are working on the step past slug throwers. It's akin to saying in 1600 that we'd still be using swords and mounted cavalry.

"Ariel" showed the Alliance as having laser guns and the like, but I'm guessing that kind of tech is expensive. Back in the boonies, a slug thrower is cheap and very effective.

Co-founder of the Evil Writing Crew - causing hell, one hero at a time!

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

Tuesday, December 3, 2002 9:22 AM

UFO

Quote:
Originally posted by outlander:
I GET IT, VERY FUNNY. YOU OBVIOUSLY WANT TO TURN FIREFLY IN TO STAR TREK.

Nope, I just think there are a lot of fans that want less hick talk, cows, horses, covered wagons, biscuits & fried chicken (on a spaceship) and antique six shooters in a science fiction show. Cross genre shows, while unique, often don't sit well with viewers. I mean c'mon...lets be a little realistic. Was space colonized 200 years ago and we missed it? Don't call it science fiction and make it something else.

As I've said previously, the ONLY saving grace about this show are the characters.

I like the show, but a lot of you people are coming across as hardcore fanboys (girls) who turn a blind eye to any criticism of this show.

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

Tuesday, December 3, 2002 9:38 AM

LIVINGIMPAIRED

Quote:
Originally posted by UFO:
I like the show, but a lot of you people are coming across as hardcore fanboys (girls) who turn a blind eye to any criticism of this show.

I do not turn a blind eye. I just happen to like the things that you consider flaws. Having a different opinion on a topic doesn't mean I can't see fault in the show.

________________

But it'll be fun. No wait, I mean it'll get us all killed.

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

Tuesday, December 3, 2002 11:05 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

(1) Depressing storyline? I think the general audience craves something more than pablum, o'wise we'd be watching Disney 24/7.

(2) Half of the fun... heck, MOST of the fun... is in figuring stuff out. (Unless one has NVLD, where everything has to be spelled out.)

(3) Didn't see "the Train Job", but for comparison, doesn't "Out of Gas" break up action sequences too? And yet it was remarkably successful in holding viewer's attention.

(4)See my answer to (1). Being heroic doesn't mean that the charcters are guaranteed successful outcomes. In fact, the most interesting thing about Firefly is how far the characters will bend... or not... knowing that a "happy ending" isn't likely. The basis of a lot of story telling is conflict. If the end is already known, where's the conflict?

My main gripe with Firefly is whole-cloth reproduction of hillbilly/Old South/Western effects/stereotypes to convey the "rawness" of the setting. Integrating that harshness into a sci-fi needs more thought.

Thank god for no holodecks!

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

Tuesday, December 3, 2002 12:10 PM

BOBKNAPTOR

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Thank god for no holodecks!

Here Here!
I grew up with a trekie... although my mother will never admit to being one, she records EVERY single episode that airs, even if she has watched it 90 million times. (she has about 10 tapes that she cycles through, so eventually, she does record over them with another episode she's seen 90 million times.) Every time I go home to visit I get stuck watching TNG and DS9 and Voyager with her... then when I say "ok, I'm gonna go..." she says "but I barely got to see you..." And I just want to shout "THEN TURN OFF THE CRAP TREK!" (not a fan, in case I was vague). I don't think I would like this show at all if it was as polished and righteous as Star Trek.

______________
No, I'm a rebel. You're an idiot. Give the lot of us a bad name.

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

Tuesday, December 3, 2002 12:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FireFlea:
- using guns that would be considered antique even in 2002, let alone the distant future.

Ok, I'd like to address two points. Before I do so, I want anyone reading this to realize I am heavily biased in Firefly's favor for reason's of my own. That being said, to my critique.

One thing I don't think people appreciate is the sheer distance between places in a given galaxy. At our current technology level, it takes months for an unmanned spacecraft to reach Mars. And it take 4 minutes for a radio signal to reach there. This is a giant place. In a place where space travel is easily feasible (the technology level and time of firefly) shipping will still be a very big problem. Information between worlds is meager at best and you'll see the only way the crew of Serenity can gain information on a planet is checking existing bulletins on the planet by a planet's authorities as was seen in the episode Safe. Also one must bear in mind that the trips between planets (and so between episodes) take weeks... perhaps months. With all these circumstances in a rather large universe (we've seen what... 5 habitable planets already?) Shipping items between worlds is VERY difficult and thus makes realistic that Older technology exists on many worlds. That's also why Malcolm Reynold's partially pursues the job of a trader. Merchandise can pay for a lot. And as far as the "antique" weaponry Mal and company carry...

Those weapons are some of the sturdiest weaponry ever created. Possibly not the most elegant but sturdy. Weaponry these days are incredibly fragile, barring things such as the AK-47 which is designed to be able to be dropped from a vehicle moving over 40mph and still be reused. The older projectile weaponry make sure that the crew's weapons will work always. And higher tech weapons still exist too. As noted, the Alliance Energy weapons, but you see how well Jayne liked those. Also are the rifles seen wielded by the Alliance Corps in "Train Job" and Finally we see Jayne's Vera. Vera is not a weak weapon. Or low tech. Next, projectile weaponry have an incredible advantage over Energy. Harnessing energy, though ubiquitous, isn't easy nor efficient. What's more, energy weapons will also dissipate given distance, even in the cold vacuum of space. A projectile weapon is easy to restock and simple. Furthermore a projectile weapon's range is limited only by friction and gravity. In a vacuum of space (again exampled by Vera) a bullet will lose little to no velocity and fly on uninhibited. Though explosive charges don't work in vacuum (the driving punch for most bullets) I'm sure many "Rail gun" or magnetized weaponry have been created in Firefly. Keep watching.

Thus ends my dissertation on the world of Firefly.
Gaheris

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

Tuesday, December 3, 2002 1:30 PM

UFO

Quote:
With all these circumstances in a rather large universe (we've seen what... 5 habitable planets already?)

Big difference between a "universe" and a system of planets.

Quote:
Shipping items between worlds is VERY difficult and thus makes realistic that Older technology exists on many worlds.

Your argument falls apart by the fact that they transferred an entire ship full of live cattle, without paperwork, without red tape...they just picked them up and off they went. And the trip took several weeks if I remember right. If a ship full of live cattle can survive in a ship for weeks, I imagine the transport of lifeless information and/or technology (legally or illegaly) would be pretty simple. And if transporting technology/info is such a scarce and difficult thing, then why are they taking cattle jobs instead of profitable technology smuggling jobs? Just a thought...or two.

Also, your points about projectile weapons are well taken. They are cheap and reliable. I agree that backwater worlds would use projectile weapons, but not ones that look like Colt 45s six shooters from the 1800s.

IMO they would be projectile weapons, but more high tech: 100s of rounds, armor piecing, explosive, smart bullets, tranqs, etc, etc...not six freakin' shots of warm lead. This extrapolation isn't far fetched since we can do all this NOW and we haven't colonized numerous planets or mastered spaceflight with artificial gravity that keep cattle from floating around the hold.

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

Tuesday, December 3, 2002 1:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by LivingImpaired:

I do not turn a blind eye. I just happen to like the things that you consider flaws. Having a different opinion on a topic doesn't mean I can't see fault in the show.

Thank you. I was going to say the same thing.

I found the Western/Scifi crossover to be curious and disconcerting for about the 10 minutes it took me to fall in love with the characters.

And I love the music on the show - it's a very eclectic mix, not just western.

I have friends who don't like the westerny part either, but they've all fallen in love with the show. In fact, I have a group of friends who used to get together once a month from all over the San Francisco bay area to watch Andromeda. The last two months everyone is saying "Bring Firefly tapes!"

I think you could place these characters in just about any setting, and because they're compelling and the writing is good, you'd still like them - or at least I would.

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

Tuesday, December 3, 2002 1:53 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I agree with UFO on some things. If transportation is so easy that Mal can ship a whole cargo-hold of relatively low-value cattle, then the benefits of technology should be everywhere. (I would have imagined that they would be shipping frozen embryos with a few cows to be implanted later.)

That's what I mean by imagination. A series of worlds where some are high-tech and some are low-tech is not only possible it's likely, given that's what we see in our own history. But INTEGRATING them into a whole, understanding the choke-points (Transportation costs? Monopolies? Lack of infrastructure?) will take a lot of work.

Back to the original arument- it's the show's "flaws" that make it interesting. There is SO MUCH room in the premise for great stories- and big audiences- that it would be a shame to have Firefly disappear.

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

Tuesday, December 3, 2002 2:08 PM

SERGEANTX

Given the typical sci-fi geeks penchant for debating pointless technical minutiae, perhaps, after reading this thread, its not so hard to see why Firefly had to die. Jesus, what a bunch of petty non-sense.
....
....

sorry just feeling a bit frustrated. Firefly's light is fading and "Fastlane" and "American Idol" march merrily along. People are sheep

SergeantX

"..and here's to all the dreamers, may our open hearts find rest." -- Nanci Griffith

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

Tuesday, December 3, 2002 2:10 PM

Now for my Defense

Quote:
Originally posted by UFO:

Big difference between a "universe" and a system of planets.

Aye. System of planets = Galaxy. Galaxy= big. still lots of distance.

Quote:

Your argument falls apart by the fact that they transferred an entire ship full of live cattle, without paperwork, without red tape...they just picked them up and off they went. And the trip took several weeks if I remember right. If a ship full of live cattle can survive in a ship for weeks, I imagine the transport of lifeless information and/or technology (legally or illegaly) would be pretty simple. And if transporting technology/info is such a scarce and difficult thing, then why are they taking cattle jobs instead of profitable technology smuggling jobs? Just a thought...or two.

True. Look at the level of Technology on the two planets which the cattle are transferred between though. In Shindig, the tech level is possibly around ours, maybe higher, but with a slightly archaic touch. Safe however, has a REALLY low tech area, classic western. Mal and Co. aren't part of an official shipping company and the livestock were wanted shipped rather underhand rather than over the counter. Smuggling. True, transferring dead tech could be easy, but profitable? with month's or possibly weeks between shipments, people don't want things that break down easily. Hence lets go for the tried and true. BTW, the cattle job WAS a smuggling job. High profile smuggling but nonetheless.

Quote:

Also, your points about projectile weapons are well taken. They are cheap and reliable. I agree that backwater worlds would use projectile weapons, but not ones that look like Colt 45s six shooters from the 1800s. IMO they would be projectile weapons, but more high tech: 100s of rounds, armor piecing, explosive, smart bullets, tranqs, etc, etc...not six freakin' shots of warm lead. This extrapolation isn't far fetched since we can do all this NOW and we haven't colonized numerous planets or mastered spaceflight with artificial gravity that keep cattle from floating around the hold.

Riiight, I already addressed some of these. "six freaking shots of warm lead" are very easy to produce. A gunhand on our world could also be a decent self-armorer. Easy reload, easy supply. No need to ship from core to get it. Armor piercing? Look no farther than Vera. Though bullets aren't smart they can't be said to be lead shot. Don't know how many rounds Vera has either. Feasibility of a 100 round handgun however isn't good. Standard weaponry we have is 30 rnds for a rifle. Again, most owners of weapons are PRIVATE owners probably not too rich. Alliance soldiers have decent in train job. Besides, we have many guns that look like colt six shooters now.
Hope that answers some from my POV
Gaheris

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

Tuesday, December 3, 2002 2:14 PM

Now for my Defense

Quote:
Originally posted by UFO:

Big difference between a "universe" and a system of planets.

Aye. System of planets = Galaxy. Galaxy= big. still lots of distance.

Quote:

Your argument falls apart by the fact that they transferred an entire ship full of live cattle, without paperwork, without red tape...they just picked them up and off they went. And the trip took several weeks if I remember right. If a ship full of live cattle can survive in a ship for weeks, I imagine the transport of lifeless information and/or technology (legally or illegaly) would be pretty simple. And if transporting technology/info is such a scarce and difficult thing, then why are they taking cattle jobs instead of profitable technology smuggling jobs? Just a thought...or two.

Quote:

Also, your points about projectile weapons are well taken. They are cheap and reliable. I agree that backwater worlds would use projectile weapons, but not ones that look like Colt 45s six shooters from the 1800s. IMO they would be projectile weapons, but more high tech: 100s of rounds, armor piecing, explosive, smart bullets, tranqs, etc, etc...not six freakin' shots of warm lead. This extrapolation isn't far fetched since we can do all this NOW and we haven't colonized numerous planets or mastered spaceflight with artificial gravity that keep cattle from floating around the hold.

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

Tuesday, December 3, 2002 2:48 PM

BOBKNAPTOR

Quote:
Originally posted by Gaheris:
Feasibility of a 100 round handgun however isn't good.

I'm with Gaheris on this one... I would never in a gazillion years consider myself a person with great gun knowledge, but I do have a partial understand of space (not outerspace, per se, just space in general), weight and size. For 100 rounds to be in the gun, either the gun would have to be very large, the bullets very small, or some combination of the two. A large, heavy gun would not be very effective for carrying around or the quick draw or holding pointed for any amount of time (arm would get tired...). Small bullets may not do enough damage. I used to have a gun-friendly boyfriend, and he took me out and I shot his 22 handgun. He put a clip that had more than normal number of bullets (I want to say 20 or 30... a round number, but it's been years and I don't really remember). Anyway, the clip hung down lower than the handle of the gun. Certainly not something I could have tucked in a standard holster. And 22s are small bullets.

So, No, a 6-shot revolver is certainly something I hope they aren't using in Firefly. But I could very easily accept a 10-12 shot clip.

______________
I've always meant to do that but I intensely don't want to so I haven't gotten around to it

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

Tuesday, December 3, 2002 3:30 PM