Talk:Firefly (TV series)

Character names, double quotes in links.

I didn't see an example of this in the FAQs... anyone know what the appropriate method is for inserting quotation marks in text that is a link? i.e., if I want Captain Malcolm "Mal" Reynolds as a link to the page about the character, what's the right way to go about it? I used parentheses for Kaylee, but as parens are used for disambiguation rules, this might cause some confusion too. -- Wapcaplet

The software won't let you. The title really should be Malcom Reynolds or Mal Reynolds anyway. Titles like "Captain" aren't good in general since a person's (or fictional person's) title can change over time. --mav

Good point. Thanks for the tip! -- Wapcaplet

No problem. --mav

Another thing to consider is how you plan on linking to the articles for the character. For example; wouldn't Kaywinnit Lee Frye be better as Kaylee Frye since this is the full name she is commonly known as on the series? This is similar to the reasoning why why have the article on the US president Clinton at Bill Clinton and not William Jefferson Clinton (this is a redirect). Longer, more complicated names can be redirected to the the more common names (yet still complete with first and last names). --mav

Yeah I wondered about that too. I'll change 'em. --Wapcaplet

Data to include.

Work in somewhere:

• Background: The introductory narration originally said that "after the earth was used up" our race "found a new system" with hundreds of habitable worlds. This drew much critical comment on Usenet and WWW discussion forums, and about half-way through the series the narration was changed to eliminate the suggestion that all the planets were all in the same solar system. The result is still somewhat problematic, as it would seem to require regular interstellar travel rather than the simple interplanetary travel that the show was originally predicated on.
• Cancellation: Fans have made much of the fact that FOX handled the series very ineptly and apparently callously, with the specific problems of --
  • The pre-airing network advertising greatly misrepresented the nature of the show, portraying it as an action comedy rather than the cerebral character study with a long-term intrigue arc that the show actually proved to be.
  • The two-hour pilot was not aired until after the series had already been cancelled, with the slow-paced and simple-minded "Train Robbery" being used for the opener in its place.
  • There was a month-long hiatus at Thanksgiving, just when viewers were starting to grok what the show was all about.
  • The promised "media blitz" for the post-Thanksgiving restart never came to pass, while other programs were promoted heavily.

--B.Bryant 13:48 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Add it to the long list of shows that got screwed. FOX seems to be particularly good at screwing over good shows (The Lone Gunmen, Brisco County Jr., Sliders, Strange Luck) by mixing up the order, not promoting or promoting badly, etc., while really dumb shows continue to be on the air. But Firefly will forever remain the one I am the most annoyed about. Grr. -- Wapcaplet 11:27 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Position of spoiler notice.

Wapcaplet, I think the spoiler warning should go right at the top, incase someone doesn't read the entire article and so misses the warning. I also think we need to somehow incorporate the link to the episodes into the airing section. - Jeandré, 2003-06-22t21:37z

Most of the time it's placed just above the place where spoilers actually begin; that way, even if someone doesn't want to read spoilers, they can learn about what Firefly is and then stop when they reach the spoiler warning. -- Wapcaplet 21:34 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I now see how the spoilers are handled Wapcaplet, thanks. See Talk:List_of_Firefly_episodes for pre-merge discussion. - Jeandré, 2003-06-28t04:04z

Canada.

I removed the "?" from Canada, since according to the GEOS site, "The Train Job" aired both in US and Canada the same day. This site in generally very reliable. Lazarus Long 11:08 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, I've removed the brackets also, and added the UK Serenity date. Does anyone have reliable info about the movie? - Jeandré, 2003-06-28t20:46z

Movie.

Should we remove the movie paragraph until there is? - Jeandré, 2003-06-28t20:46z

It is certain that Joss is writing it, Jane Espenson is a reliable source. Of course we won't know for sure they'll really make a movie until Fox approves it. Lazarus Long 11:37 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

According to IMDB, Hollywood reporter, and this article, the Firefly movie is definitely "in production"... obviously it's possible that it won't come together in the end, but I'd say it's past the point of being only in the talk stage. -- Wapcaplet 19:13, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Episode order.

I just edited the episode list with what is supposed to be the definitive order. This should be the order the episodes will be on the DVD set. The production code gives some info for the first part of the season ("79" is typical for pilots), while the last part, with unaired info, was already right and has also been confirmed by Tim Minear on the Buffistas forum, where he wrote:

The order, and (to the best of my recollection) the way it'll shake out on the

DVDs is:

Trash,

The Message,

Heart Of Gold,

Objects In Space

Joss made a minor adjustment in "Objects" when we aired it, and restored said change for the DVD order

I also changed the text before the table accordingly. If somebody can gather data about time-slots, we can add them too.

Lazarus Long 12:37 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Spanish tv.

Can anyone access MundoFox to find out when it will be showing in Mexico and South America? Starting 2003-04-19? - Jeandré, 2003-07-01t23:30z

Finally managed to get info from the mudofox site (it requires MS IE, ugh): Heart of Gold 2003-07-12 so MundoFox, and not SCI-FI UK or SABC3, seems to premiere 13. For more episode order fun see their episode list. - Jeandré, 2003-07-08t20:40z

1AGE13 The message, 26 de julio, 2003. - Jeandré, 2003-07-21t01:18z

Anyone know if http://us.imdb.com/ReleaseDates?0303461 is correct with its Brazilian air date of 2003-01-01, and if so what kinda episode order chaos the Brazillians were treated to? - Jeandré, 2003-07-26t23:45+02:00

According to TVTome, "FOX Latin America" (is this MundoFox?) showed Trash on 2003-06-28 [1], and Heart of gold on 2003-07-19 [2]. Were these dubbed in Spanish, or shown in English? - Jeandré, 2004-05-15t20:15z

Well, unfortunately I don't recall exactly when the show debuted on FOX in Brazil, but I can guarantee that it was not on January 1st 2003. It was sometime between June and August of 2003. The episodes were shown in the exact same order used in the United States and had subtitles in Portuguese (they kept the original audio in English). The unaired episodes (in the US) were shown after "Objects in Space". Right now, probably as a means of covering holes in their schedule, FOX is rerunning all the episodes, again in that messed up order. The original airing time was Tuesdays at 20:00 (right before Buffy the Vampire Slayer). Present reruns are Mondays through Fridays at 17:00. FOX has separated departments for Brazil and the rest of Latin America, because of the Spanish/Portuguese issue, so some of the info concerning Latin America does not apply to Brazil and vice-versa. I imagine that most of what I've written about the show in Brazil did not happen exactly the same in other South-American countries. Hope this was of any use. Redux 01:56, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Trash, Message, and HoG first broadcast where?

Anyone know where the copies available on the 'net of Trash, Message, and HoG were captured from? Were these shown somewhere other than the listed premieres? - Jeandré, 2003-07-13t12:11z

No, someone bought those episodes on eBay and decided to share them, they hadn't aired anywhere yet. Lazarus Long 10:09 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Chinese language.

Why do the crew speak Chinese every now and then? Sometimes just words, but sometimes complete sentences. Was the reason ever revealed? Because I didn't see any person important that look East Asian in the show. --Menchi 10:59 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I don't think they ever explained this. Could be all sorts of reasons - maybe China grew to become very influential in the history preceding the show and Chinese became a second language for many people. Though, it seems that the characters on the show only use Chinese to swear. I'm sure there is a fascinating reason for it... -- Wapcaplet 12:06 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think curses are one of the very first non-native words we learn! Somehow, they're easy to remember and whose meaning can be very inclusive.

What I remember the most is actually their use of Aiya! (see interjection).

--Menchi 22:14 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I recall a print review of the show saying the Alliance was essentially the US and China. So yes on the influential in history hypothesis. -- Jake 11:06, 2003 Nov 7 (UTC)

Yes, the premise is that sometime in the show's past the US and China asimilate each other and a unifed government of the world's only hyperpower backed by corporations like Blue Sun colonise other planets. The idea of cultural fusion and the fact that everyone speaks fluent Chinese is also a convienent way to thumb their nose at US censors! A lot of the names are also oriental sounding (ie Simon Tan) Mark Richards 19:35, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Here's something I found at a Firefly RPG site. Could be useful, although some seem to be phonetic spelling:

"Pocket Guide to Firefly Chinese/Chinglish"

[from http://www.wam.umd.edu/~cadre/]

Fuck You = Chur ni-duh

[Piece of] Shit = Gos se

Bull Shit (nonsense) = Pi hua

Son of a Bitch = Duh liou mahng

Bastard = Hwoon dahn

God Damn = Gorram or Gor'am (not really Chinese)

Damn it! = Zhou ma zhi

Like Hell! = Jien tah duh guay!

Shut up = BEE-jway

In the name of all that's sacred = TYEN shiao-duh

We're in big trouble = Ai ya, wo mun wan leh

Just our Luck = Jen dao mei

Watch your back = Joo ta ma ya ming

[Do you] Understand? = Dong ma?

Can do = Ke yi

Old friend = Lao xiong

That's alright then = Nah may gwon-shee

Don't worry = FAHNG-sheen

Xjaymanx 06:20, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fox broadcast at 20:00?

Did Fox broadcast all the episodes in the USA and Canada on Fridays at 20:00? - Jeandré, 2003-07-21t01:29z

Yep, I just removed the "?" from the article. Lazarus Long 22:47 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Article title.

It's not a television brand, and there's talk of a Firefly comic books series (like Joss' Fray); so, shall we move the article to "Firefly (television series)"? See also Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(television). - Jeandré, 2004-04-10t01:32z

Done. -Sean 01:01, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hypothetical timeline

Just curious: why was the link to the hypothetical Firefly timeline removed? Granted, it could be justifiably removed on other grounds (since it appears to just be one fan's random speculation), but the "no original research" restriction only applies to Wikipedia articles. There's no rule saying we can't link to original research. -- Wapcaplet 01:36, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Judgment call, at least as far as I'm concerned (I can't speak for the others who have removed it). There is nothing to base this speculation on, just random guesses, so I consider it like fan fiction which really doesn't need to be linked to around here. RADICALBENDER★ 02:34, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Shame. I thought it was kind of useful, it wasn't pure speculation, and there are interview sources and hints in the series that would at least give the order of events. Mark Richards 19:27, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wash & Zoë's full names

Also just curious: Why remove the detail of these characters' full names? Is it not considered canon/factual because it hasn't yet appeared in the movie? Rossumcapek 04:18, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• I don't know about that, but since this article is about the TV series, and those full names were never mentioned in the TV series, it seems a little weird to have them there. -- Wapcaplet 10:05, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, the TV series and the film are based on the same characters, so it would seem odd to exclude information about them simply because it does not appear in one of the other. Of course, we should think about how to deal with core information about the characters / ship etc, and not duplicate it in both articles. Mark Richards 18:18, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ummmm... referring me here would make more sense of there was any actual resolution of the issue. It made sense to omit Wash's full name when there was only the "Alan Tudyk" post, but a FireFlyFans.net (I think) poster known to be Nathan Fillion has confirmed the name. SarekOfVulcan 20:16, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The IMDB currently has "Zoë Warren" and "Hoban Washburne." --Rossumcapek 04:07, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Hoban Washburne" is the name I referenced above. "Warren" is a leftover from the "Jerry Lee 'Wash' Warren" mistake, and I don't want to assume that Zoë took her husband's name. SarekOfVulcan 23:44, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Setting

I'm almost positive that Firefly takes place in a single system. Is there any evidence in the series, or in Joss's interviews, that contradicts this? Remember, the narrations state that we used up Earth and moved to a new system. --SarekOfVulcan 18:09, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It seems unclear, there are occasional mentions of 'a whole galaxy of new earths', the details of the distances and capacities of the ships are not really clear. Mark Richards 18:19, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Just basic planetary physics suggests that habitable/terraformable worlds can only exist within a limited distance from the star, even in science fiction. "Rim worlds" would be worlds around suns farthest from the suns of the more populated worlds, the "core worlds". Some suns can have a few terrraformable planets, and a few moons as well, but not many. As other close worlds became more populated and the interconnections between them and the existing core worlds, they too would be considered core. So likely, Sinon and Londinium are part of the same solar system, while Ariel and Osiris are planets of nearby systems. Persephone, which seems to sometimes be a core world and sometimes not (depending on who is asked), is likely in that transition state of "moving into" the core. - UtherSRG 19:27, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but we don't know that that the Alliance solar system is comparable to ours. It may very well have a larger biosphere and a greater number of planets within and bordering that range. We really have no basis for comparison, and if the writers tell us that a system has dozens of habitable and terraformable worlds, it's hard to criticize that without further evidence. Khanartist 20:16, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

To some degree, depending on how accuate the writers want to be. For reality, a solar system with, let's say, a dozen habitable/terraforing, the star would need to be larger and/or hotter to support a wider zone of life. The more potentially habitable planets, the larger the life zone needs to be, putting the zone furhter and further from the sun, and making the sun larger and/or hotter. There's no evidence in the writings suggesting that the system is so large as to have a sun that is distinctively different from our own. The better assumption is that typically the worlds are orbitting different suns much like our own. The writers do give us the hint that they want us to take the science seriously, but to be as amazed at somethings as the characters are:

Wash: Psychic? Sounds like something out of science fiction.
Zoë: We live on a spaceship, dear. 
Wash: So? 

But anyway... you are right that we can argue as much as we want about this, and the writers are free to come up with any decision they want to, whether its based in reality or fantasy. Until the writers do make it explicit that the Alliance system is just a single sun or many suns, we should note this lack of information in the article somehow, and leave it at that. That would be in keeping with NPOV. - UtherSRG 20:59, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've editted the Setting paragraph to remove references to a single planetary system, hopefully making it as ambiguous as the TV show itself is. *grins* - UtherSRG 22:46, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I like your edit on this issue. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan 18:52, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In the episode "Train Job," the female officer on the Alliance starcruiser mentions the Georgia system which implies more than one system. (You wouldn't have separate names if they were in the same system.) Also in "Bushwhacked," Malcolm discussed how the Reavers reached the "edge of the galaxy" (not the "edge of the system"). Plus, many FF sites and RPGs list at least two-or-three dozen terraformed planets/moons which are hard to imagine as being all in one system. -- xjaymanx 06:42, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Depending on context (can you provide? I don't have my DVDs at the moment), I can very easily see someone mentioning a solar system not their own. Also, "system" doesn't necessarily mean solar system - she could be speaking of the moon system of the planet Georgia. The "Bushwhacked" quote is harder to reconcile, and the other sources are non-canon. Khanartist 13:40, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

True. "System" may not necessarily mean "solar system," but if it means something else, then that would be unique in sci-fi television, including Star Trek (e.g. Remus of the Romulus system), Star Wars (e.g. fourth planet of the Hoth system), Babylon 5 (e.g. third planet in the Epsilon Eridani star system), and others. There are also mentions in the series of "border" planets (that is, the border between the Alliance and frontier). It's more likely that this border separates a group of systems (the core of the Alliance) from another group of systems (the frontier, closer to the Rim where reavers roam), rather than a border within a single superhuge system (which would then be an elliptical/orbital border between the inner planets and outer planets). Also, while the sources may not be canon, the planet/moon names are. There's a good list of worlds at the bottom of this page: http://www.browncoats.com/main.php?parent=3e546fa726367&line= . Each planet or moon includes a reference to the episode in which it is mentioned. --xjaymanx 17:40, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"lifted off a train in the Georgia System en route to Paradiso." - the way it's used with a train and the small mining town of Paradiso, might indicate a sparsely populated planetary system (gas planet and it's moons). One wouldn't say "lifted off a train in the Solar System en route to Smallville, Nevada", more likely "lifted off a train in the Saturn System en route to Huygensville". While I think the show does have FTL [3], "the Georgia system" is not proof of that. - Jeandré, 2004-07-21t19:29z

Yeah, "Georgia" system doesn't point to either theory. If the Alliance starcruiser was outside the system, then "Georgia" would be a solar system. If the cruiser was inside the system, then "Georgia" would be a planetary system. Dang, I support the "multiple solar system" and faster-than-light theories, but the lack of evidence clouds this. For another similar discussion, here's an older thread on FireFlyFans.net: http://fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=4&t=2671&m=34843 . --xjaymanx 19:53, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hrm... there's a note that the ships are all slower than light. Is there a specific reference to this in the show? - UtherSRG 22:52, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't think there is any definate statement that they are slower than light. My impression is that, while attention has been paid to some aspects of the physics (like sound in space), others have suffered neglect (like the spaceship power sources and engines). My personal feeling is that the writers are asking for suspension of disbelief in this area, there being an assumption that the engines 'just work'. Mal talks about 'hundreds of new earths' which to me implies many solar systems, but I also don't think it's important. The engine on Serenity seems to have been designed for how it looks, rather than any kind of function. Mark Richards 23:41, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. What important in the Whedonverse is the story, the characters, the dialogue, and the look. All else matters little. So perhaps there are multiple suns, or perhaps it's just one. It's not important to the story, so it's not important to the setting. - UtherSRG 01:17, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A quote from Official Serenity Movie Site:

A small band of [Browncoats] skim the outskirts of the galaxy unnoticed until

they find themselves caught between the unstoppable military force of the

Universal Alliance and the horrific, cannibalistic fury of the Reavers,

savages who roam the very edge of space.

- UtherSRG 02:46, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The phrase "very edge of space" would seem to invalidate the accuracy of that quote. I wrote to them a while back asking if they would fix it, and if I could get points for pointing it out. Didn't get a reply, though... --SarekOfVulcan 21:17, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

wait! i think i may have found some good evidence for faster-than-light (FTL) travel in a "galactic" setting (which is my preference). in the episode "Safe", when Book gets shot, if you forward 22 minutes into the show, wash and mal are looking over star maps. and i say "star maps" because if you see wash's maps, they look a lot like a galaxy and there are a hell of a lot of dots for a solar system, even a large one. could this be proof? --xjaymanx 05:47, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It may be similar to the star map from the promotional pack. The clues from the show seem to me to indicate that they do have FTL travel, tho if we mention anything of it in the article we should say that it's not known. -- Jeandré, 2004-08-01t11:11z

yes! wash's star maps are identical to that! thanx. right, i agree about the article, but it was nice to find that bit of info. --xjaymanx 16:12, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Also check out the star maps Early and Mal look at in Ois. -- Jeandré, 2004-08-01t22:04z

Blues.

What connects the Blue hands to Blue sun? — Jeandré, 2004-10-22t17:45z

yeah, I was wondering about that unilateral strengthening of the statement myself. Metahacker 02:06, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Listen to the commentary on the discs about the show. Whedon links the men with "Hands of blue" as working for the Blue Sun Corporation, if indirectly (due to Joss trying to be clever and vague). "Blue Sun was Coca-cola, it was Microsoft, all in one. Half the government [i.e. Alliance] was Blue Sun," commentary over the scene where Mal and Zoe are walking back to the ship after dealing with Badger (episode 1), and then "We started throwing in Blue Sun signs because we knew they were going to become a major fator later on in the series." "I wanted it to be a more impressive interplanetary conglomerate that is a part of the mystery that we're all heading too."

Now, let's look at this, compared to the show:

1) These things that are said are purposefully vague.

2) Blue Sun is half the Government, which means half (at the very least)the Alliance is Blue Sun controlled. Therefore, due to Joss' own admission, at least half the Alliance = Blue Sun.

3) It is the "mystery" that "we're all heading to." In the show, the least explained, and vaguest major plot point was what happened to River, and why she was being chased by the "men with blue hands." The Blue sun group was going to be a "major factor later in the series.'

4) River went to a Government sponsered [i.e. the Alliance, i.e. Blue Sun] school where she was horribly experimented on.

5) The Men with Blue hands are able to supercede anyone's command in the alliance( if the alliance is going to be delineated from the Blue Sun corporation), and kill alliance members with abandon (i.e. "The Train Job," and, "Ariel"). Unless they were part of some group in ultimate control (i.e., the Alliance, which we have already seen is Blue Sun), they wouldn't have that kind of power. Also, there is some speccific reason why they have BLUE hands, and there is a BLUE Sun corporation (which we know is the Alliance).

6) Since we see the men with Blue Hands work for the Alliance (i.e. Blue Sun), and we find that River was hurt in an Alliance (i.e. Blue Sun) school, and now she's being chased by "men with blue hands" who want her back, and have designated her and her brother as fugitives (and are subsequently also being searched for by the Alliance, further proving the men with blue hands/Alliance connection, and since we know that the Alliance is the Blue Sun corp., connecting them to the blue hands men as well,), there are grounds for making the claim that the "Men with blue hands," are part of the Alliance/Blue Sun Corporation.

Gnrlotto 22:28, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

All good points, but this still amounts to no more than speculation. AFAIK, there yas not yet been any definitive evidence linking the two. Maybe once the film is released, we'll know more (but even then, this article is about the television series, so any such definitive evidence revealed in the film should only be referenced in that context). For all we know, the training center that River attended was not officially within Alliance control - a "black ops" organization, if you will. The blue-hands guys aren't necessarily part of that organization, either; they may want River for other reasons. At any rate, speculation should remain safely outside the confines of the article. -- Wapcaplet 23:11, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I see that my post got convoluted, and the main parts got confused. Here's the facts:

A) Simon says (and since all that we know about the show either comes from the characters, or the show's visuals, or its creators, we must take it as fact) that River went to a government sponsored school. The fact stands that unless otherwise revealed she went to a government school.

B) By all the other characters' admissions (either referencing Alliance personell, or unification, or in passing) the Alliance is the government. Therefore, the alliance being the governing body is fact.

C) By Joss' own admission, the Blue Sun Corporation is the government. Therefore, the Blue Sun Corporation, as revealed by the creator of the show, is the government. This is a fact.

D) Now it is all simple math, as the contested point in the article was whether or not Blue Sun is part of the Alliance.

Characters' admissions: Alliance is the Government.

Joss' admission: Blue Sun is Government.

Mathematical equation: Alliance = Government. Blue Sun = Government.

Therefore, Alliance = Blue Sun.

Gnrlotto 23:35, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Joss says "It was practically half the government, was Blue Sun." in the pilot's commentary. The blue hands may not be in the half that is Blue Sun. — Jeandré, 2004-10-24t13:59z

I got the impression that the blue-hands guys were a secret sub-part of *something*, but to definitely identify them with the corp Blue Sun seems unwise. It seems unlikely for them to be publically associated with either the government or Blue Sun. For one thing, the mil officers they chat with don't seem to know who they are; nor do any of the other crew members twig to the brief description of them. But most damningly, the fact that we're here discussing it means it isn't accepted fact and therefore shouldn't be stated as such on the main page. -- Metahacker 15:09, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, the contested part on the main page was whether or not Blue Sun and the Alliance were the same. I proved they were. The issue of the men with blue hands is for someone else to decide.Gnrlotto 19:07, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't see that you've proved that they were the same: it doesn't follow logically from your premises. Sorry. --SarekOfVulcan 22:07, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As you can see, though, there is some disagreement; I have no problem with the arguments you've made here, but when it carries over into the article as a factual part of the story, it verges on original research, which is discouraged. Joss' commentary could be taken in a number of ways, and to equate Blue Sun with the Alliance in the article seems less than truthful, since the characters don't even mention Blue Sun (though I think Jayne was wearing a Blue Sun T-shirt in one episode), while they talk about the Alliance quite often. I think the current phrasing in the article ("of which the 'Blue Sun Corporation' is either a part or a whole") is adequate, without going too far. -- Wapcaplet 20:27, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Listening to Joss' commentary isn't research. It' not something hard to search for, that takes a long time to find. Either you listen to it and get his info or you don't, but this is beside the point. I made that change to the article (either a part of or a whole) to show that Blue Sun is indeed Alliance connected; to say otherwise is being unfactual.Gnrlotto 00:09, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Let's agree that original research is the creation of a thesis statement that has not existed before. In the case of reporting on DVD commentary tracks, then the following would apply:

NOT ORIGINAL RESEARCH

- Paraprashing or indirect quoting commentary, noting it as possible, verfiable opinion or conjecture. Citing someone else's original work or opinion in the proper context is neither original research nor inherently POV biased.

- Citing the commentary as source material for fact checking or reporting

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

- Using the commentary as a basis for editor-created conjecture of any type.

[[User:Davodd|DAVODD «TALK»]] 22:00, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

If a story element was merely planned but didn't happen in the show itself, it's not canon and not factual. Similarly, anything not found in the primary source is original research. The original hypothetical was the better sentence. Khanartist 20:21, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would think what you're saying held water if the quote didn't come from THE SHOW'S CREATOR, but oh well. But based on your way of thinking, there should also be no connection between the men with "hands of blue" and the Alliance as no relationship(i.e. chain of command, hierarchy, branch circumvention) is clearly expressed in the show.Gnrlotto 15:13, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You are confusing truth with canon, Gnr. What Joss says on a commentary may be truth, but he is free to create new episodes (or, in Firefly's case, movies) that contradict what he says in thos commentaries. His commentaries are his understanding of his creation, but what he actually produces may be something contrary to his own understanding. What gets produced is canon. Serenity may show us that the three concepts of "The Alliance", "Blue Sun Corporation" and the blue handed men may be different aspects of each other, may be allied factions, or may be competing factions working behind the scenes. Or we may get no further canonical facts regarding the relationship. - UtherSRG 16:09, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As for no relationship being shown, I beg to differ. When River, Simon, Mal and Zoe get caught in the hospital, the Alliance officers show a distinct subservience to the blue hands, although the blues turn around and kill the officers anyway. - UtherSRG 16:09, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

UtherSRG, just because they show subservience shows no more connection than Blue Sun being the government just becuase every factory-made product used in the show (food, shipping, clothing, etc.) has their logo on it. The FBI could come into your house and you would most likely back down; does it mean you work for them?Gnrlotto 02:46, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That smacks of fancruft mentality. Wikipedia is not a fan site - it is an unabridged encyclopedia. How are we to fight "The Ecyclopedia that Slashdot Built" albatross if we tolerate fannish POV edit wars on what is and is not "canon" in this case? We are here to document all verifiable facts. This includes unpopular or non-canon verifiable facts. Abridging the article because of edit POV rather than relevance harms the legitimacy of the entire article (as well as the entire Wikipedia concept). If a fact is verifiable and relevant to the topic at hand, it probably should be included - in the correct context. [[User:Davodd|DAVODD «TALK»]] 22:11, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

I think you're exactly right on the first point - this is not a fan site. And I agree with your second point as well, if by "verifiable fact" you mean a real-world fact, rather than a "proof" of an in-story "fact" such as Gnrlotto has provided above. The restriction to canon only really applies to the part of the article that describes the setting and characters; any non-canon facts can of course be included outside that scope (for instance, who plays the characters, when the episodes aired, or what's on the DVD). Restricting the story description to canon avoids the potential problem of including a multitude of fan speculations (each backed by a proof similar to the above) as though they were part of the story. We can say "Joss Whedon said in episode commentary that 'half the government was Blue Sun'", but I think it's dangerous to interpret that into "Blue Sun is part of the Alliance," as if that were revealed in the show. It wasn't. Joss says some kooky stuff, and not much of it can be taken literally. Consider: "I think we'll be bringing you an exciting film that's a powerful statement about the right to be free. Which is not as cool as my original statement about the right to tasty garlic mussels in a cilantro broth, but the freedom thing's okay too."[4] So, do we include in the Serenity synopsis that the movie was originally going to be about tasty garlic mussels? -- Wapcaplet 00:54, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think we are in 100% agreement in that information (canon or not) is only useful if it is presented in the correct context. [[User:Davodd|DAVODD «TALK»]] 07:04, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

I just listened to the Serenity commentary by Joss/Nathan. Gnrlotto left out a pretty significant bit of what Joss said: "Sometimes you don't know - I hadn't 100% figured out what I wanted to do with Blue Sun, how I wanted you guys [meaning the cast] to approach it..." and goes on to say that it was "...connected somehow with the mystery we're all heading to." When he says that it was like Microsoft or Coca-Cola, and that "half the government was Blue Sun", it sounds to me as if he is simply alluding to Blue Sun's influence as an interplanetary conglomerate; that it is powerful and omni-present. He may just be hiding facts about Blue Sun that he already knows, but it sounds more as though he didn't have a very precise idea of what Blue Sun would come to represent. I'll be rewriting parts of the article to bring this topic into it (since the current mention of Blue Sun is weirdly out of place amidst a discussion of the series' setting). -- Wapcaplet 18:45, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Removals

Some stuff I took out:

• (about cancellation): [I]t was also suggested that Whedon's additional responsibilities on Angel after co-creator David Greenwalt's departure from that show was a contributing factor
  • I've always been uncomfortable with this bit, since it's not referenced; I fail to see how Whedon's additional responsibilities on Angel could have adversely impacted Firefly. It's not like he slacked off or did a lousy job on Firefly because of it, and most of the episodes were most likely done by the time Greenwalt departed (anyone know when that was?)
• Some have noted that Reynolds' story appears to be modelled on the life of Jesse James. This may explain the western theme for a science-fiction show. Others say that Space Westerns are a very common form of the literary device known pejoratively as "used furniture".
  • Unless someone can provide references as to who these "some" and "others" are, I don't see a place for this. I don't see any particular parallels between Reynolds and Jesse James.
• (about those who exploited/damaged River): presumably by the agency whose operatives include the "men in blue gloves"
  • Speculation. We don't know who the blue dudes are. They want River, but maybe it's to kill her, recruit her for their organization, etc. I always kind of thought that Jubal Earley was someone from the organization that experimented on River; Earley seemed like a marginally more socially functioning version of River, a partially psychic impartial observer with directed brain damage.
• (about River's exploitation): (but with strong hints of brain tampering to bring out a natural psychic ability)
  • Also speculation. Brain tampering fairly obvious; reasons for it unobvious.
• (about Book): though there are hints that he is the agent of some organization with an interest in the welfare of River and Simon.
  • More speculation. I always figured he was protective of the Tams because he's a nice guy. I rephrased Book's bio to be more neutral, without diluting his mysteriousness.

I added the "Speculations" section at the bottom. I tried to use neutral, facts-only phrasing here. -- Wapcaplet 19:52, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Speculation - Multiple Planets

"It should be noted that the show was, by necessity, not filmed on multiple planets."

What does this even mean? Of course the show wasn't filmed on multiple planets...I don't see many productions being made on Mars.

On the other hand, if the person means that every planet in the show looks the same because they're all supposed to be the same planet, then this is also wrong.

I'm removing this until someone clarifies what they mean. Gnrlotto 02:31, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What it means that every planet looks the same not because they were supposed to be the same, but because they are, in reality outisde the show, the same. Griping and speculating about every planet looking the same is fairly pointless because, as you noted, it's not as if the production crew is going to film on another planet for verisimilitude. Khanartist 03:33, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In my revert I also reinstated your removal of the product label mentions, as it wasn't justified. If you have a good reason for why it shouldn't be there, I'm open to it. Khanartist 03:37, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Every planet looks the same? I don't really think so. Sure, they did seem to visit quite a few planets that all look like the Wild West, but there was also Ariel, Persephone and others that had a different look entirely. Think of the floating islands from "Trash," or the English-countryside look of the duel scene in "Shindig." Maybe a lot of the planets on which there was human settlement were mostly barren rocks. Maybe we see so many barren desert areas simply because that's where Malcolm Reynolds tends to do business most often. Keep in mind, also, that all of the planets we see are terraformed for human life. -- Wapcaplet 04:16, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• • I should have pointed out more clearly that this is in reference to light-sourcing, not geology or colonization. Khanartist 04:38, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you mean light-sourcing, then you are also incorrect. They can change the filters on cameras, and use different lighting to give planets different appearances. Remember the planet in Pitch Black? One of it's three suns was blue (ironic, huh?), so when it was in the sky, they used a blue filter. Firefly never changes it's filters for that, and they don't do it by necessity, either. The removal is justified.Gnrlotto 15:40, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There was a comment about not being able to see other planets/moons in the sky: this is incorrect. Look behind Mal in "The Train Job" when he calls Wash for his grand entrance.--SarekOfVulcan 19:00, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)