September 2002 posts
Last year's predictions -- dream of the consortium,
09:40:34 09/20/02 Fri
I remember about this time last year we all submitted predictions
about what would happen over the course of the season. (If I remember
correctly, all of mine were wrong.) Anyway, I looked through the
archive and failed to find the thread. Does anyone know where
that is? I thought it might be interesting to see if anyone got
something right.
Also, would anyone be interested in posting some (spoiler-free)
predictions for the coming year?
[> This year's predictions
(Spoiler-free!). -- Darby, 10:24:52 09/20/02 Fri
People will wonder why Buffy is so cheery all of a sudden, and
will be calling for a bit of depression.
Spike will occasionally be nekkid, and there will be much rejoicing.
Viewers will continue to be distracted by the varying girths of
Xander's neck.
Willow's voice will almost crack on a number of occasions, but
won't, quite.
Some will view Buffy's actions and think her quite the bitch,
while others will do this year's version of, "You go, Girl!"
If they're smart, the various incarnations of the TV Guide will
always let viewers know when Giles makes an appearance. And there
will be much rejoicing, but Giles will not be nekkid.
Now that they have confidence in Emma Caulfield, the writers will
spin the big Wheel of Emotion every week for Anya. "Um, okay,
we've got jealousy, angst, and ennui with some lustful thoughts
- write, folks, write!"
The costume people will continue on their path to realizing that
EC can look good in virtually any kind of outfit and will continue
to experiment.
Once forced to write Dawn in a Buffy Season One environment, the
writers will actually give her some breadth of character and will
occasionally think about what they're giving her to say. And although
there will be much rejoicing, not everyone will be able to stand
her even then.
Riley will return, Willow will skin him, and Buffy will inadvertantly
serve him for Thanksgiving dinner. (Doesn't "Marc Blucas"
sound like some sort of European dessert treat?) Riley's wife
Sam will be revealed to have been a barely animated wooden effigy,
and no one will be very surprised.
Jonathan will return, and spend large amounts of time looking
worried.
When Willow returns, Alyson Hannigan will have been replaced by
Anthony Hopkins in a red wig. Just because.
James Marsters will tilt his head one too many times and have
to see a chiropractic specialist.
David Greenwalt will steal the make-up people, and all new demons
will be portrayed by naked stunt people in body paint and funny
hats. Ratings will soar.
- Darby. Can anybody tell it's Friday afternoon?
[> [> costume corellary
-- celticross, 10:59:19 09/20/02 Fri
The costumer who has hated Alyson Hanningan so deeply for the
past 6 years will finally be fired, and Willow will not longer
have to be evil to be dressed well.
[> [> [> LMAO!
-- shadowkat, 11:24:59 09/20/02 Fri
[> [> [> Re: costume
corollary -- alcibiades, 22:21:34 09/20/02 Fri
Actually she resigned with her assistant -- she's now working
for Miami CSI
[> My predictions: --
HonorH (with some help from Honorificus), 11:00:00 09/20/02
Fri
People will continue to find fault with Buffy in varying and contradictory
ways.
Xander will decide that maybe purple really *is* his color.
Spike, a la Angel upon returning from Hell, will spend the first
few episodes completely naked, and the following exchange will
take place in the first episode:
Dawn's friend: Whoa!
Dawn: What?
Dawn's friend: I thought I just saw a skinny pale naked guy running
through a graveyard!
Dawn: Weird!
Anya's hair will change color and occasionally show signs that
a Toni Home Perm has gotten too close for comfort.
Dawn will not have anything resembling a normal school year. (Careful--that
could be a SPOILER!)
Giles will occasionally pop in long enough for pulses to go a-flutter
before disappearing again under some vague excuse.
Buffy, now that she's no longer depressed, will wear pastels.
Dawn will go evil mid-year and start wearing leather pants.
Faith will return, and she and Willow will have an emotionally
void but wicked hot one-night stand.
Willow will look all worried and pinched for most of the season
before Tara's ghost shows up to knock some sense into her.
In spite of character development for Dawn, people will continue
to complain about her in varied and contradictory ways. "She's
not developed enough!" "They're spending too much time
developing her character!" "She's not a realistic teen!"
"She's too teenagerish!" "She's useless!"
"Oh, horrors--she's helping the Scoobies!" Geesh, and
they say she whines . . .
In the last episode, it's revealed that when Willow was 15 and
having an unrequited crush on Xander, she muttered to herself,
"I wish everybody was as miserable as I am!" Anya granted
that wish, and from thence came all the trouble. Anya undoes the
wish, and we end the season with Shiny Perky Happy People.
This board will continue to disagree about practically everything.
Just like it should.
[> My predictions --
matching mole, 11:35:47 09/20/02 Fri
Sunnydale will be invaded by the mole people. Dawn will be captured
and made the mole queen. Mole necromancers wearing leather pants
will raise the bodies of expired 60s rock musicians from the dead
and use them to take over the Bronze. Giles will be brought in
to deal with the situation but ultimately refuse to do so now
that he gets to hear some music he likes. The pivotal episode
in which Dawn is forced to marry the mole king will be shot in
black in white as one continuous shot in a subterranean chamber
in which various characters come and go. As they attempt to rescue
Dawn they will comment on the season's progress and if the writers
are doing a good job and how much they miss Joss. Before being
aired the episode will be edited into one minute long sections
and spliced together in random order. Someone will declare this
the best episode of BtVS ever. Posters on this board will discover
allusions to over three thousand historical events and cultural
phenomena as well as a novel explanation for the evolution of
sexual reproduction in the first five minutes of the episode alone.
It will have a special category created for it among the Nobel
prizes and it will not be nominated for an Emmy.
Angel will brood. Lorne will not wear earth tones. Fred will say
something sensible that everyone will ignore.
[> [> Attack of the Mole
Poster -- Darby, 12:53:38 09/20/02 Fri
I rarely literally Laugh Out Loud sitting alone in a room with
a computer, but I'm doing it now. Or I was then. You know what
I mean.
[> [> Shameless Ripoff
predictions -- fresne, 13:55:44 09/20/02 Fri
There will however, be one recurring note of color in the BW episode,
Spikeís hair. Earlier in the season, while putting the
smackdown on a Zazo za za za Zay demon at a local Generically
Named Drugstore, Spike will be amazed at the sheer variety of
cheap punkish hair care products. This will set in motion a series
of spiked hair styles in hot (or cool) neon colors.
Fans will endlessly theorize as to the meaning of each color.
Sadly, at mid season, some fans will have to be taken to the hospital
after seeing Spikeís rainbow tresses in the penultimate
dance medley scene in the lair of the mole people.
This will be entirely too bad because obnoxious hair coloring
products will prove crucial for defeating the mole people, because
you know the whole eyesight thing and will further provide the
setup for the S7 Big Bad.
Anya, who will chuck her Hair Coloring 12 Step meetings after
the mole people incident, will try to destroy the world through
vengeance hair care. Xander will try to stop her with some loviní,
but no itís no use. Anya will be holding out for hugs from
a certain Watcher.
And since themes always cross, where characters cannot, not only
will Lorne eschew earth tone, heíll have a series of eye
catching ensembles culminating in a lime green suit, a salmon
pink shirt and a red tie (to go with his eyes) as a belt. And
heíll look absolutely faboo doing it.
Fleeing Sunnydale, the mole necromancers will raise Fred Astaire,
Gene Kelley, the Brat Pack and Billie Holiday (only you know,
everyoneís young) for a non-stop party at the Brass at
the intersection of Hollywood and Necronomicon and the whole thing
will start over again.
Oh, and Angel, trying to make up for lost time, will tell Connor
the following story during the December Holiday season.
The
Tales of Plush Cthulhu
[> [> [> You people
are cracking me up! -- HonorH, 16:45:33 09/20/02 Fri
Just hope Joss doesn't get ahold of this thread. He might get
Ideas, and that's never good.
[> [> [> Where can
I get one? -- matching mole, 05:36:18 09/21/02 Sat
A plush Cthulhu that is. I want to tremble, worship and feel the
awful force of the horror cosmic.
[> [> [> [> In
search of dread plush knowledge? -- fresne, 10:44:24 09/21/02
Sat
Well, I don't know where outside the hallowed halls of a sci fi
convention. However, for those willing to take on the quest, knowing
that way lies certain madness. Madness!
Sigh, madness, you might try cthuggle.com
[> Fearless predictions
for S7 -- cjl, 12:53:21 09/20/02 Fri
Buffy will keep a vital secret from the other Scoobs, resulting
in hurt feelings/alienation/recriminations.
Xander will make a witty pop cultural reference, revealing his
seemingly bottomless, yet endearing geekiness.
Giles will clarify a confusing situation by delivering a quarter-page
of expertly scripted and peerlessly performed expository dialogue.
Dawn will suffer the typical growing pains of a teenager in California.
Willow, confronting an embarrassing or uncomfortable situation,
will stammer adorably.
Spike, despite his years of devotion to Buffy and the Scoobs,
will continue to insist: "I'm evil."
Joyce and Jenny will still be dead.
[> [> I think you're
on to somthing orginal, here. -- CW, 13:28:08 09/20/02
Fri
This year I predict that Buffy's battles will be punctuated with
repeated loud gunts and groans from SMG.
Xander's speech will tend to slur slightly during longer and more
tricky portions of his dialogues.
Giles, if he's around, will at some point make a sarcastic remark
about American culture, most likely youth culture.
Dawn will make a disgusted face in response to something unpleasant
Buffy must tell her.
Willow will, at some point, give someone a cute, coy smile.
Spike will still have some form of pseudo-British accent.
Remember, You heard all this from cjl and I first!
[> [> [> See? Stuck
with their emoticons! Or are we stuck with ours?;) -- mundus,
only too aware of the irony, 13:35:43 09/20/02 Fri
[> [> Re: Fearless predictions
for S7 -- LadyStarlight, 13:52:03 09/20/02 Fri
And somehow, even on the tiny amounts of money Buffy makes, she
can pay her bills, buy food, and splurge on a different outfit
for herself and Dawn for every hour of every day.
(Not bitter, do you hear me! Not! Okay, maybe a leetle
bitter. I'll get help, I promise. ;) )
[> [> Re: Hopeful predictions
for S7 -- Arethusa, 14:13:59 09/20/02 Fri
Buffy will find a decent job and start to date, but not enter
into a serious relationship. She will demonstrate the maturity,
equilibrium and renewed sense of mission she gained suffering
through last year's trials.
Willow will come back much graver and more humble, but also with
a clearer sense of self, and no need to puff up her self-esteem
with magic. She will start socializing and gingerly return to
being Buff's "big gun."
Xander will be more confident of his self-worth and competance,
but will still be geeky and have trouble with women, especially
Anya.
Giles will return occasionally and bring assistance, perspective
and wisdom to the Scoobies, while developing his own circle of
friends in England.
Dawn will insist on being treated like a young adult, and sometimes
she'll even act like one.
Spike will start an internet dating service, specializing in mixed-species
romances, with a link to the Demons, Demons, Demons database.
Groo will be his first customer.
[> [> [> No way that
last one's gonna be right. -- HonorH, 16:49:18 09/20/02
Fri
Spike will take a job as a radio psychologist in the grand tradition
of bleached-blond British vampires with snark to spare. You think
Dr. Laura's mean? You ain't seen nuthin' yet!
[> [> [> [> Oh,
gosh! I almost suggested that. -- Arethusa, 17:13:33 09/20/02
Fri
But then I remembered Forever Knight, and La Croix-a vampire radio
host.
[> [> [> [> [>
Precisely. -- HonorH, 18:14:36 09/20/02 Fri
Bleached-blond British vampire with snark to spare.
[> Re: S7 Semi-Serious Predictions
/ Speculations -- Just George, 17:35:18 09/20/02 Fri
These are based on speculation only. I have been pretty good at
avoiding most spoilage. They are a special collection of the too
vague (to preserve some chance of being partially correct) and
too specific (to insure that they will never be completely correct).
Without further ado, I present my Semi-Serious Buffy S7 Predictions!
CHARACTERS:
Buffy: will exhibit at least one Slayer power we havenít
seen in a while (ex: prophetic dreaming) and will learn to use
at least one new Slayer power we havenít seen before (ex:
sensing demons). Buffy will hug people (ex: Willow, Xander, Dawn)
a lot more often.
Willow: after a long struggle, she will find a way to use her
magic to save the day and still be able to control herself. She
will graduate from college and the gang will be in the audience.
Xander: will become proficient in a ìsignatureî fighting
style (ex: axe or sword) by training with someone who knows how
to fight (Buffy, Spike, Giles, etc.) He will get to save the day
with his new skills, but will also get beaten by a supernatural
enemy who has similar skills and more power.
Dawn: will have to stake a friend who has turned into a vampire
(ex: Janise or the handsome boy from ìThe Bodyî).
Dawn and Xander will have a ìbondingî moment when
he tells her about staking Jessie.
Giles: will go all ìRipperî on an enemy to save Dawn
from mortal danger. Dawn will wig out because sheís never
seen this side of Giles before.
Anya: will renounce her demon status in order to save one of the
Scoobies (possibly Willow) from a terrible threat.
Spike: will have a chance to get his chip out, but the operation
will require Xanderís permission and/or cooperation.
Clem: will do something dangerous and demony, just when everyone
is convinced he is just a big fluffy puppy. He will get badly
hurt or worse protecting Dawn from a Big Bad.
EVENTS:
The gang will dance together multiple times: early on with Buffy,
Dawn, and Xander; later when Willow is welcomed back into the
fold; and later still with some of Dawnís friends. Spike
will not dance.
The Bronze will get blown up/destroyed and the gang will have
to find a new hangout.
Buffy will descend into the hellmouth.
Vampires will make a big comeback and be scary, bad-ass opponents
again.
Buffy will sell her house. She and Dawn will move to someplace
ìcozierî.
OLD FRIENDS WE WILL SEE AGAIN:
Jonathan
Amy
Quentin Travers
Harmony
Dru
Ethan
The First Slayer
THINGS WE WONíT SEE:
Buffy wonít die again or permanently lose her Slayer powers.
Willow wonít go black hair again, though she will get black
eyes at least once.
Xander wonít lose his apartment, though that cleaning deposit
is toast.
Dawn wonít get permanent Slayer powers, though she might
get them for one episode.
Giles wonít take Buffy into the desert again.
Anya wonít use the word ìcoagulateî again.
She also wonít sleep with anyone this year, but will loudly
remind everyone that she misses it.
Spike wonít drive his DeSoto again.
Clem wonít tell us where he came from.
Whew!
That was fun! Probably wrong, but fun!
-JG
[> [> Re: S7 Semi-Serious
Predictions / Speculations -- Thomas the Skeptic, 07:02:18
09/21/02 Sat
Uncanny! Most of the predictions you made were the things I had
speculated might happen this year and the things you predict won't
happen are ones I don't want to see! When reading this board,
does everyone else keep having these weird moments of self-recognition
where you feel like a long-lost twin is out there thinking your
thoughts and speaking your words? Albeit a twin that sometimes
feels like a photo negative of you as well, but still...
[> My Fellow Nostradamuseses...
-- Malandanza, 17:50:17 09/20/02 Fri
Your predictions are too timid -- you content yourselves with
vague generalities subject to reinterpretaion after the fact.
I present verbatim prediction of Willow's return to Sunnydale
-- I would say it's spoiler free, but that would mean disparaging
my own prophetic abilities -- so read at your own risk:
Act One |
Int. Rosenberg House. WILLOW, recently back from England, lies
on her bed, alternately brooding about Tara and feeling sorry
for herself. A picture of Tara rests on her nightstand. SHEILA
enter the room after a cursory knock.
SHEILA
Willow, It's time for us to talk.
(a beat)
Past time
WILLOW
T-talk? About What?
SHEILA
Responsibility.
WILLOW
(defiant)
Responsibility? I'm very responsible.
SHEILA sighs. She's been expecting resistance.
SHEILA
Your father and I have always been very supportive.
Too supportive.
(a beat)
Indulgent.
WILLOW starts to protest, but SHEILA begins a peremptory list
of grievances
We've supported your hobbies
Whether it was computers or Wicca.
We've allowed you to make your own friends
We let you choose your own school
Even though you limited your prospects
by clinging to Sunnydale when you might
Have gone anywhere.
We supported your choice of sexual partners
SHEILA quickly cuts off another protest, holding up her hand
as she continues
Your Father was just surprised when you introduced
Tara without any sort of preparation.
You know he approved of her more than that musician
You dated to scandalize us.
WILLOW starts to protest but, again, is cut off
Honestly, honey, your sexual orientation
Was never an issue to anyone but yourself.
This is Southern California, not East Texas
(a beat)
Not that I'm suggesting that all East Texans
Are Homophobic
SHEILA pauses to give her remarks a chance to sink in. WILLOW
appears less than penitent and is keeping a sullen silence
SHEILA
From the time you could understand
Your Father and I have treated you like
A responsible adult.
How have you repaid our confidence?
You run away to England with a man
Old enough to be your father just before
Final exams - you know, of course,
That you've failed every class and lost
All your scholarships.
One of your professors offered to allow you
To take your exams and retroactively
Give you credit, but you know how I hate
Special treatment.
This isn't the first instance of your
Lack of responsibility.
We let you have fish and you let them die-
How hard is it to keep fish alive?
I'm just glad your father and I never let you have
that kitten you wanted.
and your rat? I don't think I want
To know what you did with it.
I know these seem like insignificant instances
But taken together they represent a pattern.
But do you know what finally convinced me that
We needed this talk?
Your Father.
After you vanished,
He talked to that Bunny Summers girl you'd
Been living with.
Do you know what we found out?
WILLOW is alarmed. Would Buffy have told IRA about WARREN?
And would SHEILA's egalitarian principles lead her to turn her
only daughter over to the police? For the first time, WILLOW appears
contrite.
SHEILA
You lived with her for months and never paid one penny for rent!
WILLOW's relief is palpable.
WILLOW
Oh, that! I can explain...
SHEILA
No, I don't think you can.
That poor girl is working for minimum wage
To support herself and her sister and it never
Occurred to you that, instead of adding to her burdens
You might help relieve them?
What on earth did you spend your rent money on?
WILLOW has no answer. She's been struck by the truth of SHEILA's
words in ways her mother cannot begin to suspect.
SHEILA
That Harris boy you used to play with was there as well
You know, the one with the abusive parents and no prospects?
Your father tells me he's become quite successful.
(a beat)
Responsible.
(SHEILA lets her words sink in)
How is it that Bunny and the Harris boy
Have become responsible young adults
In spite of all the circumstances ranged against them
While you - with all your advantages - have not?
(a beat)
They were forced to become responsible
They were pushed out of the nest and had to learn to fly.
A grim realization is starting to dawn on WILLOW.
SHEILA
(quietly)
Your father and I have decided that you will become an adult
In spite of yourself.
As of now, the nest is empty.
You will get a job and pay room and board of $250 per month
If your pride is such that you cannot live with us,
You are welcome to get a wretched apartment for twice that cost
But you are not to stay with Bunny.
Your father has already talked to her about it and she has agreed.
Your father and I will give your rent money to Bunny in compensation
For the time you spent with her, rent free.
Act Two |
Buffy has used her influence with the DMP to get WILLOW a job.
WILLOW is dressed up in full uniform, looking as miserable as
she ever has, as she receives her final instructions.
LORRAINE
Well, Willow. Time to get to work.
Randy will show you how to make a Doublemeat Medley
WILLOW heads to the kitchen where she sees SPIKE, newly human
(in spite of all the summertime disinformation to the contrary),
dressed in the full regalia of a DMP employee and using the name
RANDY as some sort of penance.
*
After their shift, Willow and Spike leave together and head back
to Spike's apartment (he's moved out of the crypt for a place
with indoor plumbing) for some drinking and dominoes. They reminisce
fondly about the bad old days when Spike was the Scourge of Europe
and Willow was a Dark Power rising in the Western Hemisphere.
Spike can no longer hold his liquor and Willow never has been
able to - so sometime during the night, the game becomes strip
dominoes. Both pass out before anything untoward happens, although
when the awake the next day in a state of undress with patchwork
memories, neither is entirely confident that nothing happened.
[> [> You are *so* mean!
-- HonorH, 18:22:33 09/20/02 Fri
Of all the horrible things predicted to happen to Willow as a
result of the bad karma she stored up in the last few eps of S6,
this is by far the worst! And does Spike truly deserve *this*
for a measly 120 years of carnage and chaos? Shocked, yes, shocked
I am that one of *our* people could even suggest such a fate!
[> [> [> It was good
enough for Buffy :) -- An Unrepentant 11th Evil, 19:57:33
09/20/02 Fri
[> [> You know, Mal,
I was going to say "Willow doesn't deserve this..."
-- cjl, 21:26:44 09/20/02 Fri
But after I stopped laughing, I decided she deserved every ounce
of grease that will eventually coagulate in her ears.
Spike, though, is another matter....
[> [> [> Yeah, 'cause,
y'know . . . -- HonorH, 21:54:38 09/20/02 Fri
He's *just* got 120 pea-pickin' years of evil under his belt.
Surely that's not enough to sentence him to that HAT!
[> [> Excellent work,
Most Esteemed 11th One. But you dropped a tag. -- OnM (noting
the drop for the sake of the board archivists), 22:07:08 09/20/02
Fri
EvilWillow, DarkWillow, DarthWillow, now the evillest of all--
DMPWillow!
Ahhhh! May the PTB have mercy on us all!!!
;-)
[> [> [> Dropped a
tag! -- Grrr Arghivist, 22:39:38 09/20/02 Fri
[> [> ROFLMAO ! --
Ete, 04:52:10 09/21/02 Sat
oy, poor Willow. And I though I could never sympathise with her
again !
[> [> Willow vs. Doublemeat
Palace, the Sequel -- cjl, 06:34:47 09/22/02 Sun
(Setting: Sunnydale, just past the start of S7. The day shift
at Doublemeat Palace. Willow is at the register, looking like
she's mired in the ninth circle of hell.)
XANDER: Excuse me, miss, could we get some service here?
(Willow brightens considerably as Xander, Dawn, and Buffy step
up to the counter, all smiles--well, Xander and Buffy are, anyway.
Dawn looks a little peeved to be there.)
WILLOW: Hey guys!
XANDER: Just wanted to drop in and give our favorite redheaded
girl some support. (To Dawn) We ALL did...right?
DAWN: Whatever.
WILLOW: Wanna order something? A nice, juicy Doublemeat Medley?
XANDER: Oh God, no.
BUFFY: Will, how you doin'? Really.
WILLOW: Oh, i-it's all right. (Brave face--but fooling nobody.)
When it's slow around here, I can sneak in some chapters for my
sociology class...a-and you see Stephen over there? He's got this
amazing rock collection in his locker, and he showed us this chunk
of petrified lava he got from Hawaii!
BUFFY: Sounds...fabulous.
XANDER: Where's, uh, "Randy"?
WILLOW: Doctor's appointment.
BUFFY: Is he okay?
WILLOW: I'd rather not get into it.
XANDER: Heard you two have been hanging out a lot lately.
WILLOW: Yeah, well--shift ends at midnight, and you're still jazzed,
so...
BUFFY: Well...it's good you've got someone to talk to around here.
And I guess with Spike, it's never going to be boring.
(Willow's lip starts to tremble. She's ready to crack...)
WILLOW: Oh God...
XANDER: Will?
WILLOW: Buffy, I can't take it anymore. Please, you've got to
get me out of here. If I have to spend one more day scraping gum
off the bottom of the tables, I'm gonna lose it. And Spike--Buffy,
he's so boring, it's driving me out of my mind!
XANDER: Say what?
WILLOW: Ever since he started working here, and eating the food,
he's been...you know...blocked up.
(Buffy, Xander, and Dawn lean back with a collective "Eww,
gross!" on their faces.)
WILLOW: And that's all he ever talks about! Eating raw fruit,
drinking fifteen types of mineral water, high colonics, the latest
pearls of wisdom from his gastroenterologist..! You'd think I'd
get some stories about bumping into Virginia Woolf or a first-hand
account of the Boxer Rebellion or even discussing surgical knives
with Jack the Ripper, for God's sake! But noooo...it's "Hey
Red, try this papaya--really cleans out the old tubing, if you
know what I mean." I don't wanna be here anymore! I wanna
go home! (Slumps against the register, sobbing softly.)
DAWN: Awwww..."I'm lonely. I'm miserable. I'm bored. Wahhhhh..."
BUFFY: Dawn, that's ENOUGH.
(XANDER is ready to leap over the counter for some major comforting,
but his cell phone interrupts.)
XANDER: Yello... Ahn, slow down... OK, got it. Don't make a move
until we get there.... What? No!... No, I'm not saying that at
all... I know you can handle yourself... I am NOT being "Mr.
Controlling Guy"... Look, Ahn, can we do this later?... Right.
Five minutes. 'Bye.
WILLOW (brightening again): Ooo! Scooby stuff?
BUFFY: Yeah...School. Hellmouth. The usual drill.
WILLOW: Can I come along? If it has something to do with magic,
maybe I can help! I-I mean, I wouldn't actually DO any magic,
but I could do kind of a consultant...thing.
BUFFY: I think we can handle it. Besides, I kinda found out that
management doesn't like it when you bolt right in the middle of
a shift.
XANDER: Anyway, this has absolutely nothing to do with magic.
Seriously...nothing at all. Whatever.
DAWN: Way to go, Mr. Stealth.
WILLOW: Could it wait until my shift is over?
BUFFY: Sorry sweetie. Gotta run.
XANDER: Hang in there, Will. I'll check in later, OK?
(Xander, Buffy, and Dawn exit, in full Scooby action mode.)
WILLOW (pouty): Fine. Leave me here to die.
(Lorraine enters.)
LORRAINE: Willow, Randy just called. He said he's having another..."episode,"
and he's taking the rest of the day off.
WILLOW: Again?
LORRAINE: I'm not happy about it either. Got no one on cleanup
duty.
WILLOW (seeing where this is going): Couldn't it wait until he
gets back?
LORRAINE: Nope. We've got health inspection tomorrow.
(Willow, shoulders slumped, heads for the supply closet for the
bucket 'n' mop.)
LORRAINE: Men's room is a mess! Give it a little extra ammonia,
OK?
WILLOW: I should have destroyed this town while I had the chance...
[> [> [> ROTFL! No
one deserves the Doublemeat! -- Dead Soul, 07:24:45 09/22/02
Sun
And I've always though an excess of soulfulness could give anyone
constipation.
Dead (but thankfully regular) Soul
p.s. I'll say it for you - Ewwwww!
[> [> [> *Snerk!*
-- HonorH, 11:09:12 09/22/02 Sun
Beautiful! I can actually sympathize with Willow now. But way
for Dawnie to get her back! "Waaah!"
Firefly Chat
Tonight - 9-10 PM EST -- Dedalus, 14:11:37 09/20/02 Fri
[> Speaking of snobs...
-- Dead Soul, 14:19:06 09/20/02 Fri
That means no chat for lil' ol' PDT'er, moi. I'd get all spoiled
and stuff. And we all know how painful that can be. Those durn
easterners and their having to get everything first...grumble,
grumble, grumble.
Dead (and once upon a time, Dandy) Soul
[> [> Do you live in
Indiana or do you mean EDT? -- CW, 14:21:37 09/20/02 Fri
In the same boat as Dead Soul.
[> [> [> Asking Ded,
of course -- CW, 14:23:11 09/20/02 Fri
[> I'm so glad you posted
this! -- Rob, 14:47:46 09/20/02 Fri
I completely forgot that "Firefly" began tonight! Unfortunately,
I won't be able to make chat, since I won't be home, but if you
hadn't posted this, I wouldn't have seen it tonight either. So
thanks! Off to set the timer on my VCR!
Rob
[> *********New Firefly
Yahoo Group******** -- Rufus, 16:09:23 09/20/02 Fri
WiseWoman and myself have started a new Yahoo Group for Firefly.....http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tfFirefly/.
The name is Trollops for Firefly and as you can guess there will
be spoilers....I will also get a spoiler chat going before next
weeks show. I would like some real sci-fi geeks to help out as
I'm sort of new to the genre...I do have some links up already
but any suggestions will be appreciated. There is also a link
back to the atpobtvs message board on both the conversebuffyverse
and Trollops for Firefly Group front page.
I'm in the process of moving over the next week so I will be on
the boards way less. I will get the Wildfeed up for Buffy on Conversebuffyverse
for Monday and do a few things but for the most part I'm hoping
existing members will lend a hand.
[> So what did you guys
think of "Firefly"? ("Firefly" spoilers, of
course) -- Rob, 20:15:38 09/20/02 Fri
Here's my take on it...
It took me about halfway through the episode to get into it, the
first time I watched. It was a bit disconcerting to me to start
off in the totally different world of this show, and for the first
half-hour I felt a bit confused. To be honest, I wasn't enjoying
myself very much. This problem was only made worse by the fact
that this was not the original first episode, and to me, it seemed
obvious. This didn't seem like a first episode. I felt like I
was reading a book from the third or fourth chapter in. Something
was just...missing. That quick expository opening did nothing
to help matters. I did like the characters on the show, and think
they can all turn out to be pretty intriguing. That's why I wish
FOX had aired the original opening...so that when we met the characters,
it would have been their true introductions in the story.
Putting all my complaining aside for a second, I actually did
like the show a great deal, although not yet love it. I remain
hopeful, however, that that will happen in time, as the show starts
to find its voice. For now, I found it enjoyable, and much more
so on my second viewing. After already knowing the names of each
character and a little bit about each, and also a bit of the show's
mythology, rewatching the first episode was a much more pleasant
experience. I didn't feel as disoriented or as far removed from
the story as the first time.
The moment that clinched it for me when I knew I could really
grow to love this show was when the bad guy--sorry can't remember
the name, so I guess I'll call him Mr. Henchman #1--vowed that
he would hunt them down for as long as they lived. And then--BOOM!--they
let him get sucked into the propulsion system of the ship. Mr.
Henchman #2, of course, was much more willing to let the matter
rest. That moment was shocking, funny, and very, very Joss.
So, for now, I like this show (and as I said before, even more
so after rewatching the first episode), but wish that we had been
able to start at the true beginning. That is so networky executivey
to pull the first episode of a show because there is too much
character development and not enough action. I sure hate when
that "pesky" character development and exposition gets
in the way of ass-kicking. (Smarmy, much?)
I have total faith in Joss, though, that by the end of the season
(fingers crossed that it lasts that long what with FOX's track
record with sci-fi programming that does not have an "X"
in the title), this show will completely win my heart. Heck, it
even took "Buffy" a while to do that. And when it did...WOW.
Rob
[> [> Re: So what did
you guys think of "Firefly"? ("Firefly" spoilers,
of course) -- matching mole, 20:43:19 09/20/02 Fri
Well I kind of like being dumped into the middle of things and
have to figure it out so the admittedly disorienting start (nine
new regular characters and relatively little introduction) didn't
really bother me. The story was a little straightforward but for
a first episode that seems OK.
I do like the idea of a SF show about the little guys (Farscape
may be similar in that respect? - don't get the SciFi channel
so have never really seen it) rather than tales of epic proportion.
I thought the dialogue was good and the character interaction
definitely had the Whedon touch. It was great to see Ron Glass
again even if he didn't do much in this episode.
I did think the old west thing was a bit overdone. I liked the
music and the flavour of some of the dialogue but the pattern
of having landscapes, clothing, buildings, and so on all with
a western look got kind of old after a while.
[> [> Re: So what did
you guys think of "Firefly"? ("Firefly" spoilers,
of course) -- Doriander, 21:17:02 09/20/02 Fri
The Alliance=The Initiative (whatís the deal with Joss
and the government?)
Mal and Inara=the anti-Angel and Lilah/Darla. Even their discourses
are kinda anti-Angel and Lilah.
Mal=Angel without the redemption mission. check the name (as pointed
by River ìmalî in Latin means ìbadî.
Whereas ìangelî...).
Inara=is the anti-bitch. Also, check her profession (hooker, profession
once scoffed at now most respectable. Whereas Lilah the lawyer
meant to uphold law... No glass ceiling for Inara, whereas Lilah
incessantly needs to hold her own against the likes of Lindsey
and Gavin).
River=shades of early Fred and Drusilla (whatís the deal
with Joss and clairvoyant/genius nutcases?).
Simon=attendant-boyfriend-to-Dru Spike + dissenting-from-W&H Lindsey
+ pre-s3 Wesley.
Jayne=S4 Iíll save my own hide mercenary Spike + ìletís
kill somethingî Spike + îIím paralyzed by not
caring very muchî Spike
Wash=wasnít featured much in this ep, but Iíve seen
the actor in other things, heís funny. I bet heís
gonna be Xander-ish.
mechanic=early Willow
Zoe=okay not a Buffy character, but Trinity from ìthe matrix.î
Also, ìyou had me at 'everyone gear up'î Gunn.
Book=reminds me Giles, his whole wiseman vibe.
Can't help but see the show through Buffy-colored lenses. I like
the characters so far. I saw chemistry in the cast. I laughed.
I loved that bit with the bad guy too. And Jayne's "I was
aiming for the head". The western score is a little disconcerting
and grating. Haven't seen much of the sci-fi genre to be savvy
of stereotypes but I'm guessing this is their way of establishing
their anti-Star Trek platform (no aliens and all) akin to Buffy's
anti-helpless blonde. I'm not hooked as of yet. But then again,
it took until "The Pack" to get me hooked on BtVS. Also,
I had more fun in this one than when I first saw WttH. Plus Minear
and Whedon. I expect greatness.
[> [> Re: So what did
you guys think of "Firefly"? ("Firefly" spoilers,
of course) -- OnM, 21:40:10 09/20/02 Fri
1) Definitely better on second viewing. Initial impression on
0-10 scale moved from about 5.5 or 6 up to about a 7 for me.
2) The western in space thing is kinda interesting, as long as
they don't overdo it. Will have to wait and see. One of the problems
with this is that so many people are so used to seeing the 'high-tech'
future in all its cool metallic sheen that we chafe at seeing
something different, even if it is really just as likely. Lynch's
film version of Dune was often criticised for this-- it
didn't look 'spacey' enough to some.
3) Loved the train robbery using the spaceship-- it struck me
as classic Whedon absurdity that somehow still seems perfectly
logical. And that it didn't go on an on, it just happened and
then they flew away. Most conventional shows would have milked
the robbery sequence for twice as long.
4) Character development-- Too soon to tell, but looks promising.
Have to wait for several more eps. Good mix of genders/nationalities.
Keep your eye on the religious guy. He seems interesting for some
reason. Whedon's foil for the atheist captain? Self-referential,
possibly?
5) Loved the guy thrown through the bar window that doesn't shatter
because it isn't glass-- it's a force field of some kind.
6) Loved the Indiana Jones ref when the bad guy gets kicked into
the engine. (Remember the guy who does the big schtick with the
sword, like he's the greatest swordsman in the world, and Indy
just pulls his pistol and shoots the guy?
7) Special FX were good. Not flashy 'look at me!! I'm so cool!!,
just good and seamless, which is how I like them.
8) Excellent music choices.
9) Alliance guys-- seemed like a nod to Starship Troopers. But
could become cardboardy. Have to wait and see. The Alliance depiction
is the weak point at the moment-- they need to be much more fearsome
and evil.
10) Opening credits sequence well done, typ. Jossian work.
11) Liked the ship, esp. the interiors. Borrows from past spaceship
realizations, but exactly copies non of them. This is harder to
do than it might seem.
12) While I am not personally very familiar with it, I understand
that there is a trendlet in the past few years for SF stories
to explore the idea of alternate technological paths in alternate
universes-- such as what would happen if steam power stayed on
for many more decades, instead of electricity becoming universal,
or the internal combustion engine. How would society look if this
happened? Joss may be making a reference to this new genre area.
(Again, similar to the Lynch Dune-iverse.)
So there's my 4 cents.
;-)
[> [> [> Re: So what
did you guys think of "Firefly"? ("Firefly"
spoilers, of course) -- Arethusa, 22:27:12 09/20/02 Fri
I don't think the Alliance is meant to be evil. They're like the
Northerners who flooded the South after the civil war (and like
contemporary America?). They are irritating because they have
the careless condescension of a victorious army and they are dangerous
because they have all the power. I liked Firefly's underdog perspective
and mixture of space age and frontier age. It was so obvious that
it was fun; if I can accept space matinee serials (Star Wars)
and space horror (Aliens), I can accept space westerns.
And that guy Mal kicked into the engine showed that Whedon and
Minear are still willing to jolt the audience and show the dark
side of the main characters.
I'll definitely watch the show again.
[> [> [> [> I'm
not sure about the Alliance... -- Rob, 08:34:11 09/21/02
Sat
I don't think it was quite clear enough either way. I felt like
I had to feel like the Alliance was bad (or at least, undesirable
to be a part of) because I was told to, not from seeing it firsthand.
A major rule of good storywriting is to show and not tell, meaning
not to say "John is bad," but to give an example, like
having a scene of John kicking a kitten or something like that.
I wanted to know more about why these guys are anti-Alliance.
Rob
[> [> [> Points 2
(mostly), 7, and 11. -- matching mole, 05:21:46 09/21/02
Sat
The low-tech not all gleamy and shiny aspect of 'Firefly' really
appeals to me. Even if it ends up being a fairly standard space
adventure, that alone would make it worth watching for me. What
I found jarring was the specificity of the references to late
19th C. western United States in the look of this low tech future.
Maybe it's because I'm not much of a fan of the Western genre
but it seemed very distracting to me. Didn't make me believe in
the setting as a 'real' place. Sunnydale and the L.A. of AtS are
not exactly realistic representations of California but they don't
remind me of some other place.
Definitely agree about the special effects and the look of the
ship - vrey subtle, enhancing the whole package without drawing
attention to themselves.
I am hoping that the show does focus mostly on character interaction
(which is what JW is really good at) and less on the larger universe
(because JW is not so good with consistency in his fictional worlds).
[> [> [> [> Re:
Points 2 (mostly), 7, and 11. -- Darby, 05:45:11 09/21/02
Sat
Also found the specificity of the Western motif distracting, from
the buildings (must be lots of old set pieces over on the Fox
lot!) to the plot and a couple of the characters. The tech is
interesting - could they really have thought through that force
fields (the bar) kind of have to be high-quality for space-debris-deflection,
so much so that even a low-tech place like that would have one?
Probably did it 'cause it was cool...
And too many of the "signature" bits had the "seen
it before" vibe. "Great shot!" "Yeah, but
I was aiming for..." What is this, the 20th time I've seen
exactly that? At least when the guy-into-the-engine thing made
me think of Indiana Jones, it was an interesting variation.
Sort of. And I just want them to stop, just stop the "overhearing
the worst part of conversations" thing!
[> [> [> Speaking
of not "milking" the train robbery scene... -- Rob,
18:33:02 09/21/02 Sat
I was also impressed that when the companion (don't remember her
name yet) when in to fetch Mal and the woman who at this moment
I'll refer to either as that cool evil spy from "Alias,"
Hel from "Cleopatra 2525," or Cleopatra from "Xena"
(also forget her name on the show, and her real name, come to
think of it), the scene was not dragged out with complications.
Her explanation that Mal was her indentured servant was enough.
The scene didn't require any more dangers or long, drawn-out suspense
to work. Another show, I doubt, would have allowed this to happen
like this.
Speaking of which, I'm pretty intrigued by this whole "companion"
thing and am interested about how this world views prostitutes.
It seems that they are very well-respected in this society and
seem to hold positions of power, or, at least, affluence. At one
point, Shepherd (I think--is anyone else noticing a recurring
theme with this post? lol) asked why a companion like her would
be travelling on this ship of lower-class type people. And just
the fact that a companion could have the power to march into a
place and rescue her indentured man from capture--The fact that
she can even have an indentured man...I think that's very,
very cool...and I hope they delve more into this world and what
is and isn't acceptable by this society's standards. How did the
position of a prostitute, or "companion," get such high
clout?
I have about a million other questions about the way this world
works as well, but answering that question would be a nice start.
Rob
[> [> [> [> Hookers
and Servants -- Arethusa, 19:30:35 09/21/02 Sat
One of the Firefly reviews said the Alliance must have based part
of its constitution on "Pretty Woman." I suggest that
it's a short step from society's celebration/exploitation of modern
courtesans like Monica Lewinsky and Heidi Fleiss to seeing prostitution
as a glamorous and lucrative occcupation worthy of respect. But
something must have happened to religion, to have preachers call
prostitutes respectable.
Thousands of people came to American as indentured servants, working
off their passage money. Perhaps when the space frontier opened
and everyone fled a dying home world, many were forced to sell
part of their future for passage.
[> [> I had fun.
-- HonorH, 21:52:44 09/20/02 Fri
Watched it with my dad, who's a big SF fan, and we both enjoyed
it. The "Western" milieu was a bit heavy-handed, and
I'm hoping that'll lighten up a bit as the show gains its footing.
I really liked what I saw of the cast, though, especially Nathan
Fillion, Gina Torres, and Adam Baldwin. This show has definite
Potential. I'm gonna keep watching.
Firefly First
Impressions (Premiere Spoilers) -- Darby, 20:35:47 09/20/02
Fri
I really expected more...
GOOD - Casting is better than I expected. Sets are cool, effects
work well, the basic premise works okay as a "drop you into
the situation" angle. Basic tone was interesting. Several
of the characters, especially peripherals, have potential. Visually,
the western-but-not-really worked nicely when it wasn't getting
a little too cute.
NOT SO GOOD - Pacing was choppy, sound was inconsistent, especially
dialogue. Neither Bad Russian Guy nor Tattooed Henchman up to
Whedon villain standards, although Bad Russian Guy might be redeemable.
TROUBLING - I get the "Western in Space" bit, but I
expected a Western the way Buffy is a horror show. What we got
was incredibly standard horse opera. The captain might just as
well have ridden out of a hundred 1930s-1950s movies (except for
kicking the guy into the engine - that was more 60s). Jeez, the
honorable wisecrackin' brawlin' rebel with a fierce loyalty for
his posse, where have I seen that before? And the sheriff? Sheeesh!
Maybe westerns are from too distant a past to affect the show's
popularity. What humor there was seemed stale as well, for the
most part. I'd love to see some pop culture references to a pop
culture nobody's seen. It also looks like the Alliance may suffer
from Initiative Syndrome - standard military bureaucracy full
of mostly cardboard characters. But they had very little screen
time, which might explain it.
And did the guy really complain about coming 86 million miles?
That's a hop, skip, and jump interplanetary distance, almost walking
distance for this type of show.
I know I'm being harsh, and I have every hope that it will get
better - this is just a first impression, after all. I probably
will watch it again this weekend, and maybe my impression will
change somewhat.
- Darby, wondering what everybody else thought.
[> Re: Firefly First Impressions
(Premiere Spoilers) -- Malandanza, 21:11:33 09/20/02 Fri
"And did the guy really complain about coming 86 million
miles? That's a hop, skip, and jump interplanetary distance, almost
walking distance for this type of show."
Hopefully, this is indicative of no faster-than-light travel (and
no magical wormholes or jump gates). I have wanted to see a space
based show where the speed of light was an issue.
[> [> Getting Around
-- Darby, 05:24:27 09/21/02 Sat
This type of show requires faster-than-light travel (in
the battle between physics and storytelling, the story needs to
win sometimes), or the logistics go out the window - how could
an Alliance of multiple star systems exist without it? Years to
send messages, even more years to reply, way more years to respond
- unless this in confined to one godawful big single "solar"
system, there's no way around it. And at sublight speeds, the
Firefly could be detected and intercept plans hatched long before
it got from here to whereever.
[> [> [> Actually
it is... -- Rob, 08:45:32 09/21/02 Sat
From what I've read, this story is confined to one solar system,
and there is no speed-o'-light travel.
Rob
[> [> [> [> I afraid
it is. -- Robert, 20:09:16 09/21/02 Sat
>>> "... this story is confined to one solar system,
and there is no speed-o'-light travel."
There may or may not be FTL travel, but this story is definitely
intersteller. The prelude to the episode mentioned humanity finding
new solar systems and terraforming new worlds. There aren't many
planets in our solar system which could reasonably be terraformed
(maybe Mars). If there isn't FTL travel, then writers will eventually
need to introduce some kind of hyperspace or wormhole concept.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: I afraid it is. -- Rob, 22:45:36 09/21/02 Sat
Unless humans got to another solar system over a long period of
time, and once they got there, stayed put in that solar system.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Confirmation from the show... -- Rob, 22:51:28
09/21/02 Sat
Here's an exact transcript of the opening narrative:
"After the Earth was used up, we found a new solar system
and hundreds of new Earths were terra-formed and colonized."
So there ya have it...One new solar system. All of the new planets
are contained in that same solar system, making the warp drive
not a necessity...although it would be kind of cool to be able
to zip back and forth across the solar system really fast, wouldn't
it? ;o)
Rob
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Confirmation from the show... -- Robert,
23:44:10 09/21/02 Sat
>>> "One new solar system."
I think your interpretation is incorrect, but I'm sure we will
find out soon enough. I just cannot imagine a star system with
hundreds of planets capable of harboring human life, terraformed
or not.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> The system -- matching mole, 07:17:45 09/22/02
Sun
Ignoring the technically incorrect but widespread useage of the
term solar system in the opening explanatory comments I'd have
to say that I think Rob's interpretation is correct; the action
is confined to planets rotating around a single star.
However, being pedantic science guy for a moment I have to point
out that the premise seems particularly dubious.
Like Robert I would tend to think that a stellar system with hundreds
of planets rotating a single star would be unlikely. I'm not a
physicist or an astronomer but such a system strikes me as highly
unstable. The planets would have to be pretty close to one another.
Makeing extremely crude estimates in my head if there were 100
planets their orbits would probably have to be, on average, spaced
at less than one million mile intervals (assuming that they wouldn't
be much further from their star than Mars or closer than Venus
is to the sun). Maybe, if such a system was in existence, you
could keep it going, I don't really know. But the formation of
such a delicately balanced system in the early stages of the formation
of a stellar system seems fairly preposterous.
It's not going to keep me from enjoying the show though.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: The system -- Finn Mac Cool, 07:45:50
09/22/02 Sun
The intro said hundreds of new Earths, not planets. It's possible
that they colonized a few planets and moons, but for the large
part stuck to asteroids, which could easily be there in the thousands,
not just hundreds.
[> [> [> Re: Getting
Around -- Malandanza, 13:19:16 09/21/02 Sat
"This type of show requires faster-than-light travel (in
the battle between physics and storytelling, the story needs to
win sometimes), or the logistics go out the window - how could
an Alliance of multiple star systems exist without it? Years to
send messages, even more years to reply, way more years to respond
- unless this in confined to one godawful big single "solar"
system, there's no way around it. And at sublight speeds, the
Firefly could be detected and intercept plans hatched long before
it got from here to wherever."
I would have thought it was the other way around -- a story like
this (with an advanced central system of planets and satellite
planets looking more and more medieval the further away you get)
needs sub light travel. When the medical supplies failed to show
up, the mining planet could have just sent an instantaneous message
home and the home planet just gated another starship full of supplies
there. With slower than light travel, it might be years before
another shipment arrived (or even years before the message was
received that the shipment had been hijacked). Also, faster than
light communication and travel would make it difficult to catch
pirates and smugglers, with all the information being hopelessly
out of date. The smugglers raid a transport half a light year
from it destination? Send out a fleet to intercept it? By the
time they get the distress call, the raid has been over for six
months. The outlying planets would likely depend upon smugglers
for vital supplies that just aren't profitable enough to ship
and, for whatever reason, cannot be made on the satellite planet.
Looking at the 86 million miles -- light travels at 86,000 miles
per second (why aren't people in the future using the metric system?)
so it would take light 100 seconds to make the trip. Not much.
A ship moving at 1/6 the speed of light could make the trip in
under two hours. Except that the ship doesn't start off at 14,000
miles per second -- it must accelerate. Ignoring relativity, a
ship accelerating at 1 g for the first half of the trip, then
turning around and decelerating at the same rate would require
nearly three days to make the trip. There aren't many places in
the world that you can't get to in three days, so I'd say it could
count as a long trip. Also, I agree with Rob that we do have a
collection of planets relatively near each other. Probably closer
than a light year between planets -- I'd rather suspend my disbelief
in close planets than faster than light travel. Since the planets
are terraformed, it is possible that more than one planet per
system (as well as some of the larger moons around gas giants)
have been rendered habitable.
Besides, remember that Joss sucks at math.
More annoying for me is that the "artificial gravity"
seems to pull in a direction perpendicular to the acceleration
of the ship (but this is true in virtually all space operas).
[> [> [> [> Is
it possible to have both? -- Wisewoman, 18:08:48 09/21/02
Sat
Sub-light speed and faster-than-light speed travel, I mean?
Just because f-t-l travel may exist doesn't necessarily mean it
would be used on a daily basis for things like supply runs. Maybe
it's expensive. I'm thinkin', y'know, the Concorde exists, but
not everybody can afford to fly it, and it isn't used for major
cargo shipping, AFAIK.
Just a thought...
;o)
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Is it possible to have both? -- Rob, 11:19:18 09/22/02
Sun
That's a good idea. Perhaps the warp drives were used to get to
this new solar system in the first place, and by some of the wealthier
citizens of the Alliance...but, as you said, it wasn't something
that everyone could afford, or that was needed by everyone, since
once they arrived in this solar system, they just settled there.
Regarding peoples' questions of whether such a solar system could
exist, I think that reaches the area that is the reason Joss insists
that "Firefly" isn't science fiction. Personally, I
don't think it's important, especially in a non-techno-babbly
type sci-fi show as this, to dissect whether such a place could
exist. I just accept that in the Jossverse, this is how it is.
Normal rules never need apply.
On a different note but also speaking about the affordability
of the higher tech items, some people asked why a low-tech bar
would have those fake, hologram windows, except for a cool sight
gag. I figured though that probably the window had been broken
many times in the past by similar bar brawls that eventually the
bar owners decided it was more cost-effective to install the more
expensive "digital window" than just keep replacing
the real one over and over again.
Rob
[> [> Re: Firefly First
Impressions (Premiere Spoilers) -- skpe, 06:35:39 09/21/02
Sat
I gave it an overall rating of good. But from the man that gave
us 'Hushí,í The Body' and OMWF I donít expect
good I expect great. The problem I had was that we were introduced
to many main characters, (9 by my count). So much time was taken
up with 'who are you' and 'why are you here' that the story lagged.
The sets and special effects were good but I thought the costumes
looked like something out of 'Space Balls'
[> [> [> I actually
had the exact opposite reaction... -- Rob, 08:27:11 09/21/02
Sat
I actually thought there wasn't enough exposition before launching
into the plot. I really wanted to be a little more versed in each
character and how they came to be aboard the ship before being
thrown into the train heist plot. From the fact that the 2 hour
premiere wasn't aired because it focused more on character development
and not a lot of action, I think I might have enjoyed that much
more as an introduction.
Rob
[> [> [> [> I agree
with you! -- Robert, 12:27:20 09/21/02 Sat
>>> " I actually thought there wasn't enough exposition
before launching into the plot."
Also there wasn't enough time spent on explaining the history
and the setting. I hope to learn more about how the crew and the
ship came to be.
>>> "From the fact that the 2 hour premiere wasn't
aired .."
Yes, this is scaring me. I have little respect for the FOX network
to start with. I'm afraid that FOX is setting "Firefly"
up for failure, maybe not purposely or consciously.
Does anyone remember a semi-bad sci-fi show from about 8 years
ago called (I believe) "Space Rangers"? The network
(ABC, NBC or CBS) also refused to show the pilot because it more
character building and less action. Consequently, I had difficulty
understanding who the characters were and why I should care about
them. Also, continuity references were made by some episodes to
events in the pilot, further confusing the situation. The ratings
suffered and the network canceled it after about 8 episodes, but
(as a consolation prize) allowed the pilot to finally be aired.
After seeing the pilot, I liked the series a lot more, and it
was too late.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: fainting 'cause someone else saw the show -- Rendyl,
18:42:34 09/21/02 Sat
Sigh. I am the only person I know who actually -loved- Space Rangers.
Every episode improved a bit and I think it would have matured
into a great show if they had just given it a little more time.
I am glad some of the posters mentioned that last nights Firefly
was not the intended pilot. Like you and Rob I wanted a little
more background on the characters. But I loved the theme song.
(evil grin)
Ren
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Space Rangers -- Robert, 19:30:44 09/21/02
Sat
>>> "I am the only person I know who actually -loved-
Space Rangers."
Yes, I to was becoming quite fond of it at the end, but ...
>>> "... and I think it would have matured into
a great show if they had just given it a little more time"
No, it would have remained a semi-bad show, but in a good way.
I enjoyed watching Battlestar Gallactica too, even though it was
really bad.
[> [> Starhunter
-- Doug the Bloody, 06:40:24 09/21/02 Sat
Everything takes place in Earth's solar system, and time-dilation
is a factor in travel; people spending a lot of time on ships
have less time pass due to travelling at near-light speeds.
However, I'm still considering whether the show is any good.
[> [> Re: Firefly First
Impressions (Premiere Spoilers) -- Robert, 12:15:23 09/21/02
Sat
>>> "I have wanted to see a space based show where
the speed of light was an issue."
A civilization can't be maintained when communication times are
measured in decades, centuries, and millenia. The Romans had enough
problems with communication times of weeks or months. Because
of this problem, I generally have no problem accepting faster-than-light
(FTL) travel in novels and cinema. It is one of the few conventions
of the science fiction, even "hard" science fiction.
Some novels have worked around this issue by allowing FTL communication,
but not FTL travel. Without it, you have no story. On the other
hand, I have a problem when a writer or author attempts to explain
his FTL travel, and he does it badly. The closest I ever saw to
a non-FTL intersteller civilization was Larry Niven's "A
Gift From Earth", but it wasn't much of an intersteller civilization.
A non-FTL space show whould be restricted to the solar system,
or somebody's star system. Even so, a really good show could be
developed around the mines in the asteriod belt, for instance.
The classic science fiction authors spent a lot of ink in just
the solar system.
[> [> Re: Firefly First
Impressions (Premiere Spoilers) -- Finn Mac Cool, 15:19:20
09/21/02 Sat
Well, something I've been looking for is a sci-fi story where
they can travel faster than light not through hyper-drive, wormholes,
or anything like that, but because Einstein was debunked sometime
in the future. After all, the no-travel-faster-than-light thing
is part of the theory of relativity. Key word being "theory".
[> [> [> About Debunking
Einstein (quite long & technical, no spoilers) -- Robert,
19:24:30 09/21/02 Sat
>>> "... but because Einstein was debunked sometime
in the future."
Finn Mac Cool, I will present a long winded argument on why Einstein
will not be debunked in the future. The following is the Merrian-Webster
Dictionary's definition of debunk.
debunk
Function: transitive verb
Date: 1923
: to expose the sham or falseness of
- debunker noun
I will assume that you did not know the definition of debunk and
are not being purposely crass and insulting as to suggest that
Albert Einstein was intentionally shamming humanity when he published
his special theory of relativity in 1905. Having said that, I
would not be surprised if Einstein's special theory of relativity
was in the future shown to be incomplete, but his theory will
never be false. Experimental physics has demonstrated that the
theory correctly models the universe, to the accuracy and precision
of the experiments. If a new theory replaces the theory of relativity
in the future, it will need to describe a regime not currently
handled by relativity. However, the new theory must predict the
same results as relativity in the regimes we do presently understand.
Otherwise, the new theory would not fit the experimental measurements
that we've already made.
To illustrate my point, let us look at Sir Isaac Newton's laws
of motion ([1] page 49).
I. A body remains at rest or in uniform motion unless acted upon
by a force.
II. A body acted upon by a force moves in such a manner that the
time rate of change of momentum equals the force.
III. If two bodies exert forces on each other, these forces are
equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.
The first two laws provide a definition of force. The first law
describes what happens in the absence of any forces. The second
law gives us;
[Equation 1] F = m a
This should be familiar to most everyone. According to this equation,
if you apply a constant force on an object, it will continue to
accelerate forever, irrespective of the speed of light. Does this
mean that Newton was wrong? Yes ... and no. Newton's laws correctly
predict the motion of things in the classical regime, but not
the relativistic regime. The relativistic regime exists close
to the speed of light. In others words, to observe a deviation
from Newton's laws, we must observe particles or objects moving
very fast or we must have an incredibly accurate measurement apparatus.
Newton was capable of neither. Also, Newton could not make the
following two assumptions, which Einstein used in 1905 to formulate
special relativity ([2] page 481), partly because scientists didn't
understand the nature of light before Maxwell formulated his equations
for electro-magnetic fields in the middle of the 19th century.
1. "The principle of relativity." The laws of physics
apply in all inertial reference systems.
2. "The universal speed of light." The speed of light
in vacuum is the same for all inertial observers, regardless of
the motion of the source.
The following two equations for momentum show the difference between
Newtonian and Einsteinian mechanics. Equation 2 is the Newtonian
definition of the momentum of an object. Equation 3 is the Einsteinian
definition of momentum.
[Equation 2] p = m v
[Equation 3] p = gamma m v
{Equation 4] gamma = 1 / SQRT(1 - v2 / c2)
>>> "After all, the no-travel-faster-than-light
thing is part of the theory of relativity. Key word being "theory"."
You have made an inaccurate statement.
As velocity v approaches the speed of light c, the denominator
of eq. 4 approaches zero, thus the value of gamma goes to infinity,
and so to does the momentum in eq. 3. This says that the velocity
can never be equal the speed of light. If the object should somehow
exceed the speed of light, then the momentum p becomes an imaginary
quantity and ceases to have physical meaning. If the velocity
is much less than c, then denominator of eq. 4 quickly approaches
1 and eq. 3 thus reduces to eq. 2. In other words, the special
theory of relativity correctly reduces to the Newtonian laws of
motion in the classical non-relativistic regime. To simplify what
I just wrote, let me make the following statements.
a. For motion much less than the speed of light, Newton's law
of motion and Einstein's special theory of relativity accurately
predict observations.
b. For motion approaching the speed of light, Newton's 2nd law
of motion becomes inaccurate, but special relativity continues
to accurately predict observations.
c. The consequence of the special theory of relativity is that
motion at the speed of light is impossible.
d. The special theory of relativity says nothing about motion
beyond the speed of light. This is a regime we know nothing about
and currently cannot explore.
Current experimental physics supports the special theory of relativity.
In particle accelerators, fast particles have demonstrated the
predicted strange properties of the relativistic regime. Also,
extremely accurate cesium clocks have shown the time dilation
of objects in slower motion (such as in an airplane or satellite).
The future may give humanity a new theory that predicts motion
in a regime that we know nothing about or presently cannot explore.
However, I can confidently state that such a new theory will not
invalidate Einstein's special theory of relativity in the relativistic
regime or Newton's laws of motion in the classical regime.
[1] Thornton, Marion; Classical Dynamics of Particles and Systems,
4th Ed., Saunders College Publishing, 1995, ISBN 0-03-097302-3
[2] Griffiths, David J.; Introduction to Electrodynamics, 3rd
Ed., Prentice Hall, 1999, ISBN 0-13-805326-X
[> [> [> [> Woo!
Headrush!! ;o) -- dubdub, 19:35:03 09/21/02 Sat
[> [> [> [> [>
Put your head between your legs till it passes. -- Robert,
19:56:22 09/21/02 Sat
[> [> [> [> Suggestion
-- Darby, 20:18:32 09/21/02 Sat
I would not be surprised if at some point the rules turn out to
be less universal and more local - there's just too much weirdness
over vast cosmological distances. It's kind of entertaining to
watch the contortions of dark matter and expansion forces on just
a couple of the processes that don't seem to want to follow the
rules. I'm not suggesting that I know anything about where those
aspects of science are going, but I completely expect scientists
of the future to look at Einstein as we look at Newton, Galileo,
or Aristotle - very good at making sense of what they had, but
woefully ignorant of some critical data. Absolutes from them?
What a quaint idea!
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Suggestion -- Robert, 22:57:47 09/21/02 Sat
>>> "I would not be surprised if at some point the
rules turn out to be less universal and more local ..."
I would be very surprised if the laws of the universe varied from
location to location. Astrophysicists are looking for any evidence
of such and haven't found it. To put it mildly, if ever such evidence
were found, it would have a mighty big impact on all of physics.
I believe I read an article a couple years ago that suggestsed
that one of the fundamental constants of the universe (called
the fine-structure constant) may have been slightly different
a long time ago, when the universe was very young. This hypothesis
was based upon extremely indirect astrophysical observations and
I haven't heard anything about it since. I suspect that the hypothesis
was not supported by additional evidence, otherwise I think the
whole world would have heard about it.
>>> "... but I completely expect scientists of the
future to look at Einstein as we look at Newton, Galileo, or Aristotle
- very good at making sense of what they had, but woefully ignorant
of some critical data."
This is where I am a little baffled. You are making Newton and
Galileo out to be local yokels, way too stupid to know any better.
Otherwise, why use a word like "woefully" which means
"lamentably bad or serious". I can't speak about Aristotle,
who I know little about and less about his science. Newton and
Galileo were brilliant men who moved the understanding on our
universe a considerable distance.
The theories formulated by Galileo, Newton and Einstein have all
be tested by experiments and observations. In each case, the extent
of the theories is limited. Einstein's theories, for example,
tell us nothing about the microscopic world (the regime of quantum
mechanics), only the macroscopic world. This doesn't not make
his theories wrong, only incomplete.
The term theory here is not just an educated guess. It is a mathematical
model of the physical world. As such, if it doesn't accurately
predict observations and experiments, then it drops into the pit
with all the other failed theories. The fact that the a new theory
will come along that farther refines Einstein's model, does not
make Einstein wrong. The special theory of relativity did not
make Newton's laws of motion wrong.
Look at it this way, Newtonian mechanics is a special case in
special relativity. Special relativity is a special case in Einstein's
theory of general relativity. There will likely come a time when
general relativity is a special case of something else ... maybe
the long sought after unified field theory.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Suggestion -- TRM, 23:04:54 09/21/02 Sat
Just out of curiosity, when you refer to the article referring
to the fine-structure constant, I believe I read somewhere that
many of the constants in our universe are very specific and that
somewhere/time else they could have potentially been different
-- constants such as pi and e and whatnot and would throw a whole
slew of things out of our understanding. Is this in reference
to the same thing or is it something different? I apologize for
not having any strong foundation in physics.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: universal constants -- Robert, 23:53:41
09/21/02 Sat
>>> "I believe I read somewhere that many of the
constants in our universe are very specific and that somewhere/time
else they could have potentially been different -- constants such
as pi and e and whatnot and would throw a whole slew of things
out of our understanding."
It has been hypothesized that some or all of the constants may
have been different in the past, or different somewhere else in
the universe. As a consequence of such questions, researchers
have been looking for evidence of such. To the best of my limited
knowledge, no evidence as been found.
Just imagine what it would mean if pi was a different value. Pi
if fundamental to all areas of mathematics, engineering and science.
The speedometer on your car does not measure the speed of your
car. It measures the number of wheel rotations per unit time and
is calibrated with the distance traveled per wheel rotation. Imagine
driving to Mexico and having that change on you!
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: universal constants -- Darby, 07:33:46
09/22/02 Sun
But what if the speed of light varies in different regions? What
if red shift of distant objects is NOT a Doppler effect? How does
one factor in the principle (getting to Einsteinian implications)
that time varies according to local gravimetric conditions?
What if gravitational constants vary? I've had an interest in
cosmology since reading Sagan 40 years ago, and I've been watching
theories built upon existing theories and concepts shoehorned
in based on new, incompatible observations until it's hard not
to see it as a house of cards. Does it make sense to anybody that
microrules and macrorules seem wildly incompatible, even though
both stand up to testing, within the tight limits of what can
be tested? But don't you wonder why particles in a reactor, accelerated
to the point (the speed of light) at which matter becomes energy,
don't seem to go through that implied point of infinite mass and
produce local singularities? Why doesn't an atomic bomb act like
a black hole - or does it?
I'm not saying the giants of the past were not giants, but more
time/distance and human nature makes them seem quaint to many
modern theorists. "They were brilliant, and did the best
with what they could" is not a put-down, although it is a
subtle way of implying that now, we've got it all worked
out. How many prominent physicists, in how many eras, have proclaimed
that all of the basic concepts had been worked out, with nothing
left but working out the details? When Einstein came along, no
one expected an approach amounting to, "Current notions are
valuable, but based on some fundamentally flawed assumptions."
But there it was, and it advanced the frontier but not the common
human feeling that we kinda sorta understand everything. It was
a bit presumptuous for those old guys to expect other planets
to act like Earth (remember the canals of Mars? one of my favorite
expressions is, "I wouldn't have seen it if I hadn't believed
it."), but it's totally different to expect galaxies to behave
essentially like our solar system. And they don't - no, well,
they do, but there's a buncha stuff out there that no one has
or apparently can observe to make them follow our local rules.
No, math doesn't lie...except that the math in many of these cases
goes through so many extrapolations that it possibly ceases to
be the math everyone's used to trusting.
This is just my take, based on trying a broad historical perspective.
I'm also just saying that the absolute statements of what is and
is not possible often are seen later as the most outlandish of
the past's ideas.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: universal constants -- OnM,
09:04:51 09/22/02 Sun
*** But what if the speed of light varies in different regions?
What if red shift of distant objects is NOT a Doppler effect?
How does one factor in the principle (getting to Einsteinian implications)
that time varies according to local gravimetric conditions? What
if gravitational constants vary? ***
This is something that has always puzzled me too, and I would
be interested to hear from those more in tune with contemporary
physics to try to enlighten me on the following:
1) We know that the speed of light appears to be a constant. But
why? For me, something that has a limit means that some external
force is restricting it from exceeding that limit. Back when I
was a kid, and first reading the SF stories of the day, you still
occasionally ran into references to 'the ether', which my take
upon was that it was a force or sub-quantum mechanical matter
that provided the limiting factor for light and other e.m. forces.
Alternately, it was seen as a 'medium' through which e.m. energy
propagated, analogous to sound through air. It was also my understanding
that the concept was dismissed, but I don't see what was theorized
to replace it. Gravity? Is gravity a property of mass, or does
the presence of mass act to 'concentrate' gravitational energy?
If the latter is so, why couldn't light travel faster out in space
then it does here on earth, or even within our solar system? If
we could finally determine just exactly what gravity is, and generate
a counter (negative) force, would that enable us to increase the
speed of light by locally 'canceling' gravity?
2) The relativistic time issue at near-light speeds assumes that
time is real, 'physical'. Suppose that it isn't? Suppose that
it is only a construct of a sentient mind, and that the universe
is essentially 'timeless'. Note that while the math clearly indicates
that time changes with acceleration to near c, the equation would
still be valid if time is '0', rather than a positive value. I
know that experiments with particle accelerators seem to support
the time dilation effect, but what happens if you accelerate a
significant mass, not just a subatomic particle? Before this idea
is dismissed, consider that traditional electrical theory dictated
that electrical resistance would drop uniformly with decreasing
temperature until you reached absolute zero, when it would finally
vanish. But since at that point, nothing is moving, you
could not have electrical current flow.
Then came superconductivity, which baffled scientists for decades.
In short, Einstein appears to be right, but to what degree have
we actually tested-- or been able to test-- his theories on a
macroscopic level?
Just wondering. Great respect for Einstein and all those guys!
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Re: universal constants --
Robert, 13:20:36
09/22/02 Sun
>>> "We know that the speed of light appears to
be a constant. But why?"
Actually, I don't think we do know that the speed of light is
constant. Rather, we assume it and run experiments (such as the
famous Michaelson-Morley experiment) to contradict the assumption.
So far, no experiment has contradicted it.
>>> "... you still occasionally ran into references
to 'the ether' ..."
Ether was the unseen and undefined medium for the propagation
of light in otherwise free space. The Michaelson-Morley experiment
was one of the nails in the coffin of ether. It turns out that
light doesn't need a medium for propagation. Maxwell's equations
demonstrated this. If anyone cares, they can find Maxwell's equations
in any electrodynamics textbook. Basically, it boils down to this;
1. a time varying electric field will induce a time varying magnetic
field,
2. a time varying magnetic field will induce a time varying electric
field.
Thus, a ray of light consists of two sinusoidal fields which are
perpendicularly oriented to each other. Each field is supporting
the other indefinitely. One field is the electric field and the
other is the magnetic field. This is why we call it an electro-magnetic
field.
>>> "If the latter is so, why couldn't light travel
faster out in space then it does here on earth, or even within
our solar system?"
Gravity does not affect the speed of light, at least not such
that we can measure it. Gravity does affect the energy of the
light. The energy of a photon is E = h x f, where f is the frequency
in radians/second and h is Plank's constant which equals 6.63
x 10^-34 Joules-seconds. In escaping a gravity field from a planet,
the photon will lose a little bit of energy, thus shifting the
frequency down. This is referred to as red shift. As the photon
fails into a gravity field, it picks up energy and the frequency
shifts up (thus called the blue shift). The very definition of
a black hole is that the gravity field is so intense that any
photon below the event horizon will lose all its energy before
it can escape.
>>> "... his theories on a macroscopic level? "
Einsteins theories have been tested on a larger scale than you
realize. Astrophysicists are looking for (and finding) opportunities
to test his predictions; such as the lensing of occulted stellar
objects by massive gravity fields. These observations span millions
and billions of light-years, which means that we are not only
observing affects far away, but also far into the past.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> defining the speed of light...
-- TRM, 20:49:46 09/22/02 Sun
A point of clarifaction on the term "the speed of light":
It doesn't refer to the speed of a particular electromagnetic
wave per se, it really referes to the actual speed c. In
all properness, it refers to the speed of light in a vacuum. Light
can travel at sub-light speeds. "Physicists
Slow Speed of Light" is the first article I found when
looking up the terms "speed of light" and "sodium"
on Google, but of course there are others.
In addition, gravity does bend light... I don't know if
it affects its speed...
On ether. When you mentioned ether, you made me think of this
phenomenon known as zero point energy, which is the modern scientific
form of a possible ether. I don't know its implications on light,
exactly. What it refers to is a sort of perpetual ambient energy
(I apologize for describing this poorly) that occurs as particles
spontaneously become created and are destroyed (matter and anti-matter
pairs... law of conservation of mass is conserved in the opposites).
Any theories beyond the acknowledgement that his happens are treated
variably as pseudo-science, but it has been used to explain the
glow from black holes (half of the matter/anti-matter pair is
sucked into the hole while the other is jettisoned out... they
usually destroy each other). Some physicists are trying to use
zero point energy to explain inertia and the explanations they
put forward seem vaguely similar to some relativistic ideas. This
is also used to explain a minor attractive force that is neither
gravity nor some form of London Dispersal force between to pieces
of matter held closely together (if this is one of the fundamental
forces, I don't recall), but I feel I'm digressing to far from
the topic at hand. Other things as well, but my original goal
was to point out an ether-like substance that is being used by
many to explain quite a variety of things.
Addressing your comment about the "physical" versus
"constructed" nature of time... I don't really know
if that's an issue in science. Science deals with the observable,
and as human beings we do observe time. Whether time is simply
a human construct is perhaps as relevant to science as whether
matter is simply a human construct. This whole universe may be
the creation of one person or our collective minds, but that enters
into the realm of philosophy, and we're not on this board to discuss
philosophy...
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> oh and an apology --
TRM, 20:51:12 09/22/02 Sun
Realizing that there are many English teachers/professors on this
board, or otherwise some very strong grammarians, I just noticed
that I slipped back into an old habit of mind of overabusing ellipses.
Sorry about that!
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> No...no...we love
the ellipsis here!! ;o) -- dubdub, 21:28:16 09/22/02 Sun
Well...I do. But D'Herblay thinks they're evil and...ominous...
;o)
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Wasn't that
Sol . . . -- d'Herblay, 06:22:31 09/23/02 Mon
. . . or Humanitas? Someone of that ilk . . .
Of course, that I overuse ellipses myself could be due to that,
deep down, I do believe they're evil and . . . ominous.
What about em dashes? Are they sinister and foreboding? Are italics
cruel and heartless? Semicolons dastardly? Would parentheses feed
a young girl's heart to the seagulls?
I'm not mean . . . but my punctuation is!
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oooops!
Mea culpa... -- dub ;o), 14:01:49 09/23/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: universal constants -- Sophist,
16:13:06 09/22/02 Sun
But don't you wonder why particles in a reactor, accelerated
to the point (the speed of light) at which matter becomes energy,
don't seem to go through that implied point of infinite mass and
produce local singularities?
I don't think this is quite right. We can't actually accelerate
a particle to the speed of light. As the particle accelerates,
its resistance to acceleration (i.e., its mass) increases. Mathematically,
it's an asymptote, so we would not expect ever to reach that point.
Experiments show that the curve matches the prediction at the
level of 8-9 decimals, so there's no reason, at least at this
point, to lack confidence in the math.
I'm not sure what you mean by the "creation of a local singularity".
A singularity is just a point at which we can't resolve the infinities
in the equations. It's not clear that it's a "real"
event. If it is, the consequences are likely to be more far-reaching
than you suggest.
I agree with Robert. Sure it's possible a later theory will supplant
Einstein. But when it does, it will have to explain the experiments
that, thus far, support both the General and the Special Theories
of Relativity. This makes it likely that any new theory will incorporate
most of Einstein and go on to explain the special circumstances
in which his formulae do not, for some reason, apply.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> something of a hodgepodge, w/buttons -- anom,
22:51:27 09/23/02 Mon
"I believe I read somewhere that many of the constants in
our universe are very specific and that somewhere/time else they
could have potentially been different -- constants such as pi
and e and whatnot and would throw a whole slew of things out of
our understanding."
Well, there is a button that says, "If pi were three, this
sentence would look like this"--& the o's are drawn as hexagons.
I think this has more to do w/alternative geometries; Robert says
something about this in his "Re: Flat Earth Theory"
post. (Buttons: "In your heart you know it's flat!"
"Common sense is what tells you the earth is flat"Ý"Flat
Mars Society")
A general note from a science editor: I'd like to ask folks posting
on technical subjects to please define all your terms. I'm pretty
sure of most of the variables in Robert's post responding to Finn
(F = force, m = mass, a = acceleration; had to figure out p =
momentum, & then it was explained a few lines later!), but what's
gamma?
Somewhere back there, someone (sorry I can't remember who!) talked
about sf stories that either dealt w/the effects of near-lightspeed
travel or featured faster-than-light (FTL) communication but not
travel. Joe Haldeman's The Forever War & Poul Anderson's
Tau Zero take on the 1st, & one of Ursula K. LeGuin's universes
involves the ansible, a device that allows messages to travel
faster than lightspeed, although physical objects are still limited
by the constraints of relativity.
Oh yeah, & isn't it kinda dumb to have the intake of an engine
that can suck a human being right through exposed in the middle
of a room, w/no safety barriers? Wouldn't it have visible effects
on the rest of the stuff in the room? How come there's still air
in there? What's on the other end? Wouldn't that big guy clog
it up? (Um, was that an engine, or something else? Like,
say, just a handy device to dramatically suck in an expendable
minion? I don't like it when they do stuff like that....)
Can't resist throwing in one more button on FTL vs. slower spaceflight:
"Of course I'm warped, it's faster than impulse!"
[> [> [> [> [>
Given that all of Einstein's theory... -- Cactus Watcher,
23:04:46 09/21/02 Sat
was developed in response to the failure of 19th century notions
to explain the nature of light (revealed by Mickelson and Morley)
and that the nature light still is not adequadely explained, the
chances are indeed significant that Einstein and his followers'
theories may turn out to be to be a quaint side-bar in the history
of science. It should be noted that current cosmological theory
based on Einstein's notion that gravity is the supreme organizing
force in the universe has stong critics, and the ongoing search
for enormous amounts of mass of 'dark matter' in the galaxy are
an attempt to patch up what appears to be a gaping flaw in the
theory. Similarly, the extremely massive bodies assumed by current
theory to be 'black holes' may have a dramatically different nature,
if Einstein's notions of time, space and gravity are not fundamentally
true.
As Darby suggests, the history of science is such that it is unwise
to assume that any theory will necessarily hold up forever. Einstein's
theories may well be wrong. But, it's not yet time to put good
money against them. For the purposes of science fiction, however,
they can safely be ignored.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Given that all of Einstein's theory... -- Robert,
00:04:44 09/22/02 Sun
>>> "Einstein's theories may well be wrong. "
Cactus Watcher, I know what you are saying, but the way you say
it rubs me. There are many aspects of the general theory which
haven't been tested adequately and they could be wrong. Until
we see it by observation or repeatable experimentation, we should
not believe it. Most of the special theory has been tested. Those
observations and experiments must also be predicted by any theory
which replaces special relativity.
By experimentation, we know that the momentum and energy of particles
does increase asymptotically to infinity as the velocity approaches
the speed of light. No new theory will make those experiments
go away. Thus, no new theory will allow us to travel at the speed
of light.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Given that all of Einstein's theory...
-- CW, 08:08:49 09/22/02 Sun
This isn't the place to discuss this, but you do understand that
particle accellerators all operate on electro-magnetism, a force
which works at c. Relative to it's environment a waterwheel at
an old fashioned mill can never turn faster than the speed of
the water going past it without some outside force. The better
balanced and oiled the waterwheel is the closer the waterwheel
will approach asymptotically the speed of the water. You can not
increase the maxim theoretical speed of the waterwheel relative
to the water by changing how deep the paddles dip in the water
or by widening the paddles. These will however affect the acceleration
of the paddles from a dead stop and how close the wheel can get
to it's theoretical speed. The same is true of rocket motors with
respect to the molecular speed of the fuel burning inside them.
Just like any other pressurized system with a leak, the rocket
when it's firing tries to equalize it's pressure. I think logically
you can see that the speed of the molecules of burning fuel (and
hence the internal pressure of the vessel) limit the speed of
the rocket relative to its environment. The same is true of today's
particle accelerators. When you add more power to the system in
terms of more electrical current you can't change the maxim speed
of what you are accelerating, but like oiling the waterwheel or
widening it's paddles you can get it closer to the theoretical
limit. The particle accelerator is a Newtonian problem and in
no way a test of Einstein's theories one way or the other.
I could talk about the two famous tests of Einstein's theories
which he proposed, but this is not the place to go into detail.
But, I can say, and Einstein would agree that those tests are
relevant to his premises (the point at which he started thinking
about all this) and not aimed directly at the predictive power
of the theories. In other words, there were folks in the late
19th century, before Einstein, who were damn sure they were true,
but didn't quite have the equipment to prove it.
The bottom line is that folks who are certain Einstein is right
believe that there can be no forces which affect our environment
that operate faster than c. Historically speaking it is more prudent
to say we don't know of any.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Damn, I love this Board! ;o) -- dubdub,
08:43:22 09/22/02 Sun
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Ptoeey! Stupid mistake! -- CW, 08:56:39
09/22/02 Sun
Since the water pressure per square inch is the same on a wide
or narrow paddle the example of water paddle width (in particular)
is bogus. But, the underlying principle that asymptotic behavior
in the accelerator is a Newtonian phenomemon is true.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re:mistake - It's not really wrong.
Just wanted a different kind of example. I need more sleep!
-- CW, 09:14:05 09/22/02 Sun
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> ...and that's you with no sleep? yipes! Echoing
dub, great discussions. -- aliera, 09:54:57 09/22/02 Sun
[> [> [> [> Okay,
no longer dizzy. -- Wisewoman, 20:23:59 09/21/02 Sat
The future may give humanity a new theory that predicts motion
in a regime that we know nothing about or presently cannot explore.
However, I can confidently state that such a new theory will not
invalidate Einstein's special theory of relativity in the relativistic
regime or Newton's laws of motion in the classical regime.
Does this mean that the theory that the Earth is flat and resting
on the back of an elephant has not been invalidated because it
was promulgated by an earlier regime?
Granted, I don't really understand physics, but if a theory can
be proved incorrect by subsequent research and discovery don't
physicists then adapt or discard the older theory?
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Okay, no longer dizzy. -- TRM, 22:49:07 09/21/02
Sat
I believe that a few points Robert was making may have been missed
-- though perhaps I'm misinterpreting, so I apologize in advance
if I am.
Primarily, Einstein's relativistic regime does not deny faster
than the speed of light travel. It simply cannot account for faster
than speed of light travel.
Here's an imperfect analogy. Let's say my eyes start out very
poor, and I can only distinguish the six colors of the rainbow
(poor indigo was removed sometime in the recent past). The sky
on a clear bright day seems to be the same blue color as the depths
of the sea. So, I say, "the sky and the sea are the same
color," and pictures of the horizon bore me. Some people
come by and say: "well, what if colors exist that were part
blue and part purple?" I would say... "hm... interesting
idea." One day, I get better eyes, and I can see that the
sky is light blue and the sea is dark blue. Even more, I can see
the blending of colors, and I realize that blue and purple make
indigo (poor indigo). Being able to observe indigo doesn't make
my prior conclusions wrong; it simply elaborates on the prior
conclusion and gives it more depth.
Likewise, Newton wasn't really wrong in saying that
p = m v
His equation is true in classical physics.
Einstein therefore is not really wrong in saying that
p = gamma m v
His equation is true in relativistic physics.
On the other hand, it is wholly possible that Einstein and Newton
are both very lucky when they generalize -- that p only equals
gamma m v randomly and that some other force is explaining the
universe (say a Higher Power was bored and felt like making those
equations true everytime a human being tested it). But Einstein
and Newton, if they phrased themselves appropriately (I suspect
Newton didn't but Einstein may have), would still not be wrong
because those equations held true in the specific observations
that they made. They simply just don't generalize out as well
as expected -- that's ultimately why science never gets to truths,
but claims their strongest tenents as theories.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: truths -- Robert, 00:22:39 09/22/02 Sun
>>> "They simply just don't generalize out as well
as expected -- that's ultimately why science never gets to truths,
but claims their strongest tenents as theories."
Any physicist who claims to have truths will receive great skeptecism
from me. I understand that people are confused by the term theory.
It is thrown around with abandon. Remember the first song sung
by Giles in "Once More With Feeling". It started out
with "I've got a theory"; something about dancing demons
...
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Flat Earth Theory -- Robert, 23:40:21 09/21/02 Sat
>>> "Does this mean that the theory that the Earth
is flat and resting on the back of an elephant has not been invalidated
because it was promulgated by an earlier regime?"
I love it ... I live for this.
Yes! The flat Earth theory is correct, though only in a very limited
regime. I suspect the idea of the Earth resting on the elephant's
back is more tied to religion and less to science. The word science
impies the scientific method, which is based upon testing theories
via experiments and observations.
A theory, to be useful, must adequately predict some aspect of
the physical universe. The flat Earth theory was a useful model
for peoples who didn't travel much, and certainly didn't ride
the Concorde. The flat Earth theory would suggest that the Earth
can be described by plane geometry. Surveyors can successfully
use plane geometry if the area they are surveying is only a few
miles (I believe less than 15 miles). More than that and they
must use spherical geometry. But, for small areas, the flat Earth
theory may be an accurate enough model of the world.
Plane geometry predicts that if you set out from home and drive
due east for 100 miles and then due north for 100 miles and then
southwest for 141.4 miles, that you should arrive back home. You
won't! Plane geometry does not adequately model the Earth over
this great a distance, thus the flat Earth theory wouldn't be
the right one to use.
>>> "... but if a theory can be proved incorrect
by subsequent research and discovery don't physicists then adapt
or discard the older theory?"
Well, yes! But, the new theory must predict the same results that
the old theory successfully predicted, otherwise the new theory
is wrong. For every theory which withstands the test of time,
there are probably dozens or hundreds of theories which predict
nothing successfully, and are never heard from again.
Going back to my original posting, any theory which replaces special
relativity, must first predict all the same things that relativity
predicted successfully. The purpose then of the new theory would
be to predict things that relativity doesn't.
My point is that there will not be a new theory that rescinds
the speed-of-light limitation of special relativity, unless the
new theory shows us a way of jumping past the speed of light.
Maybe a new theory will show us how to make very long distances
into shorter distances; this is the idea behind such sci-fi concepts
as hyperspace or wormholes. If you could take shortcuts, then
the speed of light might not be such a limitation after all. Until
then the speed limit is 186,282 miles per second ... it's the
law!
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Theories and Experiments -- Finn Mac Cool, 08:00:12
09/22/02 Sun
Of course, there always exists the chance that an as yet unexplained
interference messed up those experiments.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Theories and Experiments -- Robert, 13:25:49
09/22/02 Sun
>>> "Of course, there always exists the chance that
an as yet unexplained interference messed up those experiments."
Yes, but such an interference must be predicted by any new theory
which contradicts relativity.
[> [> [> Theories
-- matching mole, 07:40:36 09/22/02 Sun
Robert alludes to this in his 'Re: truths' post but, aside from
the specifics of Einstein's work, part of the problem is a cultural
difference in the use of the word theory in science and in everyday
life. The 'I've got a theory', Sherlock Holmesian use suggests
an idea, something that has yet to be tested. Uncertainty is built
in to the use of the word.
In science, everything is uncertain. It is constantly subject
to revision if new information comes in. Theory, in science (at
least in biology, and I would assume in physics as well) refers
to the construction of general models that explain a wide variety
of specific phenomena. The word theory doesn't have a connotation
of uncertainty but rather of generality.
[> Um, well, it wasn't bad
-- Cactus Watcher, 21:34:44 09/20/02 Fri
It just wasn't particularly good either. Darby's description is
pretty good. But, as someone who knows Russian pretty well, I
can tell you the bad guy's accent is Yiddish not Russian. I doubt
that's what they were aiming for. Oh well, at least it's Eastern
European.
The space ho is very pretty. The Alliance uniforms are even uglier
than the original Star Trek: Next Generation 'jammies.'
It was overall, unremarkable space opera.
Yeah, I agree, Darby. I heard only 6 million miles. But, 86 million
or a thousand times that much, doesn't make much difference. It
ain't gonna get you to the next star system.
Personally, I thought 'John Doe' was a better show tonight.
[> [> about evil Russians
(or not so Russians) and others (OT, Spoilers, but I do mention
Buffy!) -- TRM, 23:35:09 09/20/02 Fri
Does anyone else find it rather humorous (or perhaps degrading,
but cynicism allows me the benefit of humor) that in contemporary
American storytelling, villians still frequently have Russian
or German accents? Layover from the Cold War and WWII (WWI even)?
An element that disappointed me with the Eastern European villain.
And yes, the Alliance did seem very much cardboard to me as well.
Perhaps, as alluded in the other thread, a second viewing might
improve the viewing pleasure.
Firefly overall, however, seems to be a show that needs
to be watched progressively (not that I'm jumping to conclusions,
after all, I've watched the entire series so far). Nine primary
casts members suggest that something is going to happen to those
people, and I believe once they get up and running, that's where
the major interest will lie. I'm also waiting for the darker side
of the crew to show up -- the killing of the henchman didn't quite
cut it for me.
In so much as "scary" villians, the blue-handed men
have promise, but they too aren't very well developed. I have
faith though.
As far as my favorite characters, I like the medic -- a little
bit of the stereotypical doofy scientist, but once again, I'm
sure he'll grow. He's already slipping drugs to people he doesn't
really like. The space hooker is quite interesting too, and we
saw what might proport to be the most complex character in her
with her "Pray for him... Don't tell him, I don't" comment.
Actually, what's I am really waiting to see is how Joss is going
to continue this thematically. Buffy certainly lends itself
to metaphor very well -- indeed, the basis of the show is primarily
the use of fantasy to represent the realities of life. Angel
has a similar touch, but I give Angel much more of a focus
on plot and ambience as well. So far, Firefly is very much
a show about ambience, imho, but I'm not too sure what direction
Whedon & Minear are going to take with respect to plot and metaphor
as well as a whole host of other things.
[> [> Yeah, Russian was
the closest I could pin the dialect to, toward the end --
Darby, 05:27:04 09/21/02 Sat
It might very well be a flawless Lithuanian accent, I don't know.
He was trying really hard, and I don't remember that actor doing
anything dialecty before other than Nazi. Which itself is a bad
sign.
[> [> Not a good sign...
-- Lilac, 08:17:23 09/21/02 Sat
when my 15 year old son wandered back to his room (where he is
banned from electronics due to that pesky Chemistry class) during
Firefly, but came back and was riveted during John Doe. I am hoping
that next week's Firefly moves a little more and maybe everyone
could stop talking like they were in Dodge. In the future everyone
will have Western drawls? What happened in the intervening centuries?
[> Re: Firefly First Impressions
(Premiere Spoilers) -- Apophis, 22:28:34 09/20/02 Fri
The pilot (if that's what this technically is) was somewhat bland,
I agree. According to Hercules at aintitcool.com, the original
pilot was better. I think the show has a lot of potential, but
it didn't do much with said potential tonight. I'm gonna give
it time before I pass final judgement. I would've liked it better
if we'd gotten the origin episode tonight instead of starting
in the middle.
[> [> Come back to Buffy!!!!
(spoilers for pilot) -- Rochefort, 23:45:48 09/20/02 Fri
He left Marti to hack up Buffy for THIS!? I mean it had some funny
moments. I liked when the guy got shot in the foot by a doped
up guy who was aiming for his head, and of course for just a moment
I thought the tatooed face guy would be a returning big-bad character
(totally boring) before he got kicked into the engine which was
cool. But other than that....
guys, it's not going to get better. JOSS wrote the pilot. The
other writers will be worse. So can we start the chant now? JOSS!
COME BACK TO US! WRITE YOUR BABY! BUFFY NEEDS YOU!
[> [> [> Geesh, overreact
much? -- HonorH, 00:21:30 09/21/02 Sat
Some great eps of BtVS and AtS have been written by Not Joss.
And Joss has written a few eps that've fallen firmly into the
Nothing Special category. Totally ignoring the fact that you and
I obviously have diametrically opposed opinions of the brilliant
S6, this show's had all of one episode. There's a world of room
for improvement. Not gonna join your chant.
[> [> [> [> Geez,
and you don't want to fight for Jenny either. I guess we shouldn't
date. -- Rochefort, 00:37:42 09/21/02 Sat
[> [> [> [> [>
Well, since I don't exactly know if you're male or female,
-- HonorH, 19:50:44 09/21/02 Sat
it probably wouldn't work anyway. Darn! I always wanted to date
a Dumas villain. Or are you a skeezy cheese? I'm always getting
those mixed up.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> A Dumas villain who eats skeezy cheezes and my penis
has desieses, so howbout Friday night? -- Rochefort, 21:39:07
09/23/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> Uhm...it's
just the first episode, simmer down -- shadowkat, 09:57:57
09/21/02 Sat
And to be honest? I didn't like the first episodes of any of the
shows. City of Lights (ats 1) disappointed me. Welcome to the
Hellmouth initially disappointed me. (It wasn't until 3 years
later that I actually appreciated it. When I first saw it? Thought
is was a droll and somewhat cheesy teen horror show, but I hung
in there and eventually changed my mind.)
My advice? Wait until the fifth or sixth episode before you decide
whether you like it or not. Or at the very least watch the second
episode - which looks to be more interesting.
Joss Whedon and Minear worked their asses off on a two hour pilot.
But the network wanted more action, so postponed the pilot until
December as a movie. In one weekend they cranked out the episode
we saw Friday night. They did it quickly and under stress. Personally
- I think considering the circumstances? It's pretty dang good.
Far better than some other shows I tried to watch this week where
the writers had more time.
As a critic for TV Guide actually stated very very well -
It's too early to make a final determination and the show was
actually the most innovative of the many new series premiering
so far this year. Have to agree with that.
All the other one's I've seen were boring. Yes, there were weak
and somewhat cheesy moments. But overall? Firefly didn't bore
me. It had periods of wit. And interesting characters. Wish I
could say the same for numerous other shows I've tried to watch
this week.
PS: I voted for Jenny too. And yes I miss her. But hey, an Angel/Cordy
matchup is cool! Can see why J-bone went the way he/she did.
[> [> [> [> [>
o.k., I'll buy both stories. Wreck the fun of an emotional
outburst with reason why don't you. -- Rochefort, 11:00:14
09/21/02 Sat
[> [> [> [> [>
[> hee hee hee...(evil laughter) what can I say? it's what
I live for? -- shadowkat, 19:48:24 09/21/02 Sat
[> You could make a drinking
game out of the amount of times they used "Rutting."
-- Rochefort, 00:41:24 09/21/02 Sat
[> Re: Firefly First Impressions
(Premiere Spoilers) -- Rattletrap, 05:47:20 09/21/02 Sat
General impression: loved it.
I will say, up front, that I love western movies, so the idea
of a sci-fi western totally works for me. I thought the juxtaposition
of antiquated technology with space travel was very cool.
The characters all have potential. I share my fellow posters'
love of the Companion; and I found the other female characters
to be up to Joss's usual strong, but quirky, standard.
The story was a bit vanilla, but it was also the first episode
so I kind of expected that. I enjoyed the train heist partly because
of its juxtaposition of modern and archaic elements, and partly
because you so rarely see a good train robbery in movies anymore
:-(
I would also agree that it was a little strange to be dropped
into an already moving world with no setup (very unlike WttH),
but it seems very Josslike to make us run with the story for a
few months before explaining the background.
Finally, the writing in this episode felt almost exactly like
S6 BtVS to me--I can't explain technically what it was, just a
general sense. This only serves to reinforce my conviction that
the vitriol over S6 should be directed at Joss, not at Marti.
Just my thoughts, I'm anxious to hear from everyone else.
'trap
[> [> 'trap, my man!
;o) -- Wisewoman, 08:29:53 09/21/02 Sat
I, too, loved it. Not going to discuss in detail here,
'cause I'm going to post in depth on the new Trollops for Firefly
board, but a few things come to mind immediately:
1. We cannot possibly expect to critique this first episode in
the same light as Hush, or OMWF. Get a grip, guys! ;o)
2. How much of the disappointment, the impression of "blandness,"
is owing to the noticeable lack of alien species in an outerspace
environment? Isn't that what we've been taught to expect, characters
in increasingly bizarre and heavy head prostheses? This one isn't
gonna go there, and that's a pure Joss move. Far from having the
vampire/demon metaphor to work with, he doesn't even give us the
more universally accepted alien metaphor. Anything that goes down
in this one, including kicking an enemy into a running engine,
is purely attributable to human motivation.
3. Add to the lack of aliens the lack of hi-tech planetary environments.
Of course the outlying areas of occupied space would reflect a
frontier mentality, and a frontier look. Again, pure Joss. It's
been done before, but give him a chance and I'll bet he manages
to do it better!
4. Off-the-top-of-my-head metaphor alert: "Two by two; hands
of blue. Hmmmm. Blue hands = blue flesh = cold, lifeless,
numb, unfeeling. And were they blue gloves, or actual blue flesh?
More elsewhere!
dub ;o)
[> The Other Pilot Episode
-- Scroll, 06:04:49 09/21/02 Sat
I have to agree with Apophis; from what I've read about the original
pilote ep, it at least gave a better introduction of the characters
and spent more time developing their origins and motivations.
This one dumped us in medias res and it took me a while to figure
things out. I feel bad for viewers who didn't read up on the characters
beforehand. And even still, I was incredibly confused as to why
River (crazy girl) was already out and about until I remembered
that this was the *other* season premiere.
Yeah, I thought the pacing was weird. But I did like most of the
humour. Especially the bad guy getting kicked into the engines.
Sick, but funny...
I'm loving all the characters already. The interaction between
Mal/Zoe and Inara/Kaylee is very natural and comfortable; you
can tell these guys care about each other. Wonder what is up with
Shepherd? I want his backstory! And I had to slap my wrist several
times because I found myself jumping up and down at the Mal/Simon
slash potential from that last scene in the sick bay. I'm a sad,
sad little girl... OTOH, from Mal's little comment about Kaylee
being on Inara's shuttle, we can assume Joss is extending his
whole BYOSubtext attitude to Firefly as well =)
Overall, episode wasn't stellar. Not up to OMWF or even "Restless"
standards, but "The Train Job" was a good steady first
episode that gets us involved and interested. But am I the only
one who HATED the theme song?
Scroll
[> [> Re: Shades of
-- Peteleg Pete, 07:16:10 09/21/02 Sat
First Impressions:
I kept thinking the Allience reminds me of the Empire from Star
Wars, as the soldiers were like storm troppers or perhaps the
soldiers from Starship Troopers. I also kept thinking of a movie
written by Peter David called Oblivion -a sci-fi western. The
theme music reminded me of The Long
Riders.
The plot was so-so, but I am willing to stay with it and sees
what happens.
I agree that John Doe was a lot more interesting, although it
did remind me of The Pretender.
[> [> the doctor and
the captain -- celticross, 08:48:36 09/21/02 Sat
Well, if you're sick for thinking there was a vibe between Simon
and Mal in the last season, aliera, I am too. But really, I don't
think that's such a bad thing...if you compare the number of gay
male couples on TV to the number of lesbian couples, the ladies
are difinitely getting more airtime. So go for it, Joss! :)
[> [> [> Slashers,
start your engines! -- HonorH, 11:10:35 09/21/02 Sat
On my favorite Xena board, they were rather drooling over Inara
brushing Kaylee's hair. Nobody escapes it for long!
(and yeah, the captain and the doctor *would* make a cute couple)
[> [> [> Re: the doctor
and the captain -- Scroll, 13:08:57 09/21/02 Sat
Yeah, I think it's still more difficult to sell a gay vs. a lesbian
relationship on most TV shows (though Queer as Folk must be an
exception!) so I love the subtext in Joss' shows. Honestly, Angel
has to be the slashiest show out there (subtext-wise),
so much so that I just can't buy Angel as straight anymore.
Here's hoping Joss plays up the Mal/Simon angle. Especially since
Simon really reminds me a lot of Wesley (sans stubble and bitterness).
Mal actually reminds me a lot of Xander, humour-wise, though the
attitude is a little more Spike-ish. The different funny voices,
and that "Ow!" when Simon is sewing him up, all classic
Xander. Actually, I think Mal is the funniest character after
Jayne, though Mal is more with quips and Jayne is more physical
comedy.
Scroll (not aliera!)
[> [> [> [> *massively
ashamed and contrite* -- celticross, 14:30:45 09/21/02
Sat
That's what I get for reading a whole thread all at once. :) Forgive
me?
[> [> [> [> [>
Forgiven! It's easy to mix folks up, no big deal : ) --
Scroll, 06:58:09 09/23/02 Mon
[> [> [> hm... you
think? -- TRM, 17:46:16 09/21/02 Sat
Of course, we're avoiding the "c" word here, but do
you really think there are less gay male couples on TV than lesbian
females?
The dichotomy actually seems that on TV, gay males are explicitly
so where as lesbian females are incindentally so. Thus, we have
shows like Queer as Folk and Will and Grace on the
other hand we have W/T and Dr. Weaver on ER.
Not to say that I disagree with you at all. I much prefer the
incindental approach and I would love to see a Mal/Simon matchup.
Apparently, they really are slash fodder, as when checking out
the Firefly website, they mention that Simon disagress
with Mal's decision frequently -- and dramatic tension is the
breeding ground for slash.
[> [> Re: The Other Pilot
Episode -- leslie,
11:18:07 09/21/02 Sat
" But am I the only one who HATED the theme song?"
Man, I loved it. And *so* relieved it wasn't "Walking on
the Sun" as in all the commercials! I thought it hit a real
Ken Burns-y "Civil War" note--after all, the West *was*
"won" by a bunch of burn-outs from the Civil War, both
sides. But what I liked even more was the music of the very opening
scene--I had one moment of cognitive dissonance--"Wait a
minute, this is very familiar, wrong context..." and then
there actually *was* a belly dancer! Any show that starts off
with a belly dancer gets a big credit of good will in my books.
I don't know, all last night my dreaming brain was rewriting this
episode with the cast of BtVS (culminating in Spike in a pale
blue linen suit that even in the dream was disturbingly weird--Spike?!
In PASTELS???) and there were parts that worked and parts that
didn't. Which I think is a good sign--certain areas of overlap,
certain areas going in completely different directions.
[> [> [> Loved the
incidental music -- Scroll, 12:43:45 09/21/02 Sat
Actually, I thought a lot of the music was terrific, and very
fitting for the setting. Yeah, had the same reaction to the belly
dancer! And I get the lyrics of the theme song, also fitting for
the premise of the show. I'm just not a huge fan of western/country/blue
grass music (and I'm actually not even sure what kind the theme
song *is*). But I will also admit that Joss' choice is much better
than "Walking on the Sun"!
[> Re: Firefly First Impressions
(Premiere Spoilers) -- TeacherBoy, 09:33:28 09/21/02 Sat
A quick two-cents...
While I agree with some of the comments made below (especially
about the *literal* use of the term western), I just want to point
something out - this is the first episode in a series that has
already been screwed with by Fox. The first, not the 101st. I
almost fell out of my chair when I read comments comparing it
to "Hush" and "OMWF". A better comparison
would be "Teacher's Pet" or "The Puppet Show"
- not even the real pilot, but a reworked mid-season espisode.
By many people's account (and of course by many people I mean
me), BtVS didn't really hit it's stride until midway through the
second season. Impatient much?
Actually, my biggest fear is not the content of the show. I thought
it was great, what with the high snark factor and all. My real
fear is that I will get sucked into it and Fox will pull the plug,
leaving me very, very cranky.
To sum - give it time. There is room for improvement, and I can't
wait to see what comes next.
[> Re: Firefly First Impressions
(Premiere Spoilers) -- mundusmundi, 12:43:05 09/21/02 Sat
Um, well....It was okay. I mean, I guess so. It hooked me at first,
but after halfway through my mind started wandering. Other than
Ron Glass, who was at the receiving end of a purely Jossian line
if there ever was one ("You're welcome on my ship, but God
isn't") and Adam Baldwin, the characters seemed pretty nondescript,
and I suspect those two stand out because of their relative familiarity.
Also, as someone else pointed out, doesn't the captain kind of
look like Joss? Silly, but it was distracting me the entire
time. Right now, I'll file the show under "Needs work. Wait
and see."
[> From "Trollops for
Firefly" Group......The Train Job -- Rufus, 15:49:32
09/21/02 Sat
This is where I will be posting future stuff on Firefly but this
is what I typed up last night.....
Trollops
for Firefly.
Firefly: episode one..The Train Job
As this is a new show I decided to start off with the basics...what
is it about. We start the epsiode with an introduction spoken
by Shepherd ...
"After the Earth was used up, we found a new solar system
and hundreds of new Earths were terraformed and colonized.
The Central Planets formed 'The Alliance' and decided all the
planets had to join under their rule.
And there was some disagreement on that point....After the war,
many of the Independants who had fought and lost, drifted to the
edges of the system, far from Alliance control.
Out here People struggled to get by with the most basic technologies.
A Ship would bring you work...A gun would help you keep it...A
Captains goal was simple: Find a Crew...Find a Job....Keep Flying"
From the Fox site for Firefly:
STORY
Set 500 years in the future in the wake of a universal civil war,
FIREFLY tells the tale of Serenity, a small transport spaceship
without a homeport. Captain Malcolm ("Mal") Reynolds
commands Serenity for legitimate transport and salvage runs, as
well as more "entrepreneurial" endeavors.
On Serenity, crew and passengers live together in close quarters
as they shuttle between the Alliance-governed galaxy and the border
planets that delineate the new frontier. The crew undertakes almost
any job -- legal or not -- to stay afloat and put bread on the
table. Each of the passengers has his or her own motivation for
being on board - some honorable, some more questionable. All have
unique pasts and different reasons for wanting to get to their
destination.
Serenity and its crew flies to the border planets, many of which
are barely inhabited, because they want to stay away from the
Alliance and below its big radar. Thrust together by necessity,
the disparate men and women of Serenity face constant challenges,
which test and reveal their true identities. FIREFLY is about
their unpredictable lives and relationships, as well as their
search for meaning in a very uncertain time.
This group of people live in close quarters and all have secrets,
like who doesn't? They are forced together for whatever reason
to survive, and to survive they end up in situations that may
be less than legal.
In the opening Mal, Zoe, and the cantankerous Jayne are in a bar
drinking and playing a game.....until someone toasts The Alliance....and
that doesn't sit well with Mal. "Six years today the Alliance
sent the Brown coats running"......and it so happens that
Mal has a brown coat on.....and the fight is on....good thing
about progress is that bars have windows that don't break...that
must save money..;)
One of my favorite moments comes when Mal and the gang are stuck
at the edge of a cliff with nowhere to go...of course that's when
the Cavalry arrives to save the day, no bugle, but a PA system
that does the job:
Wash: "Everyman there go back inside...or we will blow a
new crater in this little moon"
This is followed later by the loaded question..."Are you
getting my wife into trouble?" Mal surely is getting Zoe
into trouble, but with a head butt and a gun she is more than
capable of taking care of herself, and the guys too.......do they
know just how much a real head butt hurts both parties? I'm only
speaking about a accident I once had..
We then have Mal go to where the Doctor is stationed, a Doc with
a sister who is just a little less than sane. The Doctor is Simon
and his sister is River who the kind Doc saved from 'experimentation'
at something called the Academy....her dreams give you a hint
that it isn't a place of higher learning unless learning is done
with the student strapped to a chair and probed with sharp pointy
implements. The conversation between Mal and the Doc established
they weren't friends but were both running from something....Simon
running to save his sister. The Doc/Simon asked Mal how his hand
was and was told....."Never hit a man with a closed fist,
but it is on occasion hilarious."
We finally get to meet the onboard clergy....that would be Shepherd...Shepherd
seems to know more than the words in the Good Book and seems to
at least care about the people onboard, he asks Mal why he is
hiding Doc and River from The Alliance and is told.."Cause
it's the right thing to do". His parting shot to Shepherd
being "You're welcome on my boat...God ain't" I guess
Mal broke off with God some time ago.
We then meet Kaylee or the ships mechanic....her hair is being
brushed by Inara, a "Companion" or what we would know
as a real expensive Call Girl.....prostitution is legal and the
"Companions" respected, so why is this babe on that
flying tub? Oh yeah...Kaylee seems to have a companion type interest
in the Doc but is shy.
The caper of the week is finally shown to us when Mal and co.
meet this creepy old guy called Niska.....Niska is not one to
play favorites and to prove his reputation is more than idle gossip
he shows the gang his Wife's nephew....I mean....late nephew.
The point of the thing is that Mal and crew are to steal some
boxes off a train, no questions asked about the contents, but
Niska hints that it would be a thorn in the side of the Alliance
to lose the cargo. Mal takes the job and they head off to rob
a train......the job is a bit easier than expected until they
get caught. Up in the Serenity (boat) Simon asks Kaylee what's
afoot..
Simon: Oh, what are we dong?
Kaylee: Crime.........(I love a girl who gets to the point).
They get over the train and Jayne gets suited up to drop into
said train to take what they came for.....
Jayne: "Time for some thrilling heroics"
Everything goes great till they get caught, at least Zoe and Mal
end up stranded on the train and Jayne shot in the leg....but
he gets the cargo. Being the Mercenary type Jayne is ready to
leave Mal and Zoe to their fate but Shepherd intervenes with a
well thought out piece of information......he knows who Niska
is, and knows that Niska isn't too fond of loose ends so the gang
better get their leader back. Jayne is the manly type and confronts
the others
Jayne: "Do you know what the chain of command is?"
To Jayne the chain is a literal thing and he is ready to take
over the Serenity using said chain to get what he wants.
Except the Doc gave him something for that nasty leg wound ....Jayne
ends holding up a wall and drooling out a protest or two.....it's
up to Shepherd and Inara to get their Captain and Zoe back.
Back on the planet Mal is finding out what it was he took and
it turns out to be medical supplies for the town. Terraforming
planets has a price individual to each planet, and the one the
supplies for has ended up having to treat Bowden's disease which
is caused by inhaling the ore mined........Shepherd and Inara
show up to collect an Indentured servant of the Companions. Inara
causes quite a stir in the crowd, Companions being like celebrities.
Inara gets them off the planet but once back at the Serenity,
Mal decides to take the medicine back to the suffering innocents.
That's about when the henchment of Niska arrive......they get
into a tussle but end up prisoners of Mal and crew. The medicine
is taken back to the town and all is well....except for the problem
with Niska....Mal offers to give the money back and get out of
Dodge...the creepy guy with the knife tells Mal to keep the money
cause there will be nowhere to hide and the last thing Mal will
see/feel is his blade.......Mal says.."Darn" and kicks
Mr Mouth into the engine....sounds of grinding tells us the blade
is no longer an issue....then Mal moves onto the next guy who
is deciding to live to see another day. For now the crew is safe....for
now.
Later we see River curled in a corner of her room...
River: "Two by two....hands of blue" over and over again....gee
I wonder what that means......til we see these guys talking to
one of the officers of an Alliance ship......."We're looking
for a girl...this girl"...and they are wearing blue gloves.....hmmmmmmm
I wonder what they want that she has or can do?
I liked this episode, we get to see just enough of the people
to have a taste of some potential storylines. This isn't Buffy
or Angel, it's definately a Western in Space. Everyone has something
to hide and I found I liked the crew. For me at least an indication
of a good show is if I want to see what happens next week, and
in the case of Firefly I do.
Rufus
All dialogue is from notes taken while watching the show.
[> [> Re: From "Trollops
for Firefly" Group......The Train Job -- Rendyl, 18:54:43
09/21/02 Sat
I thought Kaylee's "Crime" was the best line of the
episode.
Ren
[> [> Agree with Rufus
and leslie's comments above -- shadowkat, 19:31:58 09/21/02
Sat
"I liked this episode, we get to see just enough of the people
to have a taste of some potential storylines. This isn't Buffy
or Angel, it's definately a Western in Space. Everyone has something
to hide and I found I liked the crew. For me at least an indication
of a good show is if I want to see what happens next week, and
in the case of Firefly I do. "
Agree. Felt exactly the same way. Actually I thought Firefly accomplished
what the old sci-fi's Battlestar Galactica, Earth 2 and some others
tried but far better. The idea of a space-western. Whether you
liked it or not, may have a lot to do with whether you like Westerns
and space operas. This is NOT a horror/fantasy show, so comparing
it too closely to Buffy or Angel is sort of like comparing apples
and oranges or rather apples to bananas.
Have same creator, but two different fruits. Give Whedon credit
for branching out and trying something new. Don't know many people
who do that in TV.
I found it gripping actually. And here I agree with leslie who
said that anything starting with a belly dancer in first scene
had promise. I thought it was innovative. Some of the lines quite
clever, such as Kaylees. There were things wrong with it and there
were things that worked - as is TO BE EXPECTED in a FIRST episode
done on short notice.
The one he worked so hard on last year - you're not going to see
until Dec - that is called Serenity, it's 2 hours.
I found the sound off slightly - but that had more to do with
my cable connection. Also the intro got cut into by a commericial
in NY. So I didn't get the first line - that's the network affliate's
fault not Whedon's.
I enjoyed the rustic, nuts and bolts feel. The feeling that the
characters were pretty much everymen, tortured and complex. And
I loved the little secrets and hints at things to come. I'll definitely
watch next weeks. The show has potential.
[> [> [> On my third
viewing of "The Train Job"... -- Rob, 11:32:01
09/22/02 Sun
I have to say that I like it enormously now. I can easily now
see loving the show eventually. At first, I had some qualms about
the quality of the show and the writing, but both of the times
I watched "The Train Job" again I noticed lots of details
and small nuances in both the dialogue and the acting and the
relationship between the characters and the world in which they
live that I hadn't noticed before. On the first viewing, I was
confused by everything going on, having not yet been immersed
in this new world before being thrust into it so suddenly. I was
unable to focus on anything in particular, because my mind was
too busy trying to process everything it was seeing. But repeated
viewings really enhanced the experience, because I was able to
focus on small details and character moments I hadn't noticed
before. I was even able to laugh at jokes I hadn't on the first
viewing. I didn't even notice the whole "blue hands"
thing until the third time! From some advance views of the original
first episode that I've read, I think that FOX did the show a
grave injustice by starting it the way it did. It took me three
viewings to truly appreciate the first aired episode of "Firefly,"
and I know most people will not do that. The average viewer I
fear might not continue watching the show, due to how FOX decided
to proceed. We should have been introduced to the characters and
the world of the show in the intended way. I really hope that
this show succeeds, and that FOX will make good on its promise
to air the pilot later in the year.
Rob
[> [> RED ALERT!!! SPOILER
IN TITLE ABOVE!!! RED ALERT!!! -- Robert, 19:34:56 09/21/02
Sat
[> [> [> Huh? That
was the title of the ep... -- Wisewoman, 19:38:42 09/21/02
Sat
Am I missing something here?
[> [> [> [> It
was? ... never mind (as I slink away quietly) -- Robert, 20:14:09
09/21/02 Sat
[> Re: Firefly First Impressions
(Premiere Spoilers) -- fresne, 19:17:42 09/21/02 Sat
I liked it, but then I like Westerns. Heck, I have practically
the entire run of Lonesome Dove the Series on tape. Of course,
that might have been about a morally ambiguous well dressed character.
Hard to say.
Far from wanting less of the Western-isms, well, I liked the juxtapositions
of styles. Bullet trains with Tiffanyish glass lamps and steam
punk trimmings. Sheriffs, belly dancers, 30s style gangsters with
hench goons sporting vaguely Maori tattoos.
(Some vague spoilers) And for that matter the juxtaposition of
Mal?s response to the sheriff re: his moral compass versus his
final response to blue face. Very interesting.
About my only problem with it was the second episode nature of
what was going on, which really isn?t their fault.
[> Re: Firefly First Impressions
(Premiere Spoilers) -- JM, 15:00:16 09/22/02 Sun
I was very nervous, I always am. With every single new ep of Buffy
and Angel still too. I ended up pretty much loving it right off.
The Western-in-Space being more than a metaphor never got old
as a joke. (Maybe Iím alone in hoping they donít
lighten up on it. Thereís just something about grabbing
a joke and sticking with it.)
Best description of Jayne Iíve heard was a reviewer who
said that he has Al Haigís take on the chain of command.
Does he ever, and then some. Loved the bit about the ìangelsî
before he collapses.
I thought Mal was a really interesting character. Tougher and
harder and sweeter than he looks and sounds. Explains a lot about
why Zoeís so loyal. Thought the preacher was a fabulous
touch. Leave it to Whedon the atheist to do something unexpected
and make a religious wise, kind, and considerate. Thought his
scene with the Companion was a very crisp encapsulation of her
status. Instead of the classic hooker with the heart of gold being
redeemed by her companions, heís worried about her status
being compromised by hanging out with these ruffians. Companions
seem to have the status of prestigious and classy therapists,
perhaps. Or perhaps Vestal priestesses. Great way to keep the
archetype without being particularly demeaning to women. Loved
the bad guy. The German financier type is very creepy and so frontier.
Nobody legit is going to be living so civilized that far out.
My favorite so far is Zoe; she seems tough, but competent and
unflappable. Love how she insists on calling him ìsir,î
even though she probably has known him the longest. And thought
the clothes were fabulous, especially her duster. Loved the ship
too. That little farmhouse kitchen is just so cute. Iím
hooked already. Hoping to get my sweetie to tune in too. He likes
Westerns and sci-fis. Remains to be seen if the two are allowed
to conflate.
[> Re: Firefly First Impressions
(Premiere Spoilers) -- verdantheart, 14:01:50 09/23/02
Mon
Quick note - gotta get back to work! Please excuse me if I repeat
a few comments -- no time to read them all!
The most surprising thing about the episode for me was that my
husband came in and watched it with me -- and he says he'll watch
another episode with me next week! Weird!
He was most impressed with the visual effects, as was I. I thought
that a couple of them were quite humorous.
The lead could use a little help with his comic timing. A couple
of lines that should have gotten a little grin clinked in an odd
way. I really like having Gina Torres (though I'm gonna miss Anna
Espinosa on Alias!) and Ron Glass around. A couple of the other
characters look like they might have potential.
My husband liked the fact that the characters weren't all the
stereotypical kind of characters you see all the time.
The overall story wasn't the most riveting I've ever seen, that's
for sure. But all I ask of a dramatic pilot is potential and some
promising characters.
[> [> Re: Buffy in Space
-- Desperado, 10:45:20 09/24/02 Tue
When Firefly is successful, perhaps we'll have a cross over in
which Buffy fights Space Demons:
Xander gets to use a phaser
Willow becomes Space Computer Geek Gal
Giles rubs his space suit visor a lot
Anya says, "Been here, done that"
Spike is too drunk to notice he's on another planet
Clem discovers his real origins
Dawn questions The Companion way too closely
Current board
| More September 2002