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 Historical content remains viewable.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

AOQ Firefly Review 8: "Out Of Gas"

11 views
Skip to first unread message

Arbitrar Of Quality

unread,
Apr 21, 2007, 12:35:25 PM4/21/07
to
FIREFLY
Season One, Episode 8: "Out Of Gas"
(or "What was the start of all this?")
Writer: Tim Minear
Director: David Solomon

Yet another premise that I wasn't thrilled about coming in, but ended
up liking the results. _Firefly_ does that a lot. There's something
that's always bothered me about disaster stories in general, and
particularly watching a battered ship that's perpetually just about to
break down at inopportune times and no sign of things ever changing,
and OOG doesn't help matters by presenting it in flashback so that we
know for a fact that something's about to go wrong. Just not the kind
of thing I enjoy watching

That structure itself serves the episode well, though. It's of course
told in layers of flashback, since Mal's also triggered to think back
to first meeting his ship as he's about to die on it. Certainly makes
for an impressive teaser. After that, we get flashbacks to how the
crew came together. Seems like the writers were still thinking about
the hypothetical new viewer just tuning in, what with Tim again going
on about the use of expository words ("wife," "doctor," etc.) and
such. In my experience, though, episodes like this are a terrible
introduction to a series - it can only be done mid-season once we care
about our cast, or at least know who they are. Another fact made
clear in the audio commentary is that the origin flashbacks are shot
with the washed-out colors generally used to create surreal or dream
sequences, but the show successfully fights against that association
by having the actors play it aggressively normal, down-to-earth.
Let's compliment the finished episode for always making it immediately
clear, through abrupt cuts and sound cues and through context, when
we're switching time periods, and for never making the timing
particularly confusing. We do always know when we are.

After a pretty non-descript, as such things go, dinner scene, things
abruptly start to go a little crazy. "Fire." As with much in the
episode, I'm of mixed mind about it. On the minus side, things seem
to happen in seemingly arbitrary ways. The physics of it are probably
best not to think about, along with the logistics of Zoe running
halfway across the room before anything's actually happened to be the
one to save Kaylee. It certainly looks good, though, especially the
pillar of living flame swirling its way through the corridors of the
ship. After that, it's pretty clear that we're quickly on our way up
shit creek, isolated in a way so extreme that it can only be done in a
spaceship (or maybe a submarine) story. The crew reacts in a sensible
manner that makes for decent viewing, milking the situation for any
remote possibilities that can be extracted. Also, there are three
different successful dialogue-misdirects (Simon's "outlive us all,"
River's "that won't happen," and Jayne's "fightin' at a time like
this"), which deserves some credit.

Don't have much to add to it, but I like the scene of Mal being the
voice of practicality when Wash wants to stay with Zoe; it's harsh and
brutal, but he's doing what has to be done to keep everyone alive.
You know, I don't have much to add to anything. That's not a judgment
of quality one way or the other, just something characteristic of the
particular product. If the previous episode lends itself to reviews
intensively pondering the symbolism, this one speaks for itself almost
completely.

Mostly its speech is pretty articulate, but not always. The
chronology is clear, sure, but not always what's happening. I used to
always find myself losing track of things during the scenes with our
captain alone. It took several viewings to get a clear sense of lots
of the details - where the part comes from, where Mal finds that gun,
what he's doing at the end, and so on. (Also, dropping the catalyzer
makes for a good suspenseful act break, but then a tiny bit of
resentment when one realizes that the show was milking suspense out of
pretty much nothing.) Here I can't offer much advice about what the
show should have done differently, though. In fact, OOG takes very
great care to ensure that everything that happens during the solitary
sequences is set up or established in some way during the parts of the
episode with talking in it. Maybe the moral is just that I don't
personally think it's a good idea to fill so much time with a guy
slowly staggering around a ship. The trip to sickbay, for instance,
seems to detract rather than add.

This isn't to downplay the strengths. I do appreciate the sense of
betrayal and sickness with the human race when we see what kind of
people inhabit the frontier. Fillion does a great job selling us on
his character's wound, making each step feel like he's barely hanging
on (much the way the ship is). The direction is generally immersive.
And Zoe's executive decision to come back for him is a reasonable way
to have the situation change (unconscious character wakes up and takes
over); one can see the irrational side, but seriously, you going to
blame her for helping to save everyone? Kaylee seems so proud of Mal
for doing her kind of thing on "you fixed the ship. Good work." In
the end, I like how Mal's devotion to self-reliance and his ship makes
the difference, but only with the help of the family he's made there.
And so there's room for a bit of vulnerability and non-ironic
sentimentality at the end: "you all gonna be here when I wake up?"

And I guess I'll offer up a sentence or two about each back-story
scene, because, well, why not?

#1: A bit more explicit than the show usually gets, with Mal
explaining exactly what's going through his mind when he looks at his
new vessel. I don't mind seeing that kind of thing spelled out once
in awhile - there's a time for subtlety and a time to prominently play
a theme. Especially one that's consistent with how our hero ticks,
and emphasizes the direct connection in his mind between Serenity,
Serenity Valley, and the encapsulation of everything he values. This
is why it's a ship worth living and dying with, which is something the
viewer needs to understand given his usual sense of self-
preservation. Good stuff. We don't know how much time has passed
since the war, but it seems to have been substantial; I think I'd
always kinda assumed that Mal and Zoe got themselves his Firefly right
away, but maybe the history also includes months or years of drifting
while the 'verse adjusted to the Alliance being in uncontested
control.

#2: Just little bits of random fun. Love the mustache, and the idea
of how Wash must look before we learn to trust him. Other than that,
nothing earth-shaking.

#3: So we pick up our genius mechanic. This is a great moment, and
it's one of the scenes which most directly links us to the present-day
story, when Kaylee's natural affinity for machines doesn't make her
infallible, and we see how shaken she is to have not picked up on the
impending problem. Back to the flashback, I already mentioned in
another thread how it forced me on first viewing to confront some of
my own pre-conceived notions. Long story short, I was bothered by
seeing Kaylee so casually screwing the mechanic, which made me wonder
why I was bothered, which put me on the way towards getting a better
understanding and appreciation for her sexual open-ness as a totally
natural extension of the rest of her personality. My biggest
complaint is of the most shallow kind - we only see a little of her
back while Bester (a great bit character, BTW) walks around shirtless;
same way we get various characters in the infirmary, but only the guys
get undressed. Whedon shows always do a good job putting the good-
looking guys on display, but "Serenity" suggested that _Firefly_ might
be more equal-opportunity with the exploitation of the human figure.
Since then, it's been a letdown.

#4: Mal and Inara's relationship in a nutshell, right there. I keep
wondering whether the show was planning to reveal at some point that
they actually somehow knew each other pre-shuttle-rental, since it
takes rare people to make that kind of mix of fascination and distaste
spring into existence fully formed. Although the political angle, not
something I'd even thought of, helps with that.

#5: That's totally how one would expect Jayne to come aboard (and
shows us how tenuous his loyalty to anyone is), plus lets our heroes
show off their quick-thinking ways. I wonder how they afford to keep
paying him, unless the implication is that the tradition is to treat
the hired muscle like dirt. Present-day Jayne, it should be
mentioned, seems almost tender and worried as he fixes up a few little
things for Mal on the way out before leaving him to die.

#6: Tim Minear is rather proud of this coda. It's only a minor bit
of coolness that doesn't mean much, but damn, it's clever. The
salesman's words, which have recently been used to good repetitious
effect during the episode's climax, have to refer to Serenity, right?
I don't think I've ever seen that particular trope subverted before.
And so we end at the beginning, falling in love. What's weird is that
the special effect on the "Executive Producers" credit always makes a
fade-to-black feel like a gradual fade-out, no matter how silent or
snappy or abrupt it actually is.


So...

One-sentence summary: Strong.

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
7) "Jaynestown" - Excellent
8) "Out Of Gas" - Good]

mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges

unread,
Apr 21, 2007, 1:07:21 PM4/21/07
to
> #2: Just little bits of random fun. Love the mustache, and the idea
> of how Wash must look before we learn to trust him. Other than that,
> nothing earth-shaking.

if you didnt see it already in the gag reel
theres wash coming up from behind console with his mustache
and the zoe and mal standing there both with the same mustache

> #5: That's totally how one would expect Jayne to come aboard (and
> shows us how tenuous his loyalty to anyone is), plus lets our heroes

however when jayne accepts a task he does it
such keeping them in the dining room till mal puts out the fire

(in the movie jayne allows him to be thrown around badly
because its his duty to first ensure everyone else is strapped in)

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

Don Sample

unread,
Apr 21, 2007, 3:56:34 PM4/21/07
to
In article <1177173324.9...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,

Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:

> FIREFLY
> Season One, Episode 8: "Out Of Gas"
> (or "What was the start of all this?")
> Writer: Tim Minear
> Director: David Solomon
>

My biggest problem with this episode is the whole "running out of air"
bit. Serenity is big enough that Mal could go months on his own before
the CO2 built up too much for him to breathe.

They even have River *say* earlier in the episode that they won't run
out of air. "We'll freeze to death first."

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

Michael Ikeda

unread,
Apr 21, 2007, 6:23:37 PM4/21/07
to
Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in
news:1177173324.9...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

> FIREFLY
> Season One, Episode 8: "Out Of Gas"
> (or "What was the start of all this?")
> Writer: Tim Minear
> Director: David Solomon
>

> My


> biggest complaint is of the most shallow kind - we only see a
> little of her back while Bester (a great bit character, BTW)

Bester. A little "shout-out" to Babylon 5?

--
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

Mel

unread,
Apr 21, 2007, 7:56:01 PM4/21/07
to

Don Sample wrote:
> In article <1177173324.9...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>FIREFLY
>>Season One, Episode 8: "Out Of Gas"
>>(or "What was the start of all this?")
>>Writer: Tim Minear
>>Director: David Solomon
>>
>
>
> My biggest problem with this episode is the whole "running out of air"
> bit. Serenity is big enough that Mal could go months on his own before
> the CO2 built up too much for him to breathe.
>
> They even have River *say* earlier in the episode that they won't run
> out of air. "We'll freeze to death first."
>

They lost oxygen in the fire and in venting the fire out into space.
Just because they'll freeze to death before they run out of breathable
air doesn't mean they have a lot of air left.


Mel

Mel

unread,
Apr 21, 2007, 7:56:57 PM4/21/07
to

Michael Ikeda wrote:

> Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in
> news:1177173324.9...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>>FIREFLY
>>Season One, Episode 8: "Out Of Gas"
>>(or "What was the start of all this?")
>>Writer: Tim Minear
>>Director: David Solomon
>>
>
>
>>My
>>biggest complaint is of the most shallow kind - we only see a
>>little of her back while Bester (a great bit character, BTW)
>
>
> Bester. A little "shout-out" to Babylon 5?
>

Could be. But the characters are un-alike in just about every possible way.


Mel

Don Sample

unread,
Apr 21, 2007, 8:43:08 PM4/21/07
to
In article <PNOdnat7QZ8uObfb...@uci.net>,
Mel <melb...@uci.net> wrote:

They may have used up all their reserves repressurizing the ship, but
there was no shortage of air inside.

George W Harris

unread,
Apr 21, 2007, 9:35:13 PM4/21/07
to
The cliche is that when you're about to die, your
life flashes before your eyes. This is that cliche.
However, it could be argued that it isn't Mal's life flashing
before his eyes, but Serenity's life flashing before hers.

***

Not a whole lot about Jayne this episode (remember,
the series is about Jayne), although there is some interesting
material. There's a comment somewhere, possibly on the
director's commentary, that the first thing that was written for
this episode was the scene where Mal & Zoe meet Jayne.
This episode is on occasion hi-larious, and this is one of
those occasions. We see here Jayne some time after he
threw Stitch Hessian out of that aircar, and he hasn't
changed much. He's still brutal ("tell us where you hid the
stuff, so I can shoot ya"), but also competent ("found you,
didn't I?"). It's that comment that gives Mal the idea to hire
Jayne away, and shows once again the depth of Jayne's
loyalty: he'll shoot his crew leader in the leg for a 10% cut
and his own bunk.

Jayne's other scenes also provide some comedy.
Not much to say about the "You'll use up all the air" scene,
but the close of the scene where he's telling Mal about
shutting off all the vents in the lower deck and prepping the
suit is interesting. There's an awkward pause, and then
Jayne just turns and leaves, which is funny in its
awkwardness and abruptness, but what motivates the
pause? Jayne is not naturally an overly sentimental fellow
(and space is not overly full), but clearly here he's feeling
that something is required of him before leaving - some
gesture of affection. But he's either incapable of such a
gesture, or of recognizing consciously that the gesture is
needed. He only feels the vague lack, which gives him
pause.

So, again, we see that Jayne's time aboard Serenity
has changed him in ways that he almost certainly doesn't
recognize (because he also is not an overly introspective
fellow, the ending of "Jaynestown" notwithstanding).
Previously he'd shoot his 'boss' to up his cut from 7% to 10%,
but he won't betray Mal even for enough money to buy his
ship ("Serenity" the episode), and now we see that loyalty is
tempered by sentiment. Again, this being Jayne, we have to
gauge loyalty and sentiment on a different scale.

***

Joss Whedon has on occasion metioned the influence
of the director Steven Soderbergh

http://www.implex-verlag.de/Download/Serenity_PDF/Interview_Whedon_E.pdf
http://slayageonline.com/essays/slayage7/Lavery.htm

and in the commentary to the Buffy episode "Restless"
(and interestingly enough, Amber Benson, Tara from "Buffy",
appeared in her first or second role in the 1993 Soderbergh film
"King Of The Hill" (which also featured a young Katherine Heigl
of "Roswell" and "Grey's Anatomy"in *her* first or second role)
(okay, maybe this isn't that interesting)).

but nowhere does the influence of Soderbergh appear
more overtly than in the narrative structure of "Out Of Gas".
The structure is the most interesting thing about "Out of Gas",
not because the rest of it is uninteresting, but because the
structure is *fascinating*.

There are three separate narrative threads that
interweave in OoG. One follows Mal, alone in the ship, from
when he falls to the deck of the cargo bay, holding the
catalyzer in his hand (aside: this is a callback to the pilot,
where Kaylee said they needed a spare compression coil,
'cause if it breaks, they're driftin'), to when he falls to the
deck just outside the bridge. These scenes are coldly lit,
dominated by blues. I'm not conversant with the technical
specifications of lenses, but Mal dominates the screen; the
backgrounds seem distant. There is also no dialogue (there
wouldn't be as Mal is alone on the ship).

Another thread begins in the dining room, just after
Book has regaled our crew with monastic humor (which poor
Wash misses out on), and just before Kaylee's instinct
regarding compression coils is justified, after yet another
prescient remark from River that is misinterpreted by her
brother ("Fire"), and continues until Mal collapses in the
cargo bay after escorting the Bad Samaritan off the ship at
gunpoint. These scenes most closely resemble the rest of
the series - there's nothing that unusual about the lighting or
lenses that I noticed.

Finally, there are the flashbacks to when all the
regular crew are introduced to Serenity. These aren't
necessarily all in chronological order (I would think Jayne has
been on the ship longer than Inara, although that isn't clear,
but Inara's flashback comes before Jayne's, and of course
Mal's flashback comes last), but they are clearly all of a piece.
Here the lighting is warm tones, almost sepia, and the focus is
very soft. Postively soggy with nostalgia.

There's the question of the scene in the infirmary after
the shuttles return. Although this comes chronologically after
the thread with Mal alone in the ship, it clearly belongs to the
middle thread above, both from the way it was shot, and the
presence of the entire cast.

What ties this episode together is the editing. We
switch from one thread to another naturally, with the cuts tied
together by place, person or situation. We go from Simon
injecting Zoe with adrenaline in the infrimary in one thread to
Mal entering the infirmary to inject himself. We switch from
Mal urging Inara to prep her shuttle to leave to Inara
negotiating her leasing of the shuttle, back to Inara urging
Mal to come with them. We go from Mal asking the Bad
Samaritan to be reasonable, to Marco, Jayne's boss in the
flashback, scoffing at reason. It isn't seamless but it's very
well done.

"What does any of this have to do with
Soderbergh?" I hear you cry. Well, it's the editing. In
addition to direction, Steven Soderbergh closely oversees
the editing, and frequently edits his own films (often under
the pseudonym Mary Ann Bernard). More specificly, his
1995 film "Underneath" with Peter Gallagher, Elisabeth
Shue, William Fichtner and Joe Don Baker, which
Soderbergh directed and co-wrote the screenplay (nom de
plume Sam Lowry) based on the novel "Criss Cross" by
Don Tracy, which was the basis for the 1949 Burt
Lancaster film noir of that name.

The most interesting thing about "Underneath" is
the narrative structure. It's about a man who returns to his
hometown for his mother's remarriage after having left due
to gambling problems, and getting a job with his new
father-in-law's armored car company. His ex-wife is now
engaged to a criminal, and complications ensue.
Structurally, we have three threads: there's the events of
the final day, when everything comes to a head, there's
the thread that follows the events from his return up until
that final day, and then there are the flashbacks to before
he left town. These threads are distinguished by lighting
and cinematography, and are interwoven masterfully. I
found it to be a really fascinating film.

If you find yourself fascinating by film editing (as
I'm sure practically all of you do), then in addition to
"Underneath", I recommend the 1997 Errol Morris
documentary "Fast, Cheap and Out of Control", which
looks at the stories of a elderly topiarist, a retired lion
trainer, a man who studies naked mole rats, and a
robotics designer. These stories are told in parallel,
cutting back and forth between them, sometimes with
the words of one subject dubbed over footage of another.
It holds together remarkably well - it's almost mesmerizing.
It won Best Documentary from the Nat'l Board of Review,
the Nat'l Society of Film Critics, and the New York Film
Critics, among others.
--
Never give a loaded gun to a woman in labor.

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

Donny Macro

unread,
Apr 21, 2007, 10:11:47 PM4/21/07
to

"George W Harris" <gha...@mundsprung.com> wrote in message
news:148l235tvn4n96536...@4ax.com...

George, all I can say is "wow."
This is a great post, I am going to have to follow up on some of the
references to movies and look into it, great information on the editing,
well thought out, well written.

thanks for this.

I almost hate to reply to it with what is basically a fanboy grunt... but
this episode has a small bit that confuses me.

> Another thread begins in the dining room, just after
> Book has regaled our crew with monastic humor (which poor
> Wash misses out on), and just before Kaylee's instinct
> regarding compression coils is justified, after yet another
> prescient remark from River that is misinterpreted by her
> brother ("Fire")

What exactly is River's psychic situation? every once in while I think I
have it figured out as just mind reading, but here she foretells the fire
before it happens and it isn't in anyone's mind. is she just generally
psychic and the extent of her powers are whatever the plot demands?

Speaking of foretelling the future, any word if the movie "Next" with
Nicholas Cage is going to be good? sounds good from the previews and based
on a Philip K Dick story sounds good too.


George W Harris

unread,
Apr 21, 2007, 10:09:38 PM4/21/07
to
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 16:56:57 -0700, Mel <melb...@uci.net> wrote:

:
:

More likely both our tributes to the brilliant
sci-fi author Alfred Bester, winner of the very first
Hugo for his novel _The Demolished Man_, and he
should have won for _The Stars My Destination_
(instead it went to Heinlein for _Double Star_). The
Babylon 5 character (also named Alfred) definitely is.

:Mel
--
"Intelligence is too complex to capture in a single number." -Alfred Binet

Don Sample

unread,
Apr 21, 2007, 11:17:14 PM4/21/07
to
In article <DvzWh.3586$0d2.1451@trndny02>,
"Donny Macro" <donny...@gmail.attitude.com> wrote:

> "George W Harris" <gha...@mundsprung.com> wrote in message
> news:148l235tvn4n96536...@4ax.com...
>
> George, all I can say is "wow."
> This is a great post, I am going to have to follow up on some of the
> references to movies and look into it, great information on the editing,
> well thought out, well written.
>
> thanks for this.
>
> I almost hate to reply to it with what is basically a fanboy grunt... but
> this episode has a small bit that confuses me.
>
> > Another thread begins in the dining room, just after
> > Book has regaled our crew with monastic humor (which poor
> > Wash misses out on), and just before Kaylee's instinct
> > regarding compression coils is justified, after yet another
> > prescient remark from River that is misinterpreted by her
> > brother ("Fire")
>
> What exactly is River's psychic situation? every once in while I think I
> have it figured out as just mind reading, but here she foretells the fire
> before it happens and it isn't in anyone's mind. is she just generally
> psychic and the extent of her powers are whatever the plot demands?

The mind reading is just one of her abilities. River is also off the
charts smart, has a nearly perfect kinesthetic sense and situational
awareness. She senses everything that is going on around her. She
heard something, or felt a change in the ship's vibration, or something
like that, and she knew what it presaged.

George W Harris

unread,
Apr 21, 2007, 11:26:07 PM4/21/07
to
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 02:11:47 GMT, "Donny Macro"
<donny...@gmail.attitude.com> wrote:

:Speaking of foretelling the future, any word if the movie "Next" with

:Nicholas Cage is going to be good? sounds good from the previews and based
:on a Philip K Dick story sounds good too.

:
Well, it does until you remember all the other movies
based on PKDick stories. Screamers, Paycheck, Imposter,
Total Recall, Minority Report. Only one of those rises to
mediocrity. If it weren't for Blade Runner, he'd be 0 for
whatever.

Great author, but not much luck with the
adaptations.
--
"It is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a
democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the
bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of
patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every
country."
-Hermann Goering

Donny Macro

unread,
Apr 21, 2007, 11:57:40 PM4/21/07
to

"George W Harris" <gha...@mundsprung.com> wrote in message
news:29ll23dfasobqnc82...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 02:11:47 GMT, "Donny Macro"
> <donny...@gmail.attitude.com> wrote:
>
> :Speaking of foretelling the future, any word if the movie "Next" with
> :Nicholas Cage is going to be good? sounds good from the previews and
> based
> :on a Philip K Dick story sounds good too.
> :
> Well, it does until you remember all the other movies
> based on PKDick stories. Screamers, Paycheck, Imposter,
> Total Recall, Minority Report. Only one of those rises to
> mediocrity. If it weren't for Blade Runner, he'd be 0 for
> whatever.
>
> Great author, but not much luck with the
> adaptations.

True, but hope springs eternal.

and I like Cage.

Arbitrar Of Quality

unread,
Apr 22, 2007, 12:00:29 PM4/22/07
to
On Apr 21, 8:35 pm, George W Harris <ghar...@mundsprung.com> wrote:
> The cliche is that when you're about to die, your
> life flashes before your eyes. This is that cliche.
> However, it could be argued that it isn't Mal's life flashing
> before his eyes, but Serenity's life flashing before hers.

Well said.

> Jayne's other scenes also provide some comedy.
> Not much to say about the "You'll use up all the air" scene,
> but the close of the scene where he's telling Mal about
> shutting off all the vents in the lower deck and prepping the
> suit is interesting. There's an awkward pause, and then
> Jayne just turns and leaves, which is funny in its
> awkwardness and abruptness, but what motivates the
> pause? Jayne is not naturally an overly sentimental fellow
> (and space is not overly full), but clearly here he's feeling
> that something is required of him before leaving - some
> gesture of affection. But he's either incapable of such a
> gesture, or of recognizing consciously that the gesture is
> needed. He only feels the vague lack, which gives him
> pause.

That's kind of what I was talking about in the scene leading up to
that, when he's going around the ship taking a few last actions for
Mal. He has a real "mother hen" vibe to the way he delivers those
lines. I did what I could for you, hopefully you'll be okay, or at
least a little more comfortable... okay, don't quite know what else to
say, bye.

> So, again, we see that Jayne's time aboard Serenity
> has changed him in ways that he almost certainly doesn't
> recognize (because he also is not an overly introspective
> fellow, the ending of "Jaynestown" notwithstanding).
> Previously he'd shoot his 'boss' to up his cut from 7% to 10%,
> but he won't betray Mal even for enough money to buy his
> ship ("Serenity" the episode), and now we see that loyalty is
> tempered by sentiment. Again, this being Jayne, we have to
> gauge loyalty and sentiment on a different scale.

So he "changes" by having a new sense of how much money constitutes
"good enough." I like that.

-AOQ

feli...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 22, 2007, 1:43:10 PM4/22/07
to
On Apr 21, 12:56 pm, Don Sample <dsam...@synapse.net> wrote:
> My biggest problem with this episode is the whole "running out of air"
> bit. Serenity is big enough that Mal could go months on his own before
> the CO2 built up too much for him to breathe.

Although this episode had many technical problems if you look too
closely, that wasn't necessarily one of them.

It was entirely possible that Mal's weakness and collapse was the
result of his injury and blood loss rather than running out of air. It
was ambiguous, but nothing clearly showed that the ship was running
out of enough air to sustain one person. The fact that Mal went to the
infirmary first to bandage up his wound showed that he thought the
blood loss problem was more immediate and serious than running out of
air. It's true that Mal looked pretty happy for the gust of fresh air
from the other ship when the airlock was opened, but that could easily
have been because the atmosphere of Serenity was getting pretty rank
with the after-effects of the fire and lack of fresh air circulation.

It's a little difficult to believe that a spaceship like Serenity
wouldn't have automatic emergency doors that they could activate in
the event of either fire or air leak.

It was also implied that the writers thought that the spaceship would
somehow stop dead in space if the engines weren't running, something
their technical advisors should have cleaned up in the script.

C.O.Jones

unread,
Apr 22, 2007, 3:10:45 PM4/22/07
to
In article <1177263790.1...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
<feli...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> It's a little difficult to believe that a spaceship like Serenity
> wouldn't have automatic emergency doors that they could activate in
> the event of either fire or air leak.

It's an old ship. Perhaps everything is not working properly. Or some
things may have been disabled for whatever reason. A component removed
because it was more needed elsewhere?


>
> It was also implied that the writers thought that the spaceship would
> somehow stop dead in space if the engines weren't running, something
> their technical advisors should have cleaned up in the script.

"Dead in space" would have to be a relative term. Things are either
moving under propulsion or drifting. It is not like the stars are going
to be moving past the windows... Just like a ship powerless at sea. If
it is drifting in a current, it could be moving at a measurable rate
(by sattelite reconning) but it would be "Dead in the water."

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

Ruth

unread,
Apr 22, 2007, 5:27:06 PM4/22/07
to
In article <148l235tvn4n96536...@4ax.com>,

George W Harris <gha...@mundsprung.com> wrote:


>
> If you find yourself fascinating by film editing (as
> I'm sure practically all of you do), then in addition to
> "Underneath", I recommend the 1997 Errol Morris
> documentary "Fast, Cheap and Out of Control", which
> looks at the stories of a elderly topiarist, a retired lion
> trainer, a man who studies naked mole rats, and a
> robotics designer. These stories are told in parallel,
> cutting back and forth between them, sometimes with
> the words of one subject dubbed over footage of another.
> It holds together remarkably well - it's almost mesmerizing.
> It won Best Documentary from the Nat'l Board of Review,
> the Nat'l Society of Film Critics, and the New York Film
> Critics, among others.

Great to see someone mention that movie. It is truly fascinating.

You , sir , are a hell of a writer, but I am guessing you know that.

--

Qui custodiet ipsos custodes?

Don Sample

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

> On Apr 21, 12:56 pm, Don Sample <dsam...@synapse.net> wrote:
> > My biggest problem with this episode is the whole "running out of air"
> > bit. Serenity is big enough that Mal could go months on his own before
> > the CO2 built up too much for him to breathe.
>
> Although this episode had many technical problems if you look too
> closely, that wasn't necessarily one of them.
>
> It was entirely possible that Mal's weakness and collapse was the
> result of his injury and blood loss rather than running out of air. It
> was ambiguous, but nothing clearly showed that the ship was running
> out of enough air to sustain one person.

Except the computer alarm in the background that kept announcing that
they were running out of oxygen (in English and Chinese.)


> It was also implied that the writers thought that the spaceship would
> somehow stop dead in space if the engines weren't running, something
> their technical advisors should have cleaned up in the script.

I never thought of it as them being stopped dead in space. More like
they were no longer accelerating, and they were on a trajectory that was
taking them way off into the middle of nowhere.

Julian Treadwell

unread,
Apr 22, 2007, 8:51:23 PM4/22/07
to
First up AOQ, I don't think I've said "Thanks" for your reviews.
They've been really great and have given me a whole bunch of new
insights into the series.

But I have to disagree with you on your rating for OOG. I find it a
beautiful little masterpiece. I love its wonderful layered structure,
its perfect introductions for Wash, Kaylee, Jayne, Inara and Serenity,
its outstanding support cast (the pirate captain and Bester in
particular), Mal's best performance of the series, and great character
interactions from the family meal through coping with the disaster to
the reunion at the end.

For me this is the Whedon/Minear team at its sparkling best.


Apteryx

unread,
Apr 22, 2007, 9:25:26 PM4/22/07
to
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
news:1177173324.9...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

> FIREFLY
> Season One, Episode 8: "Out Of Gas"

> That structure itself serves the episode well, though. It's of course


> told in layers of flashback, since Mal's also triggered to think back
> to first meeting his ship as he's about to die on it.

As flashback episodes go, its very well done.


> Certainly makes
> for an impressive teaser. After that, we get flashbacks to how the
> crew came together. Seems like the writers were still thinking about
> the hypothetical new viewer just tuning in, what with Tim again going
> on about the use of expository words ("wife," "doctor," etc.) and
> such. In my experience, though, episodes like this are a terrible
> introduction to a series - it can only be done mid-season once we care
> about our cast, or at least know who they are.

I wondered if it might originally have been conceived as a retrospecive
season finale, with a season 2 hoped for but not yet certain. If FF had got
as far as a full season, and this had been its finale, there would have been
some real tension as to whether Mal and/or all of the crew would have
survived.


> After a pretty non-descript, as such things go, dinner scene, things
> abruptly start to go a little crazy. "Fire." As with much in the
> episode, I'm of mixed mind about it. On the minus side, things seem
> to happen in seemingly arbitrary ways. The physics of it are probably
> best not to think about, along with the logistics of Zoe running
> halfway across the room before anything's actually happened to be the
> one to save Kaylee. It certainly looks good, though, especially the
> pillar of living flame swirling its way through the corridors of the
> ship.

I guess it helps that we don't know the phyics of the ship's engines. We
don't know what is burning. All we know, is that when it burns, it burns
with that cool "living flame"


> Don't have much to add to it, but I like the scene of Mal being the
> voice of practicality when Wash wants to stay with Zoe; it's harsh and
> brutal, but he's doing what has to be done to keep everyone alive.

I thought it a little but off that Wash needed to be told that. You'd like
to think that your space ship pilots would have a sense of duty that would
kick in in such an emergency to override even major crises in their personal
lives. Even today, would you want to be in a airliner whose pilot went to
pieces like that on hearing that his wife was in danger?

> And Zoe's executive decision to come back for him is a reasonable way
> to have the situation change (unconscious character wakes up and takes
> over); one can see the irrational side, but seriously, you going to
> blame her for helping to save everyone?

Especially not when it sets up this great exchange:

MAL: I call you back?
WASH: No, Mal. You didn't.
ZOE: I take full responsibility, cap.
SIMON: The decision saved your life.
ZOE : Won't happen again, sir.

> #4: Mal and Inara's relationship in a nutshell, right there. I keep
> wondering whether the show was planning to reveal at some point that
> they actually somehow knew each other pre-shuttle-rental, since it
> takes rare people to make that kind of mix of fascination and distaste
> spring into existence fully formed. Although the political angle, not
> something I'd even thought of, helps with that.

That is a great look Mal gives her, along with the tone on "Did ya?". And we
get to hear Mal make his absolute commitment to never again call her a
"whore".

> #5: That's totally how one would expect Jayne to come aboard (and
> shows us how tenuous his loyalty to anyone is), plus lets our heroes
> show off their quick-thinking ways. I wonder how they afford to keep
> paying him, unless the implication is that the tradition is to treat
> the hired muscle like dirt. Present-day Jayne, it should be
> mentioned, seems almost tender and worried as he fixes up a few little
> things for Mal on the way out before leaving him to die.

Probably Jayne back then was even less loyal than now, but just as bright -
"Tell us where the stuff's at so I can shoot you."

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

Good for me too. It's my 9th favourite FF episode (although 5th to 10th are
all fairly tightly bunched). It gets the same rating as my 29th favourite
AtS episode (Time Bomb), and comes between the 68th and 69th best BtVS
episodes (Revelations and Consequences).

--
Apteryx


George W Harris

unread,
Apr 22, 2007, 10:55:17 PM4/22/07
to
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 21:27:06 GMT, Ruth <Reggiet...@yogi.org> wrote:

:In article <148l235tvn4n96536...@4ax.com>,

I consider myself able to string sentences together
competently.
--
They say there's air in your lungs that's been there for years.

Atlas Bugged

unread,
Apr 22, 2007, 11:35:10 PM4/22/07
to
"Julian Treadwell" <julian.t...@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
news:f0gvsp$ktm$1...@aioe.org...

Yeah, ditto, on all points. You cannot really choose a "best" FIREFLY or
SERENITY, but OOG is on my short list of candidates. Every note, all the
way to Mal's sleepy comments at the end, is just pitch-perfect.

ARIEL is, too, so the back-to-back ordering of these two almost caused me to
commit suicide, since I felt life could only be downhill from there.

Atlas Bugged, 4/22/2007 11:30:05 PM
--
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."


Daniel Damouth

unread,
Apr 23, 2007, 5:24:16 AM4/23/07
to
feli...@yahoo.com wrote in
news:1177263790.1...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:

> It was also implied that the writers thought that the spaceship
> would somehow stop dead in space if the engines weren't running,
> something their technical advisors should have cleaned up in the
> script.

Why? It's a fantasy show with spaceships. None of the machines operate
according to any known principles of physics, and the 'verse itself
seems to operate according to different rules than ours. This is not
surprising given Joss's previous shows and his statements about how
fast the ship goes and so on. He's not exactly a science fiction kind
of guy.

-Dan Damouth

Espen Schjønberg

unread,
Apr 23, 2007, 7:37:05 AM4/23/07
to
On 23.04.2007 11:24, Daniel Damouth wrote:
> feli...@yahoo.com wrote in
> news:1177263790.1...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
>
>> It was also implied that the writers thought that the spaceship
>> would somehow stop dead in space if the engines weren't running,
>> something their technical advisors should have cleaned up in the
>> script.
>
> Why? It's a fantasy show with spaceships. None of the machines operate
> according to any known principles of physics,

Thank you. I'm not the only one saying this then.

This ship is normally under some kind of totally uninvented warp-drive.
It's a given thing: that's the only way ships in this kind of shows
could work, they have to be going many many times faster than the speed
of light.

As i have tried before: when the engines stops, the ship may be under
some kind of residual newtonian speed. Basically, there cannot be a
problem to claim: with this technology, the ship stops dead if the
engine stops.

And BTW, I think 'Out of Gas' is Excellent, just for the flashback
sentence: "A ship like this? It will be with you, to the day you die. "

I think it will!

--
Espen

feli...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 23, 2007, 11:06:03 AM4/23/07
to
On Apr 22, 4:15 pm, Don Sample <dsam...@synapse.net> wrote:
> >It
> > was ambiguous, but nothing clearly showed that the ship was running
> > out of enough air to sustain one person.
>
> Except the computer alarm in the background that kept announcing that
> they were running out of oxygen (in English and Chinese.)

Good point, but an automated "check life support" warning doesn't mean
that the ship is completely out of breathable air. There wouldn't be
much point to having an automated warning if it only triggered at the
level where the air quality was already disabling the crew (although I
think we understand that its role here is more dtramatic effect than
attempt at technical realism).

Also, consider that the visitors to the ship didn't show any distress
while they were in Serenity's hold, so the air must have been
perfectly breathable at that point. And the time from their departure
to Mal making his way to the engine room to install the part couldn't
been long, even counting his stop at the infirmary.

Don Sample

unread,
Apr 23, 2007, 12:01:32 PM4/23/07
to
In article <1177340763.4...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
feli...@yahoo.com wrote:

Mal also gasps in the "fresh" air after the airlock opens after the
other ship has docked with them.

JJ Karhu

unread,
Apr 23, 2007, 2:37:25 PM4/23/07
to
On 23 Apr 2007 09:24:16 GMT, Daniel Damouth <dam...@san.rr.com>
wrote:

>feli...@yahoo.com wrote in
>news:1177263790.1...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
>
>> It was also implied that the writers thought that the spaceship
>> would somehow stop dead in space if the engines weren't running,
>> something their technical advisors should have cleaned up in the
>> script.

For one, I seriously doubt they had any kind of technical advisor on
board; if they did, looks like (s)he had no say whatsoever.

>Why? It's a fantasy show with spaceships. None of the machines operate
>according to any known principles of physics, and the 'verse itself
>seems to operate according to different rules than ours. This is not
>surprising given Joss's previous shows and his statements about how
>fast the ship goes and so on. He's not exactly a science fiction kind
>of guy.

Joss is not a *logical* kind of guy, never mind the science fiction
part. Unfortunately.

Joss does a fine enough job with the emotion, but once there are more
than two moving parts in what he's doing, things start falling apart.
Most of the time the story has you in its grip and *you do not care*.
But I think that a show like Firefly is best left as is, and any
fanwankery in a valiant attempt of making sense of the details should
be left for shows of a lesser man.

// JJ

Arbitrar Of Quality

unread,
Apr 23, 2007, 9:02:08 PM4/23/07
to
On Apr 23, 4:24 am, Daniel Damouth <damo...@san.rr.com> wrote:

> felix...@yahoo.com wrote innews:1177263790.1...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
>
> > It was also implied that the writers thought that the spaceship
> > would somehow stop dead in space if the engines weren't running,
> > something their technical advisors should have cleaned up in the
> > script.
>
> Why? It's a fantasy show with spaceships.

Because "spaceships" mean sci-fi to some people. The sight of a
spaceship triggers the release of the hormone TREK; its receptor,
TREKKR, is a transcription factor found in geek brain cells which
controls the expression of all the major genes reponsible for the
insatiable urge to analyze and nitpick the science of sci-fi shows.
It's biological.

-AOQ

Julian Treadwell

unread,
Apr 23, 2007, 10:03:36 PM4/23/07
to

LOL!

Well, if Star Trek is the true yardstick by which all science fiction
must be judged (which of course it is, should be and always will be)
then I have a point to raise.

I don't know what science background Gene Roddenbury had, nor whether he
consulted any PhD's in Astrophysics or Space Engineering when he
designed the Enterprise, but... if he and/or his hypothetical techinical
advisors saw fit to give NCC1701 artificial gravity that behaved exactly
like Earth's (a la Serenity), not to mention numerous devices that seem
to break all of Newton's laws (transporters and replicators for example
seem to defy the Third Law of Thermodynamics) in the interests of
telling a ripping yarn, then surely it's OK for Joss to do the same?

malsp...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 24, 2007, 12:13:46 AM4/24/07
to
On Apr 21, 11:26 pm, George W Harris <ghar...@mundsprung.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 02:11:47 GMT, "Donny Macro"
>
> <donnyma...@gmail.attitude.com> wrote:
>
> :Speaking of foretelling the future, any word if the movie "Next" with
> :Nicholas Cage is going to be good? sounds good from the previews and based
> :on a Philip K Dick story sounds good too.
> :
> Well, it does until you remember all the other movies
> based on PKDick stories. Screamers, Paycheck, Imposter,
> Total Recall, Minority Report. Only one of those rises to
> mediocrity. If it weren't for Blade Runner, he'd be 0 for
> whatever.
>
> Great author, but not much luck with the
> adaptations.
> --

"A Scanner Darkly" is pretty good.

~Mal (no, not that Mal)

Atlas Bugged

unread,
Apr 24, 2007, 7:42:44 AM4/24/07
to
"Julian Treadwell" <julian.t...@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
news:f0jog2$31c$1...@aioe.org...

> I don't know what science background Gene Roddenbury had, nor whether he
> consulted any PhD's in Astrophysics or Space Engineering when he designed
> the Enterprise, but... if he and/or his hypothetical techinical advisors
> saw fit to give NCC1701 artificial gravity that behaved exactly like
> Earth's (a la Serenity), not to mention numerous devices that seem to
> break all of Newton's laws (transporters and replicators for example seem
> to defy the Third Law of Thermodynamics) in the interests of telling a
> ripping yarn, then surely it's OK for Joss to do the same?

There are several things that simply set FIREFLY apart and make it a newer
and better brand of sci-fi.

One of them was the fact that Whedon decided to scale back that sort of
excess.

I've had many science-wonks over the years explain to me, in excruciating
detail, how FIREFLY is just as bad in this regard as TREK. But...it simply
wasn't. It's a non-argument.

The best bet on the future is that we'll be piddling around our own solar
system for a very long time before anything interstellar ever occurs.

Although FIREFLY does take place in a different solar system, it pretty much
reflects the harsh reality that FTL may happen sometime in reasonable future
history...and it most likely won't, based on our current best estimates.

TREK took the position that star-travel was OK, but you couldn't even get
from one side of the galaxy to another ("quadrant") without investing
centuries. STARGATE folks, of course, traverse galaxies, they just need "D"
batteries instead of "AA" cells for their Gates.

They're just a different brand of sci-fi.

Atlas Bugged, 4/24/2007 7:38:21 AM

Tom Pentland

unread,
Apr 24, 2007, 11:54:00 AM4/24/07
to
In article <f0gvsp$ktm$1...@aioe.org>,
Julian Treadwell <julian.t...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:

> First up AOQ, I don't think I've said "Thanks" for your reviews.
> They've been really great and have given me a whole bunch of new
> insights into the series.

Agreed. AOQ's detailed and thoughtful reviews have pumped new life into
this newsgroup. These are some of the best discussions I've seen here.


> But I have to disagree with you on your rating for OOG. I find it a
> beautiful little masterpiece. I love its wonderful layered structure,
> its perfect introductions for Wash, Kaylee, Jayne, Inara and Serenity,
> its outstanding support cast (the pirate captain and Bester in
> particular), Mal's best performance of the series, and great character
> interactions from the family meal through coping with the disaster to
> the reunion at the end.

And I'll have to second Julian on this one, as well. A lot of folks cite
this as the best episode of "Firefly," which is really saying something.
I'd take that a step further and offer it as the best hour of dramatic
television ever produced. It absolutely knocked me out the first time I
watched it, and impresses me more each time I watch it again.


> For me this is the Whedon/Minear team at its sparkling best.

Amen, brother. That look on Mal's face at the very end, capping off a
flawless performance: He gazes upon Serenity for the first time, and the
look is one of love. Pure love.

You know, that thing that keeps her - and us - in the air.

--
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

Arbitrar Of Quality

unread,
Apr 24, 2007, 8:25:51 PM4/24/07
to
On Apr 24, 6:42 am, "Atlas Bugged" <atlasbuggedBYs...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> "Julian Treadwell" <julian.treadw...@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message

They're different in some ways, but I don't see why one is "newer and
better" than another. I don't see how the lack of FTL travel (but
dozens of planets in the same solar system) is a major distinguishing
factor. One thing that both Trek and FF have in common is that
they're "soft" sci-fi, fantasy stories created by people who're
primarily interested in telling stories and treat realism as an
afterthought. The stories being told - the sweeping "human
experience" dramas versus the highly personal character-driven shows -
make much more of a difference to me than comparisons of the fake
science.

-AOQ

One Bit Shy

unread,
Apr 24, 2007, 10:08:39 PM4/24/07
to
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
news:1177376527.9...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

That's funny.

Kurt Vonnegut just died. He was one of my favorite authors growing up. And
he wrote science fiction. Even had spaceships in at least one of his books.
But I don't think a lot of TREK hormone ever got released with him.

There's just all sorts of ways to approach sci-fi.

In some ways though, I think Firefly is very traditional. The sci-fi ideas
that make up this universe are constructed to ask the classic question of
what if things worked this way. But not in the technical sense - rather in
the cultural sense. How would this effect the way people act? (Often, how
would natural humanity squeeze its way in no matter what the sci-fi
influence is?) Ray Bradbury used to do that all the time. The doo-dad may
be fascinating in its own right, but the story is about human society.

OBS


mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges

unread,
Apr 24, 2007, 11:15:50 PM4/24/07
to
> Kurt Vonnegut just died. He was one of my favorite authors growing up. And
> he wrote science fiction. Even had spaceships in at least one of his books.

actually he didnt write science fiction
it was too hard so he wrote crap that people mistook for science fiction

> In some ways though, I think Firefly is very traditional. The sci-fi ideas
> that make up this universe are constructed to ask the classic question of
> what if things worked this way. But not in the technical sense - rather in

it has to be a reasonable leap of faith that things could work that way
vonnegut decided wouldnt be neat if x happened
so he declared x happened without any reason to think it could

thats fantasy not sf

some wanker wrote great granddaughter of aliens or aliens reborn or whatever
and decided that if a spacecraft carrying extremely dangerous xenomorphs
ran into problems it would land back on earth

the reasonable thing is to put it inside earth on a slow spiral into the sun
that has to be periodically lifted back up with temporarily attached boosters
any problems and it helplessly spirals into the sun and burns up

-signs- could make a test case
because of its overt religion - even including holy water and baptism
its an easy story for people to reject

it does say something important about human nature
so is someone willing to tolerate the leaps of technology faith
to deal with its message as science fiction or what

> the cultural sense. How would this effect the way people act? (Often, how
> would natural humanity squeeze its way in no matter what the sci-fi
> influence is?) Ray Bradbury used to do that all the time. The doo-dad may
> be fascinating in its own right, but the story is about human society.

what if someone made an army movie
where they were saluting backwards and invading willy-nilly

whats more important the underlying message about humanity
and upper bicep conditioning
and whether they got the chain of command correct?

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

One Bit Shy

unread,
Apr 25, 2007, 2:38:16 PM4/25/07
to
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
news:1177173324.9...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

> FIREFLY
> Season One, Episode 8: "Out Of Gas"

> Seems like the writers were still thinking about
> the hypothetical new viewer just tuning in, what with Tim again going
> on about the use of expository words ("wife," "doctor," etc.) and
> such. In my experience, though, episodes like this are a terrible
> introduction to a series - it can only be done mid-season once we care
> about our cast, or at least know who they are.

Since you need to know who they are first, then maybe it's not an
introduction? I don't know what the intention was, but seeing as how it
only explains things about some of the crew, I take it as filling in some
blanks - answering questions bubbling up about some of the characters. (I
really liked how Zoe was bothered by Wash initially. I guess that's how
attraction starts for her.)

But mainly it's about people's relationship with the ship. The ship as
character is what makes this a unified episode and not just an assortment of
back stories.


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

This is an episode I find difficult to talk about. It's hard to criticize
'cause I think it's very nicely made. The visual method of handling the
three time threads is very deftly handled, especially IMO because they
didn't just make them look different, they made them all look good. The
editing is superb. All the little stories have interesting, engaging
elements. And, well, I could go on. It's just that in spite of it all, the
episode doesn't move me. <shrug> I don't know why. It just doesn't. It's
an episode I watch to pick out nuances, but can't seem to get involved in.
So it ends up with a Decent rating from me.

OBS


Julian Treadwell

unread,
Apr 25, 2007, 10:30:17 PM4/25/07
to
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> One thing that both Trek and FF have in common is that
> they're "soft" sci-fi, fantasy stories created by people who're
> primarily interested in telling stories and treat realism as an
> afterthought. The stories being told - the sweeping "human
> experience" dramas versus the highly personal character-driven shows -
> make much more of a difference to me than comparisons of the fake
> science.
>
> -AOQ

Maybe the lesson here is that to write "hard" sf you must be a
scientist. Quintessential hard sf writers like Larry Niven, Robert
Heinlein, Carl Sagan and Arthur C Clarke all had scientific backgrounds
ranging from pretty good (the first two) to extraordinary (the last
two). It's not reasonable to expect writers without that background to
get all the technical details right. Even Larry Niven didn't manage
that - the first edition of "Ringworld" (hastily withdrawn and now worth
a mint) had the Earth spinning in the wrong direction.

So I can forgive Joss a lot in this area because I don't expect him to
have deep scientific knowledge. In fact, for a right-brainer I think he
did pretty well in that department.


Atlas Bugged

unread,
Apr 25, 2007, 10:59:42 PM4/25/07
to
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>> One thing that both Trek and FF have in common is that
>> they're "soft" sci-fi, fantasy stories created by people who're
>> primarily interested in telling stories and treat realism as an
>> afterthought. The stories being told - the sweeping "human
>> experience" dramas versus the highly personal character-driven shows -
>> make much more of a difference to me than comparisons of the fake
>> science.
>>

"Julian Treadwell" <julian.t...@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message

news:f0p2ps$tom$1...@aioe.org...


> Maybe the lesson here is that to write "hard" sf you must be a scientist.

Surely some truth to that, but I'd say not, keep reading....

>Quintessential hard sf writers like Larry Niven, Robert Heinlein, Carl
>Sagan and Arthur C Clarke all had scientific backgrounds ranging from
>pretty good (the first two) to extraordinary (the last two).

Yes, notwithstanding that Sagan disgraced himself later in life with
ludicrous, absurd, and plain-wrong theories and views, such as "nuclear
winter" and the idea that if microbes were discovered on Mars, it would be
immoral to go there. Still, you are right, he had the science background in
spades. (For more of his disgrace, check out his views on abortion.)

>It's not reasonable to expect writers without that background to get all
>the technical details right. Even Larry Niven didn't manage that - the
>first edition of "Ringworld" (hastily withdrawn and now worth a mint) had
>the Earth spinning in the wrong direction.

LOL, didn't know that. But yeah, there is certainly no downside I can think
of to having the writer know more science instead of less. That said, you
have it right when you say....


>
> So I can forgive Joss a lot in this area because I don't expect him to
> have deep scientific knowledge. In fact, for a right-brainer I think he
> did pretty well in that department.

Right-brainers can get the job done extremely well, because the details of
the science are not the point - correct science is really just a tool - this
is, after all, science *fiction,* right? Good science is instead a tool -
and a good one - for making a story that we can immerse ourselves in,
particularly if we are scientifically literate.

But it is science itself - and its central role for humanity - that makes
for quality SF.

That's why the "Vera" controversy (it never seems to end) is worthy if you
want to discuss gun technology, worth-less as a comment on the quality of
FIREFLY or "Our Mrs. Reynolds."

What matters is that there was a technological question - accurate or not -
that drove the story. Not "God," not fortuity, not wizards, and etc., and
the message is that the one that honestly matters is the real search for
truth. That's called science.

Atlas Bugged, 4/25/2007 10:56:29 PM

Don Sample

unread,
Apr 25, 2007, 11:08:35 PM4/25/07
to
In article <f0p2ps$tom$1...@aioe.org>,
Julian Treadwell <julian.t...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:

> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> > One thing that both Trek and FF have in common is that
> > they're "soft" sci-fi, fantasy stories created by people who're
> > primarily interested in telling stories and treat realism as an
> > afterthought. The stories being told - the sweeping "human
> > experience" dramas versus the highly personal character-driven shows -
> > make much more of a difference to me than comparisons of the fake
> > science.
> >
> > -AOQ
>
> Maybe the lesson here is that to write "hard" sf you must be a
> scientist. Quintessential hard sf writers like Larry Niven, Robert
> Heinlein, Carl Sagan and Arthur C Clarke all had scientific backgrounds
> ranging from pretty good (the first two) to extraordinary (the last
> two). It's not reasonable to expect writers without that background to
> get all the technical details right. Even Larry Niven didn't manage
> that - the first edition of "Ringworld" (hastily withdrawn and now worth
> a mint) had the Earth spinning in the wrong direction.

The only actual scientist on your list was Sagan. (You should have
included Asimov. He was a real scientist too (though not a very notable
one.))

Julian Treadwell

unread,
Apr 26, 2007, 12:58:37 AM4/26/07
to
Don Sample wrote:
> The only actual scientist on your list was Sagan. (You should have
> included Asimov. He was a real scientist too (though not a very notable
> one.))
>

Yeah I know, but the others all had some scientific education and a good
general understanding of most areas of science. I believe Niven had
degrees in Maths and Psychology, Heinlein had an Engineering degree, and
Clarke began life as an engineer but being the genius that he is
attained expert status in many many areas of knowledge. Asimov I
should have included also, I know he had a PhD in Chemistry.

Julian Treadwell

unread,
Apr 26, 2007, 1:44:59 AM4/26/07
to

Hmmm, I don't think I disagree with any particular point Captain, but...

I think what I was trying to say (perhaps not clearly) was that it's not
fair to call Firefly hard sf, because Joss hasn't the background to
write hard sf. And therefore not fair to nitpick too hard on any
technological slips he made.

It's soft sf, and none the less valuable for that.

Well perhaps I do disagree on one point - there isn't a technological
question that drives the story, it's not about the science. There are
human questions that drive this story - damn good ones, and damn well
explored.

Arbitrar Of Quality

unread,
Apr 27, 2007, 2:28:43 AM4/27/07
to
On Apr 26, 12:44 am, Julian Treadwell <julian.treadw...@jcu.edu.au>
wrote:

> Hmmm, I don't think I disagree with any particular point Captain, but...
>
> I think what I was trying to say (perhaps not clearly) was that it's not
> fair to call Firefly hard sf, because Joss hasn't the background to
> write hard sf. And therefore not fair to nitpick too hard on any
> technological slips he made.
>
> It's soft sf, and none the less valuable for that.

I guess I'm a fantasy fan at heart, since I'm all about the "soft" sf.

> Well perhaps I do disagree on one point - there isn't a technological
> question that drives the story, it's not about the science. There are
> human questions that drive this story - damn good ones, and damn well
> explored.

And that's what fantasy stories (and "soft" sf, which is basically a
subset of fantasy) should be all about.

-AOQ

Arbitrar Of Quality

unread,
Apr 27, 2007, 2:30:43 AM4/27/07
to
On Apr 24, 9:08 pm, "One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1177376527.9...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

>
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 4:24 am, Daniel Damouth <damo...@san.rr.com> wrote:
> >> felix...@yahoo.com wrote
> >> innews:1177263790.1...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> > It was also implied that the writers thought that the spaceship
> >> > would somehow stop dead in space if the engines weren't running,
> >> > something their technical advisors should have cleaned up in the
> >> > script.
>
> >> Why? It's a fantasy show with spaceships.
>
> > Because "spaceships" mean sci-fi to some people. The sight of a
> > spaceship triggers the release of the hormone TREK; its receptor,
> > TREKKR, is a transcription factor found in geek brain cells which
> > controls the expression of all the major genes reponsible for the
> > insatiable urge to analyze and nitpick the science of sci-fi shows.
> > It's biological.
>
> That's funny.

I'm a funny guy.

-AOQ
~couldn't resist~

0 new messages