AOQ Firefly Review 2: "The Train Job"
Arbitrar Of Quality
Season One, Episode 2: "The Train Job"
(or "Ha ha. Perhaps you would prefer to take a train.")
Writers: Joss Whedon and Tim Minear
Director: Joss Whedon
"The Train Job" opens with a scene that, even before I knew the back-
story behind this show (short version: write a new "first" episode
over the weekend, guys!), jumped out as a little repetitious. So, I
hear that Mal was on the losing side in a war with the Alliance and
doesn't like them as a result. (On a similar note, taking a job
managing an evil firm may have negative consequences.) It's
forgivable given the quality of the scene. We quickly see Mal come
face to face with an entertaining bit player - there's something that
sticks in one's head about the delivery of the line "I *said*, you're
a coward, and a piss-pot." Not as entertaining as our bold hero using
the posturing as a way to let others fight his battles. There's a big
brawl, in which Jayne only participates because he has to. Our crew
looks impressively badass (and Zoe is firmly established as the guys'
equal), mostly by fighting dirty, and being as flagrant as possible
about it. No one's too good to throw sand in someone's face on *this*
show. All set against a backdrop of bellydancer taverns with
holographic windows; as Joss and Tim say, it's a good encapsulation of
the setting of the show. Finally, there's a dramatic and very cool
appearance of our ship, followed by the canonical statement that it's
an unarmed ship - atypical for the genre. And our heroes, having made
their business contact before celebrating the holiday, are off into
the black to cheerfully do some crime. Massively enjoyable teaser.
For a mission statement, and a five-minute encapsulation of what
_Firefly_ is all about, it's this scene, not anything in "Serenity,"
that I'd turn to.
Time to fast-wind through some banter now and re-meet some of the non-
crew characters. Thus, we see River being operated on because it'd
take less time than explaining the whole story. Seeing how Inara fits
in with the group seems to get the most screen time - make of that
what you will. The other noteworthy thing here is the oft-commented
debut of the kinder, gentler _Firefly_. Where there was a strong
undercurrent of hostility in the Mal/Inara relationship in "Serenity,"
"The Train Job" gives us much friendlier not-lovers' quarreling,
positively sweet by comparison. It's dissonant, and maybe a little
less interesting this way, but the weakness comes about because of the
comparisons to the pilot rather than because of anything too badly
wrong here.
I should mention that one thing I don't like is the haste with which
the show seems eager to move Simon and Kaylee into a potential
relationship. What I'm protesting about in particular isn't the early
physical attraction leading to a desire to get to know and impress
each other, but rather that we mainly see it by having other
characters tell Kaylee over and over that she's attracted to him,
which started within about ten seconds of their meeting. It's not a
development that feels natural. The rapport becomes useful to the
show when they're actually talking to each other and it becomes time
to explain the plan to the audience through surprisingly deft handling
of the blatant expository dialogue.
Over on DS9, it's time for a "larger-than life villain," as the
network apparently demanded, in the form of Adelai Niska. His gimmick
is that he's a cheerful little old man who's made more sinister
because of the mismatch between demeanor and action. That's the
theory, anyway. He's one of the bigger failings of TTJ for me. He's
trying way too hard to be eeeeevil, and it seems forced. Also, his
extreme fondness for the word "reputation" is highly grating. It's
mildly interesting to note that Mal and his work are apparently held
in high regard, and that these guys are the best and brightest of
criminal help for pulling off your train heist. To lump our bland
villains into one paragraph, how about that Alliance captain later in
the show who won't commit federal troops to helping with anything
local? He forgot to wear his "evil authority!" sign. I mean, it's
good to know that the guys we're fighting are on the wrong side, but
the slightest smidgeon of nuance would go over well.
So, on to Mal and Zoe in the field. They would be our two leads on a
more standard space opera show, and I'm glad to see them get some time
together, something that we didn't see much in "Serenity." They feel
like old comrades, less need for words than with most of the banter on
the show but still with a strong dry sense of humor. In fact, it's
actually during this conversation that my father, when I exposed him
to the show, commented that he was really liking the comedic tone of
the dialogue. Gotta throw in some action and pretty visuals too, and
the hovering action certainly looks cool. I've never felt quite right
about stories that involve floating above a train without getting
noticed, though. Not a whole lot to say about the snag in their
plans, which seemed anticlimactic on first viewing but less so now.
Act two ends with the reveal that the crew has just stolen medicine
from the neediest. "Son of a bitch..." I'm with the sentiment on one
hand, but on the other, dude, what did you expect? Did it never occur
to anyone that stealing things on commission for an unabashedly
ruthless killer might cause problems for innocent people? Someone's
not understanding the notion of "we got us some crime to be done."
Maybe that's the point, though? It could be spun that Mal has lapsed
into just doing the job and getting paid and that's all, while
willfully avoiding learning anything about the consequences. In which
case the second half of the show is him vigorously rejecting what he's
been turning into. I dunno.
The whole episode has a light feel, with Mal and Zoe pretending to be
married planetside ("whatever happens, remember I love you." "Sir?"
"Because you're my wife") and Jayne being Jayne aboard Serenity ("do
you know what the chain of command is? It's the chain I go get and
beat you with till you understand who's in rutting command here!").
Of the two, Mal's bit is slow moving but not in a bad way, taking time
to give us a quick portrait of whom exactly needs the help beyond the
generic "sick people." An out-of-nowhere touch that I think I kinda
love is the way the sheriff shares his cigarette with his prisoner.
One thing that feels okay for a new show, despite the possible lapse
in logic, is when the crew starts musing about needing someone
respectable, and we realize that Inara can throw her weight around and
thus fix things. A new viewer will have forgotten (or not fully
grasped) her reputability and authority on these outer planets, so
we're more forgiving of the show when the characters are slow to think
of it. She has a good power-walk upon arrival. The bits back on the
ship end up highlighting a few things about the man they call Jayne,
and more to the point, what these things mean to the people who have
to live with him. When he tries to take over and abandon his captain
and first mate, there's never any doubt that he's not going to be
stopped easily, and what a threat he can be when one suddenly doesn't
see eye to eye with him. Simon emerges as a hero of sorts - still
unexpected at this point because he still looks so unassuming - since
doping Jayne probably prevents a substantial amount of ugliness. But
then the gunfight in the cargo bay flips things again and the viewer
realizes how good it is to have Jayne around with a gun trained on
people who aren't oneself. Explains how he manages to hold on to that
public relations job.
At the end, we give the stuff back. Definitely the kinder, gentler
_Firefly_. Some people might say that the episode is weakened by
backing off on the moral ambiguity of our main cast here. I'm not
some people, though. This is moving and uplifting, and I love it. I
see nothing unusual about, as a viewer, liking and respecting men of
integrity like Mal and Sheriff Bourne. However dark or gritty a
series is going to get, sometimes we need to like our protagonist, or
at least understand why he's able to inspire loyalty from the people
around him. And it'd be hard not to, after this scene, and the
straightforward way he sums it up: "a man learns all the details of a
situation like ours, well then he has a choice." "I don't believe he
does." The rambling guitar and/or fiddle tunes, always welcome,
enhance this episode in particular, and this scene in particularly
particular.
_Firefly_ isn't all homeless-hugging hippie stuff, though, which it
proves in the scene that immediately follows, which is perhaps even
more of a classic moment. Whedon-style subversion of expectations as
Crow comes down with a case of bwahaha interruptus. I love watching
new viewers react to that, since no one ever sees it coming, and
everyone kinda gets shell-shocked for a second as they try to process
these unforseen stimuli. Cold-blooded (well, more like lukewarm-
blooded; I wouldn't have done it, but can easily understand Mal's
reasoning) has never been funnier. And what really works is the way
that in itself is more surprising than funny, so it's re-cast as setup
for the joke that follows when we move to the next goon down the line.
The last beat of the story before the silent fade to black suggests
that it might be worth the effort trying to decipher River's ravings
from time to time, and kicks off a story arc. You know, I could've
stood to have the show not cancelled.
The bits of clunkiness and exposition-itis can be explained, but they
still bring the episode down. Not much subtext beneath the surface
either, as far as I can tell, though that's not really my field
anyway. So I can't in good conscience give TTJ an Excellent, although
it's damn close. But I love "The Train Job." It's under-
appreciated. Maybe it's just a better second episode than it is a
pilot; I can't judge it as the latter, but it's great as the former.
This was about the point where I knew that I was a _Firefly_ fan for
life.
Readers will notice a few references to the commentary track for this
one. I recommend giving it a listen, since it's informative about
what the writers' "assignment" and constraints were and what they were
trying to accomplish. But also because Joss and Tim, in their only
commentary together ever, have a good vibe and keep things
entertaining. I just wanted to highlight a little moment when Joss is
talking about how they were disappointed when they saw _Attack Of The
Clones_ using some of the same tools during establishing shots that
they thought they'd invented , and Tim deadpans something like "yes,
that was one of *a few* reasons we felt so disappointed while watching
_Attack of The Clones." Hey, I laughed.
So...
One-sentence summary: Shiny!
AOQ rating: Good
[Ratings so far:
1) "Serenity" - Excellent
2) "The Train Job" - Good]
One Bit Shy
news:1175496890.5...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> FIREFLY
> Season One, Episode 2: "The Train Job"
Are there transcripts available online for Firefly? I realized I wanted to
quote something...
OBS
Terry
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175496890.5...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> You know, I could've
> stood to have the show not cancelled.
Just thought this bit needed to be highlighted.
*back to lurking*
- Terry
Terry
"One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote in message
news:1311ck7...@news.supernews.com...
> Are there transcripts available online for Firefly? I realized I wanted
> to quote something...
You don't have every episode committed to memory? :)
I recommend the FireflyWiki. www.fireflywiki.org
Each episode has a shooting script linked.
- Terry
ruthless
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> So...
>
> One-sentence summary: Shiny!
>
> AOQ rating: Good
>
> [Ratings so far:
> 1) "Serenity" - Excellent
> 2) "The Train Job" - Good]
I just gotta say here that I am loving your reviews.
Now I will have to go and watch Train Job...its actually been a few months.
--
Quis custodiet ipsos custo?
" I tried reality once, I found it too confining" Jane Wagner/Lily Tomlin
Rincewind
> Season One, Episode 2: "The Train Job"
> (or "Ha ha. Perhaps you would prefer to take a train.")
> Writers: Joss Whedon and Tim Minear
> Director: Joss Whedon
>
> For a mission statement, and a five-minute encapsulation of what
> _Firefly_ is all about, it's this scene, not anything in "Serenity,"
> that I'd turn to.
Well, if you postulate that a pilot must encapsulate what the show is all
about in the first five minutes, then you are certainly right.
But where is it written that a show cannot target that kind of audience
which is blessed with an attention span longer than five minutes? (ok, that
was rhetorical. I know exactly where it is written: in the Idiot Network
Executive Handbook, that's where).
I prefer a pilot that takes its time to gradually introduce the viewer to
the new universe where he will live for the next few years (well, next 12
weeks, actually...).
> ... The other noteworthy thing here is the oft-commented
> debut of the kinder, gentler _Firefly_. Where there was a strong
> undercurrent of hostility in the Mal/Inara relationship in "Serenity,"
> "The Train Job" gives us much friendlier not-lovers' quarreling,
> positively sweet by comparison. It's dissonant, and maybe a little
> less interesting this way, but the weakness comes about because of the
> comparisons to the pilot rather than because of anything too badly
> wrong here.
The part I really liked is Inara's conversation with Book (
BOOK: I don't think the Captain would much like me praying for him.
INARA: Don't tell him... I never do.
).
> I should mention that one thing I don't like is the haste with which
> the show seems eager to move Simon and Kaylee into a potential
> relationship. What I'm protesting about in particular isn't the early
> physical attraction leading to a desire to get to know and impress
> each other, but rather that we mainly see it by having other
> characters tell Kaylee over and over that she's attracted to him,
> which started within about ten seconds of their meeting. It's not a
> development that feels natural. The rapport becomes useful to the
> show when they're actually talking to each other and it becomes time
> to explain the plan to the audience through surprisingly deft handling
> of the blatant expository dialogue.
I totally agree.
The "So what are we doing?", "Oh! Crime." dialogue is one of the best
moments of the episode for me.
> Over on DS9, it's time for a "larger-than life villain," as the
> network apparently demanded, in the form of Adelai Niska. His gimmick
> is that he's a cheerful little old man who's made more sinister
> because of the mismatch between demeanor and action. That's the
> theory, anyway. He's one of the bigger failings of TTJ for me. He's
> trying way too hard to be eeeeevil, and it seems forced.
I actually liked him a lot...
> Also, his
> extreme fondness for the word "reputation" is highly grating. It's
> mildly interesting to note that Mal and his work are apparently held
> in high regard, and that these guys are the best and brightest of
> criminal help for pulling off your train heist. To lump our bland
> villains into one paragraph, how about that Alliance captain later in
> the show who won't commit federal troops to helping with anything
> local? He forgot to wear his "evil authority!" sign. I mean, it's
> good to know that the guys we're fighting are on the wrong side, but
> the slightest smidgeon of nuance would go over well.
Maybe next week a desperate housewife's husband will give us some nuance?
> <big snippage of stuff that I totally agree with>
>
> _Firefly_ isn't all homeless-hugging hippie stuff, though, which it
> proves in the scene that immediately follows, which is perhaps even
> more of a classic moment. Whedon-style subversion of expectations as
> Crow comes down with a case of bwahaha interruptus. I love watching
> new viewers react to that, since no one ever sees it coming, and
> everyone kinda gets shell-shocked for a second as they try to process
> these unforseen stimuli. Cold-blooded (well, more like lukewarm-
> blooded; I wouldn't have done it, but can easily understand Mal's
> reasoning) has never been funnier. And what really works is the way
> that in itself is more surprising than funny, so it's re-cast as setup
> for the joke that follows when we move to the next goon down the line.
Oh yes: if the killing of Crow was a great moment, the "Oh I get it. I'm
good. Best for everyone, I'm right there with you." is pure genius and one
of the best scenes in the entire series.
> The last beat of the story before the silent fade to black suggests
> that it might be worth the effort trying to decipher River's ravings
> from time to time, and kicks off a story arc. You know, I could've
> stood to have the show not cancelled.
You are a strange man... :-)
> The bits of clunkiness and exposition-itis can be explained, but they
> still bring the episode down. Not much subtext beneath the surface
> either, as far as I can tell, though that's not really my field
> anyway. So I can't in good conscience give TTJ an Excellent, although
> it's damn close. But I love "The Train Job." It's under-
> appreciated. Maybe it's just a better second episode than it is a
> pilot;
It certainly is.
>
> One-sentence summary: Shiny!
>
> AOQ rating: Good
A very high Good for me, bordering on Excellent.
Rincewind.
--
Lines you'll never hear on Buffy (BEWARE: big SPOILER for BtVS sesaon 7
ahead):
RONAH: Well here we are, defenseless girls inside the Hellmouth against an
army of Ubervamps when one took Buffy apart with no problem while we wait
for the unstable witch to perform a spell that's never been done and an
amulet given to us by other evil demons. At least you know what we're doing,
right Buffy? Buffy?
(turns around to see Buffy and Faith back outside the Seal closing it up)
FAITH: Buffy, please. People are going to die.
BUFFY: And yet, somehow, I just can't seem to care.
One Bit Shy
news:1175496890.5...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> FIREFLY
> Season One, Episode 2: "The Train Job"
> "The Train Job" opens with a scene that, even before I knew the back-
> story behind this show (short version: write a new "first" episode
> over the weekend, guys!), jumped out as a little repetitious. ...
> ... Massively enjoyable teaser.
> For a mission statement, and a five-minute encapsulation of what
> _Firefly_ is all about, it's this scene, not anything in "Serenity,"
> that I'd turn to.
I didn't see this episode on TV (I'm only sure of two I saw then, though I
think I saw at least parts of a couple more.) So I only knew of it as the
second episode. When I first watched, I wasn't terribly conscious of
repetition, which I'll take as a credit to Joss and Tim's writing. Where
overlap occurred, I took it (and still prefer to take it) as reinforcement
and added nuance. I think having the two in sequence actually helps get a
handle on the basic ideas. It's not like one is going to grasp everything
instantly - unless it's utterly devoid of depth. So, from my point of view
watching this on DVD, having two opening episodes ended up mostly working in
support of each other.
Thinking of this episode standing alone as season opener, I imagine that it
is a much easier gateway into this universe than Serenity would have been.
The immediately appealing teaser to start with, and a much more compact,
generally exciting episode as a whole.
There are a couple problems though. First is that it leaves the series
playing catch up. As nice a job as this episode does, it still leaves
behind all the content of Serenity - back story and character/relationship
foundation that matters. To some extent, the series never does catch up.
You still need the true season opener to get it.
One small example can be found in one of my favorite scenes of The Train
Job.
Mal: That was pretty fast thinking, dopin' up Jayne. Can't say you've made
a lifetime friend...
Simon: I'll deal with him.
Mal: I'm not too worried about you.
This episode struggles a bit explaining Simon's presence, especially why
there might have been a particular tension between these two. We're told
this episode that Simon and River are on the run, but not all the
circumstances behind it that threatened Mal, his crew and his ship. Not the
way Simon withheld treatment of Kaylee to force Mal to run with them.
As a result, the full weight of the above brief exchange doesn't get across
by itself. But with both episodes combined, the moment soars. We can get
the full implication of Mal's implicit acceptance of Simon right then, the
respect it extends, and how it leads to River as a shared problem. It's
that depth of understanding that allows this moment to link to the episode's
greater themes expressed in the earlier conversation between Mal and Bourne.
Bourne's understanding of Mal doing what he must - accepting Mal even though
he had just threatened their very existence - is exactly what Mal does with
Simon this scene. Because Mal and Simon are two of a kind. (For this
moment anyway. In other respects they might differ a little. Heh.)
The other problem is Mal's chipper attitude through most of the episode.
It's a bit discordant following Serenity, but can be tolerated as him just
being in a better mood than usual. The episode even provides a couple
reasons for the mood - getting to knock around some Alliance stooges at the
start, and then getting to pull the heist off under the noses of federal
agents. Since we already know the much harder side, no real damage is done.
(And there are a few hard moments this episode too.)
But as a stand alone season opener, I fear that it must impart the wrong
idea. The balance is just too far off. It especially must screw up the
relationship with Inara. You really need the "whore" comment to properly
get across the tension between Mal and Inara. You also need that to fully
appreciate that Inara prays for Mal without telling him.
So, on the whole, I think The Train Job works far better as a second episode
than as a first.
I do, however, get a kick out of seeing how wildly different Joss and Tim
are able to re-contextualize the idea of Firefly. Totally different, yet
somehow much the same.
> I should mention that one thing I don't like is the haste with which
> the show seems eager to move Simon and Kaylee into a potential
> relationship. What I'm protesting about in particular isn't the early
> physical attraction leading to a desire to get to know and impress
> each other, but rather that we mainly see it by having other
> characters tell Kaylee over and over that she's attracted to him,
> which started within about ten seconds of their meeting. It's not a
> development that feels natural. The rapport becomes useful to the
> show when they're actually talking to each other and it becomes time
> to explain the plan to the audience through surprisingly deft handling
> of the blatant expository dialogue.
They certainly pump it up quickly, but I wasn't conscious of characters
telling Kaylee that she was interested. I'll try to remember to look for
that in the future. What I do observe, however, is that Simon has saved
Kaylee's life, demonstrates a deep capacity for love and devotion in his
care for his sister, voluntarily approaches Kaylee for casual conversation,
and then deeply impresses Kaylee by his handling of Jayne. Oh, and he's a
fresh face on a lonely journey. So there are reasons for someone like
Kaylee to have her interest heightened quickly. Simon's interest is more
difficult to gage at the moment.
> Over on DS9, it's time for a "larger-than life villain," as the
> network apparently demanded, in the form of Adelai Niska. His gimmick
> is that he's a cheerful little old man who's made more sinister
> because of the mismatch between demeanor and action. That's the
> theory, anyway. He's one of the bigger failings of TTJ for me. He's
> trying way too hard to be eeeeevil, and it seems forced. Also, his
> extreme fondness for the word "reputation" is highly grating.
I like him a lot. I love the whole "reputation" bit. Communicates very
effectively to both Mal and the audience. Yes, he's trying too hard, but
that's part of him putting on a staged show for Mal's benefit. He's
consciously building an aura around himself as part of his business model,
so to speak. I imagine he's as naturally evil as anybody can be, but acting
natural is the last thing he wants. Affectation is his way, part of the
character's essence.
> Not a whole lot to say about the snag in their
> plans, which seemed anticlimactic on first viewing but less so now.
Bugs me a little. The action flow is fine, but why didn't they hold the
package for 10 seconds more and then go up with it? Seemed awfully panicky
for seasoned battle veterans.
> Act two ends with the reveal that the crew has just stolen medicine
> from the neediest. "Son of a bitch..." I'm with the sentiment on one
> hand, but on the other, dude, what did you expect? Did it never occur
> to anyone that stealing things on commission for an unabashedly
> ruthless killer might cause problems for innocent people? Someone's
> not understanding the notion of "we got us some crime to be done."
> Maybe that's the point, though? It could be spun that Mal has lapsed
> into just doing the job and getting paid and that's all, while
> willfully avoiding learning anything about the consequences. In which
> case the second half of the show is him vigorously rejecting what he's
> been turning into. I dunno.
No spin necessary. It's pretty much spelled out by Bourne near the end.
Bourne: These are tough times. Hard to find yourself work. A man can get a
job, he might not look too close at what that job is.
It's the core theme of the episode, followed immediately by the second half
of it.
Bourne: But a man learns all the details of a situation like ours, well
then he has a choice.
Mal: I don't believe he does.
It's a beautiful scene I think. It speaks to Mal's conviction - expressed
by not believing he has a choice. But it also speaks to the compromise he
must make to survive. Mal can't take on the world's ills - or even think
about them all. He already lost that battle in that valley. But when faced
square on at this level - it's not a matter of choice.
What I especially like about that scene is how Bourne and Mal look into each
other's eyes and understand each other perfectly. Bourne is a hell of a
character. There's a very neat scene where Bourne lights up a smoke only to
give it to the guy in jail. Implicit in the moment is Bourne's sympathy for
the prisoner. He undoubtedly deserves to be behind bars, but whatever the
reason, Bourne doesn't hold it against him personally. He knows what makes
man transgress and is quite ready to let that go for the right reason. The
smoke scene is a nice character setup for his final scene with Mal. (Really
nice subtlety too. The show doesn't spell it out back at the jail cell, but
allows it to gain weight from the later scene with Mal, so the two scenes
reinforce each other.)
> At the end, we give the stuff back. Definitely the kinder, gentler
> _Firefly_.
I don't think so. Yes, the gesture is a good one - though it's considerably
more than a gesture. One with consequences.
When he hands the goods over you see the steel come back into Mal. The
hardness. There's nothing kind and gentle about his manner.
Speaking of hardness, we also get a glimpse of it a little earlier in the
easy way in which Mal responded to the news of Joey Bloggs death.
Mal: So... would his job be open?
It's a very funny line, but the manner of its delivery, and the reason it
fits the circumstance, demonstrates just how hard life in their world really
is. Need overrides sentiment. It's one of those lines that you laugh at
and then have to think about with rather more disquiet.
> The last beat of the story before the silent fade to black suggests
> that it might be worth the effort trying to decipher River's ravings
> from time to time, and kicks off a story arc. You know, I could've
> stood to have the show not cancelled.
I think of it as the X-Files moment. By itself at this point in the story,
I think it's the most discordant moment to date. It certainly gave me
doubts when I first saw it. But I can't just dismiss it either. Aside from
the portent it offers, it's the moment that most harshly displays the high
contrast between frontier grit and high tech wierdness that the series has
chosen to transverse between.
> So...
>
> One-sentence summary: Shiny!
>
> AOQ rating: Good
I would rate it Good. It's a fun heist, but not a great one. There are
some excellent character moments, but some less interesting. (The Book
scenes don't send me for example.) The thematic elements are very good, and
it more than pulls its weight with classic moments like doped Jayne and
death by jet intake.
OBS
One Bit Shy
news:Ro6Qh.3$df...@newsfe02.lga...
Thank you that helps. Shooting scripts are commonly inexact, but I'll work
with what's available.
OBS
Michael Ikeda
I think twiztv.com has Firefly transcripts.
--
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
Atlas Bugged
"One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote in message
news:1312ubv...@news.supernews.com...
> Thank you that helps. Shooting scripts are commonly inexact, but I'll
> work with what's available.
IIRC, I've got links to two different sets of scripts in the FAQ.
I have linked to all primary resources, such as scripts, Whedon's explicit
comments about matters where there is controversy (and he non-jokingly
addressed it,) the Chinese pinyinary, and so on.
The most dense single prargraph of resources is pinpointed here:
<http://snipurl.com/17yf0>
This meta page takes you to resources associated with each episode,
including scripts:
http://www.whedonsworld.com/fireflys1summary.html
This site has scripts *and* transcripts:
http://www.browncoats.com/index.php?ContentID=42e6e09c477ce
And the Firefly Wiki can't be recommended enough, but I rarely post the link
after some jerkoff tried to destroy it (it operates on a shoestring and
cannot tolerate even false complaints) a couple of years ago as a way to get
at me.
AOQ's reviews are comprehensive, lengthy, and smart. But sometimes you just
want it quick, dirty, and even a little stupid. I fill that need here:
<http://snipurl.com/krwl>
Atlas Bugged, Monday, April 02, 2007
--
SERENITY/FIREFLY FAQ, PLUS!
http://snipurl.com/k8ui "One page, all you need to know, referenced."
STARGATE ATLANTIS FAQ
http://snipurl.com/SGAFAQ "Still just a draft, perhaps daft, help to make it
better."
GOODBYE, SG-1
http://snipurl.com/1d8kw "Homage to the legend w/ last ep comments, no
spoilers."
TROLL/RATS:
http://snipurl.com/19k1q "Referenced guide to stinkers that hide."
One Bit Shy
news:bIgQh.218185$Md3....@fe01.news.easynews.com...
Thanks. browncoats did the trick.
OBS
Apteryx
news:1175496890.5...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Season One, Episode 2: "The Train Job"
> (or "Ha ha. Perhaps you would prefer to take a train.")
> Writers: Joss Whedon and Tim Minear
> Director: Joss Whedon
>
> "The Train Job" opens with a scene that, even before I knew the back-
> story behind this show (short version: write a new "first" episode
> over the weekend, guys!), jumped out as a little repetitious. So, I
> hear that Mal was on the losing side in a war with the Alliance and
> doesn't like them as a result. (On a similar note, taking a job
> managing an evil firm may have negative consequences.) It's
> forgivable given the quality of the scene.
Yeah, but it would have more quality if it wasn't re-establishing stuff we
(the DVD viewers) already knew from watching Serenity. It's understandable
given that this series had to have two first episodes (a bit extravagant
given that one of them's a double episode, and how few episodes got made,
but there you go). But to say it's understandable merely means we understand
why it sucks. It still sucks. Too often this episode has to wade through
treacle, as it establishes stuff we already know.
> show. All set against a backdrop of bellydancer taverns with
> holographic windows; as Joss and Tim say, it's a good encapsulation of
> the setting of the show. Finally, there's a dramatic and very cool
> appearance of our ship, followed by the canonical statement that it's
> an unarmed ship - atypical for the genre.
Now that is cool.
> Over on DS9, it's time for a "larger-than life villain," as the
> network apparently demanded, in the form of Adelai Niska. His gimmick
> is that he's a cheerful little old man who's made more sinister
> because of the mismatch between demeanor and action. That's the
> theory, anyway. He's one of the bigger failings of TTJ for me. He's
> trying way too hard to be eeeeevil, and it seems forced. Also, his
> extreme fondness for the word "reputation" is highly grating.
He works OK for me. I liked "My wife's nephew. At dinner, I'm getting
earful. There is no way out of that."
> It's
> mildly interesting to note that Mal and his work are apparently held
> in high regard, and that these guys are the best and brightest of
> criminal help for pulling off your train heist. To lump our bland
> villains into one paragraph, how about that Alliance captain later in
> the show who won't commit federal troops to helping with anything
> local? He forgot to wear his "evil authority!" sign. I mean, it's
> good to know that the guys we're fighting are on the wrong side, but
> the slightest smidgeon of nuance would go over well.
Disappointing, especially given the way they escaped from the Alliance ship
in Serenity because its captain was too nice to ignore the fake distress
signal.
> Act two ends with the reveal that the crew has just stolen medicine
> from the neediest. "Son of a bitch..." I'm with the sentiment on one
> hand, but on the other, dude, what did you expect? Did it never occur
> to anyone that stealing things on commission for an unabashedly
> ruthless killer might cause problems for innocent people? Someone's
> not understanding the notion of "we got us some crime to be done."
> Maybe that's the point, though? It could be spun that Mal has lapsed
> into just doing the job and getting paid and that's all, while
> willfully avoiding learning anything about the consequences. In which
> case the second half of the show is him vigorously rejecting what he's
> been turning into. I dunno.
Mal isn't even told the contents of the boxes he's asked to steal. Since
that clearly affects the security around them, and the heat that'll come on
when they are stolen, he's either very desperate or very stupid. And we know
he's not stupid.
> At the end, we give the stuff back. Definitely the kinder, gentler
> _Firefly_. Some people might say that the episode is weakened by
> backing off on the moral ambiguity of our main cast here. I'm not
> some people, though.
You could question whether this story should have been screened so early,
because it can make them look too goody good. But once the facts have been
established, there would have been no moral ambiguity at all if they hadn't
returned the goods.
>
> _Firefly_ isn't all homeless-hugging hippie stuff, though, which it
> proves in the scene that immediately follows, which is perhaps even
> more of a classic moment. Whedon-style subversion of expectations as
> Crow comes down with a case of bwahaha interruptus. I love watching
> new viewers react to that, since no one ever sees it coming, and
> everyone kinda gets shell-shocked for a second as they try to process
> these unforseen stimuli. Cold-blooded (well, more like lukewarm-
> blooded; I wouldn't have done it, but can easily understand Mal's
> reasoning) has never been funnier. And what really works is the way
> that in itself is more surprising than funny, so it's re-cast as setup
> for the joke that follows when we move to the next goon down the line.
Yep. More points for TTJ.
>
> So...
>
> One-sentence summary: Shiny!
>
> AOQ rating: Good
I'd agree with Good. But more towards the low end of the range. It's my 10th
favourite FF episode. The rating I gave it (4.44) is the same as I gave
"Beneath You", the 75th best BtVS episode.
--
Apteryx
C.O.Jones
> > how about that Alliance captain later in
> > the show who won't commit federal troops to helping with anything
> > local? He forgot to wear his "evil authority!" sign. I mean, it's
> > good to know that the guys we're fighting are on the wrong side, but
> > the slightest smidgeon of nuance would go over well.
Like "It's not our jurisdiction?" That is nothing new, or even
inherently evil. It is SNAFU, is all.
>
> Disappointing, especially given the way they escaped from the Alliance ship
> in Serenity because its captain was too nice to ignore the fake distress
> signal.
"Chose" to not ignore? Military organizations tend to have rules that
dictate how they are required to respond. It is an old naval tradition.
You get a distress call, you respond.
Otherwise, the 'Crybaby" wouldn't be a good safety device. "Gee," says
Wash, "I hope they don't ignore this distress call."
--
////////// \\\\\\\\\\\
The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity.
-- Harlan Ellison
Venger
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175496890.5...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Preach on brother, preach on... imagine my dismay, not having known the show
even existed until maybe several months ago, to start watching the episodes
on UHD and discover that not only was the show from, what, 2002 but that...
what, only one freakin' season!?!?
Venger
Elisi
> FIREFLY
> Season One, Episode 2: "The Train Job"
> (or "Ha ha. Perhaps you would prefer to take a train.")
> Writers: Joss Whedon and Tim Minear
> Director: Joss Whedon
Rewatched this last night and yet again proved how I am utterly unable
to think about this show in terms other than 'Shiny!'
So no meta or thoughts, sorry. But I do enjoy reading your posts!
And - because I wanted to contribute *something* - a link to the plot
of Serenity (the movie) told with Photoshop handpuppets (also known as
"Emergency Naptime Procedures Implemented"). This is never not funny:
chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu
> FIREFLY
> Season One, Episode 2: "The Train Job"
> (or "Ha ha. Perhaps you would prefer to take a train.")
> Writers: Joss Whedon and Tim Minear
> Director: Joss Whedon
I'm quite fond of trains.
> "The Train Job" opens with a scene that, even before I knew the back-
> story behind this show (short version: write a new "first" episode
> over the weekend, guys!), jumped out as a little repetitious.
Which wasn't a problem when it was first broadcast, of course. And when
watching the DVD, the action part is entertaining enough to make up for
the repetition. Mal getting thrown through the holographic window is a
nice but unsubtle way of tying together the science fiction setting with
old Western iconography. I was a little irked by his "I'm thinkin' we'll
rise again" line, which makes rather more of a parallel between
Browncoats and real-life Confederate nostalgists than I'm comfortable
with. (NOTE: This is not an invitation to debate the US Civil War.) But
one little bit that I really liked was Mal's slightly hysterical laugh
when he finds himself on the cliff's edge, like "Okay, I'm trying to stay
upbeat, but this is getting to be a little much."
Also, note Mal's comment over the Chinese checkers game that living on
the edge does not always have good practical results....
All of the scenes designed to introduce our characters, the ship and their
'verse are done skillfully enough to be at least tolerable. Just basic
scriptwriting techniques like introducing Inara's profession by having
Kaylee ask if she ever had to take an ugly client, instead of by making
Inara say "As a futuristic geisha, I sometimes brush my clients' hair."
It's not quite as skillful as in the Big Damn Movie, though: perhaps
evidence of how hastily TTJ was written, perhaps just proof of how well it
was done in the BDM. I think the episode is weakened somewhat by the lack
of any scene where all or almost all of the characters gather together at
once, like the dinner scene and the Simon's-big-monologue scene in the
pilot.
> what you will. The other noteworthy thing here is the oft-commented
> debut of the kinder, gentler _Firefly_. Where there was a strong
> undercurrent of hostility in the Mal/Inara relationship in "Serenity,"
> "The Train Job" gives us much friendlier not-lovers' quarreling,
> positively sweet by comparison. It's dissonant, and maybe a little
Also, Mal's general bitterness doesn't really come through. He gets
irritated at pro-Alliance drunks and angry at learning that they had
stolen from the poor, but otherwise Mal seems positively chipper.
> I should mention that one thing I don't like is the haste with which
> the show seems eager to move Simon and Kaylee into a potential
> relationship.
A slow buildup might have been better, but I don't see the haste as being
an actual problem as long as it remains a *potential* relationship.
Kaylee had plenty of reason to be attracted to Simon from the beginning;
and while Simon really has other things on his mind right now, he can't
help but gravitate to the person on board who was most welcoming to him.
(Doesn't hurt that she's also so cute, or that, as Simon will so suavely
point out in a later episode, that she's literally the only woman
available to him.) All that the haste really means is that we get to the
long, extended thwarted-attraction stage a little sooner.
> Over on DS9, it's time for a "larger-than life villain," as the
> network apparently demanded, in the form of Adelai Niska. His gimmick
> is that he's a cheerful little old man who's made more sinister
> because of the mismatch between demeanor and action. That's the
> theory, anyway. He's one of the bigger failings of TTJ for me. He's
> trying way too hard to be eeeeevil, and it seems forced.
Eh, I like him. (Though not the cliche that Eastern European accents are
a sure sign of villainy.) He gets a nice silent moment when the door is
opened to reveal his nephew-in-law and Niska keeps his coolly calculating
gaze on Mal and company, gauging their reactions.
> extreme fondness for the word "reputation" is highly grating. It's
> mildly interesting to note that Mal and his work are apparently held
> in high regard, and that these guys are the best and brightest of
> criminal help for pulling off your train heist.
The Serenity crew are well-regarded for their skill, but it's also notable
that they are just hired help to major criminals like Niska. He can
impose conditions on them and threaten them with no fear that they will
retaliate, or simply walk away. As we saw in the Badger scene in the
pilot, Mal and his crew aren't master criminals, they're
one-step-ahead-of-starvation criminals. (Making this another scene that
repeats something shown in the pilot.)
> the dialogue. Gotta throw in some action and pretty visuals too, and
> the hovering action certainly looks cool. I've never felt quite right
> about stories that involve floating above a train without getting
> noticed, though.
It does look quite nice. I read at least one review that said the special
effects "don't even try to look realistic," but personally I found it
pretty impressive. The part that bothers me a little is the high speed at
which the train and ship are moving. At that kind of speed, I'd expect
wind resistance to send Jayne hurtling towards the caboose as soon as he
left Serenity, instead of dropping neatly onto the train. Still, it's
fun. Though not as fun as just before, when Jayne pulls on his cap with
the dangling earflaps and then says "Time for some thrilling heroics."
(As a morally ambiguous character, Jayne sometimes goes bareheaded and
sometimes wears a hat.)
> Act two ends with the reveal that the crew has just stolen medicine
> from the neediest. "Son of a bitch..." I'm with the sentiment on one
> hand, but on the other, dude, what did you expect? Did it never occur
> to anyone that stealing things on commission for an unabashedly
> ruthless killer might cause problems for innocent people? Someone's
> not understanding the notion of "we got us some crime to be done."
> Maybe that's the point, though? It could be spun that Mal has lapsed
> into just doing the job and getting paid and that's all, while
> willfully avoiding learning anything about the consequences. In which
> case the second half of the show is him vigorously rejecting what he's
> been turning into. I dunno.
Presumably Mal had been operating on the self-serving assumption that he
was stealing from the rich -- after all, they have the most stuff worth
stealing.
> generic "sick people." An out-of-nowhere touch that I think I kinda
> love is the way the sheriff shares his cigarette with his prisoner.
I think we all love that bit. I like the implied connection between the
sheriff and the prisoner. Maybe the sheriff just knows everyone in town,
or maybe this guy is a local petty criminal arrested so frequently that
the sheriff almost thinks of him as a friend. ("This isn't Oz, it's
Mayberry.")
> see eye to eye with him. Simon emerges as a hero of sorts - still
> unexpected at this point because he still looks so unassuming - since
> doping Jayne probably prevents a substantial amount of ugliness.
And it's funny as hell, which always helps these character-defining
moments. Humor makes heroic moments more memorable. Jayne makes a
painfully loud thud when he hits the floor.
> At the end, we give the stuff back. Definitely the kinder, gentler
> _Firefly_. Some people might say that the episode is weakened by
> backing off on the moral ambiguity of our main cast here.
They also backed off on the potential darkness. Mal could have decided to
return the medicine, only to have Crow successfully take it, leaving Mal
with just some dirty money and a load of guilt. But while that would have
been interesting, it wouldn't have been nearly as enjoyable. Sometimes
maximum darkness is not the best way to go. At least in your very first
broadcast episode.
> around him. And it'd be hard not to, after this scene, and the
> straightforward way he sums it up: "a man learns all the details of a
> situation like ours, well then he has a choice." "I don't believe he
> does."
It was a wise decision to leave it at those two sentences, plus some
silent looks of respect. This is the kind of scene that would have gotten
exponentially lamer the longer it went on.
> _Firefly_ isn't all homeless-hugging hippie stuff, though, which it
> proves in the scene that immediately follows, which is perhaps even
> more of a classic moment. Whedon-style subversion of expectations as
> Crow comes down with a case of bwahaha interruptus. I love watching
> new viewers react to that, since no one ever sees it coming, and
> everyone kinda gets shell-shocked for a second as they try to process
> these unforseen stimuli. Cold-blooded (well, more like lukewarm-
> blooded; I wouldn't have done it, but can easily understand Mal's
> reasoning) has never been funnier. And what really works is the way
> that in itself is more surprising than funny, so it's re-cast as setup
> for the joke that follows when we move to the next goon down the line.
This was the moment when I decided Firefly was, for me, a success.
However, while a success I was actually slightly disappointed on first
viewing. This was mainly due to excessively high expectations. I was
hoping for something totally unique and Whedonesque, and instead got a
fairly Whedonesque spin on an otherwise ordinary story. And while I liked
the characters, I didn't immediately fall in love the way I did with Buffy
and her friends. It was certainly good enough to keep me watching, but on
the whole I would have preferred the original pilot as an introduction to
Firefly.
TTJ tones down some of the distinctive visual elements of the original
pilot: all the hand-held camera whipping around, zooming within a shot,
lens flares, and so on. They aren't gone by any means, and will remain a
part of the show until the end (in some episodes more than others), but
they aren't as prominent as in Serenity-the-episode. I wonder if this was
because the network asked them to be toned down, or if it was due to a
change in cameramen, or if it's just a natural result of Serenity having
twice as much time to play with as any other episode? On a similar note,
TTJ lacks any of the slower, more meditative moments like Kaylee biting
the strawberry, and all the establishing shots seem a little shorter.
And there aren't any nice long scenes with the whole cast together, as
mentioned above, or any spongebath scenes. So TTJ is missing a few of the
little extra touches that helped make the original pilot so excellent.
> AOQ rating: Good
I'd give it a low Good. It's nice, but too simple and lightweight to rank
any higher.
--Chris
______________________________________________________________________
chrisg [at] gwu.edu On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog.
Rincewind
I can't stop laughing after reading this one:
"All your psychic runaways are belong to me."
I also can't remember which Buffy episode it was taken from...
Rincewind.
--
Lines you'll never hear on Buffy:
CALEB: And we're digging the secret Slayer Scythe out of the rock because...
why, exactly?
whodunit
Bwahahahahahahahaha!! :-)
Thanks for the link!
Arbitrar Of Quality
> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> > .... Massively enjoyable teaser.
> > For a mission statement, and a five-minute encapsulation of what
> > _Firefly_ is all about, it's this scene, not anything in "Serenity,"
> > that I'd turn to.
>
> Well, if you postulate that a pilot must encapsulate what the show is all
> about in the first five minutes, then you are certainly right.
> But where is it written that a show cannot target that kind of audience
> which is blessed with an attention span longer than five minutes? (ok, that
> was rhetorical. I know exactly where it is written: in the Idiot Network
> Executive Handbook, that's where).
One has to be aware of the realities. There are lots of shows on TV,
so a new one has to do some courting of its audience. I don't
necessarily think that the first scene of the series always has to be
a mission statement or a summary, but it does have to grab the
viewer's attention. It's nice to have a handy clip that'll say "this
is _Firefly_" to someone who's curious.
> Lines you'll never hear on Buffy (BEWARE: big SPOILER for BtVS sesaon 7
> ahead):
>
> RONAH: Well here we are, defenseless girls inside the Hellmouth against an
> army of Ubervamps when one took Buffy apart with no problem while we wait
> for the unstable witch to perform a spell that's never been done and an
> amulet given to us by other evil demons. At least you know what we're doing,
> right Buffy? Buffy?
> (turns around to see Buffy and Faith back outside the Seal closing it up)
> FAITH: Buffy, please. People are going to die.
> BUFFY: And yet, somehow, I just can't seem to care.
I liked the other send-up of the "Reunion" scene better, the one that
ended up in the "Potential" thread.
-AOQ
Arbitrar Of Quality
> In alt.tv.firefly Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> > "The Train Job" opens with a scene that, even before I knew the back-
> > story behind this show (short version: write a new "first" episode
> > over the weekend, guys!), jumped out as a little repetitious.
>
> Which wasn't a problem when it was first broadcast, of course.
Did you watch the whole show first-run? If so, we're counting on you
for a TV perspective.
> And when
> watching the DVD, the action part is entertaining enough to make up for
> the repetition. Mal getting thrown through the holographic window is a
> nice but unsubtle way of tying together the science fiction setting with
> old Western iconography. I was a little irked by his "I'm thinkin' we'll
> rise again" line, which makes rather more of a parallel between
> Browncoats and real-life Confederate nostalgists than I'm comfortable
> with. (NOTE: This is not an invitation to debate the US Civil War.)
I can see the criticism. It's brief enough to not be a big deal,
though.
> All of the scenes designed to introduce our characters, the ship and their
> 'verse are done skillfully enough to be at least tolerable. Just basic
> scriptwriting techniques like introducing Inara's profession by having
> Kaylee ask if she ever had to take an ugly client, instead of by making
> Inara say "As a futuristic geisha, I sometimes brush my clients' hair."
Although they do succumb to having Inara explaining something about
the 'verse and then saying "you know that." No exposition is perfect.
> > I should mention that one thing I don't like is the haste with which
> > the show seems eager to move Simon and Kaylee into a potential
> > relationship.
>
> A slow buildup might have been better, but I don't see the haste as being
> an actual problem as long as it remains a *potential* relationship.
As I suggested in the snipped part, though, that can come from the two
themselves, though, rather than from constant signposts from eveyone
else.
> > around him. And it'd be hard not to, after this scene, and the
> > straightforward way he sums it up: "a man learns all the details of a
> > situation like ours, well then he has a choice." "I don't believe he
> > does."
>
> It was a wise decision to leave it at those two sentences, plus some
> silent looks of respect. This is the kind of scene that would have gotten
> exponentially lamer the longer it went on.
What else is there to say? Joss often, though not always, knows when
not to choke a situation with dialogue.
> However, while a success I was actually slightly disappointed on first
> viewing. This was mainly due to excessively high expectations. I was
> hoping for something totally unique and Whedonesque, and instead got a
> fairly Whedonesque spin on an otherwise ordinary story. And while I liked
> the characters, I didn't immediately fall in love the way I did with Buffy
> and her friends. It was certainly good enough to keep me watching, but on
> the whole I would have preferred the original pilot as an introduction to
> Firefly.
How long did it take? One thing most _Firefly_ viewers comment on is
how quickly they start getting to know their new friends.
-AOQ
chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu
>> > "The Train Job" opens with a scene that, even before I knew the back-
>> > story behind this show (short version: write a new "first" episode
>> > over the weekend, guys!), jumped out as a little repetitious.
>>
>> Which wasn't a problem when it was first broadcast, of course.
>
> Did you watch the whole show first-run? If so, we're counting on you
> for a TV perspective.
Responsibility! Okay, not panicking, not panicking.... I'll mention my
own original reactions, when I can remember them. I never participated
much in Firefly fan discussions (just signed some petitions), so I
probably won't have anything to say about what fandom as a whole thought.
>> > I should mention that one thing I don't like is the haste with which
>> > the show seems eager to move Simon and Kaylee into a potential
>> > relationship.
>>
>> A slow buildup might have been better, but I don't see the haste as being
>> an actual problem as long as it remains a *potential* relationship.
>
> As I suggested in the snipped part, though, that can come from the two
> themselves, though, rather than from constant signposts from eveyone
> else.
Sorry, I misunderstood your main point the first time around. I agree
that with more time and care ME could have shown us Simon and Kaylee's
budding relationship through the characters themselves, rather than
through other characters' comments. As you say, no exposition is perfect.
>> However, while a success I was actually slightly disappointed on first
>> viewing. This was mainly due to excessively high expectations. I was
>> hoping for something totally unique and Whedonesque, and instead got a
>> fairly Whedonesque spin on an otherwise ordinary story. And while I liked
>> the characters, I didn't immediately fall in love the way I did with Buffy
>> and her friends. It was certainly good enough to keep me watching, but on
>> the whole I would have preferred the original pilot as an introduction to
>> Firefly.
>
> How long did it take? One thing most _Firefly_ viewers comment on is
> how quickly they start getting to know their new friends.
For me it happened by about the third episode, but there wasn't a clear
turning point. The first episode was good enough to intrigue me, the
second seemed even more interesting, and the third was lots of fun; but I
think it was just the gradual accumulation of time with the characters,
rather than any particular moment in those episodes, that turned my liking
into love. I had watched the first few episodes because Firefly was a Joss
Whedon show, so good things could be expected. By the time the fourth
episode aired I was watching Firefly because it was Firefly.
William George Ferguson
wrote:
>On Apr 3, 1:13 pm, chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu wrote:
>> In alt.tv.firefly Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > "The Train Job" opens with a scene that, even before I knew the back-
>> > story behind this show (short version: write a new "first" episode
>> > over the weekend, guys!), jumped out as a little repetitious.
>>
>> Which wasn't a problem when it was first broadcast, of course.
>
>Did you watch the whole show first-run? If so, we're counting on you
>for a TV perspective.
There's actually a lot of us, for a fairly small relative value of 'a lot',
about 4 million.
I started with the crappy bootlegged online copy of the original pilot
(Serenity). It was, in all instances of it I could find in the summer of
2002, a low resolution, very artifact-heavy avi file, but it was viewable
enough so I more or less knew the backstory and where these characters came
from when watching The Train Job of Sep 20, 2002.
The main difference between the original (rejected by the network) version
of the pilot and the completed and aired version of Serenity The Episode
was the lack of the Serenity Valley scene prologue (the original started
with the space-suited crew breaking into the derelict), and the inclusion
of a scene (available as an extra on the DVD) of exposition explaining what
the Serenity Valley scene showed.
I liked Mal popping the Alliance agent in passing, very Joss. but the scene
that made me a proselytizing recruiter for the show was the scene in The
Train Job between Mal, Crow, and Engine Intake.
>> And when
>> watching the DVD, the action part is entertaining enough to make up for
>> the repetition. Mal getting thrown through the holographic window is a
>> nice but unsubtle way of tying together the science fiction setting with
>> old Western iconography. I was a little irked by his "I'm thinkin' we'll
>> rise again" line, which makes rather more of a parallel between
>> Browncoats and real-life Confederate nostalgists than I'm comfortable
>> with. (NOTE: This is not an invitation to debate the US Civil War.)
>
>I can see the criticism. It's brief enough to not be a big deal,
>though.
Well, the Browncoats Are the Greycoats, pretty much explicitly. It's hard
to avoid parallels when their fitting that niche is part of the mission
statement of the show.
Malcolm Reynolds was a Browncoat
He rode through the Verse
Malcolm Reynolds, the Browncoat
He wandered, with his crew
He'd get fightin' mad
This Browncoat lad
He was lighting quick and leather tough
And meaner than a snake if pushed enough
The Browncoat, Malcolm Reynolds
>> All of the scenes designed to introduce our characters, the ship and their
>> 'verse are done skillfully enough to be at least tolerable. Just basic
>> scriptwriting techniques like introducing Inara's profession by having
>> Kaylee ask if she ever had to take an ugly client, instead of by making
>> Inara say "As a futuristic geisha, I sometimes brush my clients' hair."
>Although they do succumb to having Inara explaining something about
>the 'verse and then saying "you know that." No exposition is perfect.
I tend to refer to those infodumps as "As you know, Bob..."
>> > I should mention that one thing I don't like is the haste with which
>> > the show seems eager to move Simon and Kaylee into a potential
>> > relationship.
>>
>> A slow buildup might have been better, but I don't see the haste as being
>> an actual problem as long as it remains a *potential* relationship.
>
>As I suggested in the snipped part, though, that can come from the two
>themselves, though, rather than from constant signposts from eveyone
>else.
I don't necessarily see the 'from everyone else'. It's made very clear, by
Kaylee, that she's got the hots for the doctor, and Kaylee is not shy,
either socially or sexually. The only reason she circles it as much as she
does is because she's trying not to scare him off, but I thought it really
clear, by her own actions and comments, that she was after the doctor from
the moment she saw him.
--
You've reached the Tittles. We can't come to the phone right now
If you want to leave a message for Christine, Press 1
For Bentley, Press 2
Or to speak to, or worship, Master Tarfall, Underlord of Pain, Press 3
Arbitrar Of Quality
wrote:
> On 3 Apr 2007 16:55:14 -0700, "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Apr 3, 1:13 pm, chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu wrote:
> >> In alt.tv.firefly Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> And when
> >> watching the DVD, the action part is entertaining enough to make up for
> >> the repetition. Mal getting thrown through the holographic window is a
> >> nice but unsubtle way of tying together the science fiction setting with
> >> old Western iconography. I was a little irked by his "I'm thinkin' we'll
> >> rise again" line, which makes rather more of a parallel between
> >> Browncoats and real-life Confederate nostalgists than I'm comfortable
> >> with. (NOTE: This is not an invitation to debate the US Civil War.)
>
> >I can see the criticism. It's brief enough to not be a big deal,
> >though.
>
> Well, the Browncoats Are the Greycoats, pretty much explicitly. It's hard
> to avoid parallels when their fitting that niche is part of the mission
> statement of the show.
Some of us would just prefer a way to fit the niche that doesn't
romanticize the Confederacy.
-AOQ
MacBubb
I think you are over-reaching things, Mr. PC.
--
*************
Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong.
- Oscar Wilde
*************
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
One Bit Shy
news:1175740591....@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Well, you could be in my shoes. Every time I hear "browncoat", my mind
flashes on "brownshirt". I keep hitting myself and saying, "stop it!" But
I do it anyway.
OBS
chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu
>> Some of us would just prefer a way to fit the niche that doesn't
>> romanticize the Confederacy.
>
> Well, you could be in my shoes. Every time I hear "browncoat", my mind
> flashes on "brownshirt". I keep hitting myself and saying, "stop it!" But
> I do it anyway.
I actually had a similar reaction at first; fortunately it faded over
time.
This is one area where the "purple-bellies" have the Browncoats beat. Who
ever heard of a brutal totalitarian movement spearheaded by Purpleshirts?
Michael Ikeda
news:131akhg...@corp.supernews.com:
> In alt.tv.firefly One Bit Shy <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
>
>>> Some of us would just prefer a way to fit the niche that
>>> doesn't romanticize the Confederacy.
>>
>> Well, you could be in my shoes. Every time I hear "browncoat",
>> my mind flashes on "brownshirt". I keep hitting myself and
>> saying, "stop it!" But I do it anyway.
>
> I actually had a similar reaction at first; fortunately it faded
> over time.
>
> This is one area where the "purple-bellies" have the Browncoats
> beat. Who ever heard of a brutal totalitarian movement
> spearheaded by Purpleshirts?
>
It's Barney the dictator!
I love you.
You love me.
OR ELSE...
Arbitrar Of Quality
> In article <1175740591.113777.14...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
> Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 4, 1:52 pm, William George Ferguson <wmgfr...@newsguy.com>
> > wrote:
> > > On 3 Apr 2007 16:55:14 -0700, "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >On Apr 3, 1:13 pm, chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu wrote:
> > > >> In alt.tv.firefly Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> And when
> > > >> watching the DVD, the action part is entertaining enough to make up for
> > > >> the repetition. Mal getting thrown through the holographic window is a
> > > >> nice but unsubtle way of tying together the science fiction setting with
> > > >> old Western iconography. I was a little irked by his "I'm thinkin' we'll
> > > >> rise again" line, which makes rather more of a parallel between
> > > >> Browncoats and real-life Confederate nostalgists than I'm comfortable
> > > >> with. (NOTE: This is not an invitation to debate the US Civil War.)
>
> > > >I can see the criticism. It's brief enough to not be a big deal,
> > > >though.
>
> > > Well, the Browncoats Are the Greycoats, pretty much explicitly. It's hard
> > > to avoid parallels when their fitting that niche is part of the mission
> > > statement of the show.
>
> > Some of us would just prefer a way to fit the niche that doesn't
> > romanticize the Confederacy.
>
Based on a couple one-sentence reponses after not bringing up the
topic originally?
I don't think I'd been accused of being too PC before. It's good for
the balance. I've already gotten fairly groundless criticms for
homophobia and misogyny, so this makes me feel complete.
-AOQ
David Buchner
> For me it happened by about the third episode, but there wasn't a clear
> turning point. The first episode was good enough to intrigue me, the
> second seemed even more interesting, and the third was lots of fun; but I
> think it was just the gradual accumulation of time with the characters,
> rather than any particular moment in those episodes, that turned my liking
> into love. I had watched the first few episodes because Firefly was a Joss
> Whedon show, so good things could be expected. By the time the fourth
> episode aired I was watching Firefly because it was Firefly.
I was a DVD guy; I envy you your first-run experience I can now never
have. But I *did* get to start out with the pilot...
Damn, again I wish I had kept some kind of viewing diary!
Either it was, as you say a "gradual accumulation" ...a growing
realization of "oh my god this is the best science fiction I've ever
seen on TV ever!! I can't believe I'm seeing this!!!" -- or it was that
I was instantly hooked about 2/3 of the way through the Reaver chase
scene in "Serenity."
I honestly can't remember, because both sound about right.
David Buchner
> > Who ever heard of a brutal totalitarian movement
> > spearheaded by Purpleshirts?
> >
>
> It's Barney the dictator!
>
> I love you.
> You love me.
> OR ELSE...
I think you're on to something here. A silly youtube claymation version
of Firefly? I don't know. But that definitely could be the Battle Hymn
of the Alliance you've got a start on.
David Buchner
Oh. So you're a homophobe too, huh?
;-)
But seriously: what's the Big Giant Problem with the Confederasuh?
chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu
>> I don't think I'd been accused of being too PC before. It's good for
>> the balance. I've already gotten fairly groundless criticms for
>> homophobia and misogyny, so this makes me feel complete.
>
> Glad I could help, AB. And another thing to check off on your "What I
> did and said that was right and proper" checklist.
Careful now, don't confuse AOQ with AB. They are two entirely separate
people.
Though come to think of it, I've never seen them both in the same place at
the same time. Hmmm....
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
buc...@wcta.net (David Buchner) wrote:
slavery
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
Atlas Bugged
news:131dg8q...@corp.supernews.com...
> Careful now, don't confuse AOQ with AB. They are two entirely separate
> people.
That's right! AOQ and I have discussed one or two episodes. This proves,
beyond any possible doubt, that we are two separate posters! Silly goose!
Atlas Bugged, Friday, April 06, 2007
--
SERENITY/FIREFLY FAQ, PLUS!
http://snipurl.com/k8ui "One page, all you need to know, referenced."
STARGATE ATLANTIS FAQ
http://snipurl.com/SGAFAQ "Still just a draft, perhaps daft, help to make it
better."
GOODBYE, SG-1
http://snipurl.com/1d8kw "Homage to the legend w/ last ep comments, no
spoilers."
TROLL/RATS:
http://snipurl.com/19k1q "Referenced guide to stinkers that hide.
Athough...any that talk to each other are clearly distinct posters.
Obviously."
Don Sample
<mair_fheal-6C91E...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
<mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <1hw5osq.yv4ab0ph7arhN%buc...@wcta.net>,
> buc...@wcta.net (David Buchner) wrote:
>
> > Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > I don't think I'd been accused of being too PC before. It's good for
> > > the balance. I've already gotten fairly groundless criticms for
> > > homophobia and misogyny, so this makes me feel complete.
> >
> > Oh. So you're a homophobe too, huh?
> >
> > ;-)
> >
> >
> >
> > But seriously: what's the Big Giant Problem with the Confederasuh?
>
> slavery
They were only slightly more in favour of it than the Union.
(And within the Firefly 'verse it seems that it is the Alliance that is
in favour of slavery. Inara got Mal and Zoe out of jail by basically
claiming that they were her runaway slaves.)
--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
MacBubb
<mair_fheal-6C91E...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
<mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <1hw5osq.yv4ab0ph7arhN%buc...@wcta.net>,
> buc...@wcta.net (David Buchner) wrote:
>
> > Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > I don't think I'd been accused of being too PC before. It's good for
> > > the balance. I've already gotten fairly groundless criticms for
> > > homophobia and misogyny, so this makes me feel complete.
> >
> > Oh. So you're a homophobe too, huh?
> >
> > ;-)
> >
> >
> >
> > But seriously: what's the Big Giant Problem with the Confederasuh?
>
> slavery
So you must REALLY hate the Romans, and the American Indians, and the
Egyptians, and, (lets face it) the Africans?
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
MacBubb <lotu...@pedalthroan.gov> wrote:
> In article
> <mair_fheal-6C91E...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> <mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1hw5osq.yv4ab0ph7arhN%buc...@wcta.net>,
> > buc...@wcta.net (David Buchner) wrote:
> >
> > > Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > I don't think I'd been accused of being too PC before. It's good for
> > > > the balance. I've already gotten fairly groundless criticms for
> > > > homophobia and misogyny, so this makes me feel complete.
> > >
> > > Oh. So you're a homophobe too, huh?
> > >
> > > ;-)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > But seriously: what's the Big Giant Problem with the Confederasuh?
> >
> > slavery
>
> So you must REALLY hate the Romans, and the American Indians, and the
> Egyptians, and, (lets face it) the Africans?
why are you willing to make excuses for evil?
whats next? jim crow wasnt any worse than other countries?
MacBubb
<mair_fheal-0D536...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> In article <060420071845580608%lotu...@pedalthroan.gov>,
> MacBubb <lotu...@pedalthroan.gov> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <mair_fheal-6C91E...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> > mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> > <mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <1hw5osq.yv4ab0ph7arhN%buc...@wcta.net>,
> > > buc...@wcta.net (David Buchner) wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > But seriously: what's the Big Giant Problem with the Confederasuh?
> > >
> > > slavery
> >
> > So you must REALLY hate the Romans, and the American Indians, and the
> > Egyptians, and, (lets face it) the Africans?
>
> why are you willing to make excuses for evil?
Who is making excuses? All I am saying is I seem to see someone
jumping onto the PC Cause of the Week bandwagon. Slavery was NOT solely
an issue of the Confederacy. Nor was it even the reason for the
American Civil War. Lincoln freed the slaves as a punishment for the
south, NOT because the American people found the idea abhorrent.
AND, if one HATES some historical theme, shouldn't one hate ALL of
them? And, what are you doing about slavery in the world today? Are you
banning from your life products MADE by current slave labor?
> whats next? jim crow wasnt any worse than other countries?
You can self-hate all you want, but if you pick and choose what forms
of historical injustice to be angry about, you are just being a
hypocrite. Are you just being a PC Robot hypocrite?
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
MacBubb <lotu...@pedalthroan.gov> wrote:
> In article
> <mair_fheal-0D536...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> <mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <060420071845580608%lotu...@pedalthroan.gov>,
> > MacBubb <lotu...@pedalthroan.gov> wrote:
> >
> > > In article
> > > <mair_fheal-6C91E...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> > > mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> > > <mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <1hw5osq.yv4ab0ph7arhN%buc...@wcta.net>,
> > > > buc...@wcta.net (David Buchner) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > But seriously: what's the Big Giant Problem with the Confederasuh?
> > > >
> > > > slavery
> > >
> > > So you must REALLY hate the Romans, and the American Indians, and the
> > > Egyptians, and, (lets face it) the Africans?
> >
> > why are you willing to make excuses for evil?
>
> Who is making excuses? All I am saying is I seem to see someone
> jumping onto the PC Cause of the Week bandwagon. Slavery was NOT solely
yes it was
whatever else you want to claim it all comes back to slavery
states right
the states right to allow slavery even if the national government doesnt
economic differences
the agricultural was dominant because of slaves
nonslave farms were about as profitable as northern farms
its was slaves that changed the labor costs that stifled industrialization
and the difference in industrialization trigger tarrif disputes
what else do you want to claim
> an issue of the Confederacy. Nor was it even the reason for the
> American Civil War. Lincoln freed the slaves as a punishment for the
> south, NOT because the American people found the idea abhorrent.
and lincoln wasnt the only republican
the republicans in congress - the ones that were called radicals
were elected to end slavery and the south knew it
> AND, if one HATES some historical theme, shouldn't one hate ALL of
> them? And, what are you doing about slavery in the world today? Are you
> banning from your life products MADE by current slave labor?
>
> > whats next? jim crow wasnt any worse than other countries?
>
> You can self-hate all you want, but if you pick and choose what forms
its really sad if correcting past mistakes and injustice is not allowed
because then you become a selfhating jew
geez youre an asshole
MacBubb
<mair_fheal-D6A37...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
By the same narrowly focused PC vision, so can Nike shoes.
>
> states right
> the states right to allow slavery even if the national government doesnt
> economic differences
The states rights. It doesn't matter WHAT they decided. It is that they
had the right, and BY THE CONSTITUTION, the Government did not have a
legal right to interfere.
> the agricultural was dominant because of slaves
> nonslave farms were about as profitable as northern farms
> its was slaves that changed the labor costs that stifled industrialization
> and the difference in industrialization trigger tarrif disputes
It all comes back to the rich northern states wanting to control the
poorer southern states. Money and Power.
> what else do you want to claim
History is a wonderful thing, written by the conqureor.
>
> > an issue of the Confederacy. Nor was it even the reason for the
> > American Civil War. Lincoln freed the slaves as a punishment for the
> > south, NOT because the American people found the idea abhorrent.
>
> and lincoln wasnt the only republican
> the republicans in congress - the ones that were called radicals
> were elected to end slavery and the south knew it
They were "elected" to reign in the South, an easy way to do it was to
focus on slavery. Try reading an actual history of the war between the
states, and not just a popular PC sound-bite version.
>
> > AND, if one HATES some historical theme, shouldn't one hate ALL of
> > them? And, what are you doing about slavery in the world today? Are you
> > banning from your life products MADE by current slave labor?
> >
> > > whats next? jim crow wasnt any worse than other countries?
> >
> > You can self-hate all you want, but if you pick and choose what forms
>
> its really sad if correcting past mistakes and injustice is not allowed
> because then you become a selfhating jew
>
> geez youre an asshole
And you are a hypocrite. I did notice how you ignored the "horrors" of
all the other historical happenings of slavery. Or the current slavery
in the world you are actually living in?
You are pretending that it is a for/against issue, but it isn't. The
issue here is you focusing on a narrow, but not even extreme, example
of slavery. You seem to be ok with all the other slavery throughout
history in the world. And that IS the definition of hypocrite.
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> > whatever else you want to claim it all comes back to slavery
>
> By the same narrowly focused PC vision, so can Nike shoes.
i notice that all you have are snide remarks
not refutals
> The states rights. It doesn't matter WHAT they decided. It is that they
and what were the southern states demanding as their right?
the right to eat licorice? the right to avoid the tarrifs?
oh yeah the right to keep human beings in chains
> It all comes back to the rich northern states wanting to control the
> poorer southern states. Money and Power.
and why was the south not industrialized?
because slavery skewed labor and capital
> History is a wonderful thing, written by the conqureor.
evasion noted
> They were "elected" to reign in the South, an easy way to do it was to
> focus on slavery. Try reading an actual history of the war between the
since slavery was what mattered
> > geez youre an asshole
>
> And you are a hypocrite. I did notice how you ignored the "horrors" of
because its a diversion
its an old trick of assholes and republicans
that as long as they can find someone slightly eviler than themselves
they can claim they are good and do not have to reform
youre looking for excuses to be evil
rather than looking for way to be better
> issue here is you focusing on a narrow, but not even extreme, example
> of slavery. You seem to be ok with all the other slavery throughout
historically it was one of the most extreme slavery
in most other societies with slavery slaves had some legal standing
some rights and privileges that could not be taken away
slaves in the usa had zero rights and no standing whatsoever
legally they were not different than any other farm animal
MacBubb
<mair_fheal-F28FC...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> > > yes it was
> > > whatever else you want to claim it all comes back to slavery
> >
> > By the same narrowly focused PC vision, so can Nike shoes.
>
> i notice that all you have are snide remarks
> not refutals
Tomato, tomatoe. Do you not realize that Nike shoes are assembled by
slave labor? Do you care?
>
> > The states rights. It doesn't matter WHAT they decided. It is that they
>
> and what were the southern states demanding as their right?
> the right to eat licorice? the right to avoid the tarrifs?
>
> oh yeah the right to keep human beings in chains
It wasn't the only thing. But your narrow, PC mind is made up. You
don't want to be confused by details. And truths.
>
> > It all comes back to the rich northern states wanting to control the
> > poorer southern states. Money and Power.
>
> and why was the south not industrialized?
> because slavery skewed labor and capital
Um. No. Because they DIDN'T HAVE INDUSTRY. And a good thing too. That
is basically (as basically as the slave thing, anyway) why they lost.
>
> > History is a wonderful thing, written by the conqureor.
>
> evasion noted
Smart-ass pointless comment noted.
>
> > They were "elected" to reign in the South, an easy way to do it was to
> > focus on slavery. Try reading an actual history of the war between the
>
> since slavery was what mattered
To the slaves.
>
> > > geez youre an asshole
> >
> > And you are a hypocrite. I did notice how you ignored the "horrors" of
>
> because its a diversion
> its an old trick of assholes and republicans
Don't leave out narrow focused Bleeding Heart Liberal PCs.
> that as long as they can find someone slightly eviler than themselves
> they can claim they are good and do not have to reform
Not the point (or MY point, anyway) but you don't care.
>
> youre looking for excuses to be evil
> rather than looking for way to be better
Are you fucking hallucinating? Try this on for size, dumbshit; "For
evil to suceed, good merely has to do nothing." That is DO nothing.
Talk, without action is "doing nothing." Like what you are blathering
on about. As do MOST bleeding heart PCs.
>
> > issue here is you focusing on a narrow, but not even extreme, example
> > of slavery. You seem to be ok with all the other slavery throughout
>
> historically it was one of the most extreme slavery
> in most other societies with slavery slaves had some legal standing
> some rights and privileges that could not be taken away
So there are shades of slavery? By definition, slaves are PROPERTY. To
be done with as the owner wishes. All slavery.
>
> slaves in the usa had zero rights and no standing whatsoever
> legally they were not different than any other farm animal
What about the "house n*ggers?"
>
> 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
Your sig is starting to make sense. Well, not make sense in a Make
Sense kind of way, but it does explain a lot about your take on
reality.
Another realization. You do not really have anything interesting to
say. Is that a reflection of your personality, I wonder? Wait, I don't
care.
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
MacBubb <lotu...@pedalthroan.gov> wrote:
> Tomato, tomatoe. Do you not realize that Nike shoes are assembled by
> slave labor? Do you care?
do i buy shoes from nike?
> > > History is a wonderful thing, written by the conqureor.
> >
> > evasion noted
>
> Smart-ass pointless comment noted.
my win
> Are you fucking hallucinating? Try this on for size, dumbshit; "For
> evil to suceed, good merely has to do nothing." That is DO nothing.
> Talk, without action is "doing nothing." Like what you are blathering
> on about. As do MOST bleeding heart PCs.
what have i done or not done? how long have you been spying on me?
> So there are shades of slavery? By definition, slaves are PROPERTY. To
> be done with as the owner wishes. All slavery.
for someone who wants others to study history
your own studies are sadly lacking
> > slaves in the usa had zero rights and no standing whatsoever
> > legally they were not different than any other farm animal
>
> What about the "house n*ggers?"
what about them?
> Another realization. You do not really have anything interesting to
> say. Is that a reflection of your personality, I wonder? Wait, I don't
> care.
my win
David Buchner
<mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > But seriously: what's the Big Giant Problem with the Confederasuh?
>
> slavery
The popular version of the US Civil War -- that it was the forces of
good in the North aligned against the forces of Mordor to the south --
is, at best, simplistic. You say that, whatever complex cultural and
political and historical-accidental factors may have been at work, "it
all comes back to slavery." That's like saying the causes of WWII "all
comes back to Hitler didn't like Jews."
I tend to agree with you -- slavery is/was vile, and anybody practicing
or condoning it, *deserves* to lose... regardless of the legitimate
grievances they have. But I think it's a shallow fantasy version of the
Civil War to say "it all comes back to slavery," is all.
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
buc...@wcta.net (David Buchner) wrote:
> mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> <mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > But seriously: what's the Big Giant Problem with the Confederasuh?
> >
> > slavery
>
> The popular version of the US Civil War -- that it was the forces of
> good in the North aligned against the forces of Mordor to the south --
> is, at best, simplistic. You say that, whatever complex cultural and
> political and historical-accidental factors may have been at work, "it
> all comes back to slavery." That's like saying the causes of WWII "all
> comes back to Hitler didn't like Jews."
it was a few countries wanted to be imperial powers
and they decided to kill anyone who opposed their schemes
like other imperialists they denied the humanity and equality of their targets
imperialism is vile and im glad uk and france lost their empires as a side effect
too bad the usa hasnt learned the lesson yet
(iraq being a replay with deadlier weaponery of a backwater rebellion
from about 1775 to about 1781)
Rowan Hawthorn
Of course. But accepting that version relieves people of the
responsibility of admitting or understanding that *every* issue is
complex and layered, usually with *more* than just two sides.
--
Rowan Hawthorn
"Occasionally, I'm callous and strange." - Willow Rosenberg, "Buffy the
Vampire Slayer"
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
Rowan Hawthorn <rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
sorry binky but nobody claimed the north was righteous and shining
and gods right hand
people are claiming the southeat had a reason other than defending slavery
what missouri and maryland wouldve done in the long run
or any of that other stuff is a diversion
a way to defuse the evil of the southeast by claiming others were just as bad
therefore it was good enough
as far as trying to protect the delicate sensibilties of the southeast
thats the same bullshit that leads to serenity valley
or yorktown or baghdad or dien bien phu
if we were honest and told young men we threw away their lives for nothing
next we want to fight a war the young men might decline to participate
we have to support our boys even if that means lying to them
David Buchner
<mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> imperialism is vile and im glad uk and france lost their empires as a side
> effect too bad the usa hasnt learned the lesson yet
Oops. I didn't want to, but we've reached the point where I say that the
days of me not taking you seriously, are definitely coming to a middle.
Rowan Hawthorn
news:mair_fheal-78ADF...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net:
> In article <9pGdneNYY4H...@giganews.com>,
> Rowan Hawthorn <rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> David Buchner wrote:
>> > mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
>> > <mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>> But seriously: what's the Big Giant Problem with the
>> >>> Confederasuh?
>> >> slavery
>> >
>> > The popular version of the US Civil War -- that it was the forces
>> > of good in the North aligned against the forces of Mordor to the
>> > south -- is, at best, simplistic. You say that, whatever complex
>> > cultural and political and historical-accidental factors may have
>> > been at work, "it all comes back to slavery." That's like saying
>> > the causes of WWII "all comes back to Hitler didn't like Jews."
>> >
>> > I tend to agree with you -- slavery is/was vile, and anybody
>> > practicing or condoning it, *deserves* to lose... regardless of the
>> > legitimate grievances they have. But I think it's a shallow fantasy
>> > version of the Civil War to say "it all comes back to slavery," is
>> > all.
>>
>> Of course. But accepting that version relieves people of the
>> responsibility of admitting or understanding that *every* issue is
>> complex and layered, usually with *more* than just two sides.
>
> sorry binky but nobody claimed the north was righteous and shining
> and gods right hand
>
But you *are* refusing to see *any* color on the southern side except
black, while allowing for all sorts of gray areas on the Union side. So,
what's the difference? Like a lot of late-model students, you either got
an edited version of the history, or you developed a serious case of
tunnel vision. Probably both.
> people are claiming the southeat had a reason other than defending
> slavery
>
There were *lots* of issues surrounding the war, on *both* sides. Which
you'd know if you actually, y'know, wanted to. Of course, then you'd
have to admit that history is a little more complicated than what some
people want to make it out.
> what missouri and maryland wouldve done in the long run
> or any of that other stuff is a diversion
> a way to defuse the evil of the southeast by claiming others were just
> as bad therefore it was good enough
Nobody said that, either, except in your addled dreams. As far as I can
tell, everybody posting in this thread has been opposed to the idea of
slavery; they just contradict your simplistic version of the war.
>
> as far as trying to protect the delicate sensibilties of the southeast
> thats the same bullshit that leads to serenity valley
> or yorktown or baghdad or dien bien phu
Speaking of diversions: Forget protecting delicate sensibilities, how
about just settling for a little honesty, for once?
> if we were honest and told young men we threw away their lives for
> nothing next we want to fight a war the young men might decline to
> participate we have to support our boys even if that means lying to
> them
No difference there than with any other war. And *neither* side of *any*
conflict has a lock on truth *or* propaganda. That's a lesson that you
seriously need to learn. Of course, you'd first have to *care*...
C.O.Jones
What? And give up our Short Attention Span Soundbite version of
history? Who's got time for that?!!
--
////////// \\\\\\\\\\\
The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity.
-- Harlan Ellison
Julian Treadwell
> In article
> <mair_fheal-6C91E...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> <mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <1hw5osq.yv4ab0ph7arhN%buc...@wcta.net>,
>> buc...@wcta.net (David Buchner) wrote:
>>
>>> Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I don't think I'd been accused of being too PC before. It's good for
>>>> the balance. I've already gotten fairly groundless criticms for
>>>> homophobia and misogyny, so this makes me feel complete.
>>> Oh. So you're a homophobe too, huh?
>>>
>>> ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But seriously: what's the Big Giant Problem with the Confederasuh?
>> slavery
>
> So you must REALLY hate the Romans, and the American Indians, and the
> Egyptians, and, (lets face it) the Africans?
>
In the pre-industrial world it was the norm rather than an aberration.
Utterly obnoxious though slavery is, I agree it's not fair to condemn an
entire culture because of its participation in what was a widespread
practice.
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> entire culture because of its participation in what was a widespread
> practice.
why not?
any other injustice i should overlook just because everyone else does it?
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
moral relativism
a behavior is no longer wrong if enough other people do it
odd because i thought moral relativism was evol librul politically correct thing
and here i am an evol librul for holding everyone to the same standards
> black, while allowing for all sorts of gray areas on the Union side. So,
the only reasons to mention the union
is moral relativism (the south aint bad because the north was bad too)
or diversion (you cant justify the south so talk about the north isntead)
> what's the difference? Like a lot of late-model students, you either got
> an edited version of the history, or you developed a serious case of
> tunnel vision. Probably both.
apologists like to claim it wasnt about slavery
but they never back up their claim
> There were *lots* of issues surrounding the war, on *both* sides. Which
name one
> > what missouri and maryland wouldve done in the long run
> > or any of that other stuff is a diversion
> > a way to defuse the evil of the southeast by claiming others were just
> > as bad therefore it was good enough
>
> Nobody said that, either, except in your addled dreams. As far as I can
But you *are* refusing to see *any* color on the southern side except
black, while allowing for all sorts of gray areas on the Union side. So,
> tell, everybody posting in this thread has been opposed to the idea of
> slavery; they just contradict your simplistic version of the war.
actually no
the thread is full of people making excuses
> > as far as trying to protect the delicate sensibilties of the southeast
> > thats the same bullshit that leads to serenity valley
> > or yorktown or baghdad or dien bien phu
>
> Speaking of diversions: Forget protecting delicate sensibilities, how
> about just settling for a little honesty, for once?
>
> > if we were honest and told young men we threw away their lives for
> > nothing next we want to fight a war the young men might decline to
> > participate we have to support our boys even if that means lying to
> > them
>
> No difference there than with any other war. And *neither* side of *any*
> conflict has a lock on truth *or* propaganda. That's a lesson that you
> seriously need to learn. Of course, you'd first have to *care*...
usual kind of response
Rowan Hawthorn
<snicker>
chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu
> old Western iconography. I was a little irked by his "I'm thinkin' we'll
> rise again" line, which makes rather more of a parallel between
> Browncoats and real-life Confederate nostalgists than I'm comfortable
> with. (NOTE: This is not an invitation to debate the US Civil War.) But
I'd just like to apologize to the ng for mentioning the fucking Civil War.
You'd think I'd know better than to do that, after all these years online.
Will get to the Shindig thread later. And I'm really looking forward to
discussing Heart of Gold, when I plan to mention abortion and gun control.
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu wrote:
> In alt.tv.firefly chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu wrote:
> > old Western iconography. I was a little irked by his "I'm thinkin' we'll
> > rise again" line, which makes rather more of a parallel between
> > Browncoats and real-life Confederate nostalgists than I'm comfortable
> > with. (NOTE: This is not an invitation to debate the US Civil War.) But
>
> I'd just like to apologize to the ng for mentioning the fucking Civil War.
> You'd think I'd know better than to do that, after all these years online.
>
> Will get to the Shindig thread later. And I'm really looking forward to
> discussing Heart of Gold, when I plan to mention abortion and gun control.
i dont think fetusses (feti? fetae? feta?) should bear arms
Rowan Hawthorn
> In alt.tv.firefly chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu wrote:
>> old Western iconography. I was a little irked by his "I'm thinkin' we'll
>> rise again" line, which makes rather more of a parallel between
>> Browncoats and real-life Confederate nostalgists than I'm comfortable
>> with. (NOTE: This is not an invitation to debate the US Civil War.) But
>
> I'd just like to apologize to the ng for mentioning the fucking Civil War.
> You'd think I'd know better than to do that, after all these years online.
>
You'd also think it would be less of a hot topic after 140 years. So
much for that.
> Will get to the Shindig thread later. And I'm really looking forward to
> discussing Heart of Gold, when I plan to mention abortion and gun control.
>
Don't forget gay marriage and posting the Ten Commandments in government
offices...
Rowan Hawthorn
>> But you *are* refusing to see *any* color on the southern side except
>
> moral relativism
> a behavior is no longer wrong if enough other people do it
>
Wrong. That just makes everybody involved in that behavior wrong.
> odd because i thought moral relativism was evol librul politically
> correct thing and here i am an evol librul for holding everyone to the
> same standards
I don't see you holding everyone to the same standards. Are you aware
that the Emancipation Proclamation freed *only* slaves in the
Confederacy, and that slavery in the Union as a whole wasn't abolished
until the 13th Amendment passed in 1865? So, at the time the war
started, slavery was still legal in the United States under Federal law.
>
>> black, while allowing for all sorts of gray areas on the Union side.
>> So,
>
> the only reasons to mention the union
> is moral relativism
Both sides fought in the war - or did they skip over that in your history
classes, too?
>
>> what's the difference? Like a lot of late-model students, you either
>> got an edited version of the history, or you developed a serious case
>> of tunnel vision. Probably both.
>
> apologists like to claim it wasnt about slavery
> but they never back up their claim
Maybe you're just ignoring them.
>
>> There were *lots* of issues surrounding the war, on *both* sides.
>> Which
>
> name one
1. The most obvious one is that lots of southerners (lots of northerners,
too, for that matter,) believed that the Federal government was over-
reaching its authority.
2. The Confederacy believed that they had the right to dissolve their
ties with the Union if they were dissatisfied with the way they were
being represented, in the same way that the American revolutionists
believed they had the right to dissolve their ties with England. There
was quite a lot of support on the Union side to let them do so. Others
disagreed (and this was Lincoln's primary reason for actually going to
war. Despite being opposed to slavery, he still believed it could be,
and should be, disposed of through the normal channels. But he wasn't
willing to let the Union dissolve without a fight.)
3. Economics. Although this was strongly tied to the slave trade, there
were complexities involved beyond just the slavery issue. If you
actually have any interest in learning something, here's a good analysis:
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/ransom.civil.war.us
>
>> tell, everybody posting in this thread has been opposed to the idea
>> of slavery; they just contradict your simplistic version of the war.
>
> actually no
> the thread is full of people making excuses
Then you're not even reading this thread; as usual, just being a waste of
time and energy.
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> that the Emancipation Proclamation freed *only* slaves in the
ya know
when i mentioned maryland and missouri
i had absolutely no idea about that
> 1. The most obvious one is that lots of southerners (lots of northerners,
> too, for that matter,) believed that the Federal government was over-
> reaching its authority.
the authority they were concerned about
was that the majority of people in country wanted to end slavery
the senate had been kept balanced but the situation was destablizing
with abolutionist republican victories in 1860
they decided to start a war to comtinue then trust lincoln to compromise
> 2. The Confederacy believed that they had the right to dissolve their
> ties with the Union if they were dissatisfied with the way they were
that is not a cause for war
its a theory to justify a war
> 3. Economics. Although this was strongly tied to the slave trade, there
> were complexities involved beyond just the slavery issue. If you
> actually have any interest in learning something, here's a good analysis:
trying reading it yourself
it all comes back to industrial north vs agricultural south
and that division is due to slavery
- land policy - slave plantations vs free labor farms
- transportation - cheap transport of industrial goods
- tarriff - protection of northern industry
- banking - north needed cheaper and more dynamic capital markets
> > actually no
> > the thread is full of people making excuses
>
> Then you're not even reading this thread; as usual, just being a waste of
> time and energy.
given your inability to understand your own cites
i can understand your view
Atlas Bugged
news:F-OdnXcgWpR...@giganews.com...
> You'd also think it would be less of a hot topic after 140 years. So much
> for that.
The history is being rewritten by scholars who are belatedly discovering -
and popularizing - the truth. That much is relatively new
Some historians here correct me if I'm wrong, please, but this new
understanding seemed to have begun with Gore Vidal? Yes? No?
At any rate, I expect to see the Lincoln Memorial torn down, possibly within
my lifetime.
Lincoln didn't give a rat's ass about slavery. Is that even in question
anymore?
>
>> Will get to the Shindig thread later. And I'm really looking forward to
>> discussing Heart of Gold, when I plan to mention abortion and gun
>> control.
I'll see your abortion and raise you a "public schools suck" in the BDM.
And gun control raises its ignorant, dictatorial, murderous little head in
"Objects In Space," probably because Minear wasn't there to supervise
Whedon's baser instincts.
Atlas Bugged, Monday, April 09, 2007
--
SERENITY/FIREFLY FAQ, PLUS!
http://snipurl.com/k8ui "One page, all you need to know, referenced."
STARGATE ATLANTIS FAQ
http://snipurl.com/SGAFAQ "Still just a draft, perhaps daft, help to make it
better."
GOODBYE, SG-1
http://snipurl.com/1d8kw "Homage to the legend w/ last ep comments, no
spoilers."
TROLL/RATS:
http://snipurl.com/19k1q "Referenced guide to stinkers that hide."
Rowan Hawthorn
You know, I actually had a long response prepared, but then this came along:
> it all comes back to industrial north vs agricultural south
> and that division is due to slavery
...and I gave it up as a waste of effort. You know, I've heard some
monumentally stupid things from the "I hate the south and everybody in it"
club over the years, but that pretty much takes the prize. Agriculture -
like industry - grows where conditions are suitable for it; not just socio-
political conditions, but suitable climates and arable land are essential.
You can throw around all the righteous indignation and crap arguments you
like, but the plain fact is, you don't seem to have much of a grasp on
reality.
One Bit Shy
news:131akhg...@corp.supernews.com...
> In alt.tv.firefly One Bit Shy <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
>
>>> Some of us would just prefer a way to fit the niche that doesn't
>>> romanticize the Confederacy.
>>
>> Well, you could be in my shoes. Every time I hear "browncoat", my mind
>> flashes on "brownshirt". I keep hitting myself and saying, "stop it!"
>> But
>> I do it anyway.
>
> I actually had a similar reaction at first; fortunately it faded over
> time.
>
> This is one area where the "purple-bellies" have the Browncoats beat. Who
> ever heard of a brutal totalitarian movement spearheaded by Purpleshirts?
The front four of the Minnesota Vikings?
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
Rowan Hawthorn <rowan_h...@twilightzone.com> wrote:
> mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> <mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:mair_fheal-37C9E...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net:
>
> You know, I actually had a long response prepared, but then this came along:
>
> > it all comes back to industrial north vs agricultural south
> > and that division is due to slavery
>
> ...and I gave it up as a waste of effort. You know, I've heard some
> monumentally stupid things from the "I hate the south and everybody in it"
> club over the years, but that pretty much takes the prize. Agriculture -
> like industry - grows where conditions are suitable for it; not just socio-
> political conditions, but suitable climates and arable land are essential.
> You can throw around all the righteous indignation and crap arguments you
> like, but the plain fact is, you don't seem to have much of a grasp on
> reality.
you dont lose till you decide you lost
George W Harris
wrote:
:> Over on DS9, it's time for a "larger-than life villain," as the
:> network apparently demanded, in the form of Adelai Niska. His gimmick
:> is that he's a cheerful little old man who's made more sinister
:> because of the mismatch between demeanor and action. That's the
:> theory, anyway. He's one of the bigger failings of TTJ for me. He's
:> trying way too hard to be eeeeevil, and it seems forced. Also, his
:> extreme fondness for the word "reputation" is highly grating.
:
:I like him a lot. I love the whole "reputation" bit. Communicates very
:effectively to both Mal and the audience. Yes, he's trying too hard, but
:that's part of him putting on a staged show for Mal's benefit. He's
:consciously building an aura around himself as part of his business model,
:so to speak. I imagine he's as naturally evil as anybody can be, but acting
:natural is the last thing he wants. Affectation is his way, part of the
:character's essence.
I like to think that the show is *entirely* staged.
That isn't his wife's nephew who stole from him, but
whenever he hires someone, he sends some goons to
kidnap a poor schmuck to be tortured to death just so
Niska can make an impression - maintain his reputation.
I imagine the guys who have to do it get pretty tired of it.
"Oh, man, we have to go pick up another wife's nephew
*again*!"
--
Firefly Fan Since September 20th, 2002 - Browncoat Since Birth
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
Donny Macro
"George W Harris" <gha...@mundsprung.com> wrote in message
news:dmon135n9rf1lcnjp...@4ax.com...
heh heh, interesting theory... but if he got caught at that game wouldn't
his reputation be shot? other than the reputation as a crazy sob that is.
William George Ferguson
He doesn't even need to be constantly getting new guys to torture as
examples. We only have the implication that he's being tortured to death.
He could just be an employee whose job description includes 'play the
'wife's nephew' in the torture tableau as needed'. Heck it could actually
be the wife's nephew being given the acting job.
That doesn't mean Niska doesn't actually torture people, he clearly does.
He just doesn't need to waste resources by torturing someone just to do so.
--
... and my sister is a vampire slayer, her best friend is a witch who
went bonkers and tried to destroy the world, um, I actually used to be
a little ball of energy until about two years ago when some monks
changed the past and made me Buffy's sister and for some reason, a big
klepto. My best friends are Leticia Jones, who moved to San Diego
because this town is evil, and a floppy eared demon named Clem.
(Dawn's fantasy of her intro speech in "Lessons", from the shooting script)
Julian Treadwell
You misunderstand my point - I have no problem with anyone condemning
slavery or the practice of slavery by a particular culture; but I do
have a problem with condemning an entire culture because they once held
slaves. And if you still insist on condemning the entire Southern US
culture for that reason, do you also condemn to the same extent the
aforementioned Maori, Celtic, Norse, Greek etc peoples?