Talk:Serenity (2005 film)

Reaver numbers
Having just watched the film it sounded to me that the holographic report said that ten percent of the population became aggressive, and so Reavers. The article says 0.1%. 86.144.25.248 (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The script says a tenth of a percent of the population. Doniago (talk) 12:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You may want to leave this out until it is resolved. The script and the final film might not be in sync . Viriditas (talk) 03:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

.1 is 10 percent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.84.251 (talk) 02:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC) The mistake is in the Plot portion of the article. It says that "one person in a thousand" becomes a Reaver. The holographic report in the movie states, "a tenth of a percent of the population," (according to the subtitles and what I hear). Odd wording, (but wording is quirky throughout...LOL), a tenth of a percent would be .01 or 1 in a hundred, or 300,000 people of the 30,000,000.Easeltine (talk) 23:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * .01 is 1%. A tenth of a percent would be .001, or, oddly enough, one in a thousand. Put another way, one tenth is .1. One tenth x 1% = .1 x .01, or .001. DonIago (talk) 03:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Articles from Creative Planet Network
Creative Planet Network has two articles on cinematography and visual effects. One's a shorter one about the technical specifications, which I admittedly don't understand and can't determine if it's useful. The other talks about the VFX and working with the small budget. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  20:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Unverified paragraphs
Can anyone verify this paragraph: "Australian audiences were the first outside North America to get preview screenings. After an exclusive Sydney test screening, Melbourne held a public screening on July 21, 2005. This was followed by a film festival screening on the Gold Coast on July 22, 2005. Public preview screenings were held in Adelaide and Sydney on August 1, 2005, and Perth on August 4, 2005. Further screenings were held in Victoria, Tasmania, and Queensland in late August. There had been a screening of the unfinished film in February 2005 at the British Film Institute in London. This version of the film had a temporary score, including movements from Braveheart, as well as some unrendered effects and scenes which were later deleted. The audience comprised industry professionals and fans."

I can't at all. I even did a quick sweep of the Whedonesque.com archives and I turned up nothing or fan forums. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  23:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Images
I was going through this articles most recent GA nom, linked in the box above, and there's a note about there being too many non-free images. I agree. The sources of the mule and the Mal picture also bother me as they both come from fansites. The mule picture doesn't seem necessary, this comment linked on the GA nom mentions that the cast photo can easily go. I believe the Mal photo can also go, namely because it's from Firefly and what it is attempting to illustrate can be easily rendered by prose, and the source on the image bothers me. The cast picture can also easily be let go, as I added a link to the characters page and it can be easily replaced by the cast photo seen on the main series article, though perhaps it won't have to if the other two go. I'm going to be removing images if no one has any objections. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  14:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed the skiff image. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  20:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Reaver capitalization
I was wondering if there's an official capitalization for 'Reaver.' In the official guide, which I'm in the process of getting, is it capitalized or not? I could check the official magazine when I get home, but I was wondering if someone had a more immediate answer. It isnt overly significant, just a stylistic thing. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  22:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I would imagine that it is intended to be capitalized, but I can't say that for certain. DonIago (talk) 13:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * English language convention would be for a proper noun to be capitalised. DiverScout (talk) 13:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Then my question was: is it a proper noun? I got around to checking the movie magazine and the episode scripts, and it is. I should've probably waited a day and a half instead of opening a thread but, hey, it's documented now, I suppose. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  18:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

River Tam and assassin training
I provided quotes from two mainstream published sources that stated that River Tam had deadly martial arts skills and that the Alliance had trained her as an assassin and spy. These quotes came from a review in the Telegraph and a chapter about the film in a university press-published book. The quotes were reverted by TenTonParasol with the rationale being that neither the article nor the book chapter were written by Josh Whedon. Based on my understanding of WP:RS, there is no requirement that only the views of the screenwriter/director can be included in a film article. WP:RS requires that the author of the cited work, the work (e.g., article, book) and the publisher be reliable. If TenTonParasol would look at other film articles, including featured articles, he/she will see that the views of newspaper movie reviewers and commentary about the film from authors published in books are often included. I would like to ask that this reversion be reverted, because taking out reliably sourced content needs a WP policy rationale. Thank you OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 16:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You may wish to look at the article for Mulholland Drive. It is a featured article and it cites a huge number of movie reviews by people other than David Lynch and a variety of books are also cited. OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 17:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I admit my position disputing it is tenuous. My issue was that in my experience, reviewer commentary is used to give the reception or impression of a character on an audience (which is how I see it in Mulholland Drive (film)) rather than being framed as a fact of the universe itself. (Jon Snow's mother being Lyanna Stark is something that comes to mind. It's not framed as 'it is hinted' or 'Lyanna Stark is implied' but rather as 'Popular theory among fans') It may be wrong of me, but I don't think a reviewer or a third party, even if RS, should be used in the manner the book (I more have issue with the book than the article, which really I shouldn't have removed) was implemented. If it were, for example, 'Foy suggests that she had been altered to become an assassin' than it's different, in my feeling. Again, my stance may be the inappropriate one. Though, I'm confident there is a source from Whedon stating that River was fashioned to be an assassin. I am currently abroad and so I don't have access to any of my materials. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  10:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your reply. I agree with you that in regards to describing movie characters, reviewer commentary is most often used in WP film articles to establish the reception of a character (e.g., "Reviewer Sue Jones argues that the character John Smith in the movie XYZ was depicted as a tragically flawed hero.") rather than to establish in-universe "facts" regarding a character (e.g., whether the fictional character John Smith is an orphan or not). However, in some cases, there are disagreements on WP articles about in-universe "facts." We currently have a disagreement over whether the fictional character River Tam in the film Serenity was trained by the Alliance to be an assassin. That is why I argue that we need to turn to WP:RS. I have provided two reliable sources (based on my understanding of WP:RS, a Telegraph article and a university press-published book chapter appear to qualify) that assert that River Tam had "deadly martial arts skills" and that the Alliance prepared her to be an assassin and a spy. If there are other Reliable Sources that contradict these assertions, then please forward them to this Talk page and a nuanced sentence can be crafted that says something like: "Film critics offer diverging views on the nature of River's training and conditioning by the Alliance: while Smith and Jones assert that River was trained as an assassin, Hancock and Harding argue that River's conditioning was purely psychological. ".......[all author names made up, for illustration purposes : )]. Please advise me on how you wish to proceed. Best regards, OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 22:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I had asked a friend to check the film for any references to such, and I was told that Mathias says "All our subjects are conditioned for combat" and "Given the right trigger, that girl is a living weapon." I can't verify it myself because I don't have a copy of the film on me but I'm taking it on faith. It's not specifically stating that she is an assassin, per se, but I think it's what we're disputing over? ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  06:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Diamond Ranch High School
's addition of an image of Diamond Ranch High School reminded me of something I totally forgot to ask about: does anyone have an RS for the Miranda sequence being filmed at the school? I myself haven't been able to find one, neither online nor that I can recall through the visual companion or the movie magazine or the two commentaries or the extras on the blu-ray (or, I may have simply missed it, I don't have them on me so I can't check right now). ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  07:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I was actually looking for one online, but wasn't able to find anything reliable. I'll listen to the film commentary again tonight. I thought it was mentioned in there somewhere. This guy on Flickr has photos of the high school compared to stills from the film. True, not RS, but it is visual confirmation. — howcheng  {chat} 22:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

No Cast List?
I just wondered if there's a reason there is no cast list on the page? It seems odd, so I wondered if it was deliberate. CleverTitania (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably because nobody was able to come up with any decent real-world information to add in order to build a Cast section, or didn't have the time to do so. I don't see much benefit to adding a barebones X as Y Cast list since right now the Plot covers it, but if you've got reliably sourced behind-the-scenes info that could be added, it might be worth putting something together. DonIago (talk) 04:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Reference # 86
I think that if someone checks, they'll find that "References" # 86 is a dead link and needs to be stated as such (I don't know how to do that). 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

✅ Schazjmd   (talk)  16:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Node 3 name
How can something with 70% of the vote lose to something that was not even a poll option ? ? ?

Or am I missing something? 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Fixed it. The claim was incorrect; they named the treadmill COLBERT. Schazjmd  (talk)  16:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)