 |
SerenityMovie.net
Firefly / Serenity discussion boards
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Lushy
Joined: 08 Jul 2005
Posts: 136
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
BrownCoat_Tabz
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
Posts: 411
Location: San Pedro, CA
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 1:37 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Yay for new crew members. Thanks for keeping the podcast coming. 
_________________
Tabz, Slayer of the Podcasts.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lemming
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 261
Location: Banbury, UK
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 2:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BrownCoat_Tabz wrote: | | Yay for new crew members. Thanks for keeping the podcast coming. |
We're baaaaack!
Lots more good stuff to come! Our new crew are a terrific addition and with the new website in development (it's live now and we're gradually adding all sorts of new content and features) The Signal is continuing to evolve.
Gotta love this podcatsing thing
Nick
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Companion Kate
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 2014
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 10:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Guys, we live for your feedback! Please can we have some? Is anyone listening to us who doesn't make Firefly podcasts? Please tell us, coz we like to know if we're doing the right things.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jared
Joined: 26 Jun 2008
Posts: 18
Location: TX
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 8:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Companion Kate wrote: | | Guys, we live for your feedback! Please can we have some? Is anyone listening to us who doesn't make Firefly podcasts? Please tell us, coz we like to know if we're doing the right things. |
I don't make Firefly podcasts...
Although I am currently working on some filk music - an entire album's worth, if my plan comes together. So I may have something to contribute later this year.
Meanwhile, I'm still listening devotedly and enjoying every minute. The Signal is easily the best podcast out there in every category - the writing, the voice talent, the editing, the production... No one can compete with the Signal.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gilove2dance
Joined: 09 Jul 2008
Posts: 125
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 9:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
I totally enjoyed every second of it. I put it on my iPod as soon as I got home from classes and listened to it as I did my assignments. I've been listening to season 2 to catch up lately and the difference between these seasons is unbelievable. The quality and transistions are even more professional and awesome in the new season.
I really enjoyed the main article and hearing about Jason was so cool cause I got to see him in November. I love the concept of Broadwaves cause it'll open a lot of doors.
My favourite part, as usual, was the music section. Apprentice was amazing!!!!! Seriously, I think I'm going to have to choreograph a competition number to it next year cause I was subconciously dancing as I was listening to it. So wicked!
I'm already looking forward to episode 2!!!
_________________
Shiny...Let's be bad guys! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BrownCoat_Tabz
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
Posts: 411
Location: San Pedro, CA
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Companion Kate wrote: | | Guys, we live for your feedback! Please can we have some? Is anyone listening to us who doesn't make Firefly podcasts? Please tell us, coz we like to know if we're doing the right things. |
Uhhhhhh that sounds weird. Do you not want the feedback of Firefly podcast makers?
_________________
Tabz, Slayer of the Podcasts.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Companion Kate
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 2014
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 12:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BrownCoat_Tabz wrote: | | Do you not want the feedback of Firefly podcast makers? |
I was asking for more feedback, not less! LOL We love to hear from anyone, of course, but if it's just us podcasters telling each other how great we are, then it just feels like we're just patting ourselves on each other's backs, and I never really feel like we've reached anyone until people from the wider listening audience start joining in. Our whole purpose is to reach out to people and spread the love, and I really, really like hearing back from the people we reach. Is that so strange?
Your feedback continues to be more than welcome, Tabz, have no fear. I just want to hear from other people too. Lots and lots of them. As many as possible. 
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BrownCoat_Tabz
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
Posts: 411
Location: San Pedro, CA
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I understand just say can we have more feedback then!
(don't need to single out who you'd like it from)  After all most of us podcasters were listeners first... so ya know, we're not patting each other on the back, we're showing appreciation for what we enjoy (or don't enjoy).
I mean... we could go into a pat fest if you wanted...
_________________
Tabz, Slayer of the Podcasts.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZeddWhyte
Joined: 09 Jul 2008
Posts: 2
Location: Minnesota, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 11:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
First time posting here, so I hope I'm doing it right.
I just started listening to this episode, and am only through Nick's review of the Portrait Set. The one thing that struck me was the use of Firefly/Serenity soundbites (4, I believe) scattered through his review. I found them to be annoying and unnecessary for the purpose of the review. Given that I found myself having such a strong negative reaction, I assume this is a new "feature", and not something that has been present for the past 4 seasons. (The other alternative is that I hadn't had enough caffeine yet, and was just unusually grouchy and am taking it out on the podcast, in which case I apologize.)
Love the podcast and appreciated the review. I just wanted to chime in before any new features got set in stone. Please keep up the excellent work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gilove2dance
Joined: 09 Jul 2008
Posts: 125
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 11:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
They've always peppered their articles with soundbites. I personally really enjoy them cause anything Firefly/Serenity makes me happy and they are usually tied in really well to the article.
Anywho, that is my two cents on the subject of soundbites.
_________________
Shiny...Let's be bad guys! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lemming
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 261
Location: Banbury, UK
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 3:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ZeddWhyte wrote: | First time posting here, so I hope I'm doing it right.
I just started listening to this episode, and am only through Nick's review of the Portrait Set. The one thing that struck me was the use of Firefly/Serenity soundbites (4, I believe) scattered through his review. I found them to be annoying and unnecessary for the purpose of the review. Given that I found myself having such a strong negative reaction, I assume this is a new "feature", and not something that has been present for the past 4 seasons. (The other alternative is that I hadn't had enough caffeine yet, and was just unusually grouchy and am taking it out on the podcast, in which case I apologize.)
Love the podcast and appreciated the review. I just wanted to chime in before any new features got set in stone. Please keep up the excellent work. |
Oh we will
Welcome anyway, new feedback and listeners on the forum always very welcome!
Lindsay is right, we do use clips quite often in articles (in fact we almost never *don't* use clips!) . Now generally, this will be to illustrate a particular point or will be to play the bit being discussed. In that sense, the 4 clips that I used were indeed "soundbites" and not strictly necessary to the review. However, without them, it would have been 12 solid minutes of my voice. I originally expected the review to be even longer and felt that it needed breaking up a little basically.
I actually thought it worked quite well (and I spent a lot longer on this review than I would on some other articles because I wanted to get it right.) and the clincher for me was that Jason Palmer was extremely happy with the finished piece. (Which differed from the one in show only in the end music used, so there is another slightly different version that Jason has, but both have the 4 clips)
The clips were not in the review as originally written and possibly a couple of could be dropped without any disruption to the flow, but they did serve as a sort of "punctuation" in the article and obvoiusly I'm not going back to retro-edit now
No worries. You don't have to love absolutely everything we do
(That would be boring
Plenty more good go-se coming!
Nick
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Companion Kate
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 2014
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 10:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ZeddWhyte wrote: | | The one thing that struck me was the use of Firefly/Serenity soundbites (4, I believe) scattered through his review. I found them to be annoying and unnecessary for the purpose of the review. |
You make a good point. Any use of clips is supposed to be relevant, and illustrative, and if it's not, then it means that we haven't done the best job we possibly could. Our use of clips isn't new, but I like to think that in the past, we've used them to good effect. If suddenly we haven't, then you are right to call us on it, and we shall definitely take your words into account.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZeddWhyte
Joined: 09 Jul 2008
Posts: 2
Location: Minnesota, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 12:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Companion Kate wrote: | | ZeddWhyte wrote: | | The one thing that struck me was the use of Firefly/Serenity soundbites (4, I believe) scattered through his review. I found them to be annoying and unnecessary for the purpose of the review. |
You make a good point. Any use of clips is supposed to be relevant, and illustrative, and if it's not, then it means that we haven't done the best job we possibly could. Our use of clips isn't new, but I like to think that in the past, we've used them to good effect. If suddenly we haven't, then you are right to call us on it, and we shall definitely take your words into account. |
In an attempt to be constructive in my criticism, I've gone back and listened to the segment a couple more time. I'm trying to determine why these particular soundbites bothered me enough for me to create an account so I could tell you about it. Obviously the past 4 seasons of shows were such that I would have just been writing to say "good job" (which, by the way, you all do).
I'm guessing that the first soundbite, That's amazing, you did an incredible job, with the loud upswell of music caught me off guard, and seemed out of place. Yes, it was in conjunction with complimenting the art work, but still hit me as unnecessary, especially with the sudden loud music.
The second soundbite, Shiny, let's be bad guys, felt like the emphasis was on the "bad guys" part, and not the "shiny" part. I'm sure "shiny" was the intent since it was in with descriptions of the prints, but I think a different "shiny" clip might have fit better.
The third soundbite was Kaylee talking about Serenity. I expected the next thing mentioned in the review to be either about Kaylee or Serenity, but it was neither.
The fourth soundbite was Inara, and was followed by description of Inara's print. That one felt reasonable in context.
So, I think it was the initial loud music that set me off, and I felt soundbites 2 and 3 at least partially failed the relevant/illustrative test. The fourth soundbite didn't bother me while I was re-listening to the segment, so it was probably more representative of past soundbites over the years, as far as being relevant and/or illustrative.
Again, I hate to complain since the podcast is consistently of excellent quality, but since I started a complaint, I figured I should probably be as thorough in my explanation as possible. Or I need more caffeine earlier in the mornings.
Thanks again for the quality podcast. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jorune
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 5
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 4:24 am Post subject: Welcome back |
|
|
| Thanks for all your work, Signal crew. Kudos to the new crew members for givin' it a go. Especially to Helen for showing that distance is no barrier to participation. I like the sound of her voice, it has a sweet air to it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Companion Kate
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 2014
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 6:08 am Post subject: Re: Welcome back |
|
|
| jorune wrote: | | Thanks for all your work, Signal crew. |
You're welcome. And we have plenty more shiny stuff lined up to bring to your ears. Episode two will be well worth looking forward to!
| jorune wrote: | | Especially to Helen for showing that distance is no barrier to participation |
Distance from where? You might as well say "Thanks to Les and Kari for showing that distance is no barrier to participation". The Signal is not based in any geographical location. We all live where we live; we are all close to some places and distant from other places, so please can we all stop associating the Signal with somewhre it's possible to be distant from. It's not like that. The Signal is, always has been, and always will be, an international podcast. The only location we consider our collective home, is the internet.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lemming
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 261
Location: Banbury, UK
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 6:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ZeddWhyte wrote: |
In an attempt to be constructive in my criticism, I've gone back and listened to the segment a couple more time. I'm trying to determine why these particular soundbites bothered me enough for me to create an account so I could tell you about it. Obviously the past 4 seasons of shows were such that I would have just been writing to say "good job" (which, by the way, you all do).
I'm guessing that the first soundbite, That's amazing, you did an incredible job, with the loud upswell of music caught me off guard....
The second soundbite, Shiny, let's be bad guys, felt like the emphasis was on the "bad guys" part, and not the "shiny" part. I'm sure "shiny" was the intent since it was in with descriptions of the prints, but I think a different "shiny" clip might have fit better.
The third soundbite was Kaylee talking about Serenity. I expected the next thing mentioned in the review to be either about Kaylee or Serenity, but it was neither.
The fourth soundbite was Inara, and was followed by description of Inara's print. That one felt reasonable in context.
Thanks again for the quality podcast. |
You know what? Thinking a bit more about this, I mostly agree
The first 3 clips were something of an afterthought (it was the body of text that took most of the time with various conversations with Jason in between tweaks)
The first one...well, it seemed a good idea at the time. I'll hold my hand up to that.
The only quote originally intended to be in there earlier than at the last minute, was the Inara one.
The "Shiny lets be bad guys" was indeed meant to be just the "Shiny" sentiment. It just sounded bad if I cut the rest out and I didn't have time to find an alternative "shiny". It could have been left out I guess.
The Kaylee one was intended as audio punctuation only. I won't dispute that an alternative clip that was more appropriate would possibly have been better.
But, Jason Palmer really did love the finished mp3, so I was happy with it.
However, as Jill also said, your comment has caused us to re-evaluate when and where we use clips in this sort of article and especially to try to avoid re-using the same ones too often...but then we do only have 14 episodes and a film to pick from
See how switched on our listeners are?
Nick
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dani
Joined: 08 Jul 2006
Posts: 186
Location: Hemel Hempstead
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 8:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
ummm, so are we going to be getting a segment on 'table manners in the 'verse?'
  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lemming
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 261
Location: Banbury, UK
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 4:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dani wrote: | ummm, so are we going to be getting a segment on 'table manners in the 'verse?'
|
Oh behave!
Nick
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lhoward
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Posts: 271
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 4:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dani wrote: | ummm, so are we going to be getting a segment on 'table manners in the 'verse?'
|
heh heh heh... I just use that as my example of when we know we've gone too far. The truth is that we do actually already know something about table settings in the 'verse from the Heart of Gold script:
| Quote: | Every well-bred petty crook knows --
the small concealable weapons always
go to the far left of the place setting. |
_________________
Tech Geek & Host of for Signal Serenity & Firefly podcast
http://signal.serenityfirefly.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ironbandit
Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Posts: 241
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 5:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nick, et al:
You also have snips to take from all of the firefilk that has been produced. And, the "Shiny!" could as easily have been Kaylee's in the BDS pilot.
Moreover, I didn't find the clips in the least bit annoying, but I *DID* go back and listen from S1E1 after I found the podcast. And, from having gone back and relistened for a side project I have going with Les, I have to say that the Signal has always been stellar in nature. What's more, it has continued, and will likely continue to improve. I for one REALLY enjoyed the review of Jason Palmer's magnificent efforts, you did a most excellent job, Nick.
I'm only commenting now since I've just had the chance to listen all the way thru without skipping ahead. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ningjingde ren
Joined: 28 May 2006
Posts: 323
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 1:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
On Nick's article about the Jason Palmer prints:
Appreciate the above discussion about the inserted clips, and add that they seemed to me to fade in and out rather abruptly (or did they?). Production values of the show as a whole are of course, as others have said already, first in class.
On Broadwaves:
I guess you also want feedback about Broadwaves becoming broad. It's a good idea, though I would still like to see possible links to Firefly sought wherever possible (apart from the general idea that as Browncoats we obviously all have good taste so should therefore like the same programmes).
The breadth of this remit might induce vertigo (don't we all have several favourite shows that no-one else seems to appreciate?). For this reason perhaps it would be useful to have a thread on the forum on 'Broadwave Bunnies' or 'Broadwaves we would like to see but haven't got the time and facilities to write ourselves', so those of us who don't have the writing skills, or the relevant DVDs, for example (so we can't give the exact timings of illustrative sound clips to insert in the piece), can share our enthusiasms, just as the crew can. This should NOT be construed as a 'request' list, as we cannot dictate to you what you should or shouldn't do, each piece requiring the enthusiasm of its own advocate and expertise in the particular show being featured (plus, your own list is probably already long enough to fill the entire season and I'm greatly looking forward to them all). No, it would be a chance for us all to pass on tips for worthwhile watching ... and an excuse to make up yet more fun lists ("My top 10 recommended SF novels/podcasts/filk/etc ...", to cite some precedents on this and other Browncoat boards).
Another idea: when Joss was at Winchester College in the 1980s, what UK TV was he watching then, and how did it inspire him? (Particularly I'm wondering whether Minder provided the role model for Badger.)
On Secret Army itself ....
I have to admit I was totally unaware of this series, and that 'Allo 'Allo was a direct spoof of it (for those who haven't heard of the latter, it was a smash hit comedy series in the 80s, both in terms of ratings and critical awards). So thanks for the heads up, Jill.
And overall, thanks for producing still the bestest podcast of them all.
_________________
Hell, I've been to the edge. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Companion Kate
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 2014
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 11:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ningjingde ren wrote: | | perhaps it would be useful to have a thread on the forum on 'Broadwave Bunnies' or 'Broadwaves we would like to see but haven't got the time and facilities to write ourselves' |
So start one! You don't need anyone's permission to start a thread!
| ningjingde ren wrote: | | I guess you also want feedback about Broadwaves becoming broad. It's a good idea, though I would still like to see possible links to Firefly sought wherever possible (apart from the general idea that as Browncoats we obviously all have good taste so should therefore like the same programmes). The breadth of this remit might induce vertigo (don't we all have several favourite shows that no-one else seems to appreciate?). |
Thanks very much for the feedback. Yes, I agree that we should always point out links to Firefly wherever possible. Of course it's not true that we all like the same programs, but still, we can throw out these suggestions.
We were struggling with the title for a while. "Father Ted" is clearly not sci-fi, yet we included it in the sci-fi review. We can argue about labels till the cows come home - the sci-fi review has talked about Buffy, Hex, and Dead Like Me, and to my mind, these are also not sci fi. (Not that want to start that old discussion again - we can do that on another thread if anyone is so inclined). The point is, the name "Sci-Fi Review" has been inappropriate, on and off, for some time, and also limiting - we've had discussions like "Can we talk about Chuck?" "Well, it's not really sci-fi". (Even if the segment title hadn't changed, I would have found a way to get Secret Army in there!) Removing the word "Sci-Fi" from the title was just the logical thing to do, and since we were starting a new season, now seemed like the right time. Will it fundamentally change the Sci-Fi Review? Personally, I don't think so. It's still the same segment. The only difference is, now we don't have to "justify" a show for inclusion.
| ningjingde ren wrote: | On Secret Army itself ....
I have to admit I was totally unaware of this series. |
Many of the articles in the Signal indulge in positivity - "this is great", "this is fantastic", "watch this now", and so on - but in this case I'm not kidding. To say that Secret Army is favorite show of all time, in any genre, is not an exaggeration. I just finished watching it for the fourth time (fifth if you count the original run, which I don't remember too well). It's the one show apart from Firefly for which I would get involved in a podcast.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lemming
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 261
Location: Banbury, UK
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 6:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ningjingde ren wrote: | On Nick's article about the Jason Palmer prints:
Appreciate the above discussion about the inserted clips, and add that they seemed to me to fade in and out rather abruptly (or did they?). Production values of the show as a whole are of course, as others have said already, first in class.
...Another idea: when Joss was at Winchester College in the 1980s, what UK TV was he watching then, and how did it inspire him? (Particularly I'm wondering whether Minder provided the role model for Badger.)
On Secret Army itself ....
I have to admit I was totally unaware of this series, and that 'Allo 'Allo was a direct spoof of it (for those who haven't heard of the latter, it was a smash hit comedy series in the 80s, both in terms of ratings and critical awards). So thanks for the heads up, Jill.
And overall, thanks for producing still the bestest podcast of them all. |
Well, the problem with using short and snappy clips like that is that they are usually in the middle of some longer dialogue or conversation. There is a fade in and out on all of the clips used, but it had to be "abrupt" or you'd be hearing a lot of extraneous stuff either side. If I went back and did if over, I'd probably drop at least one clip and probably replace all the others with something more relevant and longer.
Hmm. Minder as the template for Badger. I assume you mean Arthur Daley ("a bit dodgy maybe, but underneath, 'ees all right") Can't see it myself. Could have been any number of Cockney "geezers" on TV at the time (in the UK sense of the word, in the US it means "old"!), if that's where it came from. I'd actually put Badger a bit closer to another George Cole character; that of Flash Harry, the spiv from the St Trinians films! More likely a combination of various characteristics who happened to work well as a cockney character. (I won't deny there may be a touch of "Arfur Daley" in Badger's makeup somewhere, but they are not really similar IMO)
Yep. The biggest offence 'Allo 'Allo made (apart from too often being desperately unfunny IMO) was relegating Secret Army to "Oh, did they base that on 'Allo 'Alo?" status or forgotten altogether. SA was the original and incredibly superior article that was also very succesful in it's time.
Nick
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ningjingde ren
Joined: 28 May 2006
Posts: 323
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 8:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Companion Kate wrote: | | ningjingde ren wrote: | | perhaps it would be useful to have a thread on the forum on 'Broadwave Bunnies' or 'Broadwaves we would like to see but haven't got the time and facilities to write ourselves' |
So start one! You don't need anyone's permission to start a thread! |
I know, I was just prevaricating. I have some examples in mind but will try to think of a few more before posting.
_________________
Hell, I've been to the edge. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ningjingde ren
Joined: 28 May 2006
Posts: 323
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 9:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lemming wrote: | | Hmm. Minder as the template for Badger. I assume you mean Arthur Daley ("a bit dodgy maybe, but underneath, 'ees all right") Can't see it myself. Could have been any number of Cockney "geezers" on TV at the time (in the UK sense of the word, in the US it means "old"!), if that's where it came from. I'd actually put Badger a bit closer to another George Cole character; that of Flash Harry, the spiv from the St Trinians films! More likely a combination of various characteristics who happened to work well as a cockney character. (I won't deny there may be a touch of "Arfur Daley" in Badger's makeup somewhere, but they are not really similar IMO) |
See your point, but I'd say Arthur Daley was closer to Badger than Flash Harry, in that he was willing to condone the use of violence (by his minder). The St Trinian's films were more innocent.
_________________
Hell, I've been to the edge. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lioness
Joined: 13 Dec 2005
Posts: 65
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 2:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just finished listening to the January podcast and enjoyed it as usual. However, I do have one problem. It was with the Jason Palmer piece. Nick, you keep saying that Jason was very pleased with it. I have no doubt he was.
It was a glowing piece. I've seen his work at several cons and while he is undeniably talented, I do not think he always gets the Firefly crew right.
I don't think he got Kaylee right for instance, or River, or Inara.
I realize that this is a small community, and everyone is a friend but you don't do your listeners any favours by doing "reviews" that are really just praise for a friend.
I don't accept anything the Signal says about QMX's work for the same reason. You're biased. I know that I have to judge for myself or find someone who doesn't have to worry about offending anyone.
I understand why this is so, but I did think it was worth mentioning.
And I also know that some people will find the Kaylee, Inara, River portraits absolutely dead-on!
BTW, speaking of Inara - there are places - distance shots here you can still see the original bow- where it was not CGI'd out.
_________________
Can't stop the Serenity - Toronto June 20, 2009
http://torontoserenity.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lemming
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 261
Location: Banbury, UK
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lioness wrote: | Just finished listening to the January podcast and enjoyed it as usual. However, I do have one problem. It was with the Jason Palmer piece. Nick, you keep saying that Jason was very pleased with it. I have no doubt he was.
It was a glowing piece. I've seen his work at several cons and while he is undeniably talented, I do not think he always gets the Firefly crew right.
I don't think he got Kaylee right for instance, or River, or Inara.
I realize that this is a small community, and everyone is a friend but you don't do your listeners any favours by doing "reviews" that are really just praise for a friend.
I don't accept anything the Signal says about QMX's work for the same reason. You're biased. I know that I have to judge for myself or find someone who doesn't have to worry about offending anyone.
I understand why this is so, but I did think it was worth mentioning.
And I also know that some people will find the Kaylee, Inara, River portraits absolutely dead-on!
BTW, speaking of Inara - there are places - distance shots here you can still see the original bow- where it was not CGI'd out. |
(Hi Sheila)
Indeed you can, she's carrying it wrapped up as they leave Serenity for one. Funny, the Inara potrtait for me at least was spot on
I take your point and do actually agree about the River one, though it works more the longer you look at it.
There are other character portrayals not in the set that I agree are not as good from my POV (some are downright wrong, but these are few), but as I said, art is subjective and I was reviewing just that set, not a whole body of work.
Not everyone will like Jason's stuff and I've had similar remarks about it on Fireflyfans.net. Maybe it was a little gushing, but the set genuinely is incredibly nice. Would I have bought it myself if money was not an issue, hell yeah. Would I have in the real financial world (such as it is!)? No, probably not. This is something you should only buy if you love it, not just becuase it is licensed and has Serenity written on it. It's not perfect, but it is gorgeous and the care with which it has been created is very evident.
The reviews we do of course are not objective. Of course we are biased. It's all within the fandom and no doubt a little incestuous for that very reason. But you'd be pushed to get a totally disinterested party to do a fair review of a genre niche market item either
This is one persons opinion and you are quite right to make up your own mind and are free to ignore anything we say. But I stand by what I said in the review as my honest opinion of the set. Everyone I have shown it to has gone "Wow!" so it's not just me. I wasn't just doing a favour for a mate! (We've never met and have only chatted a couple of times, but sure, I'd buy the guy a beer at a con
I hope I would also be honest enough to also say if I genuinely thought something was not that good or had a particular issue with something, but I think that has rarely applied with the sort of things we review. Yes, cost is one factor that you might be able to say, "well that's expensive for what it is" on ocassion, but the things themselves have been of pretty consistently high quality because by and large, the folk producing them care.
Nick
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gilove2dance
Joined: 09 Jul 2008
Posts: 125
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well said Nick!!!
I personally loved the sketches beside the finished portraits better but that might just be because I'm all artsy and like to see how things were drawn and the sketch rough lines fascinate me.
_________________
Shiny...Let's be bad guys! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Companion Kate
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 2014
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 12:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lemming wrote: | | The reviews we do of course are not objective. Of course we are biased. It's all within the fandom and no doubt a little incestuous for that very reason. But you'd be pushed to get a totally disinterested party to do a fair review of a genre niche market item either |
We Signal Crew are, in fact, disinterested, in the strictest sense of the word: We have no financial interest or involvement in the things we review, and we have nothing to gain by lying. In fact, we have everything to lose by lying - it would do us no good whatsoever if we encouraged fellow Browncoats to throw their money away on something that was crap. (Nick and I declare an interest in the Map of the 'Verse project, in that we were privileged to be asked to be a part of the Brains Trust that researched it. However, for that very reason, neither of us will be reviewing it. In a later Signal, you'll hear Anna's review.)
We are not, of course uninterested, since we do love Serenity, and therefore we find pretty much anything to do with Serenity interesting - but that doesn't always translate into finding all Serenity merchandise wonderful. We are fans just like you, Lioness, and and as a fan, it has reached my attention that there are some outlets that I think are just trying to sell Browncoats any old crap by sticking the word "Serenity" on it.
The Signal's bias is that we do not review crap.
It's not that we falsely claim everything to be wonderful; it's that, if it's not wonderful, we don't review it. We tell the truth, but we are selective about what we omit.
I think there is a patten here: Products which are created by fellow Browncoats who happen to be in a position to make merchandise tend to be genuinely beautiful and a treasure to behold, and so we tend to be very keen to review them; products which are made by companies for whom "Serenity" is just a marketing label, tend to be so-so, and we review them rarely, if ever. Jason Palmer (and QMx) absolutely are Browncoats, and their products without any shadow of doubt fall into the former category.
In summary: If we tell you something is wonderful, then that, I promise you, that is the genuine opinion of the person writing the review. No question. On that, you may rely.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
