Talk:Serenity (2005 film)/Archive 1

message: Please do not keep adding this link to this article for the following reasons:
* Wikipedia is not a link repository.
* This article is English, and websites for other languages should be on the article's page with that language.
This website link has been added many times before
— Cuahl 5 July 2005 13:22 (UTC)
:Reply:
:Seeing as I was the one posting the link, I feel the need to clarify. First of: 'many times before' was only twice, but that's beside the point. I added this to the English section, since there is no Dutch section on Firefly or Serenity. There is no Dutch section, since Dutch people, especially sci-fi fans, tend to concentrate on the larger international (i.e.: English) websites. Now there are exceptions, like our website, but those are just that: exceptions. 
:I admit to not being familiar with all the rules and regulations of wikipedia, and probably should have looked into those more extensively before adding said link, but I only acted with the best interest of the browncoat community in mind: more people coming to browncoats.nl, equals a bigger exposure of the movie in The Netherlands and more people to help out with the promotional activities we're planning for our little country. 
:Now if I caused any offense by adding this link again after it had been removed, I'd like to take this opportunity to apologise. I intented no harm, and thought that posting our link on the international Serenity page would be a good place, seeing as we're the official dutch movie website. I can also see how some might consider this a simple case of link dumping, a way to get more traffic, or something like that, but I assure you that was not the case. Even after reading the article you linked to, I still feel that our link is content-relevant, but I will not be pushing the issue, since everyone here has very obviously put more time and energy into this wikipedia serenity page than I did, and I respect that. 
:Now I won't be posting this link again, but I did feel the need to clarify. We're not bad people. We're all browncoats here, with our only interest being in making Serenity perform its damndest at the box office (including our little corner of the earth). 
:Finally I'd like to mention that this reply here in no way represents any official views of the browncoats.nl staff or UIP Netherlands (the distributors of the movie), everything posted here has been done by my own accord. -GVH 9 July 2005 14:28 (GMT+1)
::I find the browncoats.nl site very useful except for one thing. Who the hell is this? http://browncoats.nl/images/2315_K0203A_15.jpg *Peace Inside 22:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's Mr Universe and his "love bot". She played a crucial role in the movie when she relays information to mal after Mr Universe's death. Paul Timmins 02:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links: Browncoats.nl 

message: Should this include a disambigiation page?  64.26.170.107 06:31, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: English is not my first language . . . I'm not sure what's wrong.  But it seems wrong in very many places.  Very low standard of spelling and grammar.  Am I wrong? --  03:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot Spoiler by ZAROVE 

message: The story section doesn't read very well. I fixed the spelling up a bit, but it sections of it could probably do with a rewrite. Anyone up for it? - discofever 03:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Story 

message: Would it be appropriate to add a heading for references to previous episodes and canon? I thought I'd ask here, to find out if people think "Wikipedia is not the IMDB!" -- 06:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Episodes of Firefly are listed, appropriately, at Firefly (television series).  However, I think the article could be restructured with a better introductory paragraph and separate sections on production, release, and the universe of Serenity.  The "universe of Serenity" part should have a note about Firefly and the Serenity comic book. —Josiah Rowe 06:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and did that.  Feel free to improve what I've put in, though! —Josiah Rowe 08:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section: references? 

message: There are two specific problems I'd like to call attention. First, someone keeps changing the IMDb ranking to say "currently", which is bad form in an encyclopedia, however dynamic. It puts a burden on the editors to continuously update the information, which is fine for a select board of editors maintaining editorial control, but is exactly the wrong obligation to put on voluntary editing by people who can and do drop out or wander off without notice. Inevitably, people who do the constant updating eventually tire of the chore and find other things to be interested in, leaving the cleanup of such misleading time-sensitive statements to others. (I know from repeated experience on both sides of this issue.) If we must have a time-sensitive piece of infomation, it should carry an explicit date, so both regular and new readers know how current the information is. Someone is apparently doing frequent checking of the IMDb information; it's not too much to ask that they include the date they checked when they do the edit.
Second, the "introduction" to this article is four paragraphs long, and, together with the infobox on the right, pushes the table of contents down too far for optimal use. I think it's a good time to consider the WP guideline of 1-3 paragraphs max (leaning toward 1), and move some of this non-introductory detail into another section. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I took a shot at it, taking a cue from other movie pages I moved the last two paragraphs (reviews & box office) to "Reception," and beefed up that section just a bit trying to present both sides of the critical reception.  I also changed the IMDb info to simply say users have rated it well and it is ranked on the top 250, since it seems there are a number of editors who prefer using "current" rather than dating the info, using a less dynamic form of the info allows "current" to sit more comfortably.  I also whittled down the release dates, since it seems most movie pages only use the US release date after the film is actually out.  Wasn't sure what to do with the film festival info, it seemed a bit non-notable to say the film "premiered" at this festival in light of the number of sneak-previews that had already occurred at this point, so I simply removed it for now.Gheorghe Zamfir 21:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro section problems 

message: Do we really need such a long spoiler in the middle of the article? I vote we move it to its own page and link to it from here. Tronno 14:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot info 

message: Can we get this page protected from teh anons who keep reverting it?Gateman1997 08:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Page protection

message: has been blocked for 24 hours for violating the three-revert rule. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: User:24.7.196.180

message: I think recently added Serenity Shindig and Serenity Watchlist are not very useful. The first doesn't go much beyond the article, the second links to some del.icio.us clone. Anyone agree? Aapo Laitinen 15:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Serenity Shindig might possibly be of interest to someone, but I agree that Serenity Watchlist is non-notable. (I tried to add this comment earlier, but my DSL line was briefly out.)—Josiah Rowe 17:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link removal 

message: Due to the edit warring, I have protected the page until the changes can be discussed. Since freezing it at the anon's version would simply continue to get him not to talk, I have reverted to the last one. I would note that this is not an endorsement of either position, simply a means to get  to engage in discussion rather than edit war. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 00:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I'm all for that. —Josiah Rowe 00:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Could you remove the BlinkList spamlink (Serenity resources), which the anon spammer re-added 16:02, October 14, 2005 and got thus protected? This person has been spamming and re-spamming his BlinkList links to about a dozen topics mostly related to technology. Aapo Laitinen 12:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been done. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Having investigated a bit further, I'm not sure if this is a case of deliberate spamming or 1-3 overzealous BlinkList fans. In any case, the link wasn't in line with Wikipedia policy, and no rationale was provided with the reinstation. Aapo Laitinen 12:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it is a deliberate spamming. The nature of the edits by  lead me to believe he is the same person spamming the IMDB boards as "SereneFanatique," although they may just be drawing information from the same unnamed sources. "SereneFanatique" seems determined to paint this film as a failure, and is putting a lot of effort into getting that POV across. MFNickster 06:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was referring to edits by  and previous anons who have insisted on adding links to BlinkList to various articles. His (their?) actions are unrelated to this POV dispute. Aapo Laitinen 12:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Sorry! The first paragraph above mentioned , and you only said "the anon spammer," so I thought you were referring to the same one. MFNickster 15:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I've unprotected the article. The anon hasn't discussed any of his/her edits to date and I don't believe he/she will do so in future, or indeed has any intention of doing so. In those circumstances, protecting the article is a waste of time. If the anon continues to revert without comment or explanation I will simply block him/her for escalating periods, starting at 24 hours, as appropriate. -- ChrisO 20:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Page protection

message: OK, let's not let this get into another inane edit war.  Instead, let's discuss whether the Orson Scott Card quote is notable and worthy of inclusion in the article, or not.  (The anon user who was involved in an earlier edit war removed the following: "Science fiction author Orson Scott Card called Serenity "the best science fiction film ever." ")
I think this is noteworthy, because Card is a fairly prominent author and public figure, and the quote is typically forthright.  Of course, if there's a consensus on this page that it ought to be removed, I'll bow to the wisdom of the community. —Josiah Rowe 17:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Card is, like you said, a prominent author and public figure, but his comment does seem out of place there since he's an author, not a film critic or major newspaper. --Pentasyllabic 21:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be better in the "Trivia" section? —Josiah Rowe 21:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I don't think it adds much to the article; it strikes me as something of an appeal to authority. -- ChrisO 21:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is wholly appropriate: albeit a slight appeal to authority, Card is a well-known sci-fi aficianado commenting about the challenges of translating a sci-fi novel to a film and how Serenity transcends this difficulty (though from TV to film); perhaps it should be placed in the Trivia section? E Pluribus Anthony 19:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I guess that it is appropriate to put in.  While Card isn't a film critic, he is a sci-fi writer.  Having said that, it means that if another, equally respectable, sci-fi writer spoke out against the film and someone put their quote on the page, we'd have to keep it.
--Radaar 22:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Card knows books, but he has yet to demonstrate that he knows movies. *Peace Inside 22:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the quote should be included. Orson Scott Card is a avid film critic and he reviews recent movies in his weekly column at his site Hatrack.com. Here's his review of Serenity (RCX 00:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orson Scott Card quote 

message: I had added this to the "Notes" section:
:* In 2005, New Scientist magazine's NewScientistSpace.com website held an unscientific poll to find "The World's Best Space Sci-Fi Ever". Serenity came in second place, after its television precursor Firefly. 
(At first I didn't even say "unscientific" — I put that in at the last moment.  The nature of the poll isn't clear on the site, but it looks like it was a web poll of some sort.)
Gateman1997 removed the note, saying, "Results by their very nature are probably POV and also irrelevant."  If this were a poll from a Firefly fan site or something, I'd certainly agree, but I think the association with New Scientist makes this at least worth a mention.  The poll was notable enough to show up on Yahoo! News.  What do other editors think? —Josiah Rowe 23:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I concede the point about likely poll-stuffing.  But is New Scientist really so obscure?  You can find it in pretty much every newsstand. —Josiah Rowe 00:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Scientist poll 

message: Hate to quibble over minor points, but the words in italics were not emphasized in his speech.  After he says, "...they'll swing back to the belief that they can make people..." he pauses and looks at River, before saying, "better."  To preserve his meaning, perhaps we should insert an ellipsis, or some other reference to the pause rather than italicizing this.  Also, he says, "and I do not hold to that," very quickly with no emphasis on "not".   Miraculouschaos 14:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mal's speech on Miranda 

message: Can someone confirm the latest information put in the DVD Release section concerning gross sales and rentals of the DVD/VHS?  Because according to imdb (which may or may not be reliable) as of the week ending February 5th Serenity had $7.65 million in just rental gross, not sales and rentals.  Or am I wrong on this? Maestro1ca 14:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't find your figure on IMDb, Maestro1ca, under either "trivia" or "box office & business". Could you specify where you got that information? On the other hand, VideoBusiness.com provides a VHS/DVD rental figure of $9.19 million as of January 15, 2006, Serenity's last appearance on their Top Rentals list.  I've added this link and date to the article. I'd also like to encourage everyone to cite data, with dates and links, when they add it, to avoid just this kind of confusion. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, should have provided the link.  I found it by going to the Top Movies and Top Video Rentals.  The list as of February 5, 2006,   I'm not sure what the differences between the two are.  But my concern regarding this number including sales figures was taken care of when someone removed the part that said this included sales revenue.  I know some people are still waiting for that figure to be released.  Maestro1ca 16:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  One possible explanation of the disparity is that VideoBusiness.com, which does collect international box office results, may be including international rentals in their rental total. This is sheer speculation on my part, however; I couldn't find any specific statement about what market their number represents. I suppose it's also possible that the numbers of either or both are estimated, based on selected "representative" stores and extrapolated, which makes significant variations possible if the assumptions of representation are invalid. I didn't find a specific statement about sources at VideoBusiness or at Home Media Retailing, IMDb's source for the rental data. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DVD Release 

message: I have reverted The Wookieepedian's own reversion of my addition of non-printing space between the 17 bulleted paragraphs in the "Trivia" section. I did not add those spaces on a whim; I did it because the 7 kilobytes of text with no visual separation and no clean division between the bullet list markup and the text made it extremely difficult for editors to tell where one item started and another began. Wikipedia is supposed to be easy to edit for ordinary people, not just computer programmers who are comfortable with hard-to-read text. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-print spacing 

message: I don't see how the rather detailed description of Mal's view of sin can be justified internally within the movie.  Did the author/producers provide some kind of ex post facto "Lord of the Flies" type guide specifying the meaning of this sin element within the movie?  After starting in a bit of a degenerate state, Mal seems to find (or perhaps more correctly "rediscover") a higher moral standard worth complying with.  Embracing liberty and opposing tyranny (even a ostensibly benevolent tyranny) is different from embracing or acknowledging "sin' as a key component of humanity.--Technicaltechy 07:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While it's all pretty and shiny and whathaveyou, I do agree that it's largely a piece of original writing, illustrating a personal feeling. Perhaps rewrite it rather than out-and-out deletion? *shrug* EVula 04:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Upon watching the movie again and rereading the "sin" section, it definitely is fanciful original writing.  It also appears to be wrong.  Mal wonders if morals such as being unwilling to leave someone behind might have contributed to their defeat in the war, but despite the fact that he left someone behind during his cynical anti-hero phase during the first mission, there is an element of belief in some higher standard that causes him to keep River after her violent episode.  Despite his disdain for Sheperd's sermons, he is a full true believer once those beliefs are inflamed by the Alliance's ends justify any means tactics.       Mal doesn't have an acceptance of sin, but rather an acceptance and valuing of freedom and love, and part of his values are defined negatively in opposition to the Alliances attempts to impose their own ideas on others in a presumptuous belief that they know better.--Technicaltechy 05:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: A good faith summary can be encyclopedic, but this text is opinion  far beyond an internal analysis of the movie, and without external supporting sources, so it does appear to be original work.--Technicaltechy 01:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I can't figure out how to change it, other than to delete the second paragraph and modify the first.  Only the operative really seems motivated by his perception of sin.  Mal makes some cracks in some responses, but doesn't discuss sin in a way that seems worth mentioning.--Technicaltechy 14:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mal's view of sin seems rather detailed? 

message: Should the boxart for the HD-DVD release be shown? Also, if the disk comes with any extras, they should be mentioned.
Box art: http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/Images/hddvd/s/serenity.jpg
Jamesinclair 00:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: HD-DVD

message: After spending about 20 minutes fruitlessly sifting through the WHEDONesque.com archives for February 2006, I finally gave up and tagged the following text (about the Paramount Studios visit rumor) with a  ("citation needed") note:
: However, Joss Whedon himself debunked the rumor in a post at WHEDONesque.com.
The link provided was for the site's main page, which is useless as a citation. When a fact is specified, the link must take the reader to the exact place the fact was found, not force them to hunt it down through several years of information. For instance, here is a permalink to a Joss Whedon comment on the Saturn Awards:
* 
Can someone who knows exactly where this information is insert it into a similar citation for the article? Thank you. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHEDONesque references 

message: I watched the commercial here [] but I can't find the subliminal message. Could someone please explain it to me? -Alice
:Hey Alice! I hope the following will help: You'd have to watch the film for it. Why? Because the "subliminal message" was specifically encoded to be one only for River Tam; she was the only one who'd be affected by it, since it would presumably only work on a brain that'd been messed with by the Academy/Alliance (note that in the film, there's also a "safe word" programmed into her as well, a phrase - "Eta kooram nah smech", a Russian idiom - that if uttered in her presence, causes her to snap out of it and fall asleep). 
:The message was deeply encoded into the "broadwave" (broadcast) that River saw in the bar. The version you saw, since you've linked it to a YouTube page, I'm guessing was taken NOT from the film, but from an extra feature such as the "Easter egg" (hidden bonus feature) on the Region 1 DVD (accessable from the disc's main menu; after the main menu loads, use your remote to access a little arrow on the half-loop on the right side of the screen, which will light up red after you've selected it. Then press "enter" and the bonus feature about the Fruity Oaty Bar ad will play). If it had been taken from the film itself, you'd have seen weird stuff and River staring at it raptly and then River whispering "Miranda" and then going nuts, which would make it reasonably clear "where" the subliminal message was. Additionally, Mr. Universe explains in the film how the layers of code were snuck into the ad (there's a nifty-looking visual to it, too, that reminded me of the code from The Matrix). 
:Does that help? Runa27 06:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Subliminal Message?

message: Substituted at 22:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment