FLM films - My Webpage

2004-02-15 19:13:52-08:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (nospam@nospam.com)


In article <20040215164716.13064.00001574@mb-m20.aol.com>, Isaac G. <thebinary@aol.composition> wrote: > i know we love joss whedon and his "universe", but is it possible Firefly was > simply a flop from the start? I wasn't that keen on it. It was okay, but that's all. not some great tv achievement. I would say rent the discs,but I for one wouldn't buy them. at least not at full price

2004-02-15 19:55:24-08:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (himiko@animail.net)


thebinary@aol.composition (Isaac G.) wrote in message news:<20040215164716.13064.00001574@mb-m20.aol.com>... > i know we love joss whedon and his "universe", but is it possible Firefly was > simply a flop from the start? No. Firefly was brilliant but a tad on the theatrical side in that it wasn't 100% "realistic." It also did not quite have the budget to pull off all the SFX it needed perfectly. Not a problem for anyone who's ever been to the theater or seen an art film or even just loved British SF TV series like Dr. Who, Red Dwarf, or Hitchhikers Guide with their cheesy SFX and brilliant scripts. Firefly was also a tad lacking in the very obvious female sluttiness that constitutes "sexy women" (see the Charmed trio) to the WB execs. The women of Firefly were, in fact, very attractive, and one was a prostitute, but the silly broads were written and directed to act as if they had some self respect. That apparently frightened of the WB execs whose idea of an ideal audience appears to be uneducated, sexually insecure, terminally stupid males aged 14-34. I'm not bitter. Really, I'm not. himiko

2004-02-15 21:47:16+00:00 - Did firefly just plain suck - (thebinary@aol.composition)


i know we love joss whedon and his "universe", but is it possible Firefly was simply a flop from the start? I never got a chance to see it, but will pick up the DVD's based on you opinions!--i. Aural aesthetics can be found at: www.Cesium137.com AND www.Metropolis-Records.com compositions available thru: www.industrial-music.com www.isotank.com or at other nifty little stores

2004-02-15 22:33:07-05:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net>)


dalecue wrote: > vidimus wrote in message ... > >>thebinary@aol.composition (Isaac G.) wrote in >> >>>i know we love joss whedon and his "universe", but is it possible >>>Firefly was simply a flop from the start? >> >>NO ! > > > YES! sucked canal water - but it was showing signs of getting better > when Fox pulled the plug The only part of Firefly that sucked was what FOX did to it. Rewrite the pilot at the last minute and then play the season out of order and you'll make just about any show with an ensemble cast look like crap to the casual viewer. -- DJensen

2004-02-15 23:15:18-05:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (Bill Poulin <billpoulin@rogers.com>)


"himiko" <himiko@animail.net> wrote in message news:c7902983.0402151955.20099423@posting.google.com... > thebinary@aol.composition (Isaac G.) wrote in message news:<20040215164716.13064.00001574@mb-m20.aol.com>... > > i know we love joss whedon and his "universe", but is it possible Firefly was > > simply a flop from the start? > > No. Firefly was brilliant but a tad on the theatrical side in that it > wasn't 100% "realistic." It also did not quite have the budget to > pull off all the SFX it needed perfectly. Not a problem for anyone > who's ever been to the theater or seen an art film or even just loved > British SF TV series like Dr. Who, Red Dwarf, or Hitchhikers Guide > with their cheesy SFX and brilliant scripts. > > Firefly was also a tad lacking in the very obvious female sluttiness > that constitutes "sexy women" (see the Charmed trio) to the WB execs. > The women of Firefly were, in fact, very attractive, and one was a > prostitute, but the silly broads were written and directed to act as > if they had some self respect. > > That apparently frightened of the WB execs whose idea of an ideal > audience appears to be uneducated, sexually insecure, terminally > stupid males aged 14-34. > > I'm not bitter. Really, I'm not. > > himiko Firefly was the best new show of it's season, and it's deeply heartbreaking that it died a quick death. That Friday night time-slot has claimed more than it's share of victims. The ensemble acting was at least as strong as any we've seen on Buffy or Angel. The production values were high (not as sci-fi slick as Trek, but with a gritty, lived in look that worked really well.) The writing was strong, and full of the witty banter that is the ME hallmark. And the story-arc was just getting to the point of being all-consumingly interesting when the plug was pulled. When it was on, I told everyone I knew they should check it out. I never missed an episode. I participated in a letter writing and e-mail campaign to try to save/revive the series. I bought the DVDs. Still, it is gone. And now there is no Buffy... soon no Angel... Y'all exscuse me, a grown man shouldn't cry in public... (runs, hides) Billp

2004-02-15 23:18:36-08:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (igs622001@yahoo.com)


thebinary@aol.composition (Isaac G.) wrote in message news:<20040215164716.13064.00001574@mb-m20.aol.com>... > i know we love joss whedon and his "universe", but is it possible Firefly was > simply a flop from the start? Did FIREFLY suck? In a word: no. It was great.

2004-02-15 23:20:09+00:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (vidimus <vidimus.erinyes@caramail.comPLICATED>)


thebinary@aol.composition (Isaac G.) wrote in news:20040215164716.13064.00001574@mb-m20.aol.com: > i know we love joss whedon and his "universe", but is it possible > Firefly was simply a flop from the start? NO ! Speaking of a start for Firefly is quite amusing... And you certainly don't know, but nameless people from Fox or WB are beyond that concept of flop. For them : it's not about top, it's not about flop. It's about "can sell". Well, it's not even that simple ! > I never got a chance to see it, but will pick up the DVD's based on > you opinions!--i. If you don't believe me, I don't know how to convince you. Maybe : http://www.epinions.com/mvie_mu-1126258/display_~reviews or http://amazon.com and search for Firefly or finally alt.tv.firefly vidimus.

2004-02-15 23:30:01+00:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (Mark Nobles <cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com>)


In article <Xns94914ADF8422vidimuserinyes@212.27.42.74>, vidimus <vidimus.erinyes@caramail.comPLICATED> wrote: > thebinary@aol.composition (Isaac G.) wrote in > news:20040215164716.13064.00001574@mb-m20.aol.com: > > > I never got a chance to see it, but will pick up the DVD's based on > > you opinions!--i. > > If you don't believe me, I don't know how to convince you. He believed you. You won. Quit.

2004-02-16 00:08:20+00:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (dalecue <pdgill@spamxerworldnet.att.net>)


vidimus wrote in message ... >thebinary@aol.composition (Isaac G.) wrote in >news:20040215164716.13064.00001574@mb-m20.aol.com: > >> i know we love joss whedon and his "universe", but is it possible >> Firefly was simply a flop from the start? > >NO ! YES! sucked canal water - but it was showing signs of getting better when Fox pulled the plug >Speaking of a start for Firefly is quite amusing... >And you certainly don't know, but nameless people from Fox or WB are beyond >that concept of flop. >For them : it's not about top, it's not about flop. It's about "can sell". >Well, it's not even that simple ! > >> I never got a chance to see it, but will pick up the DVD's based on >> you opinions!--i. > >If you don't believe me, I don't know how to convince you. >Maybe : > >http://www.epinions.com/mvie_mu-1126258/display_~reviews > >or http://amazon.com and search for Firefly > >or finally alt.tv.firefly > >vidimus. > >

2004-02-16 04:13:54+00:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (jvbguy@aol.comnomail)


himiko wrote: >Firefly was also a tad lacking in the very obvious female sluttiness >that constitutes "sexy women" (see the Charmed trio) to the WB execs. >The women of Firefly were, in fact, very attractive, and one was a >prostitute, but the silly broads were written and directed to act as >if they had some self respect. > >That apparently frightened of the WB execs whose idea of an ideal >audience appears to be uneducated, sexually insecure, terminally >stupid males aged 14-34. You think that attitude is exclusive to the WB? That's the attitude of the entire entertainment industry today. Hence, the supreme suckiness of 99 percent of everything out there. >I'm not bitter. Really, I'm not. I am. John B. Laurel and Hardy Central (co-founder) http://laurelandhardycentral.com "If you were cute and little like this, you would naturally be afraid of a man six times your size." - trailer for ATTACK OF THE PUPPET PEOPLE

2004-02-16 05:43:13+00:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (jvbguy@aol.comnomail)


st wrote: >It was getting better..... when Fox pulled the plug..... > >You realize fox showed the eps out of order..... so the last ep they >showed was actually the pilot. > I often wondered what the hell happened there. I didn't watch Firefly because I'm not that big a sci-fi guy, but I remember reading about the troubles of the series on Fox. Fox wanted a Whedon series, didn't it? And then when it got Firefly, it demanded a rewrite of the first episode and showed everything out of order? Isn't that like buying a brand new pair of expensive shoes and then shooting yourself in the foot? Anybody know what all that was about? John B. Laurel and Hardy Central (co-founder) http://laurelandhardycentral.com "If you were cute and little like this, you would naturally be afraid of a man six times your size." - trailer for ATTACK OF THE PUPPET PEOPLE

2004-02-16 07:35:32+00:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (Chris Zabel <alephnull@earthlink.net>)


To give a contrary opinion here and make sure Firefly isn't universally praised, I watched several episodes and found it tepid at best. And I'm a huge fan of both Buffy and Angel, so I really gave the show a chance to hook me. -- "They tease me now, telling me it was only a dream. But does it matter whether it was a dream or reality, if the dream made known to me the truth?" - Dostoevsky

2004-02-16 08:23:04+00:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (dalecue <pdgill@spamxerworldnet.att.net>)


st wrote in message ... >On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 00:08:20 GMT, "dalecue" ><pdgill@spamxerworldnet.att.net> wrote: > >> >>vidimus wrote in message ... >>>thebinary@aol.composition (Isaac G.) wrote in >>>news:20040215164716.13064.00001574@mb-m20.aol.com: >>> >>>> i know we love joss whedon and his "universe", but is it possible >>>> Firefly was simply a flop from the start? >>> >>>NO ! >> >>YES! sucked canal water - but it was showing signs of getting better >>when Fox pulled the plug > >It was getting better..... when Fox pulled the plug..... > >You realize fox showed the eps out of order..... so the last ep they >showed was actually the pilot. You realize I have access to the internet? so, yes I was aware of the out-of-orderness of the arings thinly, make that, barely veiled tales of post civil war hicks wandering and whining about the evil central goverment - been there, seen that save me from any more, thank you very much - try it in the old cotton south - they love that kind of crap Dale > >st > > >-- >"But she was naked, and all articulate!" > - Mal Reynolds, Firefly.

2004-02-16 08:31:59+00:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (dalecue <pdgill@spamxerworldnet.att.net>)


Chris Zabel wrote in message <8p_Xb.6683$W74.4541@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>... >To give a contrary opinion here and make sure Firefly isn't universally >praised, I watched several episodes and found it tepid at best. And I'm a >huge fan of both Buffy and Angel, so I really gave the show a chance to hook >me. thanks for the sanity - I'm also a huge fan and really wanted to like Firefly - maybe Joss took the oft quoted statement by Rodenberry that Star Trek was "Wagon Train in Space" a little too literally Dale > >-- >"They tease me now, telling me it was only a dream. But does it matter >whether it was a dream or reality, if the dream made known to me the >truth?" - Dostoevsky >

2004-02-16 08:36:44-05:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (nfway <nfw@yahoo.com>)


In article <c7902983.0402151955.20099423@posting.google.com>, himiko@animail.net says... > thebinary@aol.composition (Isaac G.) wrote in message news:<20040215164716.13064.00001574@mb-m20.aol.com>... > > i know we love joss whedon and his "universe", but is it possible Firefly was > > simply a flop from the start? > > No. Firefly was brilliant but a tad on the theatrical side in that it > wasn't 100% "realistic." It also did not quite have the budget to > pull off all the SFX it needed perfectly. Not a problem for anyone > who's ever been to the theater or seen an art film or even just loved > British SF TV series like Dr. Who, Red Dwarf, or Hitchhikers Guide > with their cheesy SFX and brilliant scripts. > it would have helped a bit if the actors were encouraged to have fun with their roles, as has happened in those British shows. There is acting, and then there is what Johnny Depp did with his recent pirate role which can boost any presentation above any production budget. > Firefly was also a tad lacking in the very obvious female sluttiness > that constitutes "sexy women" (see the Charmed trio) to the WB execs. > The women of Firefly were, in fact, very attractive, and one was a > prostitute, but the silly broads were written and directed to act as > if they had some self respect. > what a great way to say that the show needed skank-appeal ;) > That apparently frightened of the WB execs whose idea of an ideal > audience appears to be uneducated, sexually insecure, terminally > stupid males aged 14-34. > > I'm not bitter. Really, I'm not. > > himiko > Agree: its a pity that the WB execs think we're all just like them: uneducated, sexually insecure, terminally stupid males aged 14-34. (the temptation to end here with some sarcastic, macho, yet sexually insecure, comment is almost too much to withstand...)

2004-02-16 10:54:37-08:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (nospam@nospam.com)


In article <c7902983.0402151955.20099423@posting.google.com>, himiko <himiko@animail.net> wrote: > > Firefly was also a tad lacking in the very obvious female sluttiness > that constitutes "sexy women" (see the Charmed trio) to the WB execs. so what. the show wasn't on the WB

2004-02-16 11:45:03-06:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - ("Rev. Cyohtee - O'k�home Ehohatse" <cyohtee@barbarian.org>)


Out of the ether himiko@animail.net (himiko) rose up and issued forth: >thebinary@aol.composition (Isaac G.) wrote in message news:<20040215164716.13064.00001574@mb-m20.aol.com>... >> i know we love joss whedon and his "universe", but is it possible Firefly was >> simply a flop from the start? > >No. Firefly was brilliant but a tad on the theatrical side in that it >wasn't 100% "realistic." It also did not quite have the budget to >pull off all the SFX it needed perfectly. Not a problem for anyone >who's ever been to the theater or seen an art film or even just loved >British SF TV series like Dr. Who, Red Dwarf, or Hitchhikers Guide >with their cheesy SFX and brilliant scripts. > >Firefly was also a tad lacking in the very obvious female sluttiness >that constitutes "sexy women" (see the Charmed trio) to the WB execs. >The women of Firefly were, in fact, very attractive, and one was a >prostitute, but the silly broads were written and directed to act as >if they had some self respect. > >That apparently frightened of the WB execs whose idea of an ideal >audience appears to be uneducated, sexually insecure, terminally >stupid males aged 14-34. > >I'm not bitter. Really, I'm not. > >himiko What did the WB execs have to do with Firefly? -- Cyo (Remove '.invalid' to reply) cyohtee@ucan.foad.org http://www.barbarian.org/~cyohtee http://www.barbarian.org "Picard would never have hit me..." (wounded voice) -- Q "I'm /not/ Picard" -- Sisko

2004-02-16 13:02:03-05:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>)


In article <20040215231354.11447.00001992@mb-m05.aol.com>, JVBGUY <jvbguy@aol.comnomail> wrote: > himiko wrote: > > >Firefly was also a tad lacking in the very obvious female sluttiness > >that constitutes "sexy women" (see the Charmed trio) to the WB execs. > >The women of Firefly were, in fact, very attractive, and one was a > >prostitute, but the silly broads were written and directed to act as > >if they had some self respect. > > > >That apparently frightened of the WB execs whose idea of an ideal > >audience appears to be uneducated, sexually insecure, terminally > >stupid males aged 14-34. > > You think that attitude is exclusive to the WB? That's the attitude of the > entire entertainment industry today. It certainly seems to be the attitude at Fox, who are the ones who cancelled Firefly. WB had nothing to do with it. -- Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ Quando omni flunkus moritati

2004-02-16 13:09:07-05:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (nfway <nfw@yahoo.com>)


In article <160220041302036607%dsample@synapse.net>, dsample@synapse.net says... > In article <20040215231354.11447.00001992@mb-m05.aol.com>, JVBGUY > <jvbguy@aol.comnomail> wrote: > > > himiko wrote: > > > > >Firefly was also a tad lacking in the very obvious female sluttiness > > >that constitutes "sexy women" (see the Charmed trio) to the WB execs. > > >The women of Firefly were, in fact, very attractive, and one was a > > >prostitute, but the silly broads were written and directed to act as > > >if they had some self respect. > > > > > >That apparently frightened of the WB execs whose idea of an ideal > > >audience appears to be uneducated, sexually insecure, terminally > > >stupid males aged 14-34. > > > > You think that attitude is exclusive to the WB? That's the attitude of the > > entire entertainment industry today. > > It certainly seems to be the attitude at Fox, who are the ones who > cancelled Firefly. WB had nothing to do with it. > > we just want to blame the WB for everything bad or unfair in the universe, this week. we'll pick another scapegoat next week. ;)

2004-02-16 13:12:49-05:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>)


In article <lgn0309ef4j8k6j2b0s8bk0j2fm9tl36t9@4ax.com>, st <striketoo@hotmail.com> wrote: > You realize fox showed the eps out of order..... so the last ep they > showed was actually the pilot. > > st One thing that really bugged me was that when Space started rerunning the series in Canada, they showed the eps in the same wrong order. And when they finally got around to showing Serenity, they did it in *Narrow* screen. -- Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ Quando omni flunkus moritati

2004-02-16 13:21:21-05:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>)


In article <89t1309k4jqe1p3ps3q2biadhq5t634s9j@4ax.com>, st <striketoo@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:23:04 GMT, "dalecue" > <pdgill@spamxerworldnet.att.net> wrote: > > > > >st wrote in message ... > >>On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 00:08:20 GMT, "dalecue" > >><pdgill@spamxerworldnet.att.net> wrote: > >> > >>> > >>>vidimus wrote in message ... > >>>>thebinary@aol.composition (Isaac G.) wrote in > >>>>news:20040215164716.13064.00001574@mb-m20.aol.com: > >>>> > >>>>> i know we love joss whedon and his "universe", but is it possible > >>>>> Firefly was simply a flop from the start? > >>>> > >>>>NO ! > >>> > >>>YES! sucked canal water - but it was showing signs of getting better > >>>when Fox pulled the plug > >> > >>It was getting better..... when Fox pulled the plug..... > >> > >>You realize fox showed the eps out of order..... so the last ep they > >>showed was actually the pilot. > > > >You realize I have access to the internet? > > How would I know that.... you quite clearly said it showed signs of > getting better WHEN Fox pulled the plug. > > st The last few episodes shown were the best of the series. Many of the earlier ones were kinda week, especially _The Train Job_ which was a rushed script written over the weekend because after seeing _Serenity_ the Fox execs said "show us something else by Monday or you're cancelled now." _Ariel_, _War Stories_ and _Objects in Space_ are the best three episodes of the series, IMNSHO. -- Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ Quando omni flunkus moritati

2004-02-16 15:28:12-08:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (igs622001@yahoo.com)


himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0402151955.20099423@posting.google.com>... > I'm not bitter. Really, I'm not. I'm bitter. Very much so. It's sad that AtS is being cancelled and, much as I disliked BtVS for the last couple of seasons, it was sad in a way to see it come to an end. However, both series had a decent run. Not so FIREFLY. :(

2004-02-16 15:48:23+00:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (Cossie <billbalmer@worldnet.att.net>)


"Chris Zabel" <alephnull@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:8p_Xb.6683$W74.4541@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net... > To give a contrary opinion here and make sure Firefly isn't universally > praised, I watched several episodes and found it tepid at best. And I'm a > huge fan of both Buffy and Angel, so I really gave the show a chance to hook > me. > I agree. I was in the same boat - big fan of Buffy and Angel, I'm also a huge SF fan, both on screen and in literature. I wanted to like Firefly. I taped every episode. But I never really enjoyed it. I'll admit that Fox didn't make it easy, with showing episodes out of order and all, but it was more than that. Of course, I'll also admit that I'm not a fan of westerns, space or otherwise. The awful, overdone, contrived cowboy accent drove me to distraction and took away from my ability to enjoy the show.

2004-02-16 17:21:00+00:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


himiko <himiko@animail.net> wrote: > thebinary@aol.composition (Isaac G.) wrote in message news:<20040215164716.13064.00001574@mb-m20.aol.com>... > > i know we love joss whedon and his "universe", but is it possible Firefly was > > simply a flop from the start? > > No. Firefly was brilliant but a tad on the theatrical side in that it > wasn't 100% "realistic." It also did not quite have the budget to > pull off all the SFX it needed perfectly. Not a problem for anyone > who's ever been to the theater or seen an art film or even just loved > British SF TV series like Dr. Who, Red Dwarf, or Hitchhikers Guide > with their cheesy SFX and brilliant scripts. Today's SFX might well qualify as "cheesy" in 30 years time :) > Firefly was also a tad lacking in the very obvious female sluttiness > that constitutes "sexy women" (see the Charmed trio) to the WB execs. Should that be more stereotypes. > The women of Firefly were, in fact, very attractive, and one was a > prostitute, but the silly broads were written and directed to act as A prostitute who happens to be high status, hardly politically correct today... > if they had some self respect. As well as having a young man who was utterly cluless that he was being lusted after. > That apparently frightened of the WB execs whose idea of an ideal > audience appears to be uneducated, sexually insecure, terminally > stupid males aged 14-34. Is that what the WB execs think of their audience or a description of the WB execs :)

2004-02-16 21:40:24+00:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (3D Master <3d.master@chello.nl>)


Isaac G. wrote: > i know we love joss whedon and his "universe", but is it possible Firefly was > simply a flop from the start? > I never got a chance to see it, but will pick up the DVD's based on you > opinions!--i. > > Aural aesthetics can be found at: > www.Cesium137.com AND www.Metropolis-Records.com > > compositions available thru: > www.industrial-music.com www.isotank.com > or at other nifty little stores Fireflop was boring. Halfway the second ep I quit watching, because I was yawning and I couldn't give a rat's ass about the characters. 3D Master -- ~~~~~ "I've got something to say; it's better to burn out than to fade away!" - The Kurgan, Highlander "Give me some sugar, baby!" - Ashley J. 'Ash' Williams, Army of Darkness ~~~~~ Author of several stories, which can be found here: http://members.chello.nl/~jg.temolder1/

2004-02-17 00:53:47+00:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (jvbguy@aol.comnomail)


st wrote: >>Anybody know what all that was about? > >From what I read on the subject. The fox execs saw dollar signs and >gave Whedon a blank cheque without asking him what he would do with >it. > >After they saw the pilot and realized there weren't any young girls >bouncing around making bad puns.... it occured to them that they might >actually be 'risking' something with this new show. > >Apparently there wasn't enough 'action' and too much philosophizing >for their taste. Thanks for the summary. Pretty much what I suspected. Ever notice any time the phrase "blank cheque" is involved in anything, somebody winds up regretting it? John B. Laurel and Hardy Central (co-founder) http://laurelandhardycentral.com "If you were cute and little like this, you would naturally be afraid of a man six times your size." - trailer for ATTACK OF THE PUPPET PEOPLE

2004-02-17 02:05:23+00:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (Gavin Clayton <gavinclayton@dsl.pipex.com>)


On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 21:40:24 GMT, 3D Master <3d.master@chello.nl> wrote: >Fireflop was boring. Halfway the second ep I quit watching Good to see you gave it a fair chance, anyway. Gavin Clayton

2004-02-17 05:35:50+00:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (James Craine <JamesCraine@Hotmail.com>)


Mark Evans wrote: > >>The women of Firefly were, in fact, very attractive, and one was a >>prostitute, but the silly broads were written and directed to act as > > > A prostitute who happens to be high status, hardly politically > correct today... Well.... There a good many PC types who think highly of Hillary. >

2004-02-17 07:54:31-06:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (Avatar <avatar@donoteventhinkaboutit.com>)


On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 20:55:33 -0600, st <striketoo@hotmail.com> wrote: >On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 13:12:49 -0500, Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> >wrote: > >>In article <lgn0309ef4j8k6j2b0s8bk0j2fm9tl36t9@4ax.com>, st >><striketoo@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> You realize fox showed the eps out of order..... so the last ep they >>> showed was actually the pilot. >>> >>> st >> >>One thing that really bugged me was that when Space started rerunning >>the series in Canada, they showed the eps in the same wrong order. >> >>And when they finally got around to showing Serenity, they did it in >>*Narrow* screen. > >If there was ever a DVD I was tempted to buy..... > >still might... > >but there is that thing about buying a DVD player first. > >st Get a cheap Apex DVD player from Wal-Mart. Less than $50, plays everything you can throw at it. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sooner or later, all of our names wind up on a Post-It. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2004-02-17 07:55:26-06:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (Avatar <avatar@donoteventhinkaboutit.com>)


On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 02:05:23 +0000, Gavin Clayton <gavinclayton@dsl.pipex.com> wrote: >On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 21:40:24 GMT, 3D Master <3d.master@chello.nl> >wrote: > >>Fireflop was boring. Halfway the second ep I quit watching > >Good to see you gave it a fair chance, anyway. > > >Gavin Clayton I'm glad I gave Buffy more of a shot than TOP did Firefly. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sooner or later, all of our names wind up on a Post-It. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2004-02-17 18:05:33-05:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (Laz <johnwbrogan@DELETECAPScox.net>)


Previously, in %g, st wrote: > On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 13:12:49 -0500, Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> > wrote: > >>In article <lgn0309ef4j8k6j2b0s8bk0j2fm9tl36t9@4ax.com>, st >><striketoo@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> You realize fox showed the eps out of order..... so the last ep they >>> showed was actually the pilot. >>> >>> st >> >>One thing that really bugged me was that when Space started rerunning >>the series in Canada, they showed the eps in the same wrong order. >> >>And when they finally got around to showing Serenity, they did it in >>*Narrow* screen. > > If there was ever a DVD I was tempted to buy..... > > still might... > > but there is that thing about buying a DVD player first. Season 1 of Buffy is what finally drove me to buying a DVD player. If that hadn't, Firefly definitely would have. Buy one, and let Firefly be your first DVD set. I've never regretted getting one. I'll bet you won't, either. -- Laz

2004-02-17 20:35:49-05:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (forge <forge@diespammersdie.youneedageek.com>)


On 15 Feb 2004 21:47:16 GMT, thebinary@aol.composition (Isaac G.) wrote: >i know we love joss whedon and his "universe", but is it possible Firefly was >simply a flop from the start? >I never got a chance to see it, but will pick up the DVD's based on you >opinions!--i. It's one of the best television shows in the last 25 years.

2004-02-17 20:37:56-05:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (forge <forge@diespammersdie.youneedageek.com>)


On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 22:33:07 -0500, DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net> wrote: >then play the season out >of order and you'll make just about any show with an ensemble >cast look like crap to the casual viewer. THERE'S the real fuck-up on the part of Fox - the first ep I saw was "The Train Job" and I was lost, confused, and I thought Jayne was an annoying useless prick. By the time I finally got to see the pilot he was my favorite character. He's so... layered. Okay, only a few layers, but still.

2004-02-17 20:39:02-05:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (forge <forge@diespammersdie.youneedageek.com>)


On 16 Feb 2004 05:43:13 GMT, jvbguy@aol.comnomail (JVBGUY) wrote: >Fox wanted a Whedon series, didn't it? And then when it got Firefly, it >demanded a rewrite of the first episode and showed everything out of order? >Isn't that like buying a brand new pair of expensive shoes and then shooting >yourself in the foot? It's like buying a brand new pair of shoes, stuffing them up your ass sideways, and then complaining to the manufacturer that they hurt.

2004-02-17 20:53:27-05:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (forge <forge@diespammersdie.youneedageek.com>)


On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 10:58:43 -0600, st <striketoo@hotmail.com> wrote: >After they saw the pilot and realized there weren't any young girls >bouncing around making bad puns.... Clearly the idiot execs are unfamiliar with the term "subtle beauty" as seen in the persons of Summer Glau, Jewel Staite and Gina Torres. And wtf is Morena Baccarin, chopped liver? THAT woman makes most other women on teevee look like, well, men.

2004-02-17 20:54:24-05:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (forge <forge@diespammersdie.youneedageek.com>)


On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:23:04 GMT, "dalecue" <pdgill@spamxerworldnet.att.net> wrote: >thinly, make that, barely veiled tales of post civil war hicks wandering >and whining about the evil central goverment - been there, seen that >save me from any more, thank you very much - try it in the old cotton >south - they love that kind of crap We subversives live everywhere, Dale.

2004-02-17 20:56:34-05:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (forge <forge@diespammersdie.youneedageek.com>)


On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 20:55:33 -0600, st <striketoo@hotmail.com> wrote: >If there was ever a DVD I was tempted to buy..... Best investment you could possibly make. >but there is that thing about buying a DVD player first. Well, THAT would be the *best* investment. Pick up an Apex for $50 at Best Buy - the odd thing about those is, just 'cuz they're cheap doesn't mean they're crappy. They're actually pretty good machines.

2004-02-17 21:02:37-05:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (forge <forge@diespammersdie.youneedageek.com>)


On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 07:35:32 GMT, "Chris Zabel" <alephnull@earthlink.net> wrote: >To give a contrary opinion here and make sure Firefly isn't universally >praised, I watched several episodes and found it tepid at best. And I'm a >huge fan of both Buffy and Angel, so I really gave the show a chance to hook >me. Firefly was good at its worst; for "tepid" you want "Tru Calling." Bleh.

2004-02-17 21:32:04-05:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>)


In article <kcg530p6g6cg5f62ff83bb04ev82gij3ra@4ax.com>, forge <forge@diespammersdie.youneedageek.com> wrote: > On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 22:33:07 -0500, DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net> > wrote: > > >then play the season out > >of order and you'll make just about any show with an ensemble > >cast look like crap to the casual viewer. > > THERE'S the real fuck-up on the part of Fox - the first ep I saw was > "The Train Job" and I was lost, confused, and I thought Jayne was an > annoying useless prick. By the time I finally got to see the pilot he > was my favorite character. He's so... layered. Okay, only a few > layers, but still. But you're first impression was largely correct: Jayne's a prick. He's just a good prick to have on your side, once people start shooting (as long as he thinks that the other side won't pay him better.) -- Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ Quando omni flunkus moritati

2004-02-17 22:59:48-05:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (forge <forge@diespammersdie.youneedageek.com>)


On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:32:04 -0500, Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> wrote: >> THERE'S the real fuck-up on the part of Fox - the first ep I saw was >> "The Train Job" and I was lost, confused, and I thought Jayne was an >> annoying useless prick. By the time I finally got to see the pilot he >> was my favorite character. He's so... layered. Okay, only a few >> layers, but still. > >But you're first impression was largely correct: Jayne's a prick. He's >just a good prick to have on your side, once people start shooting (as >long as he thinks that the other side won't pay him better.) He's a prick, but he's a prick with depth. (Hmm, that sounds kinda erotic.) And he's not just some idiot either, that's the thing I really like - at first blush he seems like a fool but he's really not.

2004-02-17 23:59:11+00:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (dalecue <pdgill@spamxerworldnet.att.net>)


st wrote in message <89t1309k4jqe1p3ps3q2biadhq5t634s9j@4ax.com>... >On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:23:04 GMT, "dalecue" ><pdgill@spamxerworldnet.att.net> wrote: > >> >>st wrote in message ... >>>On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 00:08:20 GMT, "dalecue" >>><pdgill@spamxerworldnet.att.net> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>vidimus wrote in message ... >>>>>thebinary@aol.composition (Isaac G.) wrote in >>>>>news:20040215164716.13064.00001574@mb-m20.aol.com: >>>>> >>>>>> i know we love joss whedon and his "universe", but is it possible >>>>>> Firefly was simply a flop from the start? >>>>> >>>>>NO ! >>>> >>>>YES! sucked canal water - but it was showing signs of getting better >>>>when Fox pulled the plug >>> >>>It was getting better..... when Fox pulled the plug..... >>> >>>You realize fox showed the eps out of order..... so the last ep they >>>showed was actually the pilot. >> >>You realize I have access to the internet? > >How would I know that.... Oh gee - these msgs are on USENET? Dale you quite clearly said it showed signs of >getting better WHEN Fox pulled the plug. > >st > > >-- >"But she was naked, and all articulate!" > - Mal Reynolds, Firefly.

2004-02-18 00:40:59-05:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net>)


st wrote: > Right, and everyone with access to USENET must by default have the > bandwidth and know how to illegally download copyrighted material. Actually it's legal to download copyrighted material. It's just illegal to upload it. -- DJensen

2004-02-18 01:03:57+00:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (E Brown <epbrown01@att.net>)


On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 13:21:21 -0500, Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> wrote: >_Ariel_, _War Stories_ and _Objects in Space_ are the best three >episodes of the series, IMNSHO. I agree, but I'd swap "The Message" or "Trash" for "Objects In Space." The former is flawed but has a symmetry to it and several small things that speaks to Mal and Zoe's relationship (like refusing help carrying their dead army buddy, "Never let them know where you are." "I'm HERE! I'm HERE!! Come and get me!" "...of course, there are other schools of thought." "They don't like it when you shoot at them - I worked that out myself." "You aren't dead yet? I really wanted your beans..."), and "Trash" is simply fun, seeing Malcolm and "the Mrs." dicing with each other. Emanuel

2004-02-18 01:16:56-05:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (jere7my tho?rpe <j7y@liws.org>)


In article <KVCYb.5726$w65.464862@news20.bellglobal.com>, DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net> wrote: > Actually it's legal to download copyrighted material. It's just > illegal to upload it. Bzzt. ----j7y -- ************************************************************************** jere7my tho?rpe / 734-769-0913 "There is no spoon." "SPOON!" "There >>> j7y@liws.org <<< is no spoon." "SPOON!" "There is no invert liws to reply via email spoon." "SPOON!" -- The Tick vs. Neo

2004-02-18 01:44:40-05:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>)


In article <KVCYb.5726$w65.464862@news20.bellglobal.com>, DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net> wrote: > st wrote: > > Right, and everyone with access to USENET must by default have the > > bandwidth and know how to illegally download copyrighted material. > > Actually it's legal to download copyrighted material. It's just > illegal to upload it. It is illegal to download it too. It's just that it's more effective for the copyright holders to go after the uploaders than it is to go after the downloaders. -- Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ Quando omni flunkus moritati

2004-02-18 02:06:10-05:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net>)


Don Sample wrote: > In article <KVCYb.5726$w65.464862@news20.bellglobal.com>, DJensen > <me@no-spam-thanks.net> wrote: >>st wrote: >> >>>Right, and everyone with access to USENET must by default have the >>>bandwidth and know how to illegally download copyrighted material. >> >>Actually it's legal to download copyrighted material. It's just >>illegal to upload it. > > It is illegal to download it too. It's just that it's more effective > for the copyright holders to go after the uploaders than it is to go > after the downloaders. http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/legal/0,39020651,39118537,00.htm "In its decision Friday, the Copyright Board said uploading or distributing copyrighted works online appeared to be prohibited under current Canadian law. However, the country's copyright law does allow making a copy for personal use and does not address the source of that copy or whether the original has to be an authorized or noninfringing version, the board said." http://news.com.com/2008-1028-5097180.html?tag=nl "Q: Can Canadians legally download copyrighted music from peer-to-peer networks? A: The short answer is: Nobody knows for sure. But the issue is far murkier than in other jurisdictions like the United States. The key provision in Canada's copyright legislation is a private copyright exemption that lets Canadians make private copies for noncommercial use. The way we justify the exemption is by way of a levy that applies to blank media such as blank CDs and blank audio cassettes. With the exemption, there are many who believe that those who download music for noncommercial purposes from P2P networks could avail themselves of this legal defense. This has never been tested in court. The recording industry is of the opinion that this violates the spirit of the law if not the letter. What do you think? I'm inclined to think that you'd have a pretty good argument as an individual user--that personal, noncommercial copying is permitted by the exemption. The one caveat--and this is where there have been many myths--is that there is little doubt under Canadian copyright law that making those same songs available to others is not permissible. So you can download all you want, but you can't share what you've downloaded? That's right. It's very clear that the exemption applies only to individuals who make copies and does not authorize others to make copies. [inset]Canada has yet to enact any digital copyright legislation along the lines of the DMCA." -- DJensen

2004-02-18 02:07:37-05:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net>)


jere7my tho?rpe wrote: > In article <KVCYb.5726$w65.464862@news20.bellglobal.com>, > DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net> wrote: >>Actually it's legal to download copyrighted material. It's just >>illegal to upload it. > > Bzzt. http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/legal/0,39020651,39118537,00.htm "In its decision Friday, the Copyright Board said uploading or distributing copyrighted works online appeared to be prohibited under current Canadian law. However, the country's copyright law does allow making a copy for personal use and does not address the source of that copy or whether the original has to be an authorized or noninfringing version, the board said." http://news.com.com/2008-1028-5097180.html?tag=nl "Q: Can Canadians legally download copyrighted music from peer-to-peer networks? A: The short answer is: Nobody knows for sure. But the issue is far murkier than in other jurisdictions like the United States. The key provision in Canada's copyright legislation is a private copyright exemption that lets Canadians make private copies for noncommercial use. The way we justify the exemption is by way of a levy that applies to blank media such as blank CDs and blank audio cassettes. With the exemption, there are many who believe that those who download music for noncommercial purposes from P2P networks could avail themselves of this legal defense. This has never been tested in court. The recording industry is of the opinion that this violates the spirit of the law if not the letter. What do you think? I'm inclined to think that you'd have a pretty good argument as an individual user--that personal, noncommercial copying is permitted by the exemption. The one caveat--and this is where there have been many myths--is that there is little doubt under Canadian copyright law that making those same songs available to others is not permissible. So you can download all you want, but you can't share what you've downloaded? That's right. It's very clear that the exemption applies only to individuals who make copies and does not authorize others to make copies. [inset]Canada has yet to enact any digital copyright legislation along the lines of the DMCA." -- DJensen

2004-02-18 02:51:41-05:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (wikke@webtv.net)


The only part of Firefly that sucked was what FOX did to it. Rewrite the pilot at the last minute and then play the season out of order and you'll make just about any show with an ensemble cast look like crap to the casual viewer. -- DJensen AMEN!!! (Brother?Sister?) AMEN!!! Not to mention the habit of all the networks of playing "button, button , whose got the button" (Spike- season 7) by moving- delaying, postponing, programs (in general) I have now begun to NOT watch new series until the reruns--at least I know I will get the benefit of closure. The Agency as well as several other programs left me hanging-- if I have to chase them -- I give up-- they lose ratings & we lose programs that would have been successfull..,. A lose - LOSE situation... & it SUCKS! Anna NYC, NY

2004-02-18 02:52:48-05:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>)


In article <D9EYb.6270$Cd6.498139@news20.bellglobal.com>, DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net> wrote: > Don Sample wrote: > > In article <KVCYb.5726$w65.464862@news20.bellglobal.com>, DJensen > > <me@no-spam-thanks.net> wrote: > >>st wrote: > >> > >>>Right, and everyone with access to USENET must by default have the > >>>bandwidth and know how to illegally download copyrighted material. > >> > >>Actually it's legal to download copyrighted material. It's just > >>illegal to upload it. > > > > It is illegal to download it too. It's just that it's more effective > > for the copyright holders to go after the uploaders than it is to go > > after the downloaders. > > http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/legal/0,39020651,39118537,00.htm > > "In its decision Friday, the Copyright Board said uploading or > distributing copyrighted works online appeared to be prohibited > under current Canadian law. > > However, the country's copyright law does allow making a copy for > personal use and does not address the source of that copy or > whether the original has to be an authorized or noninfringing > version, the board said." > > http://news.com.com/2008-1028-5097180.html?tag=nl > > "Q: Can Canadians legally download copyrighted music from > peer-to-peer networks? > A: The short answer is: Nobody knows for sure. But the issue is > far murkier than in other jurisdictions like the United States. > The key provision in Canada's copyright legislation is a private > copyright exemption that lets Canadians make private copies for > noncommercial use. The way we justify the exemption is by way of > a levy that applies to blank media such as blank CDs and blank > audio cassettes. > > With the exemption, there are many who believe that those who > download music for noncommercial purposes from P2P networks could > avail themselves of this legal defense. This has never been > tested in court. The recording industry is of the opinion that > this violates the spirit of the law if not the letter. > > What do you think? > I'm inclined to think that you'd have a pretty good argument as > an individual user--that personal, noncommercial copying is > permitted by the exemption. > > The one caveat--and this is where there have been many myths--is > that there is little doubt under Canadian copyright law that > making those same songs available to others is not permissible. > > So you can download all you want, but you can't share what you've > downloaded? > That's right. It's very clear that the exemption applies only to > individuals who make copies and does not authorize others to make > copies. > > [inset]Canada has yet to enact any digital copyright legislation > along the lines of the DMCA." The above means that you can make a copy of something that you already own. You can buy a CD, and tape it to play in the car, and things like that. It doesn't mean that you can download copies of things that you haven't paid for. Some people are arguing that because there is a tax on blank recording media in Canada that is supposed to go to reimburse recording artists, that you can legally copy anything, but a lot of people are disagreeing with that interpretation. It still hasn't been tested in court. -- Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ Quando omni flunkus moritati

2004-02-18 02:55:01-05:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (wikke@webtv.net)


The only part of Firefly that sucked was what FOX did to it. Rewrite the pilot at the last minute and then play the season out of order and you'll make just about any show with an ensemble cast look like crap to the casual viewer. -- DJensen AMEN!!! (Brother?Sister?) AMEN!!! Not to mention the habit of all the networks of playing "button, button , whose got the button" (Spike- season 7) by moving- delaying, postponing, programs (in general) I have now begun to NOT watch new series until the reruns--at least I know I will get the benefit of closure. The Agency as well as several other programs left me hanging-- if I have to chase them -- I give up-- they lose ratings & we lose programs that would have been successfull..,. A lose - LOSE situation... & it SUCKS! Anna NYC, NY

2004-02-18 03:29:15-05:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (jere7my tho?rpe <j7y@liws.org>)


In article <ZaEYb.6271$Cd6.498107@news20.bellglobal.com>, DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net> wrote: > jere7my tho?rpe wrote: > > In article <KVCYb.5726$w65.464862@news20.bellglobal.com>, > > DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net> wrote: > >>Actually it's legal to download copyrighted material. It's just > >>illegal to upload it. > > > > Bzzt. > > http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/legal/0,39020651,39118537,00.htm > > "In its decision Friday, the Copyright Board said uploading or > distributing copyrighted works online appeared to be prohibited > under current Canadian law. If you're in Canada, then, apparently, the issue is murky. If you were in China, the issue would be even murkier. That doesn't make your statement any less bzzt-worthy. In the US, which is where I am, and where the poster you were advising is, and where I assumed you were (since you don't have a .ca suffix), it is illegal. The statement "It's legal to download copyrighted material" is misleading at best; you should amend it to "In Canada, it may be legal to download copyrighted material. In many other developed countries, including the US, it is illegal; check your local rulings." Your statement is as inaccurate as "It's legal to buy alcohol when you are 18." That's true in some places, not true in others; making a misleading blanket statement like that gets you a BZZT. It also encourages people to break the law through ignorance. ----j7y -- ************************************************************************** jere7my tho?rpe / 734-769-0913 "There is no spoon." "SPOON!" "There >>> j7y@liws.org <<< is no spoon." "SPOON!" "There is no invert liws to reply via email spoon." "SPOON!" -- The Tick vs. Neo

2004-02-18 11:45:31-05:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net>)


Don Sample wrote: > In article <D9EYb.6270$Cd6.498139@news20.bellglobal.com>, DJensen >>http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/legal/0,39020651,39118537,00.htm >> >>"In its decision Friday, the Copyright Board said uploading or >>distributing copyrighted works online appeared to be prohibited >>under current Canadian law. >> >>However, the country's copyright law does allow making a copy for >>personal use and does not address the source of that copy or >>whether the original has to be an authorized or noninfringing >>version, the board said." >> >>http://news.com.com/2008-1028-5097180.html?tag=nl >> >>"Q: Can Canadians legally download copyrighted music from >>peer-to-peer networks? >>A: The short answer is: Nobody knows for sure. But the issue is >>far murkier than in other jurisdictions like the United States. >>The key provision in Canada's copyright legislation is a private >>copyright exemption that lets Canadians make private copies for >>noncommercial use. The way we justify the exemption is by way of >>a levy that applies to blank media such as blank CDs and blank >>audio cassettes. >> >>With the exemption, there are many who believe that those who >>download music for noncommercial purposes from P2P networks could >>avail themselves of this legal defense. This has never been >>tested in court. The recording industry is of the opinion that >>this violates the spirit of the law if not the letter. >> >>What do you think? >>I'm inclined to think that you'd have a pretty good argument as >>an individual user--that personal, noncommercial copying is >>permitted by the exemption. >> >>The one caveat--and this is where there have been many myths--is >>that there is little doubt under Canadian copyright law that >>making those same songs available to others is not permissible. >> >>So you can download all you want, but you can't share what you've >>downloaded? >>That's right. It's very clear that the exemption applies only to >>individuals who make copies and does not authorize others to make >>copies. >> >>[inset]Canada has yet to enact any digital copyright legislation >>along the lines of the DMCA." > > > The above means that you can make a copy of something that you already > own. You can buy a CD, and tape it to play in the car, and things like > that. It doesn't mean that you can download copies of things that you > haven't paid for. Actually it means more than that. You can make a personal copy of anything, whether you own the original or not. For example if you borrowed a CD from your friend you're allowed to copy it -- he's not allowed to give it to you to copy though. You can't make copies for profit either. > Some people are arguing that because there is a tax on blank recording > media in Canada that is supposed to go to reimburse recording artists, > that you can legally copy anything, but a lot of people are disagreeing > with that interpretation. It still hasn't been tested in court. Until it's defeated in court it's legal by default, even if the Copyright Board hadn't picked a side. -- DJensen

2004-02-18 15:10:05-05:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>)


In article <j7y-F1E936.03291518022004@visonmassif.rs.itd.umich.edu>, jere7my tho?rpe <j7y@liws.org> wrote: > In article <ZaEYb.6271$Cd6.498107@news20.bellglobal.com>, > DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net> wrote: > > > jere7my tho?rpe wrote: > > > In article <KVCYb.5726$w65.464862@news20.bellglobal.com>, > > > DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net> wrote: > > >>Actually it's legal to download copyrighted material. It's just > > >>illegal to upload it. > > > > > > Bzzt. > > > > http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/legal/0,39020651,39118537,00.htm > > > > "In its decision Friday, the Copyright Board said uploading or > > distributing copyrighted works online appeared to be prohibited > > under current Canadian law. > > If you're in Canada, then, apparently, the issue is murky. > > If you were in China, the issue would be even murkier. That > doesn't make your statement any less bzzt-worthy. > > In the US, which is where I am, and where the poster you were > advising is, and where I assumed you were (since you don't have a .ca > suffix), it is illegal. Very few Canadians have emails addresses with a .ca suffix. It's not quite as rare as a .us suffix for Americans, but it's close. I was about to post a similar "st probably isn't in Canada" comment, but I took a look at the header of one of his posts, and saw that he was using the Sympatico.ca news server, so he probably is in Canada. I would would point out though that DJenson seems to be giving his advice based on A) An article from a British source, talking about Canadian law. B) An article from an American source, talking about Canadian law. And then he jumps to a conclusion that isn't supported by either article. -- Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ Quando omni flunkus moritati

2004-02-19 17:00:03-05:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net>)


Don Sample wrote: > jere7my tho?rpe <j7y@liws.org> wrote: >> DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net> wrote: >>>http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/legal/0,39020651,39118537,00.htm >>> >>>"In its decision Friday, the Copyright Board said uploading or >>>distributing copyrighted works online appeared to be prohibited >>>under current Canadian law. >> >> If you're in Canada, then, apparently, the issue is murky. >> >> If you were in China, the issue would be even murkier. That >>doesn't make your statement any less bzzt-worthy. >> >> In the US, which is where I am, and where the poster you were >>advising is, and where I assumed you were (since you don't have a .ca >>suffix), it is illegal. > > Very few Canadians have emails addresses with a .ca suffix. It's not > quite as rare as a .us suffix for Americans, but it's close. I was > about to post a similar "st probably isn't in Canada" comment, but I > took a look at the header of one of his posts, and saw that he was > using the Sympatico.ca news server, so he probably is in Canada. > > I would would point out though that DJenson seems to be giving his > advice based on > > A) An article from a British source, talking about Canadian law. > B) An article from an American source, talking about Canadian law. Both reaching the same conclusion and citing the Canadian Copyright Board, who probably know a thing or two about Canadian law. > And then he jumps to a conclusion that isn't supported by either > article. Linked from http://www.legalnewswatch.com/news_289.html is this related article http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/12/15/HNcanada_1.html which states quite plainly for those too sure of their position to do the research: "So long as music is being recorded purely for personal use, and not being sold, rented or otherwise disseminated to other people, its use is legal, the board said. It does not matter whether the source of the recording is a pre-owned track, a borrowed CD or a track downloaded from the Internet, the board said. The combination of the latter two rules means that recording a CD for a friend is illegal, but handing the CD to the same friend and letting them make a copy for their own use is legal." Which conclusion did I, and virtually every article about this available online, "jump" to? How about this? http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/38215.html#rid-38328 "80. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of (a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording, (b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or (c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording. Limitation (2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the act described in that subsection is done for the purpose of doing any of the following in relation to any of the things referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c): (a) selling or renting out, or by way of trade exposing or offering for sale or rental; (b) distributing, whether or not for the purpose of trade; (c) communicating to the public by telecommunication; or (d) performing, or causing to be performed, in public. 1997, c. 24, s. 50." Thank you. -- DJensen

2004-02-19 17:38:07-05:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (jere7my tho?rpe <j7y@liws.org>)


In article <DlaZb.7604$Cd6.686064@news20.bellglobal.com>, DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net> wrote: > Both reaching the same conclusion and citing the Canadian > Copyright Board, who probably know a thing or two about Canadian law. Okay, but a) it's apparently still contentious in Canada, and b) it _only_ applies to Canada. Most of your readers in this group aren't Canadian, so blanket statements like "X is legal" are misleading. ----j7y -- ************************************************************************** jere7my tho?rpe / 734-769-0913 "There is no spoon." "SPOON!" "There >>> j7y@liws.org <<< is no spoon." "SPOON!" "There is no invert liws to reply via email spoon." "SPOON!" -- The Tick vs. Neo

2004-02-19 19:11:19-05:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net>)


jere7my tho?rpe wrote: > DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net> wrote: >>Both reaching the same conclusion and citing the Canadian >>Copyright Board, who probably know a thing or two about Canadian law. > > Okay, but a) it's apparently still contentious in Canada, and b) it > _only_ applies to Canada. Most of your readers in this group aren't > Canadian, so blanket statements like "X is legal" are misleading. Just as misleading as calling it "illegal downloading" then, because it's not universally true if you want to get hyper-anal about it. -- DJensen

2004-02-21 21:40:17+00:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (David Cheatham <david@tg.creeknet.com>)


Don Sample wrote: > In article <KVCYb.5726$w65.464862@news20.bellglobal.com>, DJensen > <me@no-spam-thanks.net> wrote: > > > st wrote: > > > Right, and everyone with access to USENET must by default have the > > > bandwidth and know how to illegally download copyrighted material. > > > > Actually it's legal to download copyrighted material. It's just > > illegal to upload it. > > It is illegal to download it too. It's just that it's more effective > for the copyright holders to go after the uploaders than it is to go > after the downloaders. It's not illegal in the US. It's illegal to make copies without the copyright holder's permission, not come into possession of said copy. -- My hostname is only the last two parts.

2004-02-21 21:40:18+00:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (David Cheatham <david@tg.creeknet.com>)


Don Sample wrote: > In article <D9EYb.6270$Cd6.498139@news20.bellglobal.com>, DJensen > <me@no-spam-thanks.net> wrote: > > > Don Sample wrote: > > > In article <KVCYb.5726$w65.464862@news20.bellglobal.com>, DJensen > > > <me@no-spam-thanks.net> wrote: > > > > st wrote: > > > > > > > > > Right, and everyone with access to USENET must by default > > > > > have the bandwidth and know how to illegally download > > > > > copyrighted material. > > > > > > > > Actually it's legal to download copyrighted material. It's just > > > > illegal to upload it. > > > > > > It is illegal to download it too. It's just that it's more > > > effective for the copyright holders to go after the uploaders > > > than it is to go after the downloaders. > > > > http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/legal/0,39020651,39118537,00.htm > > > > "In its decision Friday, the Copyright Board said uploading or > > distributing copyrighted works online appeared to be prohibited > > under current Canadian law. > > > > However, the country's copyright law does allow making a copy for > > personal use and does not address the source of that copy or > > whether the original has to be an authorized or noninfringing > > version, the board said." > > > > http://news.com.com/2008-1028-5097180.html?tag=nl > > > > "Q: Can Canadians legally download copyrighted music from > > peer-to-peer networks? > > A: The short answer is: Nobody knows for sure. But the issue is > > far murkier than in other jurisdictions like the United States. > > The key provision in Canada's copyright legislation is a private > > copyright exemption that lets Canadians make private copies for > > noncommercial use. The way we justify the exemption is by way of > > a levy that applies to blank media such as blank CDs and blank > > audio cassettes. > > > > With the exemption, there are many who believe that those who > > download music for noncommercial purposes from P2P networks could > > avail themselves of this legal defense. This has never been > > tested in court. The recording industry is of the opinion that > > this violates the spirit of the law if not the letter. > > > > What do you think? > > I'm inclined to think that you'd have a pretty good argument as > > an individual user--that personal, noncommercial copying is > > permitted by the exemption. > > > > The one caveat--and this is where there have been many myths--is > > that there is little doubt under Canadian copyright law that > > making those same songs available to others is not permissible. > > > > So you can download all you want, but you can't share what you've > > downloaded? > > That's right. It's very clear that the exemption applies only to > > individuals who make copies and does not authorize others to make > > copies. > > > > [inset]Canada has yet to enact any digital copyright legislation > > along the lines of the DMCA." > > The above means that you can make a copy of something that you already > own. You can buy a CD, and tape it to play in the car, and things > like that. It doesn't mean that you can download copies of things > that you haven't paid for. > > Some people are arguing that because there is a tax on blank recording > media in Canada that is supposed to go to reimburse recording artists, > that you can legally copy anything, but a lot of people are > disagreeing with that interpretation. It still hasn't been tested in > court. I don't know about Canada, but this is explicitly legal in the US...you can copy music on a digital media that has said tax and give away copies. That's exactly what the tax is for. The recording industry complained when DAT came out and tried to put a tax on them, and Congress said, sure...but if we're taxing them because people can use them to make lossless copies of copyright materials, by God we'll allow them to make copies, legally, if they use media with said taxes. One thing that the US government has constantly been against is a tax on illegal behavior, because if it's a voluntary tax there are fifth amendment issues, and if it's not voluntary then all you did was make a double crime. The US government neatly sidestepped this issue by making said copying legal as long as you didn't charge for it, it's right in the law. I don't know if this applies to anything except music, and I know it doesn't apply to computers as there is no tax on them. If you want it to apply to your MP3s you'd have to go out and buy a 'Music CD-R' and stick them on there. (That is, in fact, the only difference between a music CD-R and a data one...the music tax which lets you legally put music on it and give it out to someone else.) I've often been amazed that people don't trade MP3s using music CD-Rs. It's legal, and don't underestimate the bandwidth of an envelope with a CD-R in it carried by the US mail. -- My hostname is only the last two parts.

2004-02-22 00:35:12-05:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (MiJM@webtv.net)


I recall the reviews were not to good. "The season's biggest disappointment." 'A bewildering dud."

2004-02-22 14:49:40-06:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (Thirsty Viking <john_doerter@hotmail.com>)


<MiJM@webtv.net> wrote in message news:15830-40383F90-50@storefull-3317.bay.webtv.net... > I recall the reviews were not to good. "The season's biggest > disappointment." 'A bewildering dud." > No doubt in no small par because instead of the premier the reviewer watched the train job. An episode out of context. The premier was never shown, and many episodes were shown out of order introducing inconsistencies through misordered presentation. Try checking reviews of people who actually watch the series in order on the DVD. These are easy to find and are resoundingly on the side of embracing the show instead of rejecting it. There are always unenlighted people who find stone throwing easier than education.

2004-02-24 10:37:01+00:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (dalecue <pdgill@spamxerworldnet.att.net>)


st wrote in message ... >On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 23:59:11 GMT, "dalecue" ><pdgill@spamxerworldnet.att.net> wrote: > > >>>>You realize I have access to the internet? >>> >>>How would I know that.... >> >>Oh gee - these msgs are on USENET? > >Right, and everyone with access to USENET must by default have the >bandwidth and know how to illegally download copyrighted material. I guess you win the award for most incorrect assumptions made in a single gulp 1. lots of info is available that doesn't require a high speed connection > >I think its guarranteed by some UN proclamation actually. > >Silly me. > >Listen junior, just because your mommy buys your DSL/Cable doesn't >mean the ENTIRE WORLD has it.... get over yourself already. I am very tempted, in order to illustrate just how much of a total fool you really are, to document my age - but I shall resist for the timebeing > >Firefly was critically acclaimed and should never have been cancelled. > >If anything it is something to be put in the 'too good for tv' >category. very amusing - what critics? where acclaimed? > >Go back to watching Charmed. > >st > > >-- >"But she was naked, and all articulate!" > - Mal Reynolds, Firefly.

2004-02-24 18:57:22-06:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (Thirsty Viking <john_doerter@hotmail.com>)


"dalecue" <pdgill@spamxerworldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:CTQ_b.39243$aH3.1226481@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > > Thirsty Viking wrote in message ... > > > >"dalecue" <pdgill@spamxerworldnet.att.net> wrote in message > >news:hPF_b.37296$aH3.1172849@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > the question was rhetorical, sort of a comment that the orig poster > should have provided some info rather than just rant - Ok, i missed that. I agree that he should have backed up a position like that. I thought you were seriously suggesting that no critics like the show. In my experience Rhetorical and sarcastic comments don't play very well on the internet... in conversations these rely heavily on tone of voice and inflection. I of course learned that by trying to make them long ago under a diffent nic. I think it was your use of amusing as an opening that seemed to indicate his position was ludicrous and wrong. I've had my disagrrements with ST in the past and we mostly ignore each other now. I didn't pay attention to who you were responding to and I should have. > > he started out by accusing me of not knowing the eps > were shown out of order, as if that is the only reason > anyone could possibly not LOVE Firefly > > I am aware many people liked it - I found it to be _lame_ and > disapointing - tho, as I said before, it did seem to be showing > some promise of improvement when it was cancelled I will agree that skipped episodes did hamper it, later episodes built the history of the people to better illustrate and explore why they had the relationships with each other they did. This was particularly necessary when Fox skipped the Pilot/premier because it didn't have enough action for them... or whatever the exact reason was. Improvement and promise from a dissapointing start for you is fine with me. That is statement of personal prefrence that seems to be fairly applied. If you get the chance, try watching it in the intended order, I think you'll find it improves the series, possibly even making the not lame for you :-) I think the biggest problem out of the gate for firefly was the size of the cast. A couple adventures with the core crew of Mal, Zoe, Walsh, would have eased the learning curve a bit. Kind of like Angel growing the cast. Anara and trollgineer being minor roles 1 growing the other going away. Possibly the first show being the Hiring of Jayne, that would have clearly show him to be a mercenary of questionable loyalty. I Guess the Train Job could still have been shot right after Jayne is added, but then Jayne might steal the ship. Kaylee Comes in soon after that, I guess you pick up the passangers about episode 6. at least then you'd have some idea of who the core crew were in relation to each other, as well as the setting. Or instead of all that you can have the 2 hour premiere establishing the types of people the charachters are as they react to the crisis JW created to illustrate it. :-)

2004-02-25 05:15:52+00:00 - Re: Did firefly just plain suck - (Daily Bob <dailybob@howdiejunction.com>)


In article <Xns9499C0973D33Aopusthepenguinnettax@127.0.0.1>, Opus the Penguin <nospamopus@netzero.net> wrote: > "dalecue" <pdgill@spamxerworldnet.att.net> wrote: > > > I am aware many people liked it - I found it to be _lame_ and > > disapointing - tho, as I said before, it did seem to be showing > > some promise of improvement when it was cancelled > > Dear Diary: Today I was a pompous troll on Usenet and got killfiled by > the folks at alt.tv.firefly. It was the best day ever. LOL DailyBob -- Speech is conveniently located midway between thought and action, where it often substitutes for both. -- John Andrew Holmes, "Wisdom in Small Doses"