Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

AOQ Firefly Review 6: "Our Mrs. Reynolds"

5 views
Skip to first unread message

Arbitrar Of Quality

unread,
Apr 15, 2007, 3:12:01 PM4/15/07
to
FIREFLY
Season One, Episode 6: "Our Mrs. Reynolds"
(or "Tear our love apart")
Writer: Joss Whedon
Director: Vondie Curtis Hall

This was another turning point for me in my fandom, I think. Between
the Western influences in the series's whole premise, the accidental-
challenge tale of "Shindig," and this screwball comedy, _Firefly_ has
been doing a lot of dabbling in storylines in which I'm not
particularly interested. "Our Mrs. Reynolds" was basically a
demonstration that no matter what _Firefly_ is doing on any given
week, a show with Joss Whedon at the helm will find a way to do
whatever it does in an entertaining way.

First let's quickly run through the opening stuff planet-side, which
has its own separate sense of style. The visuals convey the sense of
the wide-open and wet frontier, among the most evocative of the series
to date. And Mal's having a chipper day, what with how much he seems
to be enjoying himself. Afterward, it's a good time to catch the crew
(although not the passengers - do they ever get to have any fun?) in a
rare happy moment, just feeling very pleased with themselves as crime
and helping converge. This part includes a character-setting shot of
Book, being the one to stay back and quietly bury the dead while
everyone else dances and drinks. It's a good moment. Later in the
episode, he gets a rare chance to do some hardcore justified (in his
mind) preacher-style moralizing, and I'm pondering whether he enjoys
that or not.

>From the shooting script: "[NOTE: If a river is an impossibility,
wagon in a glade will suffice. But water makes it cooler.]"

OMR ends up being a pleasant episode, but you know what? I'm going to
have to live up to my reputation and be a third one don't find this
funny. Mal's doing the best he can, and from all sides gets people
glaring at him and/or crying if he tries to get rid of his new bride
or if he acts too nice to her. Then the longer Saffron stays on the
ship, the more sexually needy she gets, while Book is there to hold
Mal responsible for the whole thing. It's an untenable situation, and
I resent the crew a little bit for their lack of understanding. Zoe
in particular is uncharacteristically mean and irritating (despite
getting one of the episode's best lines, quoted below), in a way that
I can't reconcile with the previous episodes. She's the loudest of
the cheerleaders trying to concertedly make her captain's life as
difficult as possible, and then she turns on Wash for, I guess,
chastely showing the slightest appreciation for certain quaint
customs. I'm with him on his rather entertainingly delivered "now
it's even my fault? Is there anything else on your mind that I should
know about?" I don't know what we're supposed to draw from this,
unless it's that even the most practical of women acts in a way that
defies any type of thought that it's possible to make sense of, and I
don't think that was meant to be the point.

But those of us who can't bring ourselves to laugh at Mal's misfortune
(why do I have the sinking feeling that I didn't need to use the
plural there?), we can feel sorry for the poor guy. And OMR
accomplishes that, as our hero juggles everyone's feelings and tries
in passing to teach the innocent little girl a little bit about
standing up for herself. Just when that's starting to stabilize,
she's naked and coming on to him in a way that makes it far beyond
simply consensual from her side, making damn sure he knows he can be
released from most of his honorable restraint obligations if he
wants. Every time I watch this, despite my usual dislike for such
things, I get swept up in navigating the discomforts of this story,
and that's even knowing that Saffron's not what she seems.

Which one feels like one "should" have seen coming a mile away,
knowing how Joss works. We've exhausted the limits of one story, and
we're never content to do the ordinary. In actuality, I was totally
fooled, and it holds up well on re-watching because the false story is
engaging enough. That's the best way to do an old-fashioned plot
twist.

Feel like I don't have much to say about this episode compared to some
of the denser ones of the series. Nothing to say about the look into
Wash's head re: Zoe, for instance; just doesn't do much for me. River
doesn't even have any lines as far as I can recall, although I'm
actually glad that the pillow scene didn't make the final version. On
the crew note, though, I'm never quite sure what to make of Jayne's
drunken gratitude for the rain stick, given that he's back to normal
later; I think it was, very briefly, genuine, which is just... weird.
Jumping ahead to his attempt to trade Vera for Saffron ("a trade?
Hell, it's theft"), the episode seems to be daring us to come up with
our own take on Jayne, as generous or non-generous as we want.
Totally amoral and sick, or almost innocent and child-like in his lack
of understanding, or anywhere between. Vicissitudes, man.

Another character that this episode provides a bit of a new look at is
Inara. She's much as we know throughout most of the episode,
particularly the confrontation with Saffron in which the dialogue
flies by and crackles like one would expect from two seasoned pros. I
like the very quick moment of action in which Inara keeps herself safe
but loses sight of preventing our evil Companion from escaping. But
then after she has a moment of emotion and kisses Mal, and wakes up
groggy and drugged, she starts doing dopey comedy when trying to avoid
sharing what happened. I think it's the first time in the series
we've seen her without her omnipresent poise. The mask fits very
loosely, but she's still trying desperately to hold it in place, just
by nature.

I'm going to say that I have no idea what exactly was supposed to be
going on with putting the space-suit over a gun, apparently creating
an environment that keeps air from being sucked out yet isn't
compromised when bullets fly out from inside it. Who knows? I also
don't know why no one else is shooting. But the net is a cool idea,
and there are some nice visuals in there - Joss's episodes get all the
coolest things, huh? No sound in space isn't just a stylistic touch
here, it's a bona fide advantage.

The writers are clearly having a lot of fun coming up with the
different planets' Biblical verses. Let 'em indulge, I guess. I'm
officially getting a tad weary of ending acts on Mal doing a comically
confused double-take. Fillion does it pretty well, but it's starting
to wear out its welcome. Also, OMR is a little too into characters
repeating each others' dialogue for my taste.

>From there, we get a feel-good fight to end the show, and it's off to
the next adventure with our fun-loving band of rogue criminals.
Shouldn't be my style, but I could totally stand more episodes like
this. Even if it ends by pushing Mal and Inara into a more
straightforward "both secretly in love with each other" than the show
deserves, it has a closing gag that's funny in a rueful way.

This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed Anyway moment(s):
- "We'd always hoped you two kids would get together. Who is she?"
- "Hello? Woman... person?"
- "And don't you ever stand for that sort of thing. Someone ever
tries to kill
you, you try to kill 'em right back!"
- "Remember that sex we were planning to have, ever again?"
- "Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a
middle"
- The call-back to the juggled goslings
- "Okay! Everybody not talking about sex, in here. Everybody else,
elsewhere."


So...

One-sentence summary: Disarming.

AOQ rating: Good

[Ratings so far:
1) "Serenity" - Excellent
2) "The Train Job" - Good
3) "Bushwhacked" - Decent
4) "Shindig" - Good
5) "Safe" - Decent
6) "Our Mrs. Reynolds" - Good]

mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges

unread,
Apr 15, 2007, 5:47:54 PM4/15/07
to
> Jumping ahead to his attempt to trade Vera for Saffron ("a trade?
> Hell, it's theft"), the episode seems to be daring us to come up with

lest we forget the zeppo

Xander: Yeah. Great knife. Although I think, uh, it may technically be
a, a sword.

Jack: She's called 'Katie'.

Xander: You gave it a girl's name. How very serial killer of you.
(turns to Lysette) Listen, I think we should be going.

meow arf meow - they are performing horrible experiments in space
major grubert is watching you - beware the bakalite
impeach the bastard - the airtight garage has you neo

Donny Macro

unread,
Apr 15, 2007, 5:57:16 PM4/15/07
to

"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176664321.8...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...

> FIREFLY
> Season One, Episode 6: "Our Mrs. Reynolds"
> (or "Tear our love apart")

Check out the deleted scene from this episode, only removed for time
reasons. River and the pillow, and more 'people really need to listen to
River.'

This episode makes me think we almost need different rankings for type of
episode, this is slapstick comedy at its best in my opinion.

I might rate this one higher than you did, but as it is the first one I saw
that made me realize that I was seeing something completely different and
special... and made me literally fall off the couch laughing, I have a soft
spot for it.


Donny Macro

unread,
Apr 15, 2007, 6:00:51 PM4/15/07
to

"Donny Macro" <donny...@gmail.attitude.com> wrote in message
news:0dxUh.1895$BS2.1560@trndny01...

>
> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1176664321.8...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>> FIREFLY
>> Season One, Episode 6: "Our Mrs. Reynolds"
>> (or "Tear our love apart")
>
>
>
> Check out the deleted scene from this episode, only removed for time
> reasons. River and the pillow, and more 'people really need to listen to
> River.'
>

When I show people this episode I pause the episode and play the deleted
scene then go back and finish the episode... really wish you had the option
of seeing this episode with that deleted scene intact (without switching
dvds).


EGK

unread,
Apr 15, 2007, 6:41:08 PM4/15/07
to
On 15 Apr 2007 12:12:01 -0700, "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com>
wrote:


>This was another turning point for me in my fandom, I think. Between
>the Western influences in the series's whole premise, the accidental-
>challenge tale of "Shindig," and this screwball comedy, _Firefly_ has
>been doing a lot of dabbling in storylines in which I'm not
>particularly interested. "Our Mrs. Reynolds" was basically a
>demonstration that no matter what _Firefly_ is doing on any given
>week, a show with Joss Whedon at the helm will find a way to do
>whatever it does in an entertaining way.

>One-sentence summary: Disarming.

There's a special hell for people who don't rate this episode excellent.

Seriously, this was the episode where I thought Firefly really hit it's
stride and became something special itself. Serenity, the pilot, hadn't
been shown yet and I thought earlier episodes suffered somewhat from the
lack of context. This one had the dialog and characterization that made
Buffy such a great series.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"There would be a lot more civility in this world if people
didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you"
(Calvin and Hobbes)

Venger

unread,
Apr 15, 2007, 7:22:03 PM4/15/07
to

"EGK" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:haa5239agisle74fi...@4ax.com...

> On 15 Apr 2007 12:12:01 -0700, "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>This was another turning point for me in my fandom, I think. Between
>>the Western influences in the series's whole premise, the accidental-
>>challenge tale of "Shindig," and this screwball comedy, _Firefly_ has
>>been doing a lot of dabbling in storylines in which I'm not
>>particularly interested. "Our Mrs. Reynolds" was basically a
>>demonstration that no matter what _Firefly_ is doing on any given
>>week, a show with Joss Whedon at the helm will find a way to do
>>whatever it does in an entertaining way.
>
>>One-sentence summary: Disarming.
>
> There's a special hell for people who don't rate this episode excellent.
>
> Seriously, this was the episode where I thought Firefly really hit it's
> stride and became something special itself. Serenity, the pilot, hadn't
> been shown yet and I thought earlier episodes suffered somewhat from the
> lack of context. This one had the dialog and characterization that made
> Buffy such a great series.

Have to concur. The outstanding interplay between the
characters...especially between Book and Mal... isn't that... special.

And Jayne... love Jayne. All I got was a stupid stick sounds like it's
rainin'...

Loved the ending... I gotta admit, they snookered me, thought Mal had her
dead to rights on the kiss, and then... whoosh, right over the head...

Venger
P.S. Though, alas, no need for Vera to wear a space suit, a gun will fire in
space, every time...


mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges

unread,
Apr 15, 2007, 8:05:23 PM4/15/07
to
> Venger
> P.S. Though, alas, no need for Vera to wear a space suit, a gun will fire in
> space, every time...

suits dont instantly completely deflate through one small hole
the breech which is more the most signficant combusion is deeper in the suit
possibly belted off from the helmet to slow its decompression
and they could be adding oxygen fast enough to offset the loss

as usual we are not enough details to know exactly how plausible this was

in any case i thought cartridges were sealed container
with both oxidizer and charge and didnt need outside air
might screw up gas pressure for automatic fire but manual as well?

George W Harris

unread,
Apr 15, 2007, 10:27:32 PM4/15/07
to
On 15 Apr 2007 12:12:01 -0700, "Arbitrar Of Quality"
<tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:

:Another character that this episode provides a bit of a new look at is
:Inara.

I very much liked Mal's exit line "Way I see it, me and
her got a thing in common. We're the only ones who don't
think this is funny" with the camera coming to rest on Inara,
who clearly shares that feeling.
--
Real men don't need macho posturing to bolster their egos.

George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'.

Atlas Bugged

unread,
Apr 15, 2007, 11:13:59 PM4/15/07
to
"EGK" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:haa5239agisle74fi...@4ax.com...
> Seriously, this was the episode where I thought Firefly really hit it's
> stride and became something special itself.

Ditto. This was the episode where I said to myself, "Holy shit. Televised
sci-fi just leaped to a new generation."

My reasons mostly revolved around the intense ending.

And I too saw the episode out-of-order, so I hadn't seen (I'd say) the
better episodes which had preceded it, nor the remarkable masterpieces that
were to shortly follow.

I disagree that OMR was the heights, but it was the episode that drew me in,
made further investigation mandatory. I rate the shows (and books and
comics and etc.) here:
<http://snipurl.com/krwl>
Atlas Bugged, Sunday, April 15, 2007
--
SERENITY/FIREFLY FAQ, PLUS!
http://snipurl.com/k8ui "One page, all you need to know, referenced."
STARGATE ATLANTIS FAQ
http://snipurl.com/SGAFAQ "Still just a draft, perhaps daft, help to make it
better."
GOODBYE, SG-1
http://snipurl.com/1d8kw "Homage to the legend w/ last ep comments, no
spoilers."
TROLL/RATS:
http://snipurl.com/19k1q "Referenced guide to stinkers that hide."


C.O.Jones

unread,
Apr 16, 2007, 12:59:26 AM4/16/07
to
In article <BsyUh.518$Ir2...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net>, Venger
<ven...@augustmail.com> wrote:

> Venger
> P.S. Though, alas, no need for Vera to wear a space suit, a gun will fire in
> space, every time...

Oh, @#$%! Not this dead horse, again! Look, the guns that they use may
LOOK like 21st century guns, but they are NOT. They are not using 21st
century guns, but 26th century guns. Being trapped here in the 21st
century, we do not have any idea how they actually work, or why. Jayne
said Vera would not shoot in a vaccum, therefore the science of that
particular weapon means IT WILL NOT fire in a vaccum withouyt a case.

--
////////// \\\\\\\\\\\
The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity.
-- Harlan Ellison

Apteryx

unread,
Apr 16, 2007, 7:42:46 AM4/16/07
to
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176664321.8...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...

> FIREFLY
> Season One, Episode 6: "Our Mrs. Reynolds"
> (or "Tear our love apart")
> Writer: Joss Whedon
> Director: Vondie Curtis Hall
>
> This was another turning point for me in my fandom, I think. Between
> the Western influences in the series's whole premise, the accidental-
> challenge tale of "Shindig," and this screwball comedy, _Firefly_ has
> been doing a lot of dabbling in storylines in which I'm not
> particularly interested. "Our Mrs. Reynolds" was basically a
> demonstration that no matter what _Firefly_ is doing on any given
> week, a show with Joss Whedon at the helm will find a way to do
> whatever it does in an entertaining way.

Hm, so far so good. I had been thinking all the hilarity in this episode
would be an obstacle for you.

> First let's quickly run through the opening stuff planet-side, which
> has its own separate sense of style. The visuals convey the sense of
> the wide-open and wet frontier, among the most evocative of the series
> to date. And Mal's having a chipper day, what with how much he seems
> to be enjoying himself. Afterward, it's a good time to catch the crew
> (although not the passengers - do they ever get to have any fun?) in a
> rare happy moment, just feeling very pleased with themselves as crime
> and helping converge. This part includes a character-setting shot of
> Book, being the one to stay back and quietly bury the dead while
> everyone else dances and drinks. It's a good moment.

Yep. Sometimes virtue is its own reward.

>
> OMR ends up being a pleasant episode, but you know what? I'm going to
> have to live up to my reputation and be a third one don't find this
> funny.

Hm, that didn't last long.

> Mal's doing the best he can, and from all sides gets people
> glaring at him and/or crying if he tries to get rid of his new bride
> or if he acts too nice to her. Then the longer Saffron stays on the
> ship, the more sexually needy she gets, while Book is there to hold
> Mal responsible for the whole thing. It's an untenable situation, and
> I resent the crew a little bit for their lack of understanding.

What's to understand. Unflappable Mal has been hung out to dry and left
flapping in the breeze. Something everyone can enjoy.


> Zoe
> in particular is uncharacteristically mean and irritating (despite
> getting one of the episode's best lines, quoted below), in a way that
> I can't reconcile with the previous episodes. She's the loudest of
> the cheerleaders trying to concertedly make her captain's life as
> difficult as possible, and then she turns on Wash for, I guess,
> chastely showing the slightest appreciation for certain quaint
> customs. I'm with him on his rather entertainingly delivered "now
> it's even my fault? Is there anything else on your mind that I should
> know about?" I don't know what we're supposed to draw from this,
> unless it's that even the most practical of women acts in a way that
> defies any type of thought that it's possible to make sense of, and I
> don't think that was meant to be the point.

It started out as just innocent fun for Zoe, but all went horribly wrong
when Saffron cooked, only for Mal, but left things set up in the kitchen in
case Zoe wanted to cook for her husband.

> But those of us who can't bring ourselves to laugh at Mal's misfortune
> (why do I have the sinking feeling that I didn't need to use the
> plural there?)

Experience?

>
> Which one feels like one "should" have seen coming a mile away,
> knowing how Joss works. We've exhausted the limits of one story, and
> we're never content to do the ordinary. In actuality, I was totally
> fooled, and it holds up well on re-watching because the false story is
> engaging enough. That's the best way to do an old-fashioned plot
> twist.

I suspected a twist along those lines not only from it being a Joss story
but because there have have been occaisional similarities between this
series and Blakes Seven and the latter has an episode ("Assassin") where the
supposedly weak and submissive slave girl of a hired killer turns out to be
the killer herself. Even so, the moment of the twist took me by surprise,
because like Mal, I was distracted.

>
> Another character that this episode provides a bit of a new look at is
> Inara. She's much as we know throughout most of the episode,
> particularly the confrontation with Saffron in which the dialogue
> flies by and crackles like one would expect from two seasoned pros. I
> like the very quick moment of action in which Inara keeps herself safe
> but loses sight of preventing our evil Companion from escaping. But
> then after she has a moment of emotion and kisses Mal, and wakes up
> groggy and drugged, she starts doing dopey comedy when trying to avoid
> sharing what happened. I think it's the first time in the series
> we've seen her without her omnipresent poise. The mask fits very
> loosely, but she's still trying desperately to hold it in place, just
> by nature.

Poor Inara, beaten at every turn by Saffron. But not because Saffron is any
better or any smarter - just that she's prepared to be ruthless in her
exploitation of Mal.

> I'm going to say that I have no idea what exactly was supposed to be
> going on with putting the space-suit over a gun, apparently creating
> an environment that keeps air from being sucked out yet isn't
> compromised when bullets fly out from inside it. Who knows?

Odd. Maybe just an excuse to let Vera get dressed up. But more likely a goof
because they just didn't realise a gun could be fired in a vacuum.


>
> This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed Anyway moment(s):
> - "We'd always hoped you two kids would get together. Who is she?"
> - "Hello? Woman... person?"
> - "And don't you ever stand for that sort of thing. Someone ever
> tries to kill
> you, you try to kill 'em right back!"


Not to mention the prescient follow-up, "You got the right same as anyone
to live and try to kill people."

> - "Remember that sex we were planning to have, ever again?"
> - "Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a
> middle"
> - The call-back to the juggled goslings
> - "Okay! Everybody not talking about sex, in here. Everybody else,
> elsewhere."
>
>
> So...
>
> One-sentence summary: Disarming.
>
> AOQ rating: Good

Good for me too. Though the kind of Good that would probably be Excellent if
I handed out Excellents as freely as you. We get to see Mal trounced in a
battle of wits, and saved only by the teamwork of his crew. It's all good.
Plus it's very funny. It's currently my 2nd favourite FF episode, and could
easily finish first if the current leader slips up on next viewing. The
rating I give it (3.75) is the same as Intervention, the 27th best BtVS
episode, and between Soul Purpose and Reprise, the 7th and 8th best AtS
episodes.

--
Apteryx


Venger

unread,
Apr 16, 2007, 10:25:30 AM4/16/07
to

"C.O.Jones" <ap...@solidbrass.com> wrote in message
news:150420072159265017%ap...@solidbrass.com...

> In article <BsyUh.518$Ir2...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net>, Venger
> <ven...@augustmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Venger
>> P.S. Though, alas, no need for Vera to wear a space suit, a gun will fire
>> in
>> space, every time...
>
> Oh, @#$%! Not this dead horse, again! Look, the guns that they use may
> LOOK like 21st century guns, but they are NOT. They are not using 21st
> century guns, but 26th century guns. Being trapped here in the 21st
> century, we do not have any idea how they actually work, or why. Jayne
> said Vera would not shoot in a vaccum, therefore the science of that
> particular weapon means IT WILL NOT fire in a vaccum withouyt a case.

So, a 21st century gun, created by a terrestrially bound human race, will
fire in space, but a 26th century gun, created by a human race that is
exploring outer space, won't?

Give.
Us.
A.
Break.

Face it. The writers just bonked it. It's okay. This didn't ruin the episode
for anyone. Just like it wasn't ruined in "Out of gas" when Serenity lost
all power, but everyone still had artificial gravity. We give them little
passes.

However, bending reality to incorporate abject stupidity - like suggesting
firearm technology regresses to 17th century levels making this a deliberate
oversight - doesn't make a lick of sense.

Venger

Venger

unread,
Apr 16, 2007, 10:28:40 AM4/16/07
to

"mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges"
<mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mair_fheal-C34F2...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...

>> Venger
>> P.S. Though, alas, no need for Vera to wear a space suit, a gun will fire
>> in
>> space, every time...
>
> suits dont instantly completely deflate through one small hole
> the breech which is more the most signficant combusion is deeper in the
> suit
> possibly belted off from the helmet to slow its decompression
> and they could be adding oxygen fast enough to offset the loss
>
> as usual we are not enough details to know exactly how plausible this was
>
> in any case i thought cartridges were sealed container
> with both oxidizer and charge and didnt need outside air
> might screw up gas pressure for automatic fire but manual as well?

Simple physics. It's just a case of guys not familiar with guns overwriting.

Not an ender at all... really not worth a big hang up. Didn't bother me one
bit - just something of note.

Venger

mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges

unread,
Apr 16, 2007, 10:58:45 AM4/16/07
to
> Face it. The writers just bonked it. It's okay. This didn't ruin the episode
> for anyone. Just like it wasn't ruined in "Out of gas" when Serenity lost
> all power, but everyone still had artificial gravity. We give them little
> passes.

thats a convention established by startrek
its too expensive to film in free fall
and its hard to simulate it on earth surface
so they always have normal earth gravity in space

David Buchner

unread,
Apr 16, 2007, 11:17:06 AM4/16/07
to

> "mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges"
> > in any case i thought cartridges were sealed container
> > with both oxidizer and charge and didnt need outside air
> > might screw up gas pressure for automatic fire but manual as well?

Hey, I hadn't thought of that rationalization before -- and maybe Vera's
action works in some way that it requires that pressure to function,
regardless of auto/manual operation? Maybe the simple fact that he
couldn't reach under the circumstances to pull back the bolt manual?

*Would* vacuum screw up the workings of a gas-operated action? I'm not
sure.

Venger <ven...@augustmail.com> wrote:
> Simple physics. It's just a case of guys not familiar with guns overwriting.
>
> Not an ender at all... really not worth a big hang up. Didn't bother me one
> bit - just something of note.

Ditto. Better still: it's a case of guys not familiar with guns, at
least earnestly *trying* to make hard sci-fi. Until you start picking it
apart, the scene *feels* like grittily-realistic outer space. Which
counts for a lot, with me.

David Buchner

unread,
Apr 16, 2007, 11:17:07 AM4/16/07
to
Venger <ven...@augustmail.com> wrote:


> Face it. The writers just bonked it. It's okay. This didn't ruin the episode
> for anyone. Just like it wasn't ruined in "Out of gas" when Serenity lost
> all power, but everyone still had artificial gravity. We give them little
> passes.

Worse for me, in "Out of Gas," is that it seems like when they lose
power the ship stops moving at all. That's as bad as Star Trek.

> However, bending reality to incorporate abject stupidity - like suggesting
> firearm technology regresses to 17th century levels making this a deliberate
> oversight - doesn't make a lick of sense.

But it's a fun game to play. ;-)

Venger

unread,
Apr 16, 2007, 11:30:58 AM4/16/07
to

"mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges"
<mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mair_fheal-BC804...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...

>> Face it. The writers just bonked it. It's okay. This didn't ruin the
>> episode
>> for anyone. Just like it wasn't ruined in "Out of gas" when Serenity lost
>> all power, but everyone still had artificial gravity. We give them little
>> passes.
>
> thats a convention established by startrek
> its too expensive to film in free fall
> and its hard to simulate it on earth surface
> so they always have normal earth gravity in space

And everyone speaks English. It's all good, I'd rather not break out the
Universal Translator, so I willingly give a pass to many a sci-fi literary
convention...

Venger

mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges

unread,
Apr 16, 2007, 11:31:00 AM4/16/07
to
In article <1hwnr54.146qo3allshegN%buc...@wcta.net>,
buc...@wcta.net (David Buchner) wrote:

> Venger <ven...@augustmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Face it. The writers just bonked it. It's okay. This didn't ruin the episode
> > for anyone. Just like it wasn't ruined in "Out of gas" when Serenity lost
> > all power, but everyone still had artificial gravity. We give them little
> > passes.
>
> Worse for me, in "Out of Gas," is that it seems like when they lose
> power the ship stops moving at all. That's as bad as Star Trek.

unless youre moving close to the speed of light
the stars dont translate fast enough to show
they only show rotation not translation

its the one big mistake of 2001
when dave is in the pod chasing the body
you can see the stars moving with respect to the pod

David Brewer

unread,
Apr 16, 2007, 11:49:38 AM4/16/07
to
David Buchner wrote:
>> "mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges"
>>> in any case i thought cartridges were sealed container
>>> with both oxidizer and charge and didnt need outside air
>>> might screw up gas pressure for automatic fire but manual as well?
>
> Hey, I hadn't thought of that rationalization before -- and maybe Vera's
> action works in some way that it requires that pressure to function,
> regardless of auto/manual operation? Maybe the simple fact that he
> couldn't reach under the circumstances to pull back the bolt manual?
>
> *Would* vacuum screw up the workings of a gas-operated action? I'm not
> sure.


Vacuum will screw up the workings of pretty much any firearm, as I
understand it. I don't feel entirely competent to consider how the
pressure curve will vary according to the outside pressure (not
enough, I would hazard, to make any difference) but space is
really, really rather "cold" (I'm kind of simplifying here,
sunlight can be wicked hot). Not only will components, especially
metal components, become weaker and more brittle, but I've read
that in a vacuum, cold metal parts will just weld themselves
together spontaneously.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_weld

Keeping a terrestrial firearm in a warm, pressurised container
make all kinds of sense to me. That they just did it, and didn't
exposit about the need for it earns even more points with me.


--
David Brewer

William George Ferguson

unread,
Apr 16, 2007, 12:49:49 PM4/16/07
to
"Venger" <ven...@augustmail.com> wrote:

>P.S. Though, alas, no need for Vera to wear a space suit, a gun will fire in
>space, every time...

Well, a gun using anything like current ammunition/propellent will fire in
space at least once. Whether it will fire a second time, much less every
time, is another question, and depends on the design and manufacture of the
gun, and current guns aren't designed specifically to fire in space,
anymore than they are designed to fire under water (another place where
they'll fire, at least once)

Also, it would be in the interest of the government to discourage wide
dissemination of guns designed to operate normally in space, much as our
government strongly discourages private use of auto-fire weapons. They
would also cost more, and for the uses the Serenity crew puts them to,
normally unnecessary.

One simple fanwank is that the spacesuit wasn't so Jayne could take the
first shot, it was so he could keep on taking shots.


--
You've reached the Tittles. We can't come to the phone right now
If you want to leave a message for Christine, Press 1
For Bentley, Press 2
Or to speak to, or worship, Master Tarfall, Underlord of Pain, Press 3

Espen Schjønberg

unread,
Apr 16, 2007, 1:01:06 PM4/16/07
to
On 16.04.2007 18:49, William George Ferguson wrote:
> "Venger" <ven...@augustmail.com> wrote:
>
>> P.S. Though, alas, no need for Vera to wear a space suit, a gun will fire in
>> space, every time...
>
> One simple fanwank is that the spacesuit wasn't so Jayne could take the
> first shot, it was so he could keep on taking shots.

What about it being unnecessary, but Jayne - being a stupid jerk- didn't
know it, even if he thought he knew everythng about guns?

He had never asked the question before, and never tried it before, so he
really thought Vera needed air to work!

Not all goofs are goofs. Some goofs are just stupid people ;-)

--
Esspen

Don Sample

unread,
Apr 16, 2007, 1:49:09 PM4/16/07
to
In article
<mair_fheal-BC804...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,

mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
<mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Face it. The writers just bonked it. It's okay. This didn't ruin the
> > episode
> > for anyone. Just like it wasn't ruined in "Out of gas" when Serenity lost
> > all power, but everyone still had artificial gravity. We give them little
> > passes.
>
> thats a convention established by startrek

Except in movie 5.

We don't know how Serenity's artificial gravity works. It may not need
power to maintain the field. You don't need energy to maintain a force.
The Earth isn't using any power maintaining the gravity that's got your
butt stuck to your chair.

--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>

Venger

unread,
Apr 16, 2007, 1:50:02 PM4/16/07
to

"David Brewer" <david...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:mWMUh.2423$Ro3...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

Keep in mind that atmospheric pressure behaves as a vacuum compared to the
enormous pressures of a firearm cartridge. One atmo might as well be zero
atmo when you are dealing with the operation of the gun.

Alas, this is giving me tired head...

Venger

Don Sample

unread,
Apr 16, 2007, 1:56:56 PM4/16/07
to
In article <1hwnqu3.1itb5j4qtr9q8N%buc...@wcta.net>,
buc...@wcta.net (David Buchner) wrote:

> > "mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges"
> > > in any case i thought cartridges were sealed container
> > > with both oxidizer and charge and didnt need outside air
> > > might screw up gas pressure for automatic fire but manual as well?
>
> Hey, I hadn't thought of that rationalization before -- and maybe Vera's
> action works in some way that it requires that pressure to function,
> regardless of auto/manual operation? Maybe the simple fact that he
> couldn't reach under the circumstances to pull back the bolt manual?
>
> *Would* vacuum screw up the workings of a gas-operated action? I'm not
> sure.

It *might*. When Mythbusters did their "firing guns under water" test
they mostly worked, but their automatic didn't eject the spent cartridge
properly.

It's still not something that putting the gun in the suit would really
fix. After the first couple of rounds the gun was essentially in vacuum
anyway, and putting it in the suit would make it tougher to manually
clear it.

Donny Macro

unread,
Apr 16, 2007, 2:07:31 PM4/16/07
to

"Venger" <ven...@augustmail.com> wrote in message
news:BHLUh.4401$H_...@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...

Supposing for a minute, That artificial gravity in the 'verse is really this
energy cheap, that the artificial gravity on the ship was being run by the
equivalent of a car battery or some such, (The Serenity Role Playing game
says they use it on entire planets)... Wouldn't a "perpetual motion"
electrical generator be easy to make?

Unless I suppose there was some limit to having artificial gravity fields in
opposite directions close to each other.

If you think too hard almost any Sci-Fi show these little things some up...
I can't help thinking about them this way but mostly it doesn't ruin my
appreciation of the show.

>
> However, bending reality to incorporate abject stupidity - like suggesting
> firearm technology regresses to 17th century levels making this a
> deliberate oversight - doesn't make a lick of sense.

The fanwanks to explain this have been:

Vera would fire in a vacuum Jayne is an idiot
not likely, Jayne is an idiot but not about the tools of his trade.

Vera would fire in a vacuum, once.Vera requires an atmosphere to
automatically chamber the next round.
Manually chambering the next round is either not possible or not possible
with spacesuit gloves on, Or Jayne thought he needed rapid fire.

Vera would fire in a vacuum, once. (or maybe twice) but a hard vacuum would
damage Vera.
Something Jayne would not risk.

The problem with these last two are that Jayne says Vera needs "oxygen"
around her not atmo, but I suppose that could have been Jayne's shorthand
for air... lord know enough people in the here and now make that mistake.

Regardless you are right, it is not a deal breaker for me either, I ignore
this bit. In reality it is just set up for the line; "See, Vera? Dress
yourself up, you get taken out somewhere fun."

>
> Venger


Donny Macro

unread,
Apr 16, 2007, 2:21:16 PM4/16/07
to

"Don Sample" <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote in message
news:dsample-1D22DA...@news.giganews.com...

> In article
> <mair_fheal-BC804...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> <mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> > Face it. The writers just bonked it. It's okay. This didn't ruin the
>> > episode
>> > for anyone. Just like it wasn't ruined in "Out of gas" when Serenity
>> > lost
>> > all power, but everyone still had artificial gravity. We give them
>> > little
>> > passes.
>>
>> thats a convention established by startrek
>
> Except in movie 5.
>
> We don't know how Serenity's artificial gravity works. It may not need
> power to maintain the field. You don't need energy to maintain a force.
> The Earth isn't using any power maintaining the gravity that's got your
> butt stuck to your chair.

So when they turn it on with a switch, that might take power but no power to
maintain it?

Ok but then they really should have "power too cheap to meter." If
artificial gravity doesn't cost any energy to maintain, perpetual motion
machines that could generate substantial power become a reality.

We don't know how it works is true, I suppose there may be limitations that
kill my artifical gravity powered electrical generator. If such a thing were
possible... I don't think the 'Verse would have developed like it is shown.

Don Sample

unread,
Apr 16, 2007, 2:27:46 PM4/16/07
to
In article <mWMUh.2423$Ro3...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
David Brewer <david...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

Good thing they didn't exposit that information, because it's mostly
wrong.

Space is neither hot, nor cold. A vacuum has no temperature. It is
however, a very good insulator. An object left out in space, out of
sunlight, without anything else warm nearby, will cool down to only a
few degrees above absolute zero if you leave it long enough, but it's
not something that happens instantly. Sitting in Serenity's airlock,
surrounded on five sides by warm metal, it's not going to cool off much
at all.

If the gun was going to have any problems with temperature, it would be
from overheating, because there's no air to carry off the excess heat
generated by firing it, but you'd still be able to run a few magazines
of ammunition through it before that became a problem.

Vacuum welding is also something that takes time. It also requires
clean metal on metal contact. The lubricants and such used in the
working parts of the gun will prevent it from happening. If not
designed for use in a vacuum those lubricants might evaporate away
eventually, but it's still not something that's going to happen
instantly.

It might not be a good idea to store a gun for a long time in vacuum, if
it wasn't designed for it, but a few minutes of exposure to vacuum isn't
going to do any damage.

Donny Macro

unread,
Apr 16, 2007, 2:34:21 PM4/16/07
to

"Venger" <ven...@augustmail.com> wrote in message
news:BsyUh.518$Ir2...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net...

>
> "EGK" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:haa5239agisle74fi...@4ax.com...
>> On 15 Apr 2007 12:12:01 -0700, "Arbitrar Of Quality"
>> <tsm...@wildmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>This was another turning point for me in my fandom, I think. Between
>>>the Western influences in the series's whole premise, the accidental-
>>>challenge tale of "Shindig," and this screwball comedy, _Firefly_ has
>>>been doing a lot of dabbling in storylines in which I'm not
>>>particularly interested. "Our Mrs. Reynolds" was basically a
>>>demonstration that no matter what _Firefly_ is doing on any given
>>>week, a show with Joss Whedon at the helm will find a way to do
>>>whatever it does in an entertaining way.
>>
>>>One-sentence summary: Disarming.
>>
>> There's a special hell for people who don't rate this episode excellent.
>>
>> Seriously, this was the episode where I thought Firefly really hit it's
>> stride and became something special itself. Serenity, the pilot, hadn't
>> been shown yet and I thought earlier episodes suffered somewhat from the
>> lack of context. This one had the dialog and characterization that made
>> Buffy such a great series.
>
> Have to concur. The outstanding interplay between the
> characters...especially between Book and Mal... isn't that... special.

Love the last exchange between Mal and Saffron, Mal still trying to teach
her, this time about family.. then knocking her out... "You'd have only lied
anyway"

And Wash's line about his wife...
"Oh do I wish I was somebody else right now. Somebody not... married, not...
madly in love with a beautiful woman who can kill me with her pinkie!"
I have used this line about my wife on a couple of occasions... she is into
kickboxing, and could probably take me, (on the bright side to that though,
she has the ass of a 19 year old girl... a fit 19 year old girl, and at 40,
that is rare). I identify with Wash ... a lot.

William George Ferguson

unread,
Apr 16, 2007, 2:33:24 PM4/16/07
to

Well, Mythbusters also showed that a bullet hole won't cause explosive
decompression. It's true that every bullet hole put through the face plate
will increase the rate of evacuation, but I still bet it would take over
6.8 seconds to bring the internal atmosphere down to 'effectively a vacuum'
range. The entire period in which Jayne was firing on the trap was under
20 seconds, so I have no problem with sufficient atmosphere remaining in
the suit through the end of his firing. Jayne fired, what 5 or 6 rounds?
Oswald fired 3 rounds in 5 seconds with a bolt-action rifle. (and for the
conspiracy theorists out there, I could do that rate of fire with an M1 in
basic training back in the late 60s (we didn't get to play with the M14s in
Basic, much less the M16s, those were reserved for actual combat troops,
which we weren't yet in Basic, and I never was).

For the record, I qualified 'Expert' with the M1, M14, and M1911 (the 45
caliber automatic designed by John Browning at the Springfield Armory in
1911, and originally built by Colt, now built by pretty much every company
that makes handguns, the ones we were issued in the late 60s were made by
Remington). Going on 40 years later, I probably couldn't hit the broadside
of a barn from point-blank range today.

Don Sample

unread,
Apr 16, 2007, 2:43:59 PM4/16/07
to
In article <w8PUh.3620$Yh.1665@trndny03>,
"Donny Macro" <donny...@gmail.attitude.com> wrote:

It still takes power to start the system up, so there's no perpetual
motion involved. The three laws of thermodynamics are still all
enforced.

It could be that the artificial gravity system provides the UPS for the
emergency lighting and such. The energy stored it in could be slowly
drained off to keep the lights on, so as time goes on everything inside
Serenity gradually gets lighter and lighter.

Don Sample

unread,
Apr 16, 2007, 3:13:27 PM4/16/07
to
In article <DXOUh.17362$807.9111@trndny09>,
"Donny Macro" <donny...@gmail.attitude.com> wrote:

How?

While it may take little to no energy to maintain a field, it takes a
lot to establish it. You also get a change in energy any time anything
inside the field moves. You have to add energy to move things "down."
You get energy back when things move "up." It takes 1 joule of energy
to move 1kg down 1 metre.

Rather than putting energy in (and taking it out again as things move
up) you could just fluctuate the field strength. If Serenity and
everything in her has a mass of 100,000 kg, moving 1 kg down one metre
might make everything else in her 0.0001% lighter. (Jayne (est weight
50kg) moving down from the kitchen level to the cargo deck (about 3
metres) would make Mal about 1 gram lighter.)

Donny Macro

unread,
Apr 16, 2007, 3:47:02 PM4/16/07
to

"Don Sample" <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote in message
news:dsample-3436C7...@news.giganews.com...

If you had a weight on a wheel... and had the artificial gravity fields such
that the weight would always (or at least for a majority of the time) be
falling "down" it would spin forever.. if you could use that to power a
generator and the generator produced more energy then it took to power the
artifical gravity fields you would violate the laws of thermodynamics... and
on the show artifical gravity seems really really cheap...

obviously I don't believe that... I am just saying....

>
> It could be that the artificial gravity system provides the UPS for the
> emergency lighting and such. The energy stored it in could be slowly
> drained off to keep the lights on, so as time goes on everything inside
> Serenity gradually gets lighter and lighter.

Interesting idea. I like it. too bad it didn't power some kind of CO2
scrubber or O2 generator though.

Donny Macro

unread,
Apr 16, 2007, 3:54:12 PM4/16/07
to

"Don Sample" <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote in message
news:dsample-938A59...@news.giganews.com...

Ok, but I am suprised they turned it on and off in the cargo bay in the
Pilot then.

>You also get a change in energy any time anything
> inside the field moves. You have to add energy to move things "down."
> You get energy back when things move "up." It takes 1 joule of energy
> to move 1kg down 1 metre.
>
> Rather than putting energy in (and taking it out again as things move
> up) you could just fluctuate the field strength. If Serenity and
> everything in her has a mass of 100,000 kg, moving 1 kg down one metre
> might make everything else in her 0.0001% lighter. (Jayne (est weight
> 50kg) moving down from the kitchen level to the cargo deck (about 3
> metres) would make Mal about 1 gram lighter.)

I am going to have to go with Joss on this one and say that science hurts my
head...

Don Sample

unread,
Apr 16, 2007, 5:02:18 PM4/16/07
to
In article <WoQUh.5048$Qa.3716@trndny08>,
"Donny Macro" <donny...@gmail.attitude.com> wrote:

Whether you're dealing with artificial or real gravity, any weight on a
rotating wheel has to go "up" just as much as it goes "down" to get back
to where it started.


>
> >
> > It could be that the artificial gravity system provides the UPS for the
> > emergency lighting and such. The energy stored it in could be slowly
> > drained off to keep the lights on, so as time goes on everything inside
> > Serenity gradually gets lighter and lighter.
>
> Interesting idea. I like it. too bad it didn't power some kind of CO2
> scrubber or O2 generator though.

That's another problem with the episode. A 10'x10'x10' room has enough
air in it to last one person about 24 hours, before CO2 levels become
dangerous (and the buildup of CO2 gets you long before you run out of
oxygen). Mal, on his own in Serenity, had *months* of air. (Like
River said, he'd freeze to death before he suffocated, assuming they
were far enough out that the heating from the sun was less than what the
ship was radiating away.)

Don Sample

unread,
Apr 16, 2007, 5:06:52 PM4/16/07
to
In article <EvQUh.8811$IG1.2816@trndny07>,
"Donny Macro" <donny...@gmail.attitude.com> wrote:

But you can get that energy back when you turn it off, (minus the
inevitable losses due to the second law of thermodynamics.)

C.O.Jones

unread,
Apr 16, 2007, 5:32:31 PM4/16/07
to
In article <f00a4i$2qg$1...@readme.uio.no>, Espen Schjønberg
<ess...@excite.com> wrote:

Even stupid people can be smart about things they obsess on. With his
description of Vera, he insinuated deep knowledge in his stock in
trade.

And he mentioned a "case" which seemed to need no other explanation to
Mal or Zoe, so that they willingly sacrificed a space-suit. A person
(any person) on a boat won't throw a life preserver overboard without
good reason.

--
////////// \\\\\\\\\\\
The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity.
-- Harlan Ellison

C.O.Jones

unread,
Apr 16, 2007, 5:33:08 PM4/16/07
to
In article <EvQUh.8811$IG1.2816@trndny07>, Donny Macro
<donny...@gmail.attitude.com> wrote:

> > While it may take little to no energy to maintain a field, it takes a
> > lot to establish it.
>
> Ok, but I am suprised they turned it on and off in the cargo bay in the
> Pilot then.

Like turning on and off a light? The gravity in the cargo bay would
seem to be a TOOL for making the loading and unloading of Serenity a
little less work.

Michael Ikeda

unread,
Apr 16, 2007, 6:14:22 PM4/16/07
to
"Venger" <ven...@augustmail.com> wrote in
news:BHLUh.4401$H_...@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net:

>
> "C.O.Jones" <ap...@solidbrass.com> wrote in message
> news:150420072159265017%ap...@solidbrass.com...
>> In article <BsyUh.518$Ir2...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net>,
>> Venger <ven...@augustmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Venger

>>> P.S. Though, alas, no need for Vera to wear a space suit, a
>>> gun will fire in
>>> space, every time...
>>

>> Oh, @#$%! Not this dead horse, again! Look, the guns that they
>> use may LOOK like 21st century guns, but they are NOT. They are
>> not using 21st century guns, but 26th century guns. Being
>> trapped here in the 21st century, we do not have any idea how
>> they actually work, or why. Jayne said Vera would not shoot in
>> a vaccum, therefore the science of that particular weapon means
>> IT WILL NOT fire in a vaccum withouyt a case.
>
> So, a 21st century gun, created by a terrestrially bound human
> race, will fire in space, but a 26th century gun, created by a
> human race that is exploring outer space, won't?

Yes.

Assuming that the 26th century gun isn't expected to be used in a
vacuum there's no particular reason that it would necessarily be
designed to work in a sustained fashion in a vacuum. It could be
that whatever makes it especially effective in an "earthlike"
atmosphere makes it not work for sustained fire in a vacuum. If
hand weapons are usually used in an "earthlike" atmosphere, this
would probably be a reasonable tradeoff.

(On the general subject, has anyone actually tested 21st century
guns for sustained fire in a vacuum?)

--
Michael Ikeda mmi...@erols.com
"Telling a statistician not to use sampling is like telling an
astronomer they can't say there is a moon and stars"
Lynne Billard, past president American Statistical Association

mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges

unread,
Apr 16, 2007, 6:14:40 PM4/16/07
to
> Whether you're dealing with artificial or real gravity, any weight on a
> rotating wheel has to go "up" just as much as it goes "down" to get back
> to where it started.

i think the idea is to split the weighted fly wheel in two different fields
so the both sides are rotating down

Don Sample

unread,
Apr 16, 2007, 6:33:33 PM4/16/07
to
In article
<mair_fheal-A9E78...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,

mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
<mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Whether you're dealing with artificial or real gravity, any weight on a
> > rotating wheel has to go "up" just as much as it goes "down" to get back
> > to where it started.
>
> i think the idea is to split the weighted fly wheel in two different fields
> so the both sides are rotating down

And how exactly are you supposed to do that? How do you make a field
that only affects things moving in one direction? Anything moving down
in one of the fields will also have to move up against it to get back to
where it started.

--

Donny Macro

unread,
Apr 16, 2007, 6:34:52 PM4/16/07
to

"Don Sample" <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote in message
news:dsample-CF2002...@news.giganews.com...

Ok, Sorry I thought I said this better... but if different halves of the
wheel were subject to different artificial gravity fields... I said "fields"
plural.

So one half has down in one direction the other half down is in the oposite
direction so as the wheel turns the wieght moves from one field to the
other.


>
>
>>
>> >
>> > It could be that the artificial gravity system provides the UPS for the
>> > emergency lighting and such. The energy stored it in could be slowly
>> > drained off to keep the lights on, so as time goes on everything inside
>> > Serenity gradually gets lighter and lighter.
>>
>> Interesting idea. I like it. too bad it didn't power some kind of CO2
>> scrubber or O2 generator though.
>
> That's another problem with the episode. A 10'x10'x10' room has enough
> air in it to last one person about 24 hours, before CO2 levels become
> dangerous (and the buildup of CO2 gets you long before you run out of
> oxygen). Mal, on his own in Serenity, had *months* of air. (Like
> River said, he'd freeze to death before he suffocated, assuming they
> were far enough out that the heating from the sun was less than what the
> ship was radiating away.)

It is a great episode, easily in my top five... nitpicking it is fun too
though.

Donny Macro

unread,
Apr 16, 2007, 6:34:54 PM4/16/07
to

"Don Sample" <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote in message
news:dsample-2A1A28...@news.giganews.com...

Ok, now my head really hurts.

Donny Macro

unread,
Apr 16, 2007, 6:34:56 PM4/16/07
to

"C.O.Jones" <ap...@solidbrass.com> wrote in message
news:160420071433087682%ap...@solidbrass.com...

> In article <EvQUh.8811$IG1.2816@trndny07>, Donny Macro
> <donny...@gmail.attitude.com> wrote:
>
>> > While it may take little to no energy to maintain a field, it takes a
>> > lot to establish it.
>>
>> Ok, but I am suprised they turned it on and off in the cargo bay in the
>> Pilot then.
>
> Like turning on and off a light? The gravity in the cargo bay would
> seem to be a TOOL for making the loading and unloading of Serenity a
> little less work.

Right, I was thinking that if it costs energy to establish the field, their
"take" for that salvage operation would have been reduced and they might
have found a less energy expensive way to load the goods on the ship, it
seemed a trivial thing, flip the switch.

Donny Macro

unread,
Apr 16, 2007, 6:35:01 PM4/16/07
to

"mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges"
<mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mair_fheal-A9E78...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...

>> Whether you're dealing with artificial or real gravity, any weight on a
>> rotating wheel has to go "up" just as much as it goes "down" to get back
>> to where it started.
>
> i think the idea is to split the weighted fly wheel in two different
> fields
> so the both sides are rotating down

Thanks! that is what I was thinking.

Donny Macro

unread,
Apr 16, 2007, 6:35:02 PM4/16/07
to

"Don Sample" <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote in message
news:dsample-288A74...@news.giganews.com...

> In article
> <mair_fheal-A9E78...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> <mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> > Whether you're dealing with artificial or real gravity, any weight on a
>> > rotating wheel has to go "up" just as much as it goes "down" to get
>> > back
>> > to where it started.
>>
>> i think the idea is to split the weighted fly wheel in two different
>> fields
>> so the both sides are rotating down
>
> And how exactly are you supposed to do that? How do you make a field
> that only affects things moving in one direction? Anything moving down
> in one of the fields will also have to move up against it to get back to
> where it started.
>

Assuming the field is local enough, couldn't you move in and out of that
field?

perhaps move into another field oriented differently?

Tom Pentland

unread,
Apr 16, 2007, 6:51:28 PM4/16/07
to
In article <dsample-CF2002...@news.giganews.com>,
Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:

> > Interesting idea. I like it. too bad it didn't power some kind of CO2
> > scrubber or O2 generator though.
>
> That's another problem with the episode. A 10'x10'x10' room has enough
> air in it to last one person about 24 hours, before CO2 levels become
> dangerous (and the buildup of CO2 gets you long before you run out of
> oxygen). Mal, on his own in Serenity, had *months* of air. (Like
> River said, he'd freeze to death before he suffocated, assuming they
> were far enough out that the heating from the sun was less than what the
> ship was radiating away.)

Ah, but you forget the fire, and opening the cargo hatch to snuff it..
Someone (Jayne?) even mentions that thesse two things used up "most" of
the remaining air.

Hey, aren't we getting ahead of ourselves here? I look forward to AOQ's
review of "Out of Gas."

--
Tin Ear Tom
tomp16 at mac dot com

"Nobody wins unless everybody wins." - Bruce Springsteen

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Don Sample

unread,
Apr 16, 2007, 7:03:44 PM4/16/07
to
In article <qSSUh.17389$807.16065@trndny09>,
"Donny Macro" <donny...@gmail.attitude.com> wrote:

> "Don Sample" <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote in message
> news:dsample-288A74...@news.giganews.com...
> > In article
> > <mair_fheal-A9E78...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> > mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> > <mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> > Whether you're dealing with artificial or real gravity, any weight on a
> >> > rotating wheel has to go "up" just as much as it goes "down" to get
> >> > back
> >> > to where it started.
> >>
> >> i think the idea is to split the weighted fly wheel in two different
> >> fields
> >> so the both sides are rotating down
> >
> > And how exactly are you supposed to do that? How do you make a field
> > that only affects things moving in one direction? Anything moving down
> > in one of the fields will also have to move up against it to get back to
> > where it started.
> >
>
> Assuming the field is local enough, couldn't you move in and out of that
> field?

You've still got to do the "move out" part.

>
> perhaps move into another field oriented differently?

Even if you somehow manage to make a one way field, you've still got the
problem that it takes energy to accelerate something through the field.

Don Sample

unread,
Apr 16, 2007, 7:12:06 PM4/16/07
to
In article <gSSUh.17383$807.13150@trndny09>,
"Donny Macro" <donny...@gmail.attitude.com> wrote:

> "Don Sample" <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote in message

> news:dsample-CF2002...@news.giganews.com...

> >
> > Whether you're dealing with artificial or real gravity, any weight on a
> > rotating wheel has to go "up" just as much as it goes "down" to get back
> > to where it started.
>
> Ok, Sorry I thought I said this better... but if different halves of the
> wheel were subject to different artificial gravity fields... I said "fields"
> plural.
>
> So one half has down in one direction the other half down is in the oposite
> direction so as the wheel turns the wieght moves from one field to the
> other.

You still have to put energy into each field to move your weight.
(Energy is force * distance. It takes no energy to maintain a force,
but it does take energy if that force *moves* anything.)

mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges

unread,
Apr 16, 2007, 7:12:40 PM4/16/07
to
In article <dsample-288A74...@news.giganews.com>,
Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:

> In article
> <mair_fheal-A9E78...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> <mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Whether you're dealing with artificial or real gravity, any weight on a
> > > rotating wheel has to go "up" just as much as it goes "down" to get back
> > > to where it started.
> >
> > i think the idea is to split the weighted fly wheel in two different fields
> > so the both sides are rotating down
>
> And how exactly are you supposed to do that? How do you make a field

how do you create any kind of artificial gravity?

> that only affects things moving in one direction? Anything moving down
> in one of the fields will also have to move up against it to get back to
> where it started.

obviously because of inverse square the lowest point of flywheel
is going to have symetrical up and down halves
hence no torque on the wheel
(the only unbalanced force has a zero cross product with the lever arm)

but if artficial gravity is not inverse square if its linear or constant
and if you can have different parts of the interior with different orientations
then rules change


lesson being if youre going to do science fiction
its useful to hire someone to go over the science and technology
so it makes as much sense as possible for story purposes
because sf is going to attract an audience that will go into the details

Don Sample

unread,
Apr 16, 2007, 7:14:36 PM4/16/07
to
In article <tomp16-60E7CC....@free.teranews.com>,
Tom Pentland <tom...@mac.com> wrote:

> In article <dsample-CF2002...@news.giganews.com>,
> Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
>
> > > Interesting idea. I like it. too bad it didn't power some kind of CO2
> > > scrubber or O2 generator though.
> >
> > That's another problem with the episode. A 10'x10'x10' room has enough
> > air in it to last one person about 24 hours, before CO2 levels become
> > dangerous (and the buildup of CO2 gets you long before you run out of
> > oxygen). Mal, on his own in Serenity, had *months* of air. (Like
> > River said, he'd freeze to death before he suffocated, assuming they
> > were far enough out that the heating from the sun was less than what the
> > ship was radiating away.)
>
> Ah, but you forget the fire, and opening the cargo hatch to snuff it..
> Someone (Jayne?) even mentions that thesse two things used up "most" of
> the remaining air.

They re-pressurized afterwards. Mal was shown wandering all over the
ship. They may have used up their stored air reserves to do it, but
there was no shortage of air in the ship.

Swyck

unread,
Apr 16, 2007, 7:45:40 PM4/16/07
to
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:49:09 -0400, Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net>
wrote:
>In article
><mair_fheal-BC804...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,

> mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> <mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> > Face it. The writers just bonked it. It's okay. This didn't ruin the
>> > episode
>> > for anyone. Just like it wasn't ruined in "Out of gas" when Serenity lost
>> > all power, but everyone still had artificial gravity. We give them little
>> > passes.
>>
>> thats a convention established by startrek
>
>Except in movie 5.
>
Where they all immediately float to the center of the room,
equidistant from all walls and other individuals, held there by an
invisible field that must occur when you have no gravity in space.

Swyck

Arbitrar Of Quality

unread,
Apr 16, 2007, 9:40:53 PM4/16/07
to
On Apr 16, 6:42 am, "Apteryx" <apte...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1176664321.8...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...

> What's to understand. Unflappable Mal has been hung out to dry and left
> flapping in the breeze. Something everyone can enjoy.

Mal's always been flappable. Throughout the series, he's very
flappable for a space-opera protagonist.

> > Zoe
> > in particular is uncharacteristically mean and irritating (despite
> > getting one of the episode's best lines, quoted below), in a way that
> > I can't reconcile with the previous episodes. She's the loudest of
> > the cheerleaders trying to concertedly make her captain's life as
> > difficult as possible, and then she turns on Wash for, I guess,
> > chastely showing the slightest appreciation for certain quaint
> > customs. I'm with him on his rather entertainingly delivered "now
> > it's even my fault? Is there anything else on your mind that I should
> > know about?" I don't know what we're supposed to draw from this,
> > unless it's that even the most practical of women acts in a way that
> > defies any type of thought that it's possible to make sense of, and I
> > don't think that was meant to be the point.
>
> It started out as just innocent fun for Zoe, but all went horribly wrong
> when Saffron cooked, only for Mal, but left things set up in the kitchen in
> case Zoe wanted to cook for her husband.

And this is Wash's fault because...?

> Even so, the moment of the twist took me by surprise, because like Mal, I was distracted.

Breasts can certainly be distracting.

-AOQ

Dr Nancy's Sweetie

unread,
Apr 16, 2007, 9:58:42 PM4/16/07
to
"David Buchner <buc...@wcta.net>" wrote:
> Worse for me, in "Out of Gas," is that it seems like when they lose
> power the ship stops moving at all. That's as bad as Star Trek.

Wouldn't blowing the main hatch on the front of the ship, and ejecting
lots of material out the front, push the ship backwards, slowing it
down? And even if it's not stopped, it's not like there's anything
nearby to see it moving against.

OTOH, in the opening scene the stuff is all floating mostly still in
front of the ship, when it seems to me that once ejected it should have
kept on moving.


Darren Provine ! kil...@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
"Save a little money each month, and at the end of the year you'll be
surprised at how little you have." -- Ernest Haskins

Don Sample

unread,
Apr 16, 2007, 11:30:19 PM4/16/07
to
In article <f019ki$tgt$1...@pcls6.std.com>,

Dr Nancy's Sweetie <kil...@elvis.rowan.edu> wrote:

> "David Buchner <buc...@wcta.net>" wrote:
> > Worse for me, in "Out of Gas," is that it seems like when they lose
> > power the ship stops moving at all. That's as bad as Star Trek.
>
> Wouldn't blowing the main hatch on the front of the ship, and ejecting
> lots of material out the front, push the ship backwards, slowing it
> down? And even if it's not stopped, it's not like there's anything
> nearby to see it moving against.

Not significantly.

I don't really think the ship "stopped" It was just that because they
weren't taking the direct route, when they lost power they were on a
trajectory that wouldn't take them close to anything.

Julian Treadwell

unread,
Apr 17, 2007, 2:38:24 AM4/17/07
to
Don Sample wrote:
> If the gun was going to have any problems with temperature, it would be
> from overheating, because there's no air to carry off the excess heat
> generated by firing it

<snip>

And that could well be why Vera needs air around her to fire, couldn't
it. She's a very large calibre weapon, she'd heat up fast I'd think.

Don Sample

unread,
Apr 17, 2007, 2:54:46 AM4/17/07
to
In article <f01q00$264$1...@aioe.org>,
Julian Treadwell <julian.t...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:

Not from just a few shots. You'd have to put a lot of rounds through
her before she got too hot to function.

Apteryx

unread,
Apr 17, 2007, 7:19:18 AM4/17/07
to
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176774053.7...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

Walsh has the temerity to suggest that it might be perfectly normal
behaviour on Triumph for a woman to cook for her husband and then wait on
table while he eats - just their version of juggling geese. He's clearly on
thin ice simply entertaining the possibility that such aberrant behaviour
might be normal anywhere.

--
Apteryx


Espen Schjønberg

unread,
Apr 17, 2007, 10:40:37 AM4/17/07
to
On 16.04.2007 23:32, C.O.Jones wrote:
> In article <f00a4i$2qg$1...@readme.uio.no>, Espen Schjønberg
> <ess...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>> On 16.04.2007 18:49, William George Ferguson wrote:
>>> "Venger" <ven...@augustmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> P.S. Though, alas, no need for Vera to wear a space suit, a gun will fire
>>>> in
>>>> space, every time...
>>> One simple fanwank is that the spacesuit wasn't so Jayne could take the
>>> first shot, it was so he could keep on taking shots.
>> What about it being unnecessary, but Jayne - being a stupid jerk- didn't
>> know it, even if he thought he knew everythng about guns?
>>
>> He had never asked the question before, and never tried it before, so he
>> really thought Vera needed air to work!
>>
>> Not all goofs are goofs. Some goofs are just stupid people ;-)
>
> Even stupid people can be smart about things they obsess on. With his
> description of Vera, he insinuated deep knowledge in his stock in
> trade.

What is your malfunction?

Obviously, he thought Vera needed oxygen. Nothing to discuss, really.

As I said: he thought he knew everything about his guns, but he was wrong.

I don't see the problem with this.

It is by far better than to just say "Goof!".

BTW, the explanation on the DVD was (a while since now, but from
memory:) they had asked some gun-freak, and he said it needed oxygen.
Well, there you go: they can be wrong. Of course, it came along as a
goof, but it turned out well: Mistake done by character. Much more fun
that way than just a silly "Goof!.

> And he mentioned a "case" which seemed to need no other explanation to
> Mal or Zoe, so that they willingly sacrificed a space-suit. A person
> (any person) on a boat won't throw a life preserver overboard without
> good reason.

Well, the good reason is they thought it was needed for the plan to work...

Honestly, have you never heard of situations where people are mistaken
about things everybody thought they knew?

If so, you cannot be a very observant type.

--
Espen

Espen Schjønberg

unread,
Apr 17, 2007, 10:42:11 AM4/17/07
to
On 17.04.2007 00:14, Michael Ikeda wrote:

> (On the general subject, has anyone actually tested 21st century
> guns for sustained fire in a vacuum?)

I would have loved it if Vera jammed. What an end to the discussion.

--
Espen

Espen Schjønberg

unread,
Apr 17, 2007, 10:47:22 AM4/17/07
to
On 16.04.2007 17:17, David Buchner wrote:

> Venger <ven...@augustmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Face it. The writers just bonked it. It's okay. This didn't ruin the episode
>> for anyone. Just like it wasn't ruined in "Out of gas" when Serenity lost
>> all power, but everyone still had artificial gravity. We give them little
>> passes.
>
> Worse for me, in "Out of Gas," is that it seems like when they lose
> power the ship stops moving at all. That's as bad as Star Trek.

Well, this ships don't fly by Newtonian rules. Then thy would have used
years and years for every voyage.

So, they stop if the motor stops? Works for me. I would assume there is
some residual newtonian speed, just a few m/s, which is still there.

Somehow, the stardrive temporarily shuts down even in the meeting of the
Reafers at some other episode/film to. (Ok, that one is _ugly_. :-))

--
Espen

C.O.Jones

unread,
Apr 17, 2007, 2:21:03 PM4/17/07
to
In article <f02mc3$6dm$2...@readme.uio.no>, Espen Schjønberg
<ess...@excite.com> wrote:

An end to WHAT discussion? If that had happened, the discussion would
have been different.

C.O.Jones

unread,
Apr 17, 2007, 2:21:01 PM4/17/07
to
In article <f02m96$6dm$1...@readme.uio.no>, Espen Schjønberg
<ess...@excite.com> wrote:

> On 16.04.2007 23:32, C.O.Jones wrote:
> > In article <f00a4i$2qg$1...@readme.uio.no>, Espen Schjønberg
> > <ess...@excite.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 16.04.2007 18:49, William George Ferguson wrote:
> >>> "Venger" <ven...@augustmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> P.S. Though, alas, no need for Vera to wear a space suit, a gun will fire
> >>>> in
> >>>> space, every time...
> >>> One simple fanwank is that the spacesuit wasn't so Jayne could take the
> >>> first shot, it was so he could keep on taking shots.
> >> What about it being unnecessary, but Jayne - being a stupid jerk- didn't
> >> know it, even if he thought he knew everythng about guns?
> >>
> >> He had never asked the question before, and never tried it before, so he
> >> really thought Vera needed air to work!
> >>
> >> Not all goofs are goofs. Some goofs are just stupid people ;-)
> >
> > Even stupid people can be smart about things they obsess on. With his
> > description of Vera, he insinuated deep knowledge in his stock in
> > trade.
>
> What is your malfunction?

You are a rude fuck, aren't you?


>
> Obviously, he thought Vera needed oxygen. Nothing to discuss, really.

Not just him, but Mal and Zoe must have thought so, also. They WERE
veterans of the recent war. And Mal DID give up a piece of Life
Preserving equipment of his space ship based on that belief. Are you
saying Mal and Zoe are stupid, too?


>
> As I said: he thought he knew everything about his guns, but he was wrong.
>
> I don't see the problem with this.

So, if Wash (for instance) said something about piloting Serenity that
someone thought was wrong, that means the character is stupid about
what he says about his chosen profession?


>
> It is by far better than to just say "Goof!".

I didn't say Goof. I explained the logical assumption that was ignored
in crying "Goof."


>
> BTW, the explanation on the DVD was (a while since now, but from
> memory:) they had asked some gun-freak, and he said it needed oxygen.
> Well, there you go: they can be wrong. Of course, it came along as a
> goof, but it turned out well: Mistake done by character. Much more fun
> that way than just a silly "Goof!.
>
> > And he mentioned a "case" which seemed to need no other explanation to
> > Mal or Zoe, so that they willingly sacrificed a space-suit. A person
> > (any person) on a boat won't throw a life preserver overboard without
> > good reason.
>
> Well, the good reason is they thought it was needed for the plan to work...

Try having a LITTLE imagination. It is about more than just writing.


>
> Honestly, have you never heard of situations where people are mistaken
> about things everybody thought they knew?

Jayne maybe. Probably. Jayne, Mal and Zoe? No, I don't think so.


>
> If so, you cannot be a very observant type.

Seems to me that you are missing more than a FEW observations.

Don Sample

unread,
Apr 17, 2007, 3:59:53 PM4/17/07
to
In article <f02mlq$6gj$1...@readme.uio.no>,
Espen Schjønberg <ess...@excite.com> wrote:

> On 16.04.2007 17:17, David Buchner wrote:
> > Venger <ven...@augustmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Face it. The writers just bonked it. It's okay. This didn't ruin the
> >> episode
> >> for anyone. Just like it wasn't ruined in "Out of gas" when Serenity lost
> >> all power, but everyone still had artificial gravity. We give them little
> >> passes.
> >
> > Worse for me, in "Out of Gas," is that it seems like when they lose
> > power the ship stops moving at all. That's as bad as Star Trek.
>
> Well, this ships don't fly by Newtonian rules. Then thy would have used
> years and years for every voyage.

You can get from Earth to Mars in just a few days, using Newtonian
rules. (Throw in artificial gravity, and enough energy, and it can be
done in seconds, using Newton's rules. He didn't set any pesky speed of
light limits.)

Mars is from 70,000,000 to 200,000,000 kms from earth, depending on
where they are in their orbits. Worst case, using a constant 1g
acceleration takes a little over 3 days. (4 if you don't want to get
too close to the sun.)

If your engine fails at any point along the way, you're on a fast one
way trip into the middle of nowhere.

Donny Macro

unread,
Apr 17, 2007, 5:09:11 PM4/17/07
to

"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176774053.7...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

This episode really made me feel like Wash and Zoe were married, from their
easy embrace at the start of the episode, to Zoe being mad at Wash when it
isn't really his fault...

yep... that's marriage.

One Bit Shy

unread,
Apr 17, 2007, 8:38:16 PM4/17/07
to
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176664321.8...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> FIREFLY
> Season One, Episode 6: "Our Mrs. Reynolds"

Where we test the proposition that the primary function of large breasts is
to be stared at.


> First let's quickly run through the opening stuff planet-side, which
> has its own separate sense of style. The visuals convey the sense of
> the wide-open and wet frontier, among the most evocative of the series
> to date.

Neat music too.


> And Mal's having a chipper day, what with how much he seems
> to be enjoying himself. Afterward, it's a good time to catch the crew
> (although not the passengers - do they ever get to have any fun?) in a
> rare happy moment, just feeling very pleased with themselves as crime
> and helping converge. This part includes a character-setting shot of
> Book, being the one to stay back and quietly bury the dead while
> everyone else dances and drinks. It's a good moment. Later in the
> episode, he gets a rare chance to do some hardcore justified (in his
> mind) preacher-style moralizing, and I'm pondering whether he enjoys
> that or not.

When he lectured Mal on the special hell? Of course he enjoyed that. Best
damned time he's had all voyage.


>>From the shooting script: "[NOTE: If a river is an impossibility,
> wagon in a glade will suffice. But water makes it cooler.]"

Therefore make it a raft instead of a wagon. (Though one suspects wheels
could be affixed readily enough. Might be one of them amphibian crafts.)


> OMR ends up being a pleasant episode, but you know what? I'm going to
> have to live up to my reputation and be a third one don't find this
> funny.

Inara was third - and she had a better reason than you.


> Mal's doing the best he can, and from all sides gets people
> glaring at him and/or crying if he tries to get rid of his new bride
> or if he acts too nice to her. Then the longer Saffron stays on the
> ship, the more sexually needy she gets, while Book is there to hold
> Mal responsible for the whole thing. It's an untenable situation, and
> I resent the crew a little bit for their lack of understanding. Zoe


> in particular is uncharacteristically mean and irritating (despite
> getting one of the episode's best lines, quoted below), in a way that
> I can't reconcile with the previous episodes.

In the season opener we saw everybody get a good belly laugh out of fooling
Simon into thinking Kaylee was dead.

That's who these people are. An opportunity like this shows up and they're
going to ride Mal.


> She's the loudest of
> the cheerleaders trying to concertedly make her captain's life as
> difficult as possible, and then she turns on Wash for, I guess,
> chastely showing the slightest appreciation for certain quaint
> customs. I'm with him on his rather entertainingly delivered "now
> it's even my fault? Is there anything else on your mind that I should
> know about?" I don't know what we're supposed to draw from this,
> unless it's that even the most practical of women acts in a way that
> defies any type of thought that it's possible to make sense of, and I
> don't think that was meant to be the point.

How jealous do you suppose Zoe could be? She's also not wrong when she says
sweet Saffron is trouble. But that's an observation after she's been there
a while, not when she first arrived. (Later she's sweet to Wash and
dismissive of Mal when she finds that Wash rejected Saffron while Mal
didn't.)

Their argument is not of the type that can ever stand up to logical
analysis. They're married. Unstated buttons are always being pushed. But
to the extent that it can be, I don't think you identified a real
contradiction. She initially enjoyed Saffron's arrival for the amusing
complications it brought to Mal's life, not because of any feelings for
Saffron. As soon as she got to know Saffron at all, she didn't like her. I
don't think it would be hard for her to hold both thoughts in her head.


> But those of us who can't bring ourselves to laugh at Mal's misfortune
> (why do I have the sinking feeling that I didn't need to use the
> plural there?),

Because it's actually funny?


> we can feel sorry for the poor guy. And OMR
> accomplishes that, as our hero juggles everyone's feelings and tries
> in passing to teach the innocent little girl a little bit about
> standing up for herself. Just when that's starting to stabilize,
> she's naked and coming on to him in a way that makes it far beyond
> simply consensual from her side, making damn sure he knows he can be
> released from most of his honorable restraint obligations if he
> wants. Every time I watch this, despite my usual dislike for such
> things, I get swept up in navigating the discomforts of this story,
> and that's even knowing that Saffron's not what she seems.

Saffron is very believable. I admire that part of the story because she
makes the ridiculous situation seem plausible. Which I suppose is a mark of
a good con.


> Which one feels like one "should" have seen coming a mile away,
> knowing how Joss works. We've exhausted the limits of one story, and
> we're never content to do the ordinary. In actuality, I was totally
> fooled, and it holds up well on re-watching because the false story is
> engaging enough. That's the best way to do an old-fashioned plot
> twist.

The humanizing of Mal. An interesting moment late in Saffron's seduction is
when Mal starts opening up to her about his past - which gives him pause.
At that moment it's displaying her skills. But all the teasing and beating
on him by the others is the real display of affection, and the biggest
impression this episode gives me is the closeness between everyone onboard -
other than Saffron. A corner turning episode for me in that it finally
really sold the family notion. For example, Book's message about the
special hell only works because of how naturally at ease they had become
with each other. Even the Vera scene depends in good part on a kind of
intimacy of understanding between Jayne and Mal. (To the limits of Jayne's
character of course.) Those and other scenes show it large, but there are
little things too. The way Mal quietly asks Jayne how drunk he was and
later looks to Book for understanding about the net they were running into.
Mal is automatically - unthinking - turning to the people that would
understand in each moment.

The message close to the end where Mal recognizes he's stronger than Saffron
because of the people behind him is a bit heavy handed - not as momentous as
it seems to try to come across right then. But it is accurate none the
less. And it was there before the revelation of the con, as well as after.
The unifying force for the episode. Ultimately the humor of the episode
itself is founded on this group enjoying being with each other - albeit with
a little jealousy out of Inara and Zoe along the way. Wash and Kaylee
excitedly going over the damage done to the controls. Zoe calling the whole
crew together to "share" in Mal's discomfort. Togetherness is just a big
deal this episode.

I think capping that family notion is the point of the episode and, being
the sixth episode (sort of) more or less completes the period establishing
the series. The next episode does seem to start another stage in the
series.


> Feel like I don't have much to say about this episode compared to some
> of the denser ones of the series. Nothing to say about the look into
> Wash's head re: Zoe, for instance; just doesn't do much for me.

Wash is about as good as he gets in this episode IMO. Not in a revelatory
sense - I don't think we learn anything significant. The character is just
played well and gets across the reality of being married to Zoe better than
just about anything else. For a moment they almost make sense as a couple.


> River
> doesn't even have any lines as far as I can recall, although I'm
> actually glad that the pillow scene didn't make the final version.

I have mixed feelings. I don't think it plays as well as most of the
episode - Mal's speech is much too long. But it has some fun moments and
supports the episode in a couple of ways. River's accusation that Saffron's
a thief is the only significant clue that I can think of that she's conning
them. That's very deftly undercut by the stolen food packet. Ultimately,
though, it serves to point out again that one ought to listen to what River
says. River's general behavior is harder to get a handle on, but I think
can be looked at a couple of ways. River proposing marriage to Simon, then
accusing him of not loving her, and then faking a pregnancy could all
represent the kind of fakery that Saffron is engaging in. (Plus blunter
signs of rejection like unmaking the bed that Book had made.) Perversely,
at the same time it could point to the true family of the crew. In a family
way I think is how she termed her supposed pregnancy.

Anyway, the scene is a little sluggish, but it has curiosity arousing
content and a few laughs.


> On
> the crew note, though, I'm never quite sure what to make of Jayne's
> drunken gratitude for the rain stick, given that he's back to normal
> later; I think it was, very briefly, genuine, which is just... weird.

I think he just wanted to use the guy's shirt to blow his nose.


> Jumping ahead to his attempt to trade Vera for Saffron ("a trade?
> Hell, it's theft"), the episode seems to be daring us to come up with
> our own take on Jayne, as generous or non-generous as we want.
> Totally amoral and sick, or almost innocent and child-like in his lack
> of understanding, or anywhere between. Vicissitudes, man.

How about desperately horny?


> Another character that this episode provides a bit of a new look at is
> Inara. She's much as we know throughout most of the episode,
> particularly the confrontation with Saffron in which the dialogue
> flies by and crackles like one would expect from two seasoned pros. I
> like the very quick moment of action in which Inara keeps herself safe
> but loses sight of preventing our evil Companion from escaping. But
> then after she has a moment of emotion and kisses Mal, and wakes up
> groggy and drugged, she starts doing dopey comedy when trying to avoid
> sharing what happened.

Dopey in the sense of actually being doped up don't forget.


> I think it's the first time in the series
> we've seen her without her omnipresent poise. The mask fits very
> loosely, but she's still trying desperately to hold it in place, just
> by nature.

Yes, but the mask was slipping well before that. The hurt on her face when
she found Mal "married". Her sharp irritation when Mal visited her to
escape Saffron - especially poor thinking on her part not really catching on
to the fact that Mal specifically sought her out then. What kind of
subconscious choice was Mal making then? He really didn't come there for a
fight.


> I'm going to say that I have no idea what exactly was supposed to be
> going on with putting the space-suit over a gun, apparently creating
> an environment that keeps air from being sucked out yet isn't
> compromised when bullets fly out from inside it. Who knows? I also
> don't know why no one else is shooting. But the net is a cool idea,
> and there are some nice visuals in there - Joss's episodes get all the
> coolest things, huh? No sound in space isn't just a stylistic touch
> here, it's a bona fide advantage.

I really liked Vera becoming important.


> Even if it ends by pushing Mal and Inara into a more
> straightforward "both secretly in love with each other" than the show
> deserves, it has a closing gag that's funny in a rueful way.

Why don't you think it deserved it? I didn't see this episode building
their feelings for each other so much as displaying them as part of
establishing the series premise. It worked a hell of a lot better for me
than did Shindig.

Either way, it's quite a closing gag.


> - "Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a
> middle"

Stupendous line. I wish I could come up with more ways to steal it.


> So...
>
> One-sentence summary: Disarming.
>
> AOQ rating: Good

Excellent for me. Best episode yet, though not the best of the series.

OBS


Don Sample

unread,
Apr 17, 2007, 9:28:06 PM4/17/07
to
In article <132aq43...@news.supernews.com>,

"One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:

> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1176664321.8...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> > FIREFLY
> > Season One, Episode 6: "Our Mrs. Reynolds"
>

> >>From the shooting script: "[NOTE: If a river is an impossibility,


> > wagon in a glade will suffice. But water makes it cooler.]"
>
> Therefore make it a raft instead of a wagon. (Though one suspects wheels
> could be affixed readily enough. Might be one of them amphibian crafts.)

The classic Conestoga Wagon was a combination wagon/boat. Wheels for
travelling cross country, and if you came to a river that was too deep
to ford, you could float it across.

Donny Macro

unread,
Apr 18, 2007, 7:29:19 AM4/18/07
to

"One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote in message
news:132aq43...@news.supernews.com...

> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1176664321.8...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>> FIREFLY
>> Season One, Episode 6: "Our Mrs. Reynolds"
>
> Where we test the proposition that the primary function of large breasts
> is to be stared at.
>
>
>> First let's quickly run through the opening stuff planet-side, which
>> has its own separate sense of style. The visuals convey the sense of
>> the wide-open and wet frontier, among the most evocative of the series
>> to date.
>
> Neat music too.
>
>
>> And Mal's having a chipper day, what with how much he seems
>> to be enjoying himself. Afterward, it's a good time to catch the crew
>> (although not the passengers - do they ever get to have any fun?) in a
>> rare happy moment, just feeling very pleased with themselves as crime
>> and helping converge. This part includes a character-setting shot of
>> Book, being the one to stay back and quietly bury the dead while
>> everyone else dances and drinks. It's a good moment. Later in the
>> episode, he gets a rare chance to do some hardcore justified (in his
>> mind) preacher-style moralizing, and I'm pondering whether he enjoys
>> that or not.
>
> When he lectured Mal on the special hell? Of course he enjoyed that.
> Best damned time he's had all voyage.

probably.

>
>
>>>From the shooting script: "[NOTE: If a river is an impossibility,
>> wagon in a glade will suffice. But water makes it cooler.]"
>
> Therefore make it a raft instead of a wagon. (Though one suspects wheels
> could be affixed readily enough. Might be one of them amphibian crafts.)
>
>
>> OMR ends up being a pleasant episode, but you know what? I'm going to
>> have to live up to my reputation and be a third one don't find this
>> funny.
>
> Inara was third - and she had a better reason than you.
>
>
>> Mal's doing the best he can, and from all sides gets people
>> glaring at him and/or crying if he tries to get rid of his new bride
>> or if he acts too nice to her. Then the longer Saffron stays on the
>> ship, the more sexually needy she gets, while Book is there to hold
>> Mal responsible for the whole thing. It's an untenable situation, and
>> I resent the crew a little bit for their lack of understanding. Zoe
>> in particular is uncharacteristically mean and irritating (despite
>> getting one of the episode's best lines, quoted below), in a way that
>> I can't reconcile with the previous episodes.
>
> In the season opener we saw everybody get a good belly laugh out of
> fooling Simon into thinking Kaylee was dead.
>
> That's who these people are. An opportunity like this shows up and
> they're going to ride Mal.

In a totally Family-like way.

>
>
>> She's the loudest of
>> the cheerleaders trying to concertedly make her captain's life as
>> difficult as possible, and then she turns on Wash for, I guess,
>> chastely showing the slightest appreciation for certain quaint
>> customs. I'm with him on his rather entertainingly delivered "now
>> it's even my fault? Is there anything else on your mind that I should
>> know about?" I don't know what we're supposed to draw from this,
>> unless it's that even the most practical of women acts in a way that
>> defies any type of thought that it's possible to make sense of, and I
>> don't think that was meant to be the point.
>
> How jealous do you suppose Zoe could be? She's also not wrong when she
> says sweet Saffron is trouble. But that's an observation after she's been
> there a while, not when she first arrived. (Later she's sweet to Wash and
> dismissive of Mal when she finds that Wash rejected Saffron while Mal
> didn't.)
>
> Their argument is not of the type that can ever stand up to logical
> analysis. They're married. Unstated buttons are always being pushed.
> But to the extent that it can be, I don't think you identified a real
> contradiction. She initially enjoyed Saffron's arrival for the amusing
> complications it brought to Mal's life, not because of any feelings for
> Saffron. As soon as she got to know Saffron at all, she didn't like her.
> I don't think it would be hard for her to hold both thoughts in her head.

not hard at all. Women do that... or at least my wife does.

well said.

>
> The message close to the end where Mal recognizes he's stronger than
> Saffron because of the people behind him is a bit heavy handed - not as
> momentous as it seems to try to come across right then. But it is
> accurate none the less. And it was there before the revelation of the
> con, as well as after. The unifying force for the episode. Ultimately the
> humor of the episode itself is founded on this group enjoying being with
> each other - albeit with a little jealousy out of Inara and Zoe along the
> way. Wash and Kaylee excitedly going over the damage done to the
> controls. Zoe calling the whole crew together to "share" in Mal's
> discomfort. Togetherness is just a big deal this episode.
>
> I think capping that family notion is the point of the episode and, being
> the sixth episode (sort of) more or less completes the period establishing
> the series. The next episode does seem to start another stage in the
> series.
>

Wish I said that.

And serves as a parallel making Simon as uncomfortable with his "bride" as
Mal is with Saffron. it also is a reminder of the games she used to play
with Simon "we are going to have to eat the men."

>
>
>> On
>> the crew note, though, I'm never quite sure what to make of Jayne's
>> drunken gratitude for the rain stick, given that he's back to normal
>> later; I think it was, very briefly, genuine, which is just... weird.
>
> I think he just wanted to use the guy's shirt to blow his nose.

He wouldn't be the first to display completely different emotions under the
influence of alcohol, gives us a peek into who he might be underneath...

always beware of mean drunks, alcohol reduces inhibitions and makes some
people more who they are.

Getting Inara to admit she has feelings for Mal but having Mal totally
misunderstand what she is admitting to is hysterical. The look on Inara's
face is priceless.

C.O.Jones

unread,
Apr 18, 2007, 11:30:50 AM4/18/07
to
In article <jinVh.18948$807.96@trndny09>, Donny Macro
<donny...@gmail.attitude.com> wrote:

> > Their argument is not of the type that can ever stand up to logical
> > analysis. They're married. Unstated buttons are always being pushed.
> > But to the extent that it can be, I don't think you identified a real
> > contradiction. She initially enjoyed Saffron's arrival for the amusing
> > complications it brought to Mal's life, not because of any feelings for
> > Saffron. As soon as she got to know Saffron at all, she didn't like her.
> > I don't think it would be hard for her to hold both thoughts in her head.
>
> not hard at all. Women do that... or at least my wife does.

Not just your wife. Women. ;-)

tsm...@wildmail.com

unread,
Apr 18, 2007, 3:38:10 PM4/18/07
to
On Apr 17, 7:38 pm, "One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1176664321.8...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...

>


> >>From the shooting script: "[NOTE: If a river is an impossibility,
> > wagon in a glade will suffice. But water makes it cooler.]"
>
> Therefore make it a raft instead of a wagon. (Though one suspects wheels
> could be affixed readily enough. Might be one of them amphibian crafts.)

I don't know about you old-timers, but if there's one thing my
generation learned growing up, it's that you always ford the river.

> Their argument is not of the type that can ever stand up to logical
> analysis. They're married. Unstated buttons are always being pushed. But
> to the extent that it can be, I don't think you identified a real
> contradiction. She initially enjoyed Saffron's arrival for the amusing
> complications it brought to Mal's life, not because of any feelings for
> Saffron. As soon as she got to know Saffron at all, she didn't like her. I
> don't think it would be hard for her to hold both thoughts in her head.

Presumably, by taking it out on everyone except Saffron and
retroactively blaming Wash for something that's blatantly not his
fault? I can certainly buy that she and Wash have underlying tension,
especially given how well it worked in "War Stories." But that
episode lets us in and follows the leaps of logic that get them
there. I'm not demanding that every marital squabble involve walking
the audience through the minutiae of the back issues, but OMR goes to
the other extreme and doesn't let it make any sense to the viewer at
all. Some people may find that pleasantly realistic, but I find it
frustrating as a viewer. I'd say the fact that most of the responses
have tended toward "it's a marriage thing" or "yeah, all women are
that way" - i.e. regardless of individual personality, we should grin
and bear it when a character goes all illogical and turns into a bitch
- pretty much proves that I'm not likely to ever care for this
sequence.

> The humanizing of Mal. An interesting moment late in Saffron's seduction is
> when Mal starts opening up to her about his past - which gives him pause.
> At that moment it's displaying her skills. But all the teasing and beating
> on him by the others is the real display of affection, and the biggest
> impression this episode gives me is the closeness between everyone onboard -
> other than Saffron. A corner turning episode for me in that it finally
> really sold the family notion. For example, Book's message about the
> special hell only works because of how naturally at ease they had become
> with each other. Even the Vera scene depends in good part on a kind of
> intimacy of understanding between Jayne and Mal. (To the limits of Jayne's
> character of course.) Those and other scenes show it large, but there are
> little things too. The way Mal quietly asks Jayne how drunk he was and
> later looks to Book for understanding about the net they were running into.
> Mal is automatically - unthinking - turning to the people that would
> understand in each moment.

Interesting thought. I guess all I can say is that the family didn't
come through much more clearly here than elsewhere. Maybe there are
more group scenes than usual, but otherwise, I don't see what the big
deal in this regard is compared to any other episode of the seires.

> > Even if it ends by pushing Mal and Inara into a more
> > straightforward "both secretly in love with each other" than the show
> > deserves, it has a closing gag that's funny in a rueful way.
>
> Why don't you think it deserved it?

Maybe not the best choice of words, but this is one of those
relationships that works better for me when it's complicated, so I'm
less happy when I feel like I'm able to sum up the premise in a
sentence.

> I didn't see this episode building
> their feelings for each other so much as displaying them as part of
> establishing the series premise. It worked a hell of a lot better for me
> than did Shindig.

Not me.

-AOQ

Donny Macro

unread,
Apr 18, 2007, 5:07:35 PM4/18/07
to

<tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176925090.2...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

> On Apr 17, 7:38 pm, "One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
>> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in
>> messagenews:1176664321.8...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...

>> Their argument is not of the type that can ever stand up to logical


>> analysis. They're married. Unstated buttons are always being pushed.
>> But
>> to the extent that it can be, I don't think you identified a real
>> contradiction. She initially enjoyed Saffron's arrival for the amusing
>> complications it brought to Mal's life, not because of any feelings for
>> Saffron. As soon as she got to know Saffron at all, she didn't like her.
>> I
>> don't think it would be hard for her to hold both thoughts in her head.
>
> Presumably, by taking it out on everyone except Saffron and
> retroactively blaming Wash for something that's blatantly not his
> fault? I can certainly buy that she and Wash have underlying tension,
> especially given how well it worked in "War Stories." But that
> episode lets us in and follows the leaps of logic that get them
> there. I'm not demanding that every marital squabble involve walking
> the audience through the minutiae of the back issues, but OMR goes to
> the other extreme and doesn't let it make any sense to the viewer at
> all. Some people may find that pleasantly realistic, but I find it
> frustrating as a viewer. I'd say the fact that most of the responses
> have tended toward "it's a marriage thing" or "yeah, all women are
> that way" - i.e. regardless of individual personality, we should grin
> and bear it when a character goes all illogical and turns into a bitch
> - pretty much proves that I'm not likely to ever care for this
> sequence.

She loves Wash, but she is who she is; a scarred war veteran...

She suddenly worries that Wash might have parts of him that would rather be
with a "nubile little slave girl" a wife who cooks meals instead of being
able to kill him with her pinkie... How often does she make "wife soup" not
often... but that is who she is.

She feels threatened in her relationship by that and responds.


>
> -AOQ
>


One Bit Shy

unread,
Apr 18, 2007, 5:27:07 PM4/18/07
to
<tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176925090.2...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

> On Apr 17, 7:38 pm, "One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
>> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in
>> messagenews:1176664321.8...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>
>> >>From the shooting script: "[NOTE: If a river is an impossibility,
>> > wagon in a glade will suffice. But water makes it cooler.]"
>>
>> Therefore make it a raft instead of a wagon. (Though one suspects wheels
>> could be affixed readily enough. Might be one of them amphibian crafts.)
>
> I don't know about you old-timers, but if there's one thing my
> generation learned growing up, it's that you always ford the river.

Oh, rivers were used as highways too. Though this one doesn't look terribly
well suited to it. Nice visual anyway.


>> Their argument is not of the type that can ever stand up to logical
>> analysis. They're married. Unstated buttons are always being pushed.
>> But
>> to the extent that it can be, I don't think you identified a real
>> contradiction. She initially enjoyed Saffron's arrival for the amusing
>> complications it brought to Mal's life, not because of any feelings for
>> Saffron. As soon as she got to know Saffron at all, she didn't like her.
>> I
>> don't think it would be hard for her to hold both thoughts in her head.
>
> Presumably, by taking it out on everyone except Saffron and
> retroactively blaming Wash for something that's blatantly not his
> fault?

She used the general situation to take a poke at Mal - along with most
others. Not liking Saffron was all taken out on Wash. I don't think she
took it out on anybody else. That appeared to me to be a dose of jealousy
and offense at Saffron's way of thinking - which she took as implicitly
putting herself down. She took it out on Wash because he responded
favorably to Saffron's dinner act and was then ready to be tolerant of her
attitude. That prodded both Zoe's sense of jealousy and offense. She's
essentially demanding that Wash stand up for her no matter what he thinks.
The cap to this scene is Zoe's later satisfaction that Wash had to be
knocked in the head rather than succumb to Saffron's wiles. All is shiny
with Zoe then.

All of Zoe's actions and attitudes (regarding both Wash and Mal) represent
her affection for the two. The teasing, jealousy and squabbling are all
products of it. They're directed at them because that's where it matters.
Saffron doesn't matter. Saffron's marriage, her sensuality, her affection,
her concern, her helpfulness, her expressed poetic yearnings, the offer of
family she extends - they're all fake. Not real. The real deal is in the
people living on the ship - expressed the way a real family does it. The
contrast between Saffron and everybody else is the mechanism for showing it.
Don't be deceived by the package offering one's fantasy.

> I can certainly buy that she and Wash have underlying tension,
> especially given how well it worked in "War Stories." But that
> episode lets us in and follows the leaps of logic that get them
> there.

This episode may provide some foundation to War Stories by offering some
insight into the contrast of their characters, but underlying tension is not
what their scenes are about this episode. I think you're still being
effectively conned by the early part of the story. All of the dissension
was an expression of love. It's not just that Saffron is a fake. It's that
the rest is real. That's the point of the episode. Mal states it point
blank to Saffron.

Mal: You got all kinds of learnin' and you made me look the fool without
tryin', and yet here I am with a gun to your head. That's 'cause I got
people with me. People who trust each other, who do for each other, and
ain't always lookin' for the advantage.


> I'm not demanding that every marital squabble involve walking
> the audience through the minutiae of the back issues, but OMR goes to
> the other extreme and doesn't let it make any sense to the viewer at
> all. Some people may find that pleasantly realistic, but I find it
> frustrating as a viewer. I'd say the fact that most of the responses
> have tended toward "it's a marriage thing" or "yeah, all women are
> that way" - i.e. regardless of individual personality, we should grin
> and bear it when a character goes all illogical and turns into a bitch
> - pretty much proves that I'm not likely to ever care for this
> sequence.

See above. The logic of the squabble really doesn't matter. It's not about
what tears them apart. It's about what holds them together. The marriage
thing really is what's being depicted. Couples fight. Siblings fight.
Real friends fight. And tease and trick. But when things are right it's
all done because they love and in their own special way.

<shrug> Don't know what to say other than to assert again that it's what
the episode is about. The theme will certainly assert itself again - it
does seem to be a series long theme. But I don't know any other episode
that does it more. And this is the episode that made me believe it was
real. I think it might have been intended as the point that Mal is
convinced it's real too, though I'm much less willing to assert that.


>> > Even if it ends by pushing Mal and Inara into a more
>> > straightforward "both secretly in love with each other" than the show
>> > deserves, it has a closing gag that's funny in a rueful way.
>>
>> Why don't you think it deserved it?
>
> Maybe not the best choice of words, but this is one of those
> relationships that works better for me when it's complicated, so I'm
> less happy when I feel like I'm able to sum up the premise in a
> sentence.

Oh, I wasn't thinking of it summing up their relationship. That's clearly
much more complicated. And, as I mentioned elsewhere, not something I fully
understand at any point in the series. I think of the secretly in love with
each other bit as just one aspect - which gets demonstrated here.


>> I didn't see this episode building
>> their feelings for each other so much as displaying them as part of
>> establishing the series premise. It worked a hell of a lot better for me
>> than did Shindig.
>
> Not me.

And for me, only the secretly in love with each other part. Shindig does
make a stab at getting to the underlying feelings about Inara's job. I
didn't think it was terribly successful, but it certainly went further than
this episode. The simple fact of their emotional attachment is sold to me
better this episode though.

OBS


C.O.Jones

unread,
Apr 18, 2007, 5:33:36 PM4/18/07
to
In article <1176925090.2...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
<tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:

> > >>From the shooting script: "[NOTE: If a river is an impossibility,
> > > wagon in a glade will suffice. But water makes it cooler.]"
> >
> > Therefore make it a raft instead of a wagon. (Though one suspects wheels
> > could be affixed readily enough. Might be one of them amphibian crafts.)
>
> I don't know about you old-timers, but if there's one thing my
> generation learned growing up, it's that you always ford the river.

We were taught to tow our barges down the Erie Canal.

One Bit Shy

unread,
Apr 18, 2007, 5:40:06 PM4/18/07
to
"Donny Macro" <donny...@gmail.attitude.com> wrote in message
news:jinVh.18948$807.96@trndny09...

>
> "One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote in message
> news:132aq43...@news.supernews.com...
>> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1176664321.8...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...

>> I have mixed feelings. I don't think it plays as well as most of the
>> episode - Mal's speech is much too long. But it has some fun moments and
>> supports the episode in a couple of ways. River's accusation that
>> Saffron's a thief is the only significant clue that I can think of that
>> she's conning them. That's very deftly undercut by the stolen food
>> packet. Ultimately, though, it serves to point out again that one ought
>> to listen to what River says. River's general behavior is harder to get
>> a handle on, but I think can be looked at a couple of ways. River
>> proposing marriage to Simon, then accusing him of not loving her, and
>> then faking a pregnancy could all represent the kind of fakery that
>> Saffron is engaging in. (Plus blunter signs of rejection like unmaking
>> the bed that Book had made.) Perversely, at the same time it could point
>> to the true family of the crew. In a family way I think is how she
>> termed her supposed pregnancy.
>>
>> Anyway, the scene is a little sluggish, but it has curiosity arousing
>> content and a few laughs.
>
> And serves as a parallel making Simon as uncomfortable with his "bride" as
> Mal is with Saffron.

Of course. I should have seen that. And that would also go to River acting
out the feelings she senses around her.

>>> On
>>> the crew note, though, I'm never quite sure what to make of Jayne's
>>> drunken gratitude for the rain stick, given that he's back to normal
>>> later; I think it was, very briefly, genuine, which is just... weird.
>>
>> I think he just wanted to use the guy's shirt to blow his nose.
>
> He wouldn't be the first to display completely different emotions under
> the influence of alcohol, gives us a peek into who he might be
> underneath...
>
> always beware of mean drunks, alcohol reduces inhibitions and makes some
> people more who they are.

Well, being more serious about it, yes, I think it's hinting at potential in
Jayne. It foreshadows a little how he'll act drunk in the next episode too.
Note that in OMR, the scene at the dance immediately follows Jayne's
participation in a good deed that helps out the community - which is much
akin to what Jayne inadvertently did for Jaynestown. The gift of the rain
stick is hardly on par with getting his own statue, but it's still an
expression of gratitude. How often does Jayne experience gratitude? How
many times has anyone given him a gift? Would it take more than one finger
on his hand to count them? I think the rain stick is such a big deal to him
at that moment because nobody ever gives him gifts like that.

OBS


One Bit Shy

unread,
Apr 18, 2007, 5:42:06 PM4/18/07
to
"Don Sample" <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote in message
news:dsample-7835AD...@news.giganews.com...

> In article <132aq43...@news.supernews.com>,
> "One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
>
>> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1176664321.8...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>> > FIREFLY
>> > Season One, Episode 6: "Our Mrs. Reynolds"
>>
>
>> >>From the shooting script: "[NOTE: If a river is an impossibility,
>> > wagon in a glade will suffice. But water makes it cooler.]"
>>
>> Therefore make it a raft instead of a wagon. (Though one suspects wheels
>> could be affixed readily enough. Might be one of them amphibian crafts.)
>
> The classic Conestoga Wagon was a combination wagon/boat. Wheels for
> travelling cross country, and if you came to a river that was too deep
> to ford, you could float it across.

I think I knew that once. Or at least I'd like to imagine I did.

It makes sense though. Is that why they have that funny shape to them?

OBS


David Buchner

unread,
Apr 18, 2007, 8:27:41 PM4/18/07
to
Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
> I don't really think the ship "stopped" It was just that because they
> weren't taking the direct route, when they lost power they were on a
> trajectory that wouldn't take them close to anything.

That's a better answer. You're right. But the show *Did* give the
impression that they stopped. "She ain't movin'... Serenity ain't
movin'"

Other poster mentioned that the junk blown out the hatch was still
drifting -- again, that *helps* my space-science respect for the show...
though unfortunately it's again in the "spirit of" rather than the
"exactly accurate" mode. They're screaming along at whatever
interplanetary speed, lose power, blow some stuff out -- it's still
gonna be in the general vicinity for the rest of the trip. Nice visual
reminder of the realities of space.

David Buchner

unread,
Apr 18, 2007, 8:27:39 PM4/18/07
to
William George Ferguson <wmgf...@newsguy.com> wrote:

> Well, Mythbusters also showed that a bullet hole won't cause explosive
> decompression.

I really do love it when my passions overlap. :-)

I ought to be taping Mythbusters, because who knows? They stopped
showing re-runs of Junkyard Wars.

> For the record, I qualified 'Expert' with the M1, M14, and M1911 (the 45
> caliber automatic designed by John Browning at the Springfield Armory in
> 1911, and originally built by Colt, now built by pretty much every company
> that makes handguns, the ones we were issued in the late 60s were made by
> Remington).

...and again... :-)

William George Ferguson

unread,
Apr 19, 2007, 1:33:16 PM4/19/07
to
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 14:33:36 -0700, "C.O.Jones" <ap...@solidbrass.com>
wrote:

>In article <1176925090.2...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
><tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > >>From the shooting script: "[NOTE: If a river is an impossibility,
>> > > wagon in a glade will suffice. But water makes it cooler.]"
>> >
>> > Therefore make it a raft instead of a wagon. (Though one suspects wheels
>> > could be affixed readily enough. Might be one of them amphibian crafts.)
>>
>> I don't know about you old-timers, but if there's one thing my
>> generation learned growing up, it's that you always ford the river.
>
>We were taught to tow our barges down the Erie Canal.

You don't need to tow your barges down the Erie Canal, you need to tow them
up the Erie Canal. The current flow (ultimately, gravity) will take care
of the 'down' part.

(Of course, this refers to the old 40' wide canal where barges were towed
by mules, it doesn't work as well on the current 120' wide canal)

"I've got a mule, and her name is Sal"


--
Take my love, take my land, take me where I cannot stand
I don't care, I'm still free, you can't take the sky from me
Take me out to the black, tell them I ain't comin' back
Burn the land, boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me
There's no place I can be, since I found Serenity

Donny Macro

unread,
Apr 21, 2007, 9:44:57 PM4/21/07
to

"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176774053.7...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

> On Apr 16, 6:42 am, "Apteryx" <apte...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in
>> messagenews:1176664321.8...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
>> What's to understand. Unflappable Mal has been hung out to dry and left
>> flapping in the breeze. Something everyone can enjoy.
>
> Mal's always been flappable. Throughout the series, he's very
> flappable for a space-opera protagonist.
>
>> > Zoe
>> > in particular is uncharacteristically mean and irritating (despite
>> > getting one of the episode's best lines, quoted below), in a way that
>> > I can't reconcile with the previous episodes. She's the loudest of

>> > the cheerleaders trying to concertedly make her captain's life as
>> > difficult as possible, and then she turns on Wash for, I guess,
>> > chastely showing the slightest appreciation for certain quaint
>> > customs. I'm with him on his rather entertainingly delivered "now
>> > it's even my fault? Is there anything else on your mind that I should
>> > know about?" I don't know what we're supposed to draw from this,
>> > unless it's that even the most practical of women acts in a way that
>> > defies any type of thought that it's possible to make sense of, and I
>> > don't think that was meant to be the point.
>>
>> It started out as just innocent fun for Zoe, but all went horribly wrong
>> when Saffron cooked, only for Mal, but left things set up in the kitchen
>> in
>> case Zoe wanted to cook for her husband.
>
> And this is Wash's fault because...?

I watched this episode again with my wife (recovering from surgery... not
cancer so... *phew*) anyway she had two points about this episode:

The moment at which Zoe switches to being mad at Wash, is Wash's reply to
Mal saying "... at least she isn't crying" Wash's response is "I might, is
that really fresh Bao?"

According to my wife, for Wash to say he might actually cry with jealously
that Mal had fresh Bao made for him is a really rude thing for Wash to say,
it really implies that is something he desperately longs for in a
relationship, that he isn't getting.

The other thing my wife said that was interesting was about the
asteroid/moon/planetoid they pass (it looks like it has a bite taken out of
it)... with the sensor that people with the "net" monitor, she asked if that
was a "black rock" a place they couldn't terraform or if it was a moonlet
they were building into a sphere as a first step in terraforming.... Looks
to me like it was blown up, like some kind of WMD was used on it or just
involved in a cosmic collision... but I have no evidence either way.

Arbitrar Of Quality

unread,
Apr 22, 2007, 11:53:01 AM4/22/07
to
On Apr 21, 8:44 pm, "Donny Macro" <donnyma...@gmail.attitude.com>
wrote:
> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1176774053.7...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

On behalf of the Internets, I second the relief.

> The moment at which Zoe switches to being mad at Wash, is Wash's reply to
> Mal saying "... at least she isn't crying" Wash's response is "I might, is
> that really fresh Bao?"
>
> According to my wife, for Wash to say he might actually cry with jealously
> that Mal had fresh Bao made for him is a really rude thing for Wash to say,
> it really implies that is something he desperately longs for in a
> relationship, that he isn't getting.

Either that or he's making a flippant jokey comment. (Not something
Wash would ever do at all, of course.) And Zoe's response at the
moment suggests that she gets that, because she matches his tone with
her comeback; it's only later in the cockpit when she gets unpleasant
(OBS argues that this is also done in a fond way, although it doesn't
play that way to me).

-AOQ

Donny Macro

unread,
Apr 22, 2007, 12:25:00 PM4/22/07
to

"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
news:1177257181.0...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...

Of course he is making a "flippant jokey comment" but it doesn't come from
nowhere... Her response while "jokey" basically says 'keep that up and we
wont be having sex anymore.' In "War Stories" he makes lots of flippant
jokey comments that express his very real discomfort with a situation. Check
out the change in her facial expression just after that.

I am not saying it is logical especially her line about turning around and
setting her back on Triumph but at least according to my wife, if not
logical; it is "relationship logical" (who knew women even had another
category of logic?).


One Bit Shy

unread,
Apr 22, 2007, 12:26:16 PM4/22/07
to
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
news:1177257181.0...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...

No, you misunderstand me. She's pissed. But it's born of love - an
expression of love. Which doesn't always come out as sweet nothings or
gentle prodding. She could - and did - laugh at the silliness around
Saffron - until Wash responded to it favorably. Then her bristles showed.
Saffron doesn't matter. But Wash does.

It's not just jealousy either, though she has her share of it. She's also
acting to protect Wash, to pull him back from "trouble". Don't forget that
Saffron very much *is* trouble and that Wash's tolerant attitude really did
turn out to be misplaced. This is when Zoe began to recognize that, when
her alarm instincts started kicking in. (It's curious how the episode was
written to show Inara, Zoe and River all eventually responding negatively to
Saffron. Not the guys though.)

OBS

OBS


chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu

unread,
May 9, 2007, 4:04:35 PM5/9/07
to
In alt.tv.firefly Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:

> FIREFLY
> Season One, Episode 6: "Our Mrs. Reynolds"
> (or "Tear our love apart")
> Writer: Joss Whedon
> Director: Vondie Curtis Hall

.
> This was another turning point for me in my fandom, I think.

For me, too. Our Mrs. Reynolds was the third episode broadcast, and while
I had enjoyed the first two I was still getting acclimated. OMR was just
so much damn *fun* that it broke the ice, allowed me to relax and feel at
home in the 'verse. I also remember hoping that a lot of new people had
tuned in for it, on the theory that no one could resist OMR's charms.
Even back then, there were already worries that Firefly's ratings wouldn't
be good enough for the ruthless overlords at Fox.

> First let's quickly run through the opening stuff planet-side, which
> has its own separate sense of style. The visuals convey the sense of
> the wide-open and wet frontier, among the most evocative of the series

> to date. And Mal's having a chipper day, what with how much he seems


> to be enjoying himself. Afterward, it's a good time to catch the crew
> (although not the passengers - do they ever get to have any fun?) in a
> rare happy moment, just feeling very pleased with themselves as crime
> and helping converge.

I love the abrupt cut from the gunfight straight to the party that night.
Startling, and it gets across the idea that the fight was just setup for
what's really important.

> OMR ends up being a pleasant episode, but you know what? I'm going to
> have to live up to my reputation and be a third one don't find this

> funny. Mal's doing the best he can, and from all sides gets people


> glaring at him and/or crying if he tries to get rid of his new bride
> or if he acts too nice to her. Then the longer Saffron stays on the
> ship, the more sexually needy she gets, while Book is there to hold
> Mal responsible for the whole thing. It's an untenable situation, and
> I resent the crew a little bit for their lack of understanding.

I'm in the majority that finds it all hilarious, but I'll agree that if
you stop to really think about it it just seems kinda wrong. I can
understand Inara's dismay and Book's suspicion, but why is the rest of the
group willing to give Mal such a merciless and thorough teasing? Part of
it is probably the pleasure of seeing his usual dominant, in-control
attitude slip. And as we learn in War Stories, Mal originally told Zoe
not to marry Wash, so the two of them have more reason to be amused at any
marriage-related troubles Mal gets into. That's fine as far as it goes.
However, the degree of ribbing is still awfully extreme for the situation.
Mal didn't just get tricked into a dinner date with Saffron, he got
tricked into *marrying* her. That's a pretty serious situation. What
will they laugh at next -- getting a 20-year prison sentence? Being
diagnosed with a fatal disease? ... So this is one of those situations
where I have to engage in a little suspension of disbelief to fully enjoy
the humor.

> difficult as possible, and then she turns on Wash for, I guess,
> chastely showing the slightest appreciation for certain quaint
> customs. I'm with him on his rather entertainingly delivered "now
> it's even my fault? Is there anything else on your mind that I should
> know about?" I don't know what we're supposed to draw from this,
> unless it's that even the most practical of women acts in a way that
> defies any type of thought that it's possible to make sense of, and I
> don't think that was meant to be the point.

I don't make too much of Zoe turning on Wash. I think she was just
lashing out at him for a moment, irritated that he saw anything admirable
in a servile wife and much more seriously irritated that he didn't share
her growing sense of unease. Even those rational, self-controlled types
lash out every once in a while; it doesn't mean she seriously blamed him
or would stay mad at him.

Despite all his noble talk about trust and other happy stuff, Mal still
comes across as a less than entirely good guy in his final scene with
Saffron. The implication of "Looks like you get that wedding night after
all" are *extremely* disturbing, even though we quickly realize he didn't
really mean it. And I'm not sure the final punch was entirely necessary.
But on the other hand, Mal also looks good, not just because of the trust
talk and the not killing but also because he still sees Saffron as a
person and not just an enemy; asking her real name was a nice touch.
Overall it's the kind of ambiguity I like, especially on Firefly: Mal is a
good guy with a dark side.

> This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed Anyway moment(s):

The final scene fits here.

Also, "Is there blubber?"

Trivia: The guy in the space chop-shop who understands the value of a
Firefly is played by Benito Martinez, better known as David Aceveda on The
Shield.

> AOQ rating: Good

It's not as weighty as a true Excellent should be, but I'm too fond of OMR
to feel like knocking it down to Good. Call it a borderline
Good/Excellent.


--Chris

______________________________________________________________________
chrisg [at] gwu.edu On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog.

Arbitrar Of Quality

unread,
May 10, 2007, 2:10:09 PM5/10/07
to
On May 9, 3:04 pm, chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu wrote:
> In alt.tv.firefly Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:

Couldn't resist back-responding, huh?

> I'm in the majority that finds it all hilarious, but I'll agree that if
> you stop to really think about it it just seems kinda wrong. I can
> understand Inara's dismay and Book's suspicion, but why is the rest of the
> group willing to give Mal such a merciless and thorough teasing? Part of
> it is probably the pleasure of seeing his usual dominant, in-control
> attitude slip. And as we learn in War Stories, Mal originally told Zoe
> not to marry Wash, so the two of them have more reason to be amused at any
> marriage-related troubles Mal gets into. That's fine as far as it goes.
> However, the degree of ribbing is still awfully extreme for the situation.
> Mal didn't just get tricked into a dinner date with Saffron, he got
> tricked into *marrying* her. That's a pretty serious situation. What
> will they laugh at next -- getting a 20-year prison sentence? Being
> diagnosed with a fatal disease? ... So this is one of those situations
> where I have to engage in a little suspension of disbelief to fully enjoy
> the humor.

Glad to see someone at least understands my misgivings. Playing
devil's advocate, maybe the crew assumes that he can easily dump her
off on the next rock they visit in a few days, as he's in fact
planning to do. But that's far from a sure situation, and I'm glad
you summarized it so well; the crew reacts to Mal being tricked into
marriage as if he'd been tricked into a dinner date. And that's why
OMR will never be one of my favorites.

> > difficult as possible, and then she turns on Wash for, I guess,
> > chastely showing the slightest appreciation for certain quaint
> > customs. I'm with him on his rather entertainingly delivered "now
> > it's even my fault? Is there anything else on your mind that I should
> > know about?" I don't know what we're supposed to draw from this,
> > unless it's that even the most practical of women acts in a way that
> > defies any type of thought that it's possible to make sense of, and I
> > don't think that was meant to be the point.
>
> I don't make too much of Zoe turning on Wash. I think she was just
> lashing out at him for a moment, irritated that he saw anything admirable
> in a servile wife and much more seriously irritated that he didn't share
> her growing sense of unease. Even those rational, self-controlled types
> lash out every once in a while; it doesn't mean she seriously blamed him
> or would stay mad at him.

Seems to be the popular theory.

-AOQ

chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu

unread,
May 10, 2007, 7:14:18 PM5/10/07
to
In alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:

>
> Couldn't resist back-responding, huh?

Nope! I hope to get to War Stories by Labor Day.

0 new messages