Ship design, series vs. movie

10 views
Skip to first unread message

David Buchner

unread,
Oct 22, 2005, 11:32:18 AM10/22/05
to
I keep reading mentions of various "versions" of Serenity -- a couple
modifications in the course of the series, and then more for the movie.
Does anybody have a list of what they changed? I can tell that the
overall look of the ship's exterior "feels" different in shots from the
movie, but I'm not sure I've identified what it is exactly.

Also, in one of those interview clips with Joss Whedon in the Sci-Fi
Channel 1/2 hour special -- he mentions his clinging to hope when the
series was cancelled, refusing to tear down the sets for as long as
possible, and then offering to store them himself.

Does anybody know if the sets were, in fact, stored? Or did they have
to build the whole thing from the ground up again? They made such a big
deal in the DVD commentaries of how elaborate and complete the sets
were.

I think I noticed some changes in the common area -- some shelves in the
little alcove with the comfy chairs; The spinny part of the engine was
different; I think the cargo bay was different somehow: curves in the
walls?

Neil Fraser

unread,
Oct 22, 2005, 12:14:24 PM10/22/05
to
David Buchner wrote:
> I keep reading mentions of various "versions" of Serenity -- a
> couple modifications in the course of the series, and then more
> for the movie. Does anybody have a list of what they changed?
> I can tell that the overall look of the ship's exterior "feels"
> different in shots from the movie, but I'm not sure I've identified
> what it is exactly.

I think there were more dead bodies adorning the hull. Other than
that...

The best part of the BDM's version was Serenity's legs. On final
approach you could see them clawing at empty air, searching for the
ground. Oh yeah, definitely have to say it was her legs. Her legs, and
where her legs meet her hull. Actually, that whole area. That and
above it.

Beth Smarr

unread,
Oct 22, 2005, 12:44:48 PM10/22/05
to

William

unread,
Oct 22, 2005, 2:48:52 PM10/22/05
to
"David Buchner" <buc...@wcta.net> wrote in message
news:1h4tx66.1x8u0zd77gj5mN%buc...@wcta.net...

>
> Also, in one of those interview clips with Joss Whedon in the Sci-Fi
> Channel 1/2 hour special -- he mentions his clinging to hope when the
> series was cancelled, refusing to tear down the sets for as long as
> possible, and then offering to store them himself.
>
> Does anybody know if the sets were, in fact, stored? Or did they have
> to build the whole thing from the ground up again? They made such a big
> deal in the DVD commentaries of how elaborate and complete the sets
> were.

They had to rebuild it. In an article about how they managed to keep
costs down even though they filmed in L.A. it mentioned something
about the TV sets not being usable - no details given. They rebuilt it
in 14 days which impressed the bean counters.

> I think I noticed some changes in the common area -- some shelves in the
> little alcove with the comfy chairs; The spinny part of the engine was
> different; I think the cargo bay was different somehow: curves in the
> walls?

I think so. I haven't looked at the DVDs, but I don't remember the
structural ribs in the TV cargo bay. Could have just been the lighting
though. -Wm


Commodore LXIV

unread,
Oct 22, 2005, 4:17:56 PM10/22/05
to

"Neil Fraser" <neil....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129997664.3...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

ROFL!
ok, you win best use of a quote from the series.


whodunit

unread,
Oct 22, 2005, 7:05:03 PM10/22/05
to
Wash, is that *you*? LOL. ;-)

Auz

unread,
Oct 22, 2005, 7:09:50 PM10/22/05
to

> The best part of the BDM's version was Serenity's legs. On final
> approach you could see them clawing at empty air, searching for the
> ground. Oh yeah, definitely have to say it was her legs. Her legs, and
> where her legs meet her hull. Actually, that whole area. That and
> above it.

Need to be alone for a few minutes? ;-)

Gml...@scvnet.com

unread,
Oct 22, 2005, 8:47:20 PM10/22/05
to

"whodunit" <pill...@sbcworldly.net> wrote in message
news:zAz6f.6542$7h7....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...

Well, crawling out of my bunk, I didn't particularly like them. Too busy.
Not the kind of landing gear a substantial cargo ship should have.

Thinking about it logically, on a small cargo ship you want to put the deck
as close to the ground as possible. Best to just have a big flat bottom (on
the ship, that is...)


Andy

unread,
Oct 22, 2005, 9:03:23 PM10/22/05
to
Commodore LXIV wrote:

I'll second that, lol! That was great!

--
A
My God, it's full of Daggets!

Andy

unread,
Oct 22, 2005, 9:03:36 PM10/22/05
to
Auz wrote:

He'll be in his bunk ;)

Andy

unread,
Oct 22, 2005, 9:42:28 PM10/22/05
to
Gml...@scvnet.com wrote:


Well, yeah, but Serenity *does* have a big flat bottom. That can been seen
quite clearly when she bounces off of it in the BDM. Several times (and
that scene was badly done IMO - on that first bounce off the bottom of the
ship, after the landing gear folded, nothing seems to buckle). She's well
designed in that respect, that -

The entire cargo area is big, flat, and at the bottom of the ship... making
it easy to load and offload cargo via that big, flat hatch.

versus Serenity's ass, which is nicely rounded and quite attractive, if
you're an arthropod ;)

Captain Nerd

unread,
Oct 22, 2005, 10:21:40 PM10/22/05
to
In article <LpmdnaNk_6n...@midco.net>,
Andy <an...@afanblade.spe.midco.net> wrote:

Definitely a "soda/monitor" moment. And subtle, too!

Cap.

--
Since 1989, recycling old jokes, cliches, and bad puns, one Usenet
post at a time!
Operation: Nerdwatch http://www.nerdwatch.com
Only email with "TO_CAP" somewhere in the subject has a chance of being read

Andy

unread,
Oct 22, 2005, 10:53:08 PM10/22/05
to
Captain Nerd wrote:

> In article <LpmdnaNk_6n...@midco.net>,
> Andy <an...@afanblade.spe.midco.net> wrote:
>
>> Commodore LXIV wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > "Neil Fraser" <neil....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:1129997664.3...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >> David Buchner wrote:
>> >>> I keep reading mentions of various "versions" of Serenity -- a
>> >>> couple modifications in the course of the series, and then more
>> >>> for the movie. Does anybody have a list of what they changed?
>> >>> I can tell that the overall look of the ship's exterior "feels"
>> >>> different in shots from the movie, but I'm not sure I've identified
>> >>> what it is exactly.
>> >>
>> >> I think there were more dead bodies adorning the hull. Other than
>> >> that...
>> >>
>> >> The best part of the BDM's version was Serenity's legs. On final
>> >> approach you could see them clawing at empty air, searching for the
>> >> ground. Oh yeah, definitely have to say it was her legs. Her legs, and
>> >> where her legs meet her hull. Actually, that whole area. That and
>> >> above it.
>> >>
>> >
>> > ROFL!
>> > ok, you win best use of a quote from the series.
>>
>> I'll second that, lol! That was great!
>
> Definitely a "soda/monitor" moment. And subtle, too!

Yeah, I abused a mouthful of Guinness when I read that :)

The only improvement as far as I could see would have been a mention of
feet... ah... River's feet in particular... such muscular and graceful feet
they be...

I'll be in my zero-g cocoon.

William

unread,
Oct 22, 2005, 11:36:50 PM10/22/05
to
<Gml...@scvnet.com> wrote in message news:435a...@news.bnb-lp.com...

>
>
> Well, crawling out of my bunk, I didn't particularly like them. Too busy.
> Not the kind of landing gear a substantial cargo ship should have.
>
> Thinking about it logically, on a small cargo ship you want to put the
> deck
> as close to the ground as possible. Best to just have a big flat bottom
> (on
> the ship, that is...)

That assumes you land only on large flat areas. and that you can put it
down very evenly. Otherwise, you'd get punctures or warping. Legs give
you leveling options. (And it is flat, so the legs can lower it right on
down
when appropriate.) -Wm


ack

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 12:52:35 AM10/23/05
to

...back to the original question (although the thread so far has been
well-neigh hilarious):

Externally, Serenity is pretty much unchanged from the series. Maybe
there are some landing gear changes - mostly more detail in that area, I
guess.

Internally, the basic layout is also the same. I recall an interview
that stated that new set was more "open" (read bigger) to allow for
"acting space". You can easily tell interior shots apart between the
series and the movie.

One thing that bothered me in the movie was the treatment of the cargo
bay walls and rear bulkhead. I missed the old look, which was something
I thought would be easy to reproduce in the movie. the different look
made Serenity too different to me at least.

Finally, and I should be horn-swaggled for not noticing, what of the
"boobs"? I can't remember if they were even there!

--ack

Jason N

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 8:16:18 AM10/23/05
to
William wrote:

> They had to rebuild it. In an article about how they managed to keep
> costs down even though they filmed in L.A. it mentioned something
> about the TV sets not being usable - no details given. They rebuilt it
> in 14 days which impressed the bean counters.

I read somewhere that although the TV show sets were very nice, they
just wouldn't have looked good when blown up to the size of a cinema
screen. They needed a set that was much more detailed, and obviously
made a few improvements at the same time. TV sets don't need to be so
detailed as they are only going to be at DVD resolution at best, and not
shown on something the size of a cinema screen.

I preferred the darker earthy tones of the TV show version rather than
the bluer shinier movie version. Still a great ship though.

Jason.

Andy

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 2:45:07 PM10/23/05
to
ack wrote:

I noticed that we seem to see quite a bit more of the landing gear, but I'm
not sure on the differences.

>
> Internally, the basic layout is also the same. I recall an interview
> that stated that new set was more "open" (read bigger) to allow for
> "acting space". You can easily tell interior shots apart between the
> series and the movie.

It definitely seemed bigger to me as well, especially the cargo bay.

>
> One thing that bothered me in the movie was the treatment of the cargo
> bay walls and rear bulkhead. I missed the old look, which was something
> I thought would be easy to reproduce in the movie. the different look
> made Serenity too different to me at least.

What were the differences? It seemed like the whole look was cleaner, less
girder work, walkways and such.

>
> Finally, and I should be horn-swaggled for not noticing, what of the
> "boobs"? I can't remember if they were even there!

Argh! Need the DVD! :)

Pat Casey

unread,
Oct 24, 2005, 6:50:23 AM10/24/05
to
Andy <an...@afanblade.spe.midco.net> wrote in
news:i7ydnb3n-qm...@midco.net:

> ack wrote:
>
>> Andy wrote:
>>> Gml...@scvnet.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"whodunit" <pill...@sbcworldly.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:zAz6f.6542$7h7....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>
>>>>>Neil Fraser wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>David Buchner wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I keep reading mentions of various "versions" of Serenity -- a
>>>>>>>couple modifications in the course of the series, and then more
>>>>>>>for the movie. Does anybody have a list of what they changed?
>>>>>>>I can tell that the overall look of the ship's exterior "feels"
>>>>>>>different in shots from the movie, but I'm not sure I've
>>>>>>>identified what it is exactly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>

I noticed one big difference in the opening sequence. They built Serenity
in one piece as opposed to the two seperate sections used in the series.


>>>>>>I think there were more dead bodies adorning the hull. Other than
>>>>>>that...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The best part of the BDM's version was Serenity's legs. On final
>>>>>>approach you could see them clawing at empty air, searching for
>>>>>>the ground. Oh yeah, definitely have to say it was her legs. Her
>>>>>>legs, and where her legs meet her hull. Actually, that whole area.
>>>>>> That and above it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Wash, is that *you*? LOL. ;-)
>>>>
>>>>Well, crawling out of my bunk, I didn't particularly like them. Too
>>>>busy. Not the kind of landing gear a substantial cargo ship should
>>>>have.
>>>>

The legs made a lot of sense when you think about some of the places
Serenity was expected to land. Not all frontier planets had "space
ports", and as quite often the cargo they were carring was not strictly
approved that type of landing gear would facilitate landings in all kinds
of terrain.


>>>>Thinking about it logically, on a small cargo ship you want to put
>>>>the deck
>>>>as close to the ground as possible. Best to just have a big flat
>>>>bottom (on the ship, that is...)
>>>
>>>

Once they were grounded I think the landing gear was used as a leveling
mechanism (IMHO)

Me too Can't wait Damit!

David Buchner

unread,
Oct 25, 2005, 12:51:34 PM10/25/05
to
Neil Fraser <neil....@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I can tell that the overall look of the ship's exterior "feels"
> > different in shots from the movie, but I'm not sure I've identified
> > what it is exactly.
>
> I think there were more dead bodies adorning the hull. Other than
> that...

Ha! But really...

> The best part of the BDM's version was Serenity's legs. On final
> approach you could see them clawing at empty air, searching for the
> ground. Oh yeah, definitely have to say it was her legs. Her legs, and
> where her legs meet her hull. Actually, that whole area. That and
> above it.

:-) Nice.

Actually, I thought the legs were new. But then I noticed them in
re-watching some episodes. I think they just got beefier and looked a
bit more like they could support weight. I think the design looks like
it could do without them altogether: that structure that looks like
skids in the back, and the belly of the cargo hold, look like they could
support more weight than some dinky ole legs. And if you assume the
engine is made of lots of heavy parts, you wouldn't need anything
holding up the neck and head part.

In general, folding legs on spaceships bug me. They look kind of
gimmicky and insubstantial. Thinking of Star Trek: Voyager; never bought
those; they don't fit in with the rest of the technology somehow... And
cliche: they always make me think of flying saucers.

Though somebody else did point out that you can't count on everyplace
they land to be nice and flat... they could be useful just for leveling
purposes. Thinking of the jacks under a camper...

David Buchner

unread,
Oct 25, 2005, 12:51:36 PM10/25/05
to
Jason N <ne...@REMOVETHISTOREPLYjnewt.clara.co.uk> wrote:

> William wrote:
> > They had to rebuild it. In an article about how they managed to keep
> > costs down even though they filmed in L.A. it mentioned something
> > about the TV sets not being usable - no details given. They rebuilt it
> > in 14 days which impressed the bean counters.

It's a shame. I like to imagine Whedon renting a u-store-it space to
keep his spaceship in... or maybe a hanger at Mojave, and then hauling
it back out for the movie. I recall reading when they made the first
Star Trek - Next Gen movie, they had to build new models and new sets
and everything for the same reason: not enough detail built into them,
they'd look fake blown up on huge screens.


> I read somewhere that although the TV show sets were very nice, they
> just wouldn't have looked good when blown up to the size of a cinema
> screen. They needed a set that was much more detailed, and obviously
> made a few improvements at the same time. TV sets don't need to be so
> detailed as they are only going to be at DVD resolution at best, and not
> shown on something the size of a cinema screen.
>
> I preferred the darker earthy tones of the TV show version rather than
> the bluer shinier movie version. Still a great ship though.

Yeah, on both. I think the earth tones of the series gave it much of its
homey charm. I understand little of that stuff, but it sounds like this
is mostly done with filters and stuff in the processing/editing stage?

It's been weeks, but the one shot from the BDM that recalls that feel is
the bit where Mal is giving his big pep talk before the finale, and the
sun is behind him (out those clerestoryish windows in the common area?
or maybe the cupola?). That was a nice touch.

Andy

unread,
Oct 26, 2005, 12:02:13 AM10/26/05
to
Pat Casey wrote:

> Andy <an...@afanblade.spe.midco.net> wrote in
> news:i7ydnb3n-qm...@midco.net:
>
>> ack wrote:
>>
>>> Andy wrote:
>>>> Gml...@scvnet.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"whodunit" <pill...@sbcworldly.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:zAz6f.6542$7h7....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>Neil Fraser wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>David Buchner wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I keep reading mentions of various "versions" of Serenity -- a
>>>>>>>>couple modifications in the course of the series, and then more
>>>>>>>>for the movie. Does anybody have a list of what they changed?
>>>>>>>>I can tell that the overall look of the ship's exterior "feels"
>>>>>>>>different in shots from the movie, but I'm not sure I've
>>>>>>>>identified what it is exactly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>
> I noticed one big difference in the opening sequence. They built Serenity
> in one piece as opposed to the two seperate sections used in the series.

Now that you've pointed that out, it's bloody obvious to me. D'oh :)

Wonder if Joss will release the deck plans now. That'd be shiny :) (or are
they in the RPG?)

>
>
>>>>>>>I think there were more dead bodies adorning the hull. Other than
>>>>>>>that...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The best part of the BDM's version was Serenity's legs. On final
>>>>>>>approach you could see them clawing at empty air, searching for
>>>>>>>the ground. Oh yeah, definitely have to say it was her legs. Her
>>>>>>>legs, and where her legs meet her hull. Actually, that whole area.
>>>>>>> That and above it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Wash, is that *you*? LOL. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, crawling out of my bunk, I didn't particularly like them. Too
>>>>>busy. Not the kind of landing gear a substantial cargo ship should
>>>>>have.
>>>>>
>
> The legs made a lot of sense when you think about some of the places
> Serenity was expected to land. Not all frontier planets had "space
> ports", and as quite often the cargo they were carring was not strictly
> approved that type of landing gear would facilitate landings in all kinds
> of terrain.

Agreed, and like someone else pointed out, they are like the leveling jacks
on a camper.

>
>
>>>>>Thinking about it logically, on a small cargo ship you want to put
>>>>>the deck
>>>>>as close to the ground as possible. Best to just have a big flat
>>>>>bottom (on the ship, that is...)
>>>>
>>>>
>
> Once they were grounded I think the landing gear was used as a leveling
> mechanism (IMHO)

That nice flat cargo belly wouldn't be any good otherwise. Of course any
*legal* smugg* er, cargo vessel would be landing in a nice, flat, legal
Alliance port where they wouldn't have to level the ship, now would they?
*g*

*snip*

>>> Finally, and I should be horn-swaggled for not noticing, what of the
>>> "boobs"? I can't remember if they were even there!
>>
>> Argh! Need the DVD! :)
>>
>
> Me too Can't wait Damit!

I'm almost looking forward to Joss's commentary (if there is) as seeing the
movie again... he sure tied up a lot of threads in a hurry to produce this
marvelous tapestry :)

Cheers!

Gml...@scvnet.com

unread,
Nov 1, 2005, 11:36:46 PM11/1/05
to

"David Buchner" <buc...@wcta.net> wrote in message
news:1h4zidg.11elcajuvbod7N%buc...@wcta.net...

> Jason N <ne...@REMOVETHISTOREPLYjnewt.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > William wrote:
> > > They had to rebuild it. In an article about how they managed to keep
> > > costs down even though they filmed in L.A. it mentioned something
> > > about the TV sets not being usable - no details given. They rebuilt it
> > > in 14 days which impressed the bean counters.
>
> It's a shame. I like to imagine Whedon renting a u-store-it space to
> keep his spaceship in... or maybe a hanger at Mojave, and then hauling
> it back out for the movie.

Not a bad idea, considering where most of the exteriors were filmed!
Creosote bushes were way too common in the 'verse! Couldn't the
terraformers have thrown in some sagebrush and cholla for variety?


William

unread,
Nov 1, 2005, 11:41:44 PM11/1/05
to
<Gml...@scvnet.com> wrote in message news:4368...@news.bnb-lp.com...

A few Joshua trees, maybe? They're pretty alien looking. Not far from
L.A. either (take a left at Palm Springs).

-Wm


Lord-Data

unread,
Nov 2, 2005, 3:20:40 AM11/2/05
to

<Gml...@scvnet.com> wrote in message news:4368...@news.bnb-lp.com...
>
> "David Buchner" <buc...@wcta.net> wrote in message
> news:1h4zidg.11elcajuvbod7N%buc...@wcta.net...
>> Jason N <ne...@REMOVETHISTOREPLYjnewt.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > William wrote:
>> > > They had to rebuild it. In an article about how they managed to keep
>> > > costs down even though they filmed in L.A. it mentioned something
>> > > about the TV sets not being usable - no details given.

I believe this happened with the StarTrek TNG movies as well .. the models
used for the tv series were unusable for the movi e.. something to do with
Scale and detail I beleive.. the higher res/film grade (i'm guessing the
first TNG movie was film, not digital) of the movie cameras were mucher
higher than the original models were ever designed for, so they built a
bigger and more detailed model .. I'd guess the same would apply for
Firefly/Serenity ..

James Craine

unread,
Jan 22, 2006, 7:57:59 PM1/22/06
to

Andy wrote:


>>I noticed one big difference in the opening sequence. They built Serenity
>>in one piece as opposed to the two seperate sections used in the series.
>
>
> Now that you've pointed that out, it's bloody obvious to me. D'oh :)
>
> Wonder if Joss will release the deck plans now. That'd be shiny :) (or are
> they in the RPG?)
>
>

No they didn't. In the commentary Joss talks about this. In
the opening tracking shot there is a scene where Simon and
someone walk into a narrow area. I think it was the top of
the staircase. The camera is on the first person then turns
rapidly to Simon. Joss calls this a 'whip pan'. He mentions
that this was the transition between sets. The staircase is
on both sets. I slowed it down to minimum speed and I could
not find a break so they did it very well, but Joss says it
is there and this isn't a thing to lie about so I believe him.

Andy

unread,
Jan 22, 2006, 8:25:07 PM1/22/06
to
James Craine wrote:

Eh? :)

--
A
"Mal, don't take this the wrong way, but in your next life, I hope you come
back as a polyp."
"Is that good?"

David Buchner

unread,
Jan 25, 2006, 3:08:34 PM1/25/06
to
James Craine <James...@Hotmail.com> wrote:

> No they didn't. In the commentary Joss talks about this. In
> the opening tracking shot there is a scene where Simon and
> someone walk into a narrow area. I think it was the top of
> the staircase. The camera is on the first person then turns
> rapidly to Simon. Joss calls this a 'whip pan'. He mentions
> that this was the transition between sets. The staircase is
> on both sets. I slowed it down to minimum speed and I could
> not find a break so they did it very well, but Joss says it
> is there and this isn't a thing to lie about so I believe him.

I have said this before, and very soon now I will be saying it again.

This set should be hauled out into the California desert and made into a
nightclub. I would buy another Airstream and live a few hundred feet
from it, and spend all my time there.

ruth

unread,
Jan 25, 2006, 6:07:44 PM1/25/06
to
In article <1h9q1ig.z5s86m1qdl6u0N%buc...@wcta.net>,
buc...@wcta.net (David Buchner) wrote:


>
> This set should be hauled out into the California desert and made into a
> nightclub. I would buy another Airstream and live a few hundred feet
> from it, and spend all my time there.

That set looks just like the Mars 2010 restaurant near Times Square.


Ruth, who also would love to have an airstream.
--

David Buchner

unread,
Jan 26, 2006, 12:15:06 PM1/26/06
to
ruth <Yo...@somewhereonterra.net> wrote:

> > This set should be hauled out into the California desert and made into a
> > nightclub. I would buy another Airstream and live a few hundred feet
> > from it, and spend all my time there.
>
> That set looks just like the Mars 2010 restaurant near Times Square.

Uhhh... what? Now you're going to have to tell more about this.

> Ruth, who also would love to have an airstream.

Yes, I miss it all the time. Two of us lived in it for something like 5
years -- through some bitey Minnesota winters even. It was 31' long.
Next one, I'd like to have it be small enough to seriously consider
driving around with. Or mount it on big pontoons and have it be a
houseboat... Name it Serenity...

Slightly Firefly-related tidbit: I'm partway through watching my second
episode of WONDERFALLS, and the main character lives in a trailer park
in an Airstream that's been fancied-up inside.

ruth

unread,
Jan 26, 2006, 5:28:21 PM1/26/06
to
In article <1h9rqnz.1fngxme8jn0ccN%buc...@wcta.net>,
buc...@wcta.net (David Buchner) wrote:

> ruth <Yo...@somewhereonterra.net> wrote:
>
> > > This set should be hauled out into the California desert and made into a
> > > nightclub. I would buy another Airstream and live a few hundred feet
> > > from it, and spend all my time there.
> >
> > That set looks just like the Mars 2010 restaurant near Times Square.
>

Well...there is this restaurant that looks like that set and is in Times
Square. Seriously....when we saw the movie my family and I said "wow"
that certainly does look like the Mars restaurant. Lessee if there is
anything on the web....pardon me a minute... ( put on traveling music)
Well slap me silly... I got the name wrong it is Mars 2112 Restaurant
and one can find information about it right about
here...http://www.mars2112.com/

> Slightly Firefly-related tidbit: I'm partway through watching my second
> episode of WONDERFALLS, and the main character lives in a trailer park
> in an Airstream that's been fancied-up inside.

I know!!!! Its my favorite part about her!
--

Al Gore

unread,
Jan 27, 2006, 1:20:09 AM1/27/06
to
In article <Yogi-04516A.1...@news.east.earthlink.net>, ruth
<Yo...@somewhereonterra.net> wrote:

> > Slightly Firefly-related tidbit: I'm partway through watching my second
> > episode of WONDERFALLS, and the main character lives in a trailer park
> > in an Airstream that's been fancied-up inside.
>
> I know!!!! Its my favorite part about her!
> --

Isn't it an Airstream that Doctor McDreamy is living in on Greys
Anatomy?

David Buchner

unread,
Jan 27, 2006, 2:26:20 PM1/27/06
to
ruth <Yo...@somewhereonterra.net> wrote:

> Well...there is this restaurant that looks like that set and is in Times
> Square. Seriously....when we saw the movie my family and I said "wow"
> that certainly does look like the Mars restaurant. Lessee if there is

Cool!

> anything on the web....pardon me a minute... ( put on traveling music)
> Well slap me silly... I got the name wrong it is Mars 2112 Restaurant
> and one can find information about it right about
> here...http://www.mars2112.com/

Ahhh, that explains why my searches came up nil. Thanks.

Waitaminute! "2112"? Hmmm.

> > Slightly Firefly-related tidbit: I'm partway through watching my second
> > episode of WONDERFALLS, and the main character lives in a trailer park
> > in an Airstream that's been fancied-up inside.
>
> I know!!!! Its my favorite part about her!

Oddly, it seems familiar. Did I catch part of an episode during the
orginal run, or is there a TV or movie character who also lived in an
Airstream, that I'm not remembering? I know there was Chris on NORTHERN
EXPOSURE... and they've been turning up in a lot of commercials the last
few years...

Even further astray, topic-wise, you may appreciate this if you didn't
already know:

http://www.theshadydell.com/about.html

I'm goin'!


ruth

unread,
Jan 27, 2006, 8:49:50 PM1/27/06
to
In article <1h9tqt5.mxxaw2t9u269N%buc...@wcta.net>,
buc...@wcta.net (David Buchner) wrote:


> Even further astray, topic-wise, you may appreciate this if you didn't
> already know:
>
> http://www.theshadydell.com/about.html
>
> I'm goin'!


:GASP: oh, me too. Oh my.
--

David Buchner

unread,
Jan 28, 2006, 9:44:13 AM1/28/06
to
ruth <Yo...@somewhereonterra.net> wrote:

> :GASP: oh, me too. Oh my.

I accidentally caught some nice video of the place -- some thing on one
of those channels I never watch... Travel? Fine Living? Something.
Anyway, it was called "Millionaire Trailer Parks" or "Luxury Trailer
Parks" or somesuch. You might want to watch for it.

I'm looking for a picture of our Airstream as it was when we lived in
it, but I don't seem to have one handy on my hard drive. Best I have
right now is:

http://customer.wcta.net/buchner/pictures/DextaAirstream.jpg

ruth

unread,
Jan 28, 2006, 10:49:39 AM1/28/06
to
In article <1h9v52y.1di2tdkqlblzxN%buc...@wcta.net>,
buc...@wcta.net (David Buchner) wrote:

> http://customer.wcta.net/buchner/pictures/DextaAirstream.jpg

'tis a lovely thing. You no longer have it?
--

David Buchner

unread,
Jan 29, 2006, 10:30:15 AM1/29/06
to
ruth <Yo...@somewhereonterra.net> wrote:

[Airstream]


> 'tis a lovely thing. You no longer have it?

Alas, no. Once we finished building our house, it was just sitting there
useless and it was more work to try to keep down the rodent infestation
than any use we'd have gotten out of it as a guest house or whatever.

Sold it to some other folks who were planning to do the same thing --
live in it while building.

I have to get outside and get stuff done now, but I'll try to remember
to scan a couple old pictures of when we lived in her, later today.

It was great sci-fi, post-apocalyptic, spaceship, moon-shack, fantasy
material.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages