Talk:Firefly (TV series)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 A request has been made to make this article Today's featured article. Please feel free to leave comments.
Featured article star Firefly (TV series) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
TV This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Image:Fireflyinchinese.gif This Firefly-related article is within the scope of WikiProject Firefly, a collaborative effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the TV series Firefly, its spin-offs, and all things related to the Firefly 'verse.
You can help! Visit the project page or discuss an article at the project talk-page.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.)
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the Project's importance scale.

 

To-do list: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh

Archives: /For WP:GA

[edit] IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED FOR WP:TFA

  • Get a free license image!
Priority 1 (top)
Archive
Archives
  1. /Archive 1
  2. /Archive 2
  3. /Archive 3

Contents


[edit] Production notes

Per WP:Television: Any behind the scenes information is encouraged. This includes things like Running gags and important Trivia, but also Emmy, Golden Globe, and similar nominations and awards. Keep in mind though that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and that where possible you should use prose instead of creating long lists of trivia.

There are many running gags on Firefly.... It also spawned catch phrases amongst the fans such as "Shiny".

[edit] GA passed

Meets all criteria Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 17:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer Review

Well, I've set this article to be peer reviewed, which means that Wikipedia editors from all over will come in and help us to improve this article. It might involve some changes, but it will help to get this article to FA status. Tuvas 19:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Tuvas!plange 20:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Broadcast history

See peer review for the reason I redid that section into prose which just got reverted back into basically a list again, just without bullets. If chronological is better, that's cool, but still think it needs to be written with prose. Each country does not need its own paragraph. -plange 15:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I see. I didn't revert, I added extra references and info for SA, at which point the English paragraph seemed too big; but I guess if the country name is in the 1st few words of the 1st sentence discussing that country, we can have larger paragraphs again. By first airing year? -- Jeandré, 2006-07-16t19:36z
Perfect! plange 20:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dead or Alive?

ive read on some pages about a script for an unmade episode titles Dead or Alive... does anyone have any links to where i can find this script? -Xornok 02:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't heard of one...Let us know what you find out -plange 02:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

http://www.fireflyfans.net/feature.asp?f=45 script for Dead or alive..... 20:06 21 July 2006

Someone put the script up in the article, but I don't see it anywhere. Why was it removed? Drewboy64 19:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I really want to find if this script is official, it is used for references on other wiki pages about firefly, and the alleged writers (theyre names are on the script, but anyone can write names)are people that worked on the filmed firefly episodes—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.185.184.222 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Theme/Element missed?

its been a while since i've seen the series, but... doesn't mal get hurt in just about every episode, if not every episode? if so, should this be in the 'theme' or 'elements' section at all? JoeSmack Talk 05:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Serenity: shot in the arm in the Patient shootout.
Ttj: bar fight, bleeding knuckles.
Bushw: ?
Shin: stabbed.
Safe: ?
OMR: drugged, falls over.
JT: ?
Oog: shot in the belly.
Ariel: ?
Ws: tortured something nasty.
Trash: bloody nose from Yolanda.
Tm: ?stuff falls on him in flashback?
Hog: ?broken heart?
Ois: gets knocked out by Jubal.
Those left behind: Book punches him, hard.
Serenity movie: Tussles with the operative.
See also gloomy Joe's Firefly injury scorecard ;)
That said, even if he was injured in all the episodes, that would just show that he's putting himself in dangerous situtions, which is pretty common for TV shows. -- Jeandré, 2006-07-18t20:20z
I don't really see it as any kind of thematic thing-- persistent plot device maybe? It's more like trivia, which is not encyclopedic, right? -plange 21:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: Kaylee

Thanks Josiah-- that actually is a direct quote from the DVD that I had in there, so perhaps adding your disclaimer in front adds more authority to that. -plange 21:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

Hey everyone-- I've been begging and pleading on various projects (Television, MOS (Writing Fiction), etc) for peer reviews and we have some more in... wanted to have you guys take a look at the feedback and see what you thought, etc., I've never participated in a peer review so wasn't sure if we're supposed to do all or if they're just suggestions, etc. -plange 20:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone had a chance to look at it yet? I'd like to address these, but wasn't sure if they were just suggestions. Also, does anyone have the "Space hookers" book as perhaps it has some stuff to help flesh out the Themes section.... plange 01:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I have a copy of finding Serenity, but most of it's painful to read - poorly written and lots of mistakes. I've read better essays and criticism on fff. Here's the contents:
  1. Introduction
  2. The Reward, the Details, the Devils, the Due
  3. The Heirs of Sawney Beane
  4. Asian Objects in Space
  5. The Rise and Fall (and Rise) of Firefly
  6. Who Killed Firefly?
  7. "The Train Job" Didn't Do the Job
  8. Serenity and Bobby McGee
  9. Firefly vs. The Tick
  10. We're All Just Floating in Space
  11. More Than a Marriage of Convenience
  12. "Thanks for the reenactment, sir"
  13. Whores and Goddesses
  14. The Captain May Wear the Tight Pants, but It's the Gals Who Make Serenity Soar
  15. I Want Your Sex
  16. Just Shove Him in the Engine, or The Role of Chivalry in Joss Whedon's Firefly
  17. Mirror/Mirror: A Parody
  18. Star Truck
  19. Chinese Words in the Verse
  20. Listening to Firefly
  21. Kaylee Speaks: Jewel Staite on Firefly
  22. Unofficial Glossary of Firefly Chinese [1] -- Jeandré, 2006-08-02t20:26z
Wookie, Barnas, and the rest of the crew-- can you guys take a look at the comments we got back from the peer review? plange 00:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure. I'm just busy getting back from holiday at the moment, should be able to in the next day or so. Barnas 01:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Being released in HD

Just ran across this, but gotta run out. Would make a great addition to the article http://www.tvweek.com/page.cms?pageId=212 plange 21:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

What is "UHD"? "UHD" gets me "University of Houston–Downtown". — pd_THOR | =/\= | 15:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Universal HD. The Wookieepedian 16:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Great that the information is in there, but it is misplaced. Shouldn't it be under, say, the broadcast section, or something else? Information about a rebroadcast in HDTV does not belong under the DVD header. --Jmccorm 01:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brief The Onion mention

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/50902 where it'll be for a month until the archive page goes pay-only.

Since Firefly is capitalised and italicised, I think they're referring to the spunky TV show and not the insect. I'd mention it at the top of the talk page with one of those websitemention boxes, but I don't know if an appropriate one exists. It wasn't linked directly by a high-traffic website. Nor is The Onion a news source in this dimension. TransUtopian 16:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right about the meaning of "Firefly" here, but this really isn't something worth posting a note about at the top of the talk page. The primary purpose for this page is to discuss article content, and the Onion reference, even if it were verified as a reference to the Whedon show, is not worth adding to the article. (Thanks for the notice about the amusing article, though.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Point of interest, Jeandre notified us about this last week on our project talk page :-) plange 19:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Good point, and cool. I've been shying away from any project because I edit teensy things on anything I happen to land upon, but I might stop by and get sucked in. :) TransUtopian 22:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Some little things that might need attention?

The show explores what happens to people who fought on the losing side of a civil war, as well as the pioneer/frontier culture that exists on the fringes of their solar system.

The fandom seems entirely mixed on the issue of whether or not the 'verse is one system or mulitiple, mostly thanks to the fact that the canon is thoroughly confusing on the matter. The introduction by the teacher in Serenity (the movie, of course, not the episode) is usually cited as evidence for the 'verse all being one system - but technically, it says almost nothing about it, because of course, it's a history lesson, not an astronomy or geography lesson. It says they moved to a system with multiple planets and moons and what have you, but what it doesn't say is whether or not they stayed in that system or expanded into neighboring systems. The fact that Joss never did seem able to publicly decide whether or not ships in the 'verse could reach light speed (they just move, as one person put it, "at the Speed of Plot") does nothing to help matters (if he had chosen one, it would make it relatively easy - thanks to a handful of noted travel times - to determine if the planets were more likely in the same system. Unfortunately, though, we don't have that luxury). The map shown on the com screen in Serenity does not, as a point of fact, help either, because (having talked to a few folks who actually know a thing or two about physics and astronomy) either it's a.) the most beautifully stylized map EVER, e.g. not accurate unless you interact with it (as River does when she points out a certain planet *ahem*) and/or with distances that are more than a little "off" as far as scale, and/or with more star-like objects than there are actual stars, b.) depicting a system that will probably collapse under its own gravity within a few thousand years (one guy I talked to - whose scientific judgment I very truly do not doubt - said "5,000 years, tops"), or c.) "it's a really pretty picture" (same guy who said 5,000 years), and is almost completely meaningless - artistic, more than scientific in nature. Of course, exact distances between planets are never mentioned, even when travel times or arrival times are. And, of course, the characters never refer to where they live and work as "the solar system" or, IIRC, "the system"(though I could swear that somewhere, there's a mention of "galaxy", though that could have been hyperbole in the dialogue, and can't be trusted either). Furthermore, I have a copy of the Serenity Visual Companion. The SVC says absolutely nothing concrete about whether or not the current setting of the 'verse is or is not one system.

In short, from what I can tell, it simply hasn't been proven, nor is it even at this point proveable one way or the other that it's still only one solar system. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I may have missed something, but I don't think I have.

However, barring my being mistaken and there being truly concrete information on it, this is easily remedied by changing solar system to "'verse". After all, that's the word the creator and characters actually use, and putting it in quotation makes that clear and avoids OR issues of any kind completely. :)

If I find any other things that bug me, I'll bring 'em up here. :) Runa27 17:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I was never ever under the impression it was only one system. I'm not sure I know anyone who is. But if you try to apply any kind of logic to it, no system could have enough planets in the right temperature range to support life, terraforming or not. I'm pretty sure that the Serenity RPG also explicitly mentions systems. If only I had the energy to scan the DVDs, the Comic and the RPG book to look for exact evidence. :P - BalthCat 00:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, I was never, ever under the impression that it was more than one system. It's something that's simply never adressed solidly in canon- the brief mentions and map in the movie seem to imply one system, but really. Who knows? Barnas 01:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Editors attempting to apply logic to theorize details not explicitly given by reliable sources are engaging in original research. But if you insist, here is the most relevant logical argument about the number of systems:
  • Joss Whedon is on record as refusing to let technical details get in the way of telling his stories.
  • The canonical material in Firefly/Serenity is at best ambiguous on this subject.
  • Astrophysicists have repeatedly had to acknowledge that that there is much about the universe that they still don't know, so Wikipedia editors attempting to argue that something "must be" or "is impossible" is patently absurd.
Must we be hit in the head with a hammer to get past this debate? In short, as Mystery Science Theater 3000 likes to point out, "repeat to yourself, 'it's just a show, I should really just relax'", and not reach beyond the sources. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
According to the Serenity RPG, all of the inhabited planets and moons are in a single system, and there is no FTL. UncreativeNameMaker 01:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Alright, well... colour me stupid. - BalthCat 03:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to point out, as an aside, that there is only one "Solar System" in the universe. That is the star system with the star Sol, which has the planets Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune. All other systems are "star system". "Solar" is a proper name, like saying "Lunar" in reference to the moon's other name "Luna". And, by the way, there is only one Moon in the universe too. All others are "natural satellites". The name of our natural satellite is "Moon" or "Luna" if using the other name. Earth's other name is "Terra", and so on. There aren't "other moons" or "other solar systems" - unless a New Yorker could tell me that my town is "another New York". --Daniel 20:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right about the Solar System, but "moon" can refer to any natural satellite orbiting a planet. UncreativeNameMaker 08:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

i all ways took it to be a single system, with multiple stars. Like Alpha Centauri. That should solve any disparities right?

 Joeyjojo 14:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving Film to Own Section

Prompted by one of the comments from the peer review, I was thinking that the discussion of Serenity should be relocated it's own section, in front of the general spin-off section. In the Alternative, the film could be given a subsection in the spin-off section. The film is unique in its importance as a spin-off and should get at least a header setting it off from other spin-offs. I would appreciate any input or commentary on this proposal.-- danntm T C 00:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought that suggestion from the peer review made sense too... plange 01:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Those left behind is really a spin-off of the movie - while taking place before the events in the movie, and published before the movie was released, it was specifically written to bridge the gap from the series, and written after the movie script. Same with the R. Tam sessions, the RPG (tho Out in the black was published after), and KRAD's novelization. Maybe all these spin-offs should go to the movie article.
The only series spin-offs are Finding Serenity, the 2 Firefly companions (not yet published), the original novels (not yet announced with any real info), and the "Critical Studies in Television" book (not yet announced with any real info). -- Jeandré, 2006-08-16t19:40z
  • Jeandré, that is a most interesting point. I might be getting too technical, but should not the spin-offs the pure spin-offs of the film be handled in Serenity (film) article. I, however, favor mentioning the R. Tam Sessions and comics in this article because they were released before the film, occur in the fictional chronologically before the film, and I believe they are considered canon. But I think something can be written in the article in the article to the effect of what you said, to note that the comics and R. Tam Sessions were designed to bridge between the series and the film.-- danntm T C 01:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Book's name

ok, i was just watching Serenity's extra features and it does say his name is Meria. its on Re-lighting the Firefly on the extra Features... pause the movie and youll see it DOES say Meria... -Xornok 01:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Pause the movie and his tombstone says DERRIA. I think evidence in the actuall movie is to be counted over special features, especially since the special features have been know to be wrong (Calling the Millenium Falcon the Millenium Vulcan is one of the more well-known mistakes). JBK405 01:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

actually, the most you can 100% make out is ERRIA... the D does not even match the D in Shepherd as it does not fully close at the bottom... not to mention there is another line that could make it an M... granted, it wouldnt look like N or W from Hoban Washburne, but it could still be an M nonetheless.... I say we just call him Shepherd Book and make a note on his page that there is a debate about his first name citing different sources for Derrial, Meria, and/or Derria.... -Xornok 15:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

As noted on the Book talk page, Meria was an early version of his name and changed prior to the final version of the film, just as an early version of Zoë's name was Warrren. By the time the film came out, Whedon had changed both and in all official published sources (the novel, the RPG, the Serenity Companion and Firefly Companion (both written by Whedon), the name is given as Derrial.Shsilver 15:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uncited statement removed

"Whedon himself maintains that the series' trademark splash (featuring Reynolds' ship Serenity soaring over a corral of unshod horses) was intended to serve as a readily digested five-second condensation or representative summary of the show."

This was removed for being uncited. (I didn't add it.) I thought having it here might prompt someone to remember where it might've been said or written down. TransUtopian 20:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel like that's from the DVD commentary on the pilot episode? I'd be willing to give it a look-see and find out. (Oh, an excuse to rewatch Firefly!) -- Merope 20:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, that would be great-- I remember it from somewhere too, but I removed the statement so that we can encourage contributors to provide sources first instead of leaving it all up to us in one big mammoth search for sources like we had to do to get our GA nom. --plange 21:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, the back of my mind says that this is a Joss comment from the pilot. EVula 21:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

just letting you guys know, whedon does say that that scene represents the show, in the commentary of the first episode.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.185.184.222 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Changed logo

I thought that the logo looked somewhat unclear, so I changed it to a scanned copy of the DVD cover. Is this okay with everyone? ChunkySoup 19:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

My change was reverted with the following comment: "rv back to opening titles logo as is standard on Wikipedia."

Although it's generally standard to use the logo from the title sequence, I don't feel as though the animated logo translates very well into a still image. The image from the DVD cover seems as though it would be what Whedon would have used had the logo been a still shot.

ChunkySoup 19:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I prefer your change, I say you change it back unless some one explains why (or where it is said) that the opening credits logo is standard (?) - BalthCat 22:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the opening logo looks better as the main image. The Wookieepedian 22:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Shall we have a vote then? Here's one for the DVD cover ChunkySoup 23:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

you dont know thats what Whedon wouldve wanted, but if we're voting, i say the opening logo stays... -Xornok 23:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I said that it might be what Whedon used, had it been a stationary logo, as it is on this page. I've never seen any site use a screenshot of the opening for promos. [2] [3] Note that the Fox site uses the same as the DVD cover, just slightly different saturation.ChunkySoup 00:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm with the DVD cover, designed as a still image. The other logo is designed to be animated, and doesn't look quite right as a still. Barnas 01:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm all in favor of the DVD cover logo, it's clear and easy to read. Kingpin1055 01:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to agree that the DVD cover logo, which is crisper then the TV screenshot, is the better image. Thus, absent any guideline to the contrary, I favor that image on the page.-- danntm T C 01:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, one could argue that WP:IAR is relevant here if there is a guideline. ;) EVula 22:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

As long as we're trying to establish consensus... I like the DVD logo better. -- Merope Talk to me/Review me 21:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

DVD cover, totally. EVula 22:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use implications of changed logo

I doubt the DVD cover crop would even pass fair use, it is a set in stone standard to use a cap from the television show intro, few people would recognise that unless they actually owned the dvd. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
In looking over WP:FAIR, I don't see anything that outright states we can't use a scan of the DVD cover. The DVD cover is clearer than the screen capture, which is why we're using it instead (which fits into fair use). You'll have to cite the policy about the "set in stone" rule about intro captures before I can actually address it. EVula 19:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Thatsthe proble,. it's not the dvd cover it's self it is a cropped bit of the DVD cover, a DVD cover would likely constitute fair use. Also being better quality then the previous does not constiute fair use. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
DVD covers really only used to illustrate the DVD. ed g2s • talk 20:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
This is tough. It is unestablished territory whether a DVD cover is acceptable fair use on Wikipedia to illustrate a television show, although it is accepted to use screenshots. Therefore, to play it safe, I am reversing my self and now recommending to switch back to the TV screenshot logo, albeit of inferior quality.-- danntm T C 20:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
If someone could retake it from a HDTV source then that would be peachy (or a DVD source) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
An HDTV screencap won't make a difference. For starters, if the source isn't "HD", the resulting screencap won't be "HD". Secondly, it is an animated image; that's part of the problem. There just isn't a clear image of it... aside from the DVD case (and is the reason that a DVD scan could work under Fair Use). EVula 22:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I took my DVD and went frame by frame in the entire opening sequence and could not find a better image. Even if someone broke the encryption on the DVD and exported the VOB as frame by frame stills, what you have there is as good as it gets. - Trysha (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Genre introduction

I think we should just leave it as "Science fiction", since the other genres the show could be called are in the infobox right next to the discussion anyway. I certainly don't think it should be introduced as a comedy-drama, because it's -in my mind- not. It's got a few gags in it, but it's a pretty fair hop away from being a comedy of any sort, to me. Barnas 10:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I've gone one step further — I've removed the comedy-drama tag from the infobox, too. Firefly does not belong to the comedy-drama genre. Is it dramatic? Of course. Is it funny? It's quite witty and often hilarious. But that doesn't make it a comedy-drama series. IMDb backs this up by failing to include "comedy-drama" in its genre list for the show. (Although I'm not sure I would trust it too far, anyway, as it lists Firefly as "fantasy" — where the hell does that come from?) M*A*S*H is a comedy-drama. Firefly is science fiction, adventure, action, space western, etc. — it is not comedy-drama. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Psychic River = fantasy. -- Jeandré, 2006-09-28t19:47z
Psychic abilities are considered legitimate elements of science fiction, too. Fantasy usually involves magic and/or supernatural beings, without the Clarkian advanced-science POV, which would appear to be where psychic abilities come from in the Firefly universe, as opposed to the Buffy universe. (Contrast Spider and Jeanne Robinsons's Stardance SF novels, Katherine Kurtz's Deryni fantasy novels, and Julian May's deliberate mixing of the two genres in her Pliocene Exile saga, which is still considered SF.) There is nothing in Firefly that suggests the traditional aspects of the fantasy genre. In fact, Whedon seems to have deliberately cast this world as an easily recognizable combination of the Old West and the Space/Technology Age, without any trace of spells, Hobbits, or vampires. I suspect the "fantasy" label comes largely from a misapprehension by someone at IMDb that anything the creator of Buffy does must have a fantasy element to it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree, there are no fantasy aspects to Firefly... --plange 21:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I concur with Plange and Jeffq insofar as it will not be wise not to call Firefly as "Fantasy" show. IMDb, albeit comprehensive, often includes a lot of questionable information.-- danntm T C 14:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Psychic abilities are, to people who use the scientific method, supernatural; and until there are reasonable and falsifiable theories for FTL and psychic ability it'll be fantasy to them.
Most people (you woudn't find consensus including it here for instance) think soft SF is still SF. Some people see any fiction with elements indistinguishable from the supernatural in it as fantasy - such a person probably OKed the fantasy classification on the IMDb page. -- Jeandré, 2006-09-29t18:31z
Until Wash is brought back by a level 8 wizard, Firefly isn't Fantasy. EVula 19:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Jeandré, "science fiction" includes both hard and soft SF, and those divisions are hardly concrete, as Hard science fiction makes clear. Would you consider FTL travel "fantasy" just because we have no clear path to it? One cannot read our Fantasy article and reasonably include Firefly in that genre. I happen to agree that psychic powers, at least in the real world thus far, are solidly in the realm of the supernatural (i.e., not scientifically demonstrated — let alone proven — in nature), but neither your nor my beliefs are relevant. We're talking about fiction genres, not application to the real world. Firefly's approach to psychic powers is not magical, and is thus not "fantasy", even though it is every bit as fantastical as FTL, mind-melding, or intelligent energy beings, from today's perspective. Of course, we're arguing about angels dancing on the head of a pin anyway, as "fantasy" isn't and hasn't been included in this article's genres. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] unproduced episodes

should we add stuff about the 8 unproduced episodes in the episode section? the scripts will be released next year with the firefly visual companion part 2... -Xornok 19:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

oooh, didn't know there were any! drool-da-rule! Anyway, back to WP, I guess it depends on the source we use before we get our hands on part 2. It needs to be a RS as I'd hate to think we'd accidentally posted fanfiction --plange 19:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
well, the very last page of the OVC (official visual companion) volume 1 says that in volume two, it will have the 8 unproduced scripts, so im pretty sure its a reliable source...
no doubting the existence of the 8, but I want to make sure that if we link to any that we say are the 8, that they are indeed the 8 that will be in part 2 --plange 20:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
or are you just asking that we mention that there are 8? If so, yes, and source the OVC:1 --plange 20:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
eh, sourcing gives me a headache. i just didnt want to mention the other 8 and have someone revert it like what happened when someone added the link to the Dead Or Alive script... -Xornok 20:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
If you are okay with copy and paste, I've already ref'ed OVC in the Malcolm Reynolds article which you can grab... --plange 20:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
ok, cool... -Xornok 20:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, just looked at back page and it doesn't say there will be scripts to unproduced episodes, rather that there will be the uncut shooting scripts of the 8 remaining shows, meaning the last ones not included in vol 1 (which ends at Our Mrs. Reynolds), so, unfortunately, no new scripts :-( --plange 15:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

guess i read wrong... oh well... -Xornok 19:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I was all excited-- I sure wish you had been right! --plange 20:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
yeah, me too... -Xornok 20:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing unsourced comparisons (again)

I have twice removed a new section called "Shows with similar themes" that is yet another attempt to draw original, unsourced comparisons between Firefly and other shows like Cowboy Bebop. This has been discussed extensively in the following talk page topics:

Note that, as this article moved toward good-article status, we've managed to lose these comparisons and even the "See also" section. I see no reason to risk de-listing from GA just because someone simply must make these comparisons. Magic Pickle made the argument, in restoring the section, that "Intro claims the show is 'atypical' - this is OR as well." This is not a justification for adding more original research. If we really feel "atypical" is OR, it should be removed, too. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Fair enough, I will try to dig out some references for the comparisons, and will not add it back until I do. In the meantime can we do something about - " It presents an atypical science fiction narrative" - this is POV. The comparisons show that Firefly is not necessarily 'atypical'. This type of POV is surely a problem in GA terms as well. Magic Pickle 19:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for understanding. Feel free to remove the word atypical if you feel it's OR. --plange 23:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not exactly true...

"The show also features slang not used in contemporary culture (e.g. "shiny" as a synonym of "cool")." I'm probably being really pedantic, but shiny has been commonly used that way in my area for about as long as i can remember, back at least to early 80s i think.. 81.153.253.32 02:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC) Elmo

  • I'm curious - where are you? I've never heard "shiny" used that way, and was struck by it on Firefly. Not throwing down a gauntlet or anything, but I'd be interested to hear where it's in use. - Corporal Tunnel 15:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I was a teenager in the UK in the 80's and it was never used here. I'd never heard it before Firefly so I too am curious to know where "here" is. Sophia 16:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I've been state-side for my entire life (Tennessee and 23, respectively), and I'd never heard shiny used in the same manner before. It did of course exist as a word, but not as an alternative to "cool" EVula 17:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
shiny was used mid to late-80's and 90's or so in reference to the idea the some people are attracted to shiny objects, much like racoons. it's been around a long time. i wouldn't say it means cool as much as 'wow' or 'bling'. it was started on a television show, maybe on fox, perhaps married with children, but certainly one that dimunized certain human's intelligence. here for me at the time would have been northern p.a. then washington d.c.--Buridan 17:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I know "shiny" as a joke about distraction: "I have no attention span to speak of, and -- ooo, shiny!" (In fact, I'm pretty sure Oz says something like this in Buffy, since we're in the Whedonverse.) That's very different from the use in Firefly, though. And I've never heard it used as in Firefly in my stints in New York, Boston, and Dallas. - Corporal Tunnel 17:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I've heard the "ooh, shiny!" bit too. Firefly's use of the word is totally different. EVula 19:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm with EVula, Corporal Tunnel, etc. here. I've never hears "shiny" used as a synonym of cool. If you could provide verification to the contrary, that would be great.-- danntm T C 19:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm clearly in the minority here so i guess it must just be a local or subculture thing then. I'm (UK) but it could just be a local surfer thing maybe. Best forget about it :S heh like i said just being really pedantic :P viva la coincidence! 81.153.253.32 02:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC) Elmo

It's been used in Phoenix, Arizona since at least the 80's as well. Rihk 05:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DVD Release section

Should the DVD Release section be moved to List of Firefly episodes? Most other shows have the DVD info on the episode page, so I'm wondering if the whole section should be moved, or just add the basics of the DVD release to the episodes page. JQF 15:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Getting ready for WP:FAC

I think we're close! I wanted to see if we could put our shoulders to the wheel and get the article ready for WP:FAC, what do you guys think? Here's some things I thought of, what else needs doing?

  • finish incorporating any valid suggestions from our peer review. I think I got most, but here are some open issues:
    • Did we decide what to do here about Serenity film having its own section? I think the original point from the peer review is still valid. Here's what the reviewer said: "I cannot wrap my head around having the movie, which is clearly the most important spin-off, relegated after the books and comics. I'm not even sure the movie deserves to be called a spin-off - it seems rather more than that, and it seems to me like an expansion of the movie section would be reasonable - things like how it did and what plot threads it picked up on"
    • Whether or not it's really needed to get into where it aired everywhere and in what order. Perhaps this could go on the new List of episodes page instead?
    • Mentioning unique dialog in Signature show elements. I think we can find sourced info on this in Finding Serenity. I left my copy at work, so can't add until tomorrow.
  • Since we moved the list of episodes to an article, we need to have a summary section here I think. I took a stab, but I think it still needs work.

What else? --plange 06:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I'll support Serenity having its own section, before the spin-offs. I also think that the airing order could go into the List of episodes page. And I'll take a look at list of episodes summary and see what I can do.-- danntm T C 15:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I everyone okay with the change Wookiepedian just made which is different than what was suggested in the peer review (having film outside of spin-off?) --plange 16:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] International section

Can we please remove / drastically rewrite the International section? Seems to me it's dull as dishwater and supplies information of little interest (what's the point listing every country in the world and when it first aired, and in what order?) --Oscarthecat 17:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, so did a reviewer (see my note in section just above this). I think it should either be moved to the List of episodes or deleted. I know someone went to a lot of work, but am wondering if it's encyclopedic? --plange 18:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I think it might have some use, but it only has any context in List of episodes, and thus I support moving it there.-- danntm T C 18:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
For the record, I, too, think it would be better served on List of Firefly episodes. EVula 18:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, am moving it now... --plange 18:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Done, this had the added benefit of helping to flesh out the Episodes section... What about the suggestion above about moving the DVD release to the Episode page? If we do that, we should just make a short mention of the DVD release in the Episodes and broadcast history section. --plange 19:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asian characters

The theme of a merging of east and west in human culture, with Chinese being spoken along with English, and some of the core worlds apparently being based on eastern asian culture, why then are none of the main characters in Firefly asian, and, indeed none of the supporting characters are asian? I think this might be grounds for a brief mention in the article. It was always something that bothered me. What do others think? Magic Pickle 12:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

We can't mention our own commentary, though you could if you could source it to a source that meets WP:V. I remember reading somewhere that it was that there were two core planets, with Asia controlling one, and the US the other and so presumably we're following the folks spread out from that one. Kaylee was supposed to be Asian I think, but they cast Jewel instead. Presumably Simon and River have Asian ancestry (last name of Tam). In the end, we're speculating, and speculation cannot go into the article. See WP:OR. --plange 15:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I think I remember hearing something about the whole China/America thing in the Train Job commentary (my DVDs are still loaned out, though, so I can't verify if the episode even has a commentary track or not). I also remember Joss saying something about the melding of the two worlds in the Serenity commentary (dunno the chapter, but its when they land on the planet where they are going to leave the Tams). EVula 16:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes I listened to the commentary on the DVDs. Personally I find it strange that you would have, in the far future, an 'asian planet' and a 'Western' planet - there would surely be a melding of the two cultures (and more) whenever you find humanity. Instead of people talking English and then oddly switching to Chinese, the language would also meld, with Anglicised versions of Chinese words entering the language and vice versa. We would probably find it hard to understand at all. The idea that the characters we follow in the show are from the 'western' planets seems a bit silly - has multiculturalism stopped happening? So, as Evula mentions, the two worlds have melded later on, why are we not seeing any asian characters? This is a problem I have with the idea that Firefly is a believable version of the future. It may have benefits as a theme for drama, but isn't very believable. But obviously this is my lowly opinion only. If I can find a source for Kayleigh's character originally being asian, that might be worth adding? Magic Pickle 19:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it comes down to, unfortunately, the fact that it had to air to American audiences. You'll have to ask Joss. Maybe FOX nixed having Asian characters? Who knows. You do see the melding and fusion when they land on planets (Asian characters are all over), it's just not the main ones. There's several essays in Finding Serenity about this very topic, one a criticism, and the other an explanation... --plange 22:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay lets be serious here... Fox didn't "nix the asian characters" that's kind of a rediculous thing to say without some kind of evidence. Despite fireflys popularity and fan base, and the fact yeah it's cancellation was just borderline on disfunctionally retarded, it was still a show that ran for only a damn few episdoes in the grand scope of most any series (less then 20, comapre that to Babylon 5, or Stargate SG1, or ST:anything). It had a small cast of core characters and a tiny few reoccuring characters. The fact Asian characters despite the backstory didn't play a more predominate roll probably had a hell of a lot more to do with there wasn't alot of 'show' for them to appear in anyway. Just look at Buffy the Vampire Slayer. That show ran for how many seasons? It's set in California which is what percentage black and hispanic? Yet how many seasons was it before a predominant black character appeared in the show. Did it ever feature a hispanic character? So people are kind of reading too much into this. The reason more Asians didn't appear is likely quite simple... the show was only shot for a trial season, and when it died in the ratings compared to whatever measure was used to judge it, it killed any chance for Josh to flush out his background. More characters didn't appear because with fewer then 20 episodes ever made, the opportunity likely just never arose for them to appear anyway. When you get the greenlight for a new series you get your cast and go with what you got to try and get the funding for a second season, and when that doesn't happen visions are limited. [Wednesday, 2007-01-10 T 04:45 UTC]

[edit] {{quotation}}

I missed that the quotation template I'd inserted had been removed when I added more later. Sorry!; as such, I reverted myself. However, where in the MoS does it say we aren't allowed to use wiki quotation templates, but we can use html (basically just indention)? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Direct quotations is what you're looking for. EVula 17:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Yep, the only time you should use that style (or some of the others that place them in boxes and colors them) are when doing "pull quotes" like magazines do: the quote isn't part of the flow of the article, but is instead used as a highlight outside of the flow of the prose to highlight that section. Sort of like how images illustrate that section, but are not part of the flow of the prose. For a good example, see Demosthenes (they use blue ones). --plange 18:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Variety cite

A little while ago I added a [citation needed] tag to the section on how the ratings suffered due to episodes being shown out of order. That tag's gone and the section now reads: "Variety magazine cited several actions by the FOX network that contributed to the low ratings, most notably the fact that FOX aired the episodes out of chronological order" Only... the Variety piece doesn't actually mention that at all. It talks of sporting pre-emption, but nothing on reordering or delaying of the pilot. S'why I added the citation tag.--Nalvage 16:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right-- confusion ensued when the original sentence was changed from saying Browncoats/fans attributed it to... to the one that took out saying it was fans, see [4], from someone reviewing for FAC. Will look up cites; I'm just coming off a week-long wikibreak... --plange 16:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
And I managed to add to the confusion by accidentally removing the Variety ref when reverting the removal of my cite tag. Somehow it'll all work itself out...--Nalvage 17:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

...Or not. As it stands the article still claims that Variety cited reordering of episodes as a cause of low ratings. I've been looking for a source, but haven't been able to find one. I'm kinda loathe to cut that section though if there's an article out there I'm missing. --Nalvage 00:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Now that this is a featured article...

should we request it to be a "Today's featured article"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JQF (talk • contribs).

Hell yeah. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm good with that.-- danntm T C 18:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Me three! Who wants to take a stab at writing the condensed lead? --plange 22:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
A very, very brief and basic attempt to hash together and shortern the lead into one paragraph:

"Firefly is an American science fiction cult television series that premiered in the United States and Canada on September 20, 2002. Its naturalistic future setting, modeled after traditional Western movie motifs and featuring a fusion of western and Chinese culture, presents an atypical science fiction backdrop for the narrative. It was conceived by writer and director Joss Whedon, creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel, under his production tag, Mutant Enemy. The series is set in 2517 AD and follows the adventures of the renegade crew of Serenity, a Firefly-class spaceship. The show explores the vicissitudes of people who fought on the losing side of a civil war, as well as the pioneer culture that exists on the fringes of their star system. Firefly was originally broadcast on the FOX network but was cancelled after only eleven of the fourteen produced episodes were aired. Strong fan support and DVD sales convinced Universal Pictures to create a film based on the series, titled Serenity after the fictional spaceship featured in the show."

Feel free to pick apart and the like. It's basically just what we have already in the text, with my really cursory edits and shortenings. Barnas 23:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

How about this more concise version, with formatting and links, that should fit into a main-page summary box:

Firefly is a science fiction TV series that premiered in the U.S. and Canada in 2002. Its naturalistic future setting is modeled after Western movies and features a fusion of western and Chinese cultures. It was conceived by writer and director Joss Whedon, creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel. Firefly follows the adventures of the renegades of spaceship Serenity, exploring the vicissitudes of people who fought on the losing side of a civil war, as well as the pioneer culture on the fringes of their star system. Firefly aired on the FOX network but was cancelled after only 11 of 14 episodes. Strong fan support led to a film based on the series.

It says pretty much the same things, but without unnecessary detail and verbiage for a tight, attention-grabbing paragraph. (Or so I hope. ☺) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Shiny! The only part I'd like to tweak is how it makes the spaceship sound like it's exploring people a la Fantastic Voyage (I also change US to United States per MoS)... How about:

Firefly is a science fiction TV series that premiered in the United States and Canada in 2002. Set 500 years in the future, it blends a naturalistic future with the Western genre, as well as a fusion of Occidental and Chinese cultures. It was conceived by writer and director Joss Whedon, creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel. Firefly follows the adventures of the renegades of spaceship Serenity, and explores the vicissitudes of people who fought on the losing side of a civil war, as well as the pioneer culture on the fringes of their star system. Firefly aired on the FOX network but was cancelled after only 11 of 14 episodes. Strong fan support led to a film based on the series.

--plange 03:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Serenity may be a character, but I guess she's not quite that interpersonal. ☺ Seriously, this sounds fine. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick change, adding a definate article to "spaceship Serenity"

Firefly is a science fiction TV series that premiered in the United States and Canada in 2002. Set 500 years in the future, it blends a naturalistic future with the Western genre, as well as a fusion of Occidental and Chinese cultures. It was conceived by writer and director Joss Whedon, creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel. Firefly follows the adventures of the renegades of the spaceship Serenity, and explores the vicissitudes of people who fought on the losing side of a civil war, as well as the pioneer culture on the fringes of their star system. Firefly aired on the FOX network but was cancelled after only 11 of 14 episodes. Strong fan support led to a film based on the series.

--Barnas 17:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Dropping that particular definite article is acceptable grammar in English, and I'd consciously done it as part of my effort to keep the word and character count down. But it doesn't matter that much; either way is fine. Just to head off the potential argument, this is not the same thing as saying "the Serenity", which we all know is incorrect. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Okey dokey, I've added it! --plange 02:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sad violin

in the music it talks about a song called "sad violin" and it being used at the end of "the message" but the song at the end is "the funeral", track 6, not "sad violin"... is the name just wrong or are they 2 different songs? -Xornok 05:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] is/was

87.112.0.120 (talk • contribs) has changed the article to use the past tense in the intro paragraph. I maintain that we're supposed to use the present tense, as the show still exists, and the status of its production is irrelevant to the fact that it is still a television show.

Similar examples would be Mystery Science Theater 3000, Star Trek: The Original Series, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and Angel, all of which mention the show in the present-tense. Other media examples include Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, Moulin Rouge!, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, and Pong, all mentioned in the present-tense, regardless of their age.

I can't readily find any guidelines on this, though; can someone else? EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

In a few minutes of checking, I could not readily find any explicit guidelines. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) uses the "is" in an example of the proper way to write about a fictional character, but that is far short of adopting the "is" to describe a whole television series. I personally would favor "is," if only to maintain consistency with other articles. However, ultimately, I caution all to avoid creating needless and imprudent conflict over verb tense.-- danntm T C 05:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not just a TV-show issue. The use of present tense applies to all extant creative works. Please note that "The Tragicall Historie of Hamlet, Prince of Denmarke is a tragedy by William Shakespeare and is one of his best-known and most-quoted plays", as the first sentence of Hamlet reads. We would not say that this work was a tragedy. It has not been lost, and continues to exist to this day. Likewise, TV shows are, not were, unless they were destroyed in a film warehouse fire, never to be seen again. This does not change the appropriate past tense of production and airing history (e.g., it was filmed somewhere, it aired on such-and-such a network). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out, I was thinking that but was not sure that I remembers secondary school English correctly :)-- danntm T C 16:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that out of the examples given, Star Wars III, Moulin Rouge, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire and Hamlet are correctly described using the present tense - these are articles about standalone pieces of work and in some cases (like Moulin Rouge) not a piece of work intended to have a collection of follow-ups. I'd maintain Firefly (and Star Trek: The Original Series) ought to be described in past tense; they are pieces of work that have (or in Firefly's case, meant to have) a lifespan of more than just one series but have a definitive end in its production and storytelling. In addition, since they are no longer being developed, I'd say by definition that puts the context of the series as a whole in the past. It's easy to say "this article uses past/ present tense" because as noted above, there's no clear guidelines. The article on Red Dwarf describes the series using past tense, and that's still (officially at least) in production. 87.113.26.153 15:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

If we used the past tense and then the series was repeated on television, we'd have to change the article, every time! That should ring alarm bells. Its nature doesn't change just because it's being repeated. It clearly exists, and is a series of programmes. It was produced over a finite period; it was initially broadcast at a certain time; but it is a series. – Kieran T (talk) 16:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see why would we 'have' to change the article if the series was repeated? It would still be the same series with the same finite life-span. I still stand by my suggestion that past tense be used for articles about works (or a collective series of works) that have definitively ended/ officially ceased production. It "is" indeed a series (I'm not arguing against that), but using "was" makes it clear that the series has officially ended. For example, I'd say Quantum Leap, Six Feet Under and Alias "were" all TV series (since they have officially ceased production and reached a conclusion); Futurama, Curb Your Enthusiasm and 24 "are" all TV series; since their respective storylines haven't reached a final conclusion and/ or have not been cancelled. 87.113.71.163 22:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
"using "was" makes it clear that the series has officially ended." - so does saying "...the series has officially ended." - without the ambiguity.
In any case, Joss Whedon says on the DVD extras that he will (not might) be back with more of it, so it's arguable whether it really has "ended" anyway. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.134.16.183 (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC).
But you wouldn't write "the series has officially ended" in the intro paragraph (let alone the opening sentence), would you? As for suggesting that using past tense to explain the series has ended is ambiguous; I completely disagree - if anything, I'd say it's more accurate in describing the show. Using "was" explains that it "is" a series (of course it is), but is no longer in active development, hence the past tense. As for Whedon being "back with more of it", that may or may not be a TV series. 87.112.1.180 23:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You folks are continuing to miss the point. It's not a question of material difference between standalone films and TV shows, current TV shows and completed ones, or difficulty in maintaining currency in Wikipedia articles. Creative works are treated as existing, not having existed. They are available for all to observe, not were-available-but-gone-now. You can find examples of improper past-tense use in WP articles, just like you can find examples of inarguable illiteracy in WP articles, because Wikipedia can be and is edited by anyone, including people with less command of English than a 10-year-old. But please don't create your own novel interpretations of English grammar or publishing styles. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This is probably a dead issue now, but for future reference, here is the link to the guideline about using present tense when writing about fiction: Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Check_your_fiction --plange 22:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


There should be a general policy as many musical acts who have broken up, are considered past tense, even though their music is still able to be listened to

i have asked if a fiction work should be written in past or present tense on the manual of style (writing in fiction) talk page. it is located here if you are interested.

peace out-Threewaysround 20:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2006-12-xx Sales

I've been watching the top DVD sales at Amazon.com this December and have always seen Firefly in the top 10 (This morning it was number 9). Does anyone know where the public can acquire total sales? --Neilrieck 19:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The only places I've found useful in the past are VideoBusiness.com and BoxOfficeMojo.com, but they are of limited use. VideoBusiness maintains several free lists of top sellers, but they only have the current top 20 in any category, so the information is quite ephemeral and rarely helpful for anything that isn't a recent release. (They may have much more detail for-fee, but that's not especially helpful for Wikipedia:Verifiability.) BoxOfficeMojo is exclusively for films, I think. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
www.fireflyfans.net have listed firefly and serenity's rank from amazon ever since theyve been released... -Xornok 15:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why cancelled?

I can't see an explanation as to why Fox cancelled the series; I'm sure there was one! If anyone knows a little section explaning why would be good. Dan100 (Talk) 00:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The show did very poorly in the ratings. That is pretty much the obvious reason, and it's about all you could put in the article. Anything else is speculation or debate, which isn't proper in a wikipedia article. Basically while fans generally feel this was due to Foxes mismanagment of it {airing it out of order, changing it's day/time in some regions, putting it up against incredibly popular shows on other networks, and generally just not treating it like a series they wanted to blossum}, it was also a known Josh Whedon franchise and other sci-fi and regular shows have faced similiar challenges and still prospered... so it becomes a real debate as to why. Josh did make the show pretty costly, usually sci-fi shows their first season try and be reasonable on their budget. So your simple answer is, it did poorly in the ratings which is what really matters. Beyond that, nothing else can be put in since it's all open to point of view and neither side, or at least no formal source that can be linked to wikipedia, has ever proven further either way. [Wednesday, 2007-01-10 T 04:55 UTC]


[edit] External Links section

I know there's a link to the series' IMDb page in the infobox at the top of the page, but I've added one to the External Links section as well, my reasoning being that anyone reading the bottom of the page might not have seen the link in the infobox and/or might expect to find such a link in the External Links section.

Hyperflux 01:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Source 404

The link to the boston globe article is broken. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.49.193.225 (talk) 08:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

True. Boston Globe has moved the article to their archive space, where it can only by viewed after payment. 213.7.102.171 10:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 14 or 15 episodes?

Hi all, again, I apologize for my splitting up this article without talking about it on discussion page.. Anyway, do you think that Firefly has 14 or 15 episodes? I count the 2-hour long pilot as two, because it can be split up into two in syndication.. Anyway, I will not change it again, unless there's a consensus somehow here... Thanks, Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 05:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

there are 15...serenity is 2 episodes... -Xornok 19:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

14 episodes, since Serenity is simply one, two-part episode. On the DVD there's only one title selection on the menu, and the lists on the box say "14 episodes." It might be the length of two episodes, but it's just one really long one. JBK405 21:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

There are 15 hours in 14 episodes, per the show's production numbering ("Serenity" has the single production number "1AGE79") and the DVDs (as JBK405 points out). This has already been discussed at Talk:Firefly (TV series)/Archive 2#Missing 15th Episode?. Sci Fi Channel and other syndication outlets are not more reliable sources than the producers. Please do not make changes based on perception rather than documented, reliable sources. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Today's featured article

If you wanted to get this article (and the show) some real acclaim, you could get this article put as the front page featured article. But you need an image that can be displayed on the front page to do that, and that means no fair use. Do we have any such images related to firefly? --Ryan Delaney talk 08:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Really? That didn't seem to be the case as recently as February 21 (Avatar: The Last Airbender), February 12 (Make Way for Ducklings), and February 1 (Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace). They each featured fair use images. Travisl 16:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair use images can be used on the main page, that's a benefit of it being in the main space. Matthew 16:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I guess I'm wrong then. I'll nominate it. --Ryan Delaney talk 10:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
How would putting this article on the main page provide the Firefly series with "real" acclaim? This article is already "Featured Status," and should only be monitored to ensure that it stays that way from this point forth. It would be much more productive to try elevating other articles to featured quality rather than wasting time trying to get certain articles plastered on the main page. Not only is it entirely pointless, but such a thing brings a massive influx of anonymous editors and vandals who'll only ruin everything that's already been done. What possible purpose could such an objective serve? Gamer Junkie 12:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry you don't agree, but I'm nominating it. --Ryan Delaney talk 00:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Gamer Junkie, I've never really seen a benefit from being taped on the main page, e.g. Lost used to be in a good condition prior to it being on the main page. Matthew 13:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
You know... all you have to do is revert it. The Wookieepedian 16:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Edit wars never solve anything. It simply seems that getting this article onto the Main Page is a fairly pointless goal, and it would be good if those in favour of this would explain the positive ramifications of such an achievement. Gamer Junkie 21:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flop?

I know you're all going to be up in arms about this. If the show got cancelled because of low ratings, even if it was all the network's fault, doesn't that make it a flop? And thus earns a category in TV flops. Yadda yadda yadda it was successful on DVD and almost sort of in the cinema. Still a flop on television though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Witw (talk • contribs) 18:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

well, i consider flops like being cancelled after 1 or 2 episodes... -Xornok —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.134.67.3 (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Great, so Street Hawk was a rampaging success then. I'll remove it from the Flops list.Witw 22:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was turned into a feature length film because it was a flop. I'm sorry, but something that has quite notably garnered a following of fans is hardly a flop. This isn't people "up in arms" - this isn't a defensive or personal reaction, it's the facts of the matter. The show, despite its cancellation, has been acclaimed by fans and critics alike. Cancellation from network TV is not (necessarily) the same as being a flop. Cheeser1 22:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, this is the very reason I removed it from the article. A show that premiers and disappears quietly would count as a flop (in my opinion). EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

arn't we suppposed to be talking about how to help the article get better. not about weather or not the show was a flop, without a solid definition of a flop we can't put it on wikipedia anyway, so why are we argueing?!?

peace out-Threewaysround 01:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussing whether an article should be classified in a category or not (in this case, Category:Television flops) is well within the bounds of what article talk pages are for. Please read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for a better understanding of what is and isn't acceptable. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that the large fanbase for this show indicates that it wasn't a flop. LeinadSpoon 03:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Flop can refer to:

An instance of failure; in the entertainment world, usually referring to a movie or tv show that doesn't do well or is expected to do well and falls short. From the flop page on Wiki.

flop (plural flops)

1. An incident of a certain type of fall; a plopping down. 2. A failure, especially in the entertainment industry. From Wikidictionary.

Had a fanbase alright. But not large enough.Witw 12:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe Firefly meets the definition of "flop" you presented above. Matthew 12:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Wow. I didn't think there was actually a category for television flops, sorry bout that. Well anyway, i'll give my input.

Really both's sides are good arguments, but any TV show that had DVD sales that high, and a movie made out of it isn't a flop per-say. It didn't do well on TV (at all), but overall the series itself isn't a flop. It may have flopped it's television debut, but it isn't a flop in total.

peace out-Threewaysround 18:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] original run

when and why was the original run dates changed? the original run was from sept 20. to dec. 20 of 2002... the other 3 episodes that aired are not considered part of the original run because.. um.. they didnt actually air when it was originally on tv... i believe skiffy aired them to promote the release of the dvds... -Xornok —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.134.67.3 (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

First air date is the first airing of an original air date, last is the last airing of an original episode. Thus it's correct. Matthew 19:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
but that wasn't its ORIGINAL run... it originally ran on Fox and left out The Message, Trash, and Heart of Gold... those weren't aired till later... in the second run... because the aired on Sci Fi... -Xornok 22:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Seems very original to me. Matthew 08:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/i/r/Talk%7EFirefly_%28TV_series%29_9fb6.html"