Slashdot Mirror


Official Firefly Movie Web Site Launched

The Orange Hatter writes "The official Universal Pictures web site for the Firefly Movie 'Serenity' is up. It includes a blog, message board, opportunites to get point for Firefly swag, and lots of other fun stuff. Check it out."

281 comments

  1. lightweight pages by chris_mahan · · Score: 5, Funny

    There are html, css, and 508 validators.
    There should be a slashdot validator for pages: The likelihood that if slashdotted, your pages will take your server down for the count.

    --

    "Piter, too, is dead."

    1. Re:lightweight pages by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 1

      I agree...

      Check page size, check load time, estimate the approximate number of visitors before load time exceeds one minute.... and if that number exceeds the approximate number of Slashdotters that will come knocking.

      Put those "mirror in case of slashdotting" jerks out of business!

  2. Of course by arrow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And of course the mods miss the blaitant spam. Submitter is getting points for every slashdot clickthru.

    Non spammy link in 3..2..1...http://www.serenitymovie.com/

    --
    symetrix. We are building a religion, a limited edition.
    1. Re:Of course by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 3, Funny

      And his blog is now completely slashdotted in less than 20 posts. I wonder if the clickthru counts if the page never loads?

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    2. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that, but that link actually works. It seems that it's just the click-through server that's slashdoted.

    3. Re:Of course by ackthpt · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      And of course the mods miss the blaitant spam. Submitter is getting points for every slashdot clickthru.

      Yeah and all the stillborn lookups for those of us who don't have FLASH enabled.

      Ob FLASH rant: *grumble* *bitch* *whine* *fume* *drool* *gripe*

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    4. Re:Of course by maxbang · · Score: 2, Funny

      See that mortgage refinancing offer? Go straight north and take a left at the h.o.t.a.s.i.a.n. bl owjo b xz8ta42g and pay the $100,000 toll to the nice Nigerian man. Turn right at the penis enlarging potion and you're there. You can't miss it.

      --
      I also reply below your current threshold.
    5. Re:Of course by br0ck · · Score: 1


      Well, for what it's worth, I managed to get to this blog post:

      Note: POSSIBLE SPOILERS

      June 22, 2004 - Hey there Blogerinos!

      Dusty Bottoms here with your first official report from the set of SERENITY. Think of me as your man inside, your Dabney Coleman if you will. Yup, the man with the plan, the inside scoop, the in's, the out's, the what have you's. That's all I can say about myself for now. For if you knew my true identity... Well, I'd probably just have to get a larger inbox.

      Anyway, as you probably already know from Capt. Tightpants' blog, principal photography began a little over two weeks ago and they've been shooting out on location making with the false science. But what you don't know, and I'm happy to report, is the rampage Mr. Whedon is on. Yes indeed, I got to sneak a peek of some of the footage and it looks amazing. They have this full-size mobile movie theatre for screening dailies and I tell you this, seeing our crew up on the big screen is freegin' awesome! Big Damn Heroes.

      The past two weeks have been like something out of Enemy Mine. No wait... Beastmaster. I'm just kidding. Or am I? Could the random reference have anything to do with a Louis Gossett Jr. sighting? Perhaps Book is reunited with his long lost brother? Maybe Mr. Junior hijacks the crew of Serenity and heads to the center of the galaxy in a search for God. Eh? Eh?

      But enough spoiler action - for now. Recently they completed filming a sequence out in the desert and it was gorramn exciting I tell ya. Do you remember the Mule/ATV from the series? (Prominently displayed in which three eps?) What if that Mule was addicted to steroids and had been eating nothing but egg whites, bulking up on Creatine and working out six days a week? Now imagine it wasn't an ATV at all, but more of, say... a HOVER CRAFT! You should see this thing flying past you with our gang in the cockpit. Whooooosh!

      As for the cast - the gang is so jazzed up just being back together; and to make a movie no less. They are making awesome with the acting. If Nathan Fillion was any more charming he could turn a straight man gay. I'm just sayin' is all. And just thinking about Morena and Jewel could turn a gay woman, well, even gayer. Oye! Here's a question: If Niska was holding the girls hostage in his space-torture-plex-thingy and you could only save one, who would it be? You pervert.

      Now for the juicy details only your inside man, Dusty, could bring you. Hold on to your hats! (No, not the one's from "Safe".) Unfortunately, last Monday's shoot did not go without incident. At lunchtime the catering truck served prime rib with garlic-mashed potatoes and some sort of mixed green salad with goat cheese, pecans and strawberries. But even more shocking than the lack of a vegan alternative, was the discovery made by one of our cast members. Trying to conceal a secret sham, this unnamed star wandered around back of the chow truck to sneak a side of ketchup for his salad. It was there that he witnessed the caterers secretly using Mrs. Dash instead of salt. Nooooooooooo!

      This is Dusty Bottoms saying, "Beat it, geek."

    6. Re:Of course by NanoGator · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Submitter is getting points for every slashdot clickthru."

      So? He's the reason we know about it. Let him have the reward.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    7. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since we're on the subject, why not sign up at this site so I can get some extra points too! Think of it as a public service. -Wz

    8. Re:Of course by beakerMeep · · Score: 1

      These are the times I wish we were able to mod stories off the front page something ala Kuro5hin. Although don't get me wrong I don't want ./ to become K5 just that feature. And this story need just be edited rather than modded away but still it's a thought. Yeah this is off topic mod me down if you want but when is it ever on topic to discuss slashdot?

      --
      meep
    9. Re:Of course by Saeger · · Score: 1
      Deja vu. I swear you said the exact same thing about a book reviewer a few months back. You, you... dirty hyper-capitalist swine!

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    10. Re:Of course by Malc · · Score: 0

      Their first mistake was accepting a story from somebody with an AOL email address. They're asleep at /. today!

    11. Re:Of course by NanoGator · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Deja vu. I swear you said the exact same thing about a book reviewer a few months back.'

      Heh yep. That was me. Only in that case, somebody saw the 'referrer=sr' in an Amazon link and went on a bloody stink about how he was making money off it. Turns out, 'referrer=sr' meant "this was found via the search engine. Heh.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    12. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And of course the mods miss the blaitant spam. Submitter is getting points for every slashdot clickthru.

      And by a strange coincidence, the submitter is now at the top of the points list, in fact he's up 400 points since I checked a couple of minutes ago. At this rate he'll have ten times what the next guy has, within a few hours. Pretty clever scam.

      Editors, please change the top link.

    13. Re:Of course by Cecil · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I've gotta say, I've listened to all the actor's commentary on the Firefly DVD series, and I'll be damned if that's not Alan Tudyk ("Wash").

      "Space-torture-plex-thingy"? "If Nathan Fillion was any more charming he could turn a straight man gay. I'm just sayin' is all."?

      Who else could it be?

    14. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      OH NO! NOT POINTS!

      Whatever will we do? We can't have people earning abstract points just willy-nilly! It'll be ANARCHY!

    15. Re:Of course by Wilde_Karrde · · Score: 1

      "So? He's the reason we know about it. Let him have the reward."

      I guess he got his reward. He's at number one on the site's list of Top 10 Members with 10605 "credits", almost twice number two.
      1. MyOrangeHat 10605
      2. HandsofBlue 5500
      3. FaithAntoinette 5155

      Who knows what credits get you though?
      -Wilde_Karrde

    16. Re:Of course by dcm1101 · · Score: 1

      1. Find a website for a product/phenomenon with a rabid fan base which gives points for referrals.

      2. Post a link that credits your profile for each clickthru on slashdot..

      3. ??????

      4. Profit!

    17. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And (at least in IE) the Synopsis link doesn't popup the window it's supposed to in his framed version of the site :(

    18. Re:Of course by Kris_J · · Score: 1

      I thought it was Wash by the end too.

    19. Re:Of course by Iffy+Bonzoolie · · Score: 1

      In the amount of time HandsofBlue got 200 credits, MyOrangeHat has shot up to 22555... My hat is off to Orange Hat.

      -DG

      --
      Run a pencil-and-paper RPG campaign with your far-off friends: Gametable!
    20. Re:Of course by ggvaidya · · Score: 1

      Then again, his e-mail address is now available to spammers everywhere ... I suppose it's about fair :).

    21. Re:Of course by mnemonic_ · · Score: 1

      Heh.

      Heh.

  3. Click here to get the plugin by chris_mahan · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    All I see is "Click here to get the plugin"

    When will they learn?

    Oh well, my ADD self has already skipped ahead to another site.

    --

    "Piter, too, is dead."

    1. Re:Click here to get the plugin by ackthpt · · Score: 1, Funny
      All I see is "Click here to get the plugin"

      When will they learn?

      That's what the movie is about. Oh, and they give you little cardboard puzzle pieces in the lobby. Enjoy the show!

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  4. heroes! by maxbang · · Score: 4, Funny

    It appears the website appeared just in the nick of time. What do you suppose that makes the designers? Big Damn Heroes! Ain't they just?

    --
    I also reply below your current threshold.
    1. Re:heroes! by EMH_Mark3 · · Score: 5, Funny

      No power in the 'verse can stop a slashdotting ^^

      --
      Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me
    2. Re:heroes! by zerocool^ · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, at least they made the webpage before the movie came out...

      I mean, firefly has had problems with stuff being done out of order, right?

      ~Wx

      --
      sig?
    3. Re:heroes! by AKAImBatman · · Score: 3, Funny

      No power in the 'verse can stop a slashdotting

      I won't let them! They can't take Serenity away!

      You can't take the sky from me...

      (Yes, I've been itching to say that.)

    4. Re:heroes! by Ignorant+Aardvark · · Score: 1

      You can't take the sky from me...

      (Yes, I've been itching to say that.)


      I've been saying that for months now in my sig. Don't steal my glory :-(

  5. Firefly rocks. by Impie · · Score: 1

    The Firefly series rocks .. at least the episodes I've seen.
    Will they continue to record the series?

    --
    I really have another userid as well
    1. Re:Firefly rocks. by mrwonton · · Score: 4, Informative

      No. They will not continue to record the series. The movie is all thats left, unfortunately. It was a terrific series.

      --
      Not more than you need, just more than you want
    2. Re:Firefly rocks. by Maserati · · Score: 2, Informative

      The current hope is that a successful movie run will get Firefly back on the air. Until then, get the DVD set already !

      --
      Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
    3. Re:Firefly rocks. by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Will they continue to record the series?

      For now, universal is making the movie.
      Maybe if it woks well, they'll restart the series. Who knows?

      I'm just psyched that they mention Reavers! Can't wait to see how the girl who can't not feel everything reacts to the monsters who feel nothing.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    4. Re:Firefly rocks. by maxbang · · Score: 1

      I pray they don't take a page from Paramount and parlay the success of the movie into a half ass series. Just imagine: Firefly: Voyager. Leave me be! I'm off to vomit!

      --
      I also reply below your current threshold.
    5. Re:Firefly rocks. by mdrn28 · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Firefly really got the short end of the stick with the undesirable, inconsistent time slots. Otherwise, it's a really well-done show with interesting characters, interesting plots, and Joss Whedon's characteristic witty dialogue.

    6. Re:Firefly rocks. by Daetrin · · Score: 1
      No. They will not continue to record the series. The movie is all thats left, unfortunately. It was a terrific series.

      You just provided a bare link to fireflyfans.net. I'm not seeing anything obvious on the front page saying they won't consider renewing the series, so your "proof" is somewhat dubious. Even if they specifically said somewhere that they had no plans to renew the series i would take it with a grain of salt. Of course they have no plans when there's currently no one offering to fund the series.

      However occasionally evil marketing forces accomplish something good, look at the reinstatement of the Family Guy after all, which apparently a great number of people seem to think is a good thing (don't ask me why.) There's at least a small chance that lightning will strike twice, and i'll believe that Firefly is 100% dead when Whedon is made an offer by a studio to make a new Firefly series and he turns it down.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    7. Re:Firefly rocks. by Talking+Toaster · · Score: 2, Informative

      You just provided a bare link to fireflyfans.net. I'm not seeing anything obvious on the front page saying they won't consider renewing the series, so your "proof" is somewhat dubious.

      That's what I was thinking.

      i'll believe that Firefly is 100% dead when Whedon is made an offer by a studio to make a new Firefly series and he turns it down.

      That would also depend on the terms thereof.

      In the commentary for the DVDs Joss says that it was his favorite project of all the ones he worked on. As long as he maintained artistic control, all he needs is an executive producer to finance the show.

      I suppose it is possible for HBO or Showtime to finance it like Showtime did with Stargate SG1. It might even be able to finance the show through DVD sales, and then syndicate the show on Saturday afternoons or something like we have with Buffy now.

      --
      Howdy Doodly Doo!
      Anybody want some Toast?
    8. Re:Firefly rocks. by Katharine · · Score: 1

      mrwonton was probably referring to the news story posted on fireflyfans.net in which Nathan Fillion is quoted as having said that if the movie does well it will come back as a trilogy, not a television series.

      That said, one would not think it completely beyond the realm of possibility that if the movie was successful enough be spun off into a series of sequels, that someone might also think that good profits could be made by continuing the television show.

    9. Re:Firefly rocks. by mrwonton · · Score: 1

      Erm, thanks. Precisely. I was a bit rushed at work, so I was just providing a source that had the answer to the question.

      --
      Not more than you need, just more than you want
  6. faster than fox! by LuxFX · · Score: 2, Funny

    And you people claim to be fans....

    Slashdot brought the website down faster than Fox took down the tv show! Now I still can't get my Joss fix....

    --
    Punctanym: alternate spelling of words using punctuation or numerals in place of some or all of its letters; see 'leet'
  7. Damn... by mshiltonj · · Score: 2, Funny

    How do you /. the web site of a major motion picture? You'd think they could afford the bandwidth/horsepower.

    Can't wait for the movie, though. I've got to get my DVD set of the series back and watch it again. I've loaned it out -- doing my part to extend the fan base.

    1. Re:Damn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't look slashdotted, but I only get a black screen with links like "Sign up", "Feedback", "www.filmratings.com", "www.parentalguide.org", etc.

      I'm assuming there's supposed to be some more content?

  8. Shouldn't that be fire fox movie? by TheUncleBob · · Score: 3, Funny

    It was fox that dropped the series ? See not a mozilla joke in sight

    Doh

    1. Re:Shouldn't that be fire fox movie? by homer_ca · · Score: 1

      There was already a Firefox movie in 1982. Clint Eastwood played a fighter pilot sent on a mission to the Soviet Union to steal an advanced protoype jet fighter. It looked pretty cool when I saw it as a kid, but then all farfetched action shows looked cool at the time too: Knight Rider, A-Team. Now they're just sad when I see reruns.

    2. Re:Shouldn't that be fire fox movie? by aled · · Score: 1

      Firefly would have been such a better name for that browser...

      --

      "I think this line is mostly filler"
  9. The unofficial site is also well worth a look... by Hortensia+Patel · · Score: 5, Informative

    Point yer browsin' gear here for news and discussion, including recent blogs by Nathan ("Mal") and Jewel ("Kaylee") from the set.

    And by dint of shameless grovelling the webmaster has just wangled himself a part as an extra on the movie! Kudos.

  10. SWAT! by mboverload · · Score: 1

    Lets just hope this doesn't get swated out of the air like the series did.

  11. Anyone read the blog? by grasshoppa · · Score: 2, Funny

    I just want to know who dusty-whatever is so I can beat the stupid right out of him.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
  12. FireFly DVD set is great - why did Fox cancel? by PenguinOpus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I didn't watch any of the episodes on Fox because I hadn't even discovered Buffy yet. 6 seasons of DVD Buffy later (waiting for the 7th), we buy Firefly's DVD set and were really impressed.

    Firefly, the series, has the usual Joss Whedan good characters interacting in interesting ways.
    Apparently they didn't show the pilot first on Fox and I can't imagine how that could have worked. The 2 hour pilot (also called Serenity) is a must see and its CGI special effects are surprisingly good.

    15 episodes (pilot + 13) + extras.

    Strongly Recommended!

    1. Re:FireFly DVD set is great - why did Fox cancel? by maxbang · · Score: 1

      Hey, Whedon! How ya been, man?

      --
      I also reply below your current threshold.
    2. Re:FireFly DVD set is great - why did Fox cancel? by ripple_current · · Score: 1

      Hey count yourselves lucky that you got to see it at all! Australian TV has relegated both Buffy (when it was showing) and Angel to 11.30pm timeslots. The only way we can see firefly is to order the DVD from Amazon(NTSC) and jigger our DVD players into region 1. I'll probably have to fly to the states to see the movie...

    3. Re:FireFly DVD set is great - why did Fox cancel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Us Yanks, did not get to see Firefly in order either before the DVD box set.

    4. Re:FireFly DVD set is great - why did Fox cancel? by sflory · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Seeing it out of order really destroyed the experience for me. My biggest complaint was that it was rather disjointed. I really wasn't a big fan until I watched it on DVD. Personally I'd rather watch the FireFly DVD again than anything Fox is currently showing.

      --
      IANALBIPOOGL (I am not a Lawyer, but I play one on GrokLaw.)
    5. Re:FireFly DVD set is great - why did Fox cancel? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The series seemed to confuse the NeuroTypicals out there. I read a review in the Oregonian (Portland, OR newspaper) where the critic completely focused on what he felt were technological inconsistencies ("they've got spaceships and bullet trains but most people use horses?") and uterly failed to understand the backstory at all (of a Centralized "galacticazation" trade group that kept the core rich and the outlying planets poor, quite an interesting social commentary there about the power of corporations in cahoots with governments). It just went right over his head. And I know that reviewer, read his TV reviews quite often, I'd put him slightly above normal intelligence; so obviously the great number of boobs who would fall for "Joe Millionaire" and other Fox Reality shows just weren't smart enough to get Joss Whedan. And thus we're stuck watching the idiocy they CAN understand.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    6. Re:FireFly DVD set is great - why did Fox cancel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, my biggest gripe about the series was the way they handled guns/bullets/whatever. Particularly the sound effects. Sometimes they were normal gun-like. Other times they sounded like energy weapons. Very inconsistent. That and the fact that they waved them around like they were weightless quite often. No recoil, nothing. If you're gonna feature a revolver, at least make it look and sound substantial.

      Aside from that, it was great.

    7. Re:FireFly DVD set is great - why did Fox cancel? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Did it occur to you that maybe some of the guns WERE energy weapons? After all, with such a mix of riches and poverty, you have to expect a mix of technologies as well (an energy-rich planet would have energy weapons, a chemical rich planet would have what they called slugthrowers in B5, and everything in between). And of course, as mercenaries/pirates/pilot-have-spaceship-will-trav el types as our heros are, they will use whatever they can get their hands on at the second.

      Plus, being 500 years in our future, I would think even the lowest tech gun manufacturers would have solved the recoil problem in most instances- after all, the Nazis produced a recoiless handgun way back in WWII. Inconsistency was part of the backplot of the whole series- you were SUPPOSED to notice it!

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    8. Re:FireFly DVD set is great - why did Fox cancel? by orbital3 · · Score: 1

      I watched most of the series as it aired, and watched through the whole thing again on DVD in as-aired order to finish it the way I had started. Some time later, I started watching it again with my girlfriend to introduce her to the show. This time, however, we started with the original pilot. To make a long story short, she was confused and a bit bored, not knowing who all of the random characters being introduced were, and my feeling was somewhere along the lines of "wow, I'm glad I saw this the other way first... you don't really appreciate the way everyone interacts when they're first meeting unless you're already familiar with their personalities". But, to each their own, I suppose.

    9. Re:FireFly DVD set is great - why did Fox cancel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nailed it on the head. Anything that is too high-brow for Joe Shmuck out there gets canned. Zim, for example.

    10. Re:FireFly DVD set is great - why did Fox cancel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmmm....a TV reviewer for a corporate media outlet fails to understand Firefly's critique of corporate politics.

      Whodathunkit?

    11. Re:FireFly DVD set is great - why did Fox cancel? by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      I have just finished the second DVD of the set (pilot + 6 episodes). I have not watched Firefly before this... ...and I am still confused over the backstory! I understand that the core is richer than the rim, and that some sort of galactic feudal manorialism is in place, but some stuff still seems odd. When do they start explaining this stuff? I get the sense that there's a complete history behind "companions", but without an explanation it's hard to reconcile prostitutes being revered members of the upper class. Is this religious or something?

      The horses don't bother me though. These ARE the boondocks of space, and frontier worlds. A frontier mining world's population isn't enough to support a domestic auto industry, but anyone can raise horses on forty acres. I also like the firearms. Who says chemically propelled slugs aren't the pinnacle of personal firearm technology?

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    12. Re:FireFly DVD set is great - why did Fox cancel? by Psykechan · · Score: 1

      Heh, Our local FOX affiliate (serving a major metropolitan area) seemed bound and determined to cause even more problems. When airing "Ariel" they had sound and video problems for a good 15 minutes when Mal and Jayne were having a "chat".

      The time slot sucked, the out-of-order airings sucked, the promos sucked ("and a girl in a box!") but the show turned out to be some of the best few hours of television ever made. That's really saying something.

      Come April 22 of next year, I know I'll be donning overalls with a teddy bear sewn onto 'em and watching Serenity fly once more.

      You can't take the sky from me.

    13. Re:FireFly DVD set is great - why did Fox cancel? by Talking+Toaster · · Score: 1

      Did it occur to you that maybe some of the guns WERE energy weapons? After all, with such a mix of riches and poverty, you have to expect a mix of technologies as well

      Actually there were hand held laser guns. The episode Trash deals with the crew involved in a scam to steal one of the first laser guns ever made.

      --
      Howdy Doodly Doo!
      Anybody want some Toast?
    14. Re:FireFly DVD set is great - why did Fox cancel? by Chris+Siegler · · Score: 1

      I know nothing about the show, but how can a geek pass up intelligent scifi? Cheapest I've found so far is $28.76 with free ship (below). Found the coupon codes on FW.

      Deepdiscountdvd.com

      Use any codes below for 20% off thru 6/26
      SUMMERSALE
      DVDTALK
      DVDSALE
      USATODAY
      PRIC ESEARCH
      DEEPDISCOUNT
      KLSX
      BROKEWALLET

    15. Re:FireFly DVD set is great - why did Fox cancel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn you are lucky. I remember getting to the last disc thinking my God, there's only one left :(

      As for explaining stuff - just watch and enjoy. I'd imagine when you're doing a potentially long-running TV series you want to leave your options open. I think Joss Whedon is probably pretty smart at creating stories with lots of possibilities and only setting things in stone once he has a good story to tell it, rather than just explaining stuff with boring exposition that can't be changed later when they think of a better way to tell it.

    16. Re:FireFly DVD set is great - why did Fox cancel? by Karma+Sink · · Score: 1

      All right, I'm going to go off in a nerdly direction over this, but...

      Energy weapons were rare - mostly used by the Alliance. That's backed up in a number of instances - the only actual lasers we ever see are the Lassiter (the one you refered to, fron Trash) and the one used by Rance Burgess in Heart of Gold.

      The weapons we got used real bullets - that's backed up by the chat Mal has with Jayne in Objects in Space (Something about soft lead not being able to pierce the hull, and Vera being the only gun he has that could do it.)

      I think the noise that the great-grandparent is referring to is the whirring noise that the guns make as they 'Power up', so it seems. I think that's most likely the anti-recoil device powering up, however it happens to work. It's never addressed, but it certainly fits the evidence.

      And I /did/ warn you at least....

      --

      When encryption is outlawed, ?o'AZ-,++o+i++##4AoA+-/-C++bI+/.+~
    17. Re:FireFly DVD set is great - why did Fox cancel? by ajs · · Score: 1

      Actually, the horses and spaceships thing got me too. I think Whedon needed to spend a bit more time introducing the idea that planet-bound folk are generally poorer and that not ever planet has the resources to build a megaopolis around every landing site.

      However, in his defense, the commentary on the DVDs makes it quite clear that he never had the chance to sit down and think about that sort of thing becuase Fox was doing the same note-avalanche sorts of things to him that TNT did to JMS on Crusade (also a show that comes off as broken and disjoint without a reasonable transition point into the story because of station/studio interference).

    18. Re:FireFly DVD set is great - why did Fox cancel? by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      That's kind of the problem. I dropped in to watch a couple of episodes, and found myself utterly disinterested in the characters or plot. Maybe there was some kind of bigger story going on, but with no decent hook in each episode, I never got a chance to care.

      Babylon 5 suffered from much the same problem, but I think we've moved on even since then to a world where if you can't make enough ad money from the eyeballs you've got in every episode, then you can kiss that option to renew goodbye. There are a lot of hungry Ideas Guys out there and a lot of grasping execs (with, as they say, a fiduciary duty to maximise profits) and the potential earnings of the Next Big Show are going to give us a lot more one series wonders like Firefly, Jake 2.0 and Tru Calling. Cast a bunch of nobodies with cheap wirework and FX, and you can keep something like Mutant X ticking over, but if you want a big budget, you'd better be prepared to make with the goodies in every episode.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    19. Re:FireFly DVD set is great - why did Fox cancel? by Thag · · Score: 1
      I have just finished the second DVD of the set (pilot + 6 episodes). I have not watched Firefly before this... ...and I am still confused over the backstory! I understand that the core is richer than the rim, and that some sort of galactic feudal manorialism is in place, but some stuff still seems odd. When do they start explaining this stuff?

      Short answer: they don't. They wanted a space western, so they threw a lot of things together, and IMHO some of them make no sense, like the antebellum Southern aristocracy that's there in some of the episodes.
      I get the sense that there's a complete history behind "companions", but without an explanation it's hard to reconcile prostitutes being revered members of the upper class. Is this religious or something?

      It's a western. She's the Hooker with a Heart of Gold. I really think that's as deep as it went.
      The horses don't bother me though. These ARE the boondocks of space, and frontier worlds. A frontier mining world's population isn't enough to support a domestic auto industry, but anyone can raise horses on forty acres. I also like the firearms. Who says chemically propelled slugs aren't the pinnacle of personal firearm technology?

      I think it should have looked a lot more like the third world today than Little House on the Prairie, though. But yes, this really didn't bother me.

      Overall, if they had waited a year and thought the whole thing through a little more, I think the show could have been a success.

      Jon Acheson
      --
      All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
    20. Re:FireFly DVD set is great - why did Fox cancel? by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 1
      The backstory is that Firefly is a thinly-concealed retelling of the period immediately after the War Between the States (the US Civil War, for you Yankees out there). The monolithic central government has ruthlessly oppressed those who wished to be free, and they have been prevented from engaging in normal business thereafter. The Reavers are, of course, the aboriginal Americans.

      And yes, that monolithic government is very much a government of the corps, by the corps and for the corps--just like late 19th century America.

    21. Re:FireFly DVD set is great - why did Fox cancel? by TheRevenant · · Score: 1

      Knowing Joss Whedon's other work, I'd say he thought it through already. Just because the explanations weren't given time to hit the screen, don't assume they weren't prepared...

    22. Re:FireFly DVD set is great - why did Fox cancel? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      More a comment on intelligence level originally- but you could well be right that the problem is doublethink.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  13. Is this "just" the first episode, remade? by Jerf · · Score: 2, Interesting

    See title. All the summaries seem to point to that but that seems odd.

    I'm not sure how I feel about that, either way.

    1. Re:Is this "just" the first episode, remade? by Scrameustache · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, it takes place about 6 months after "Objects in Space".

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

  14. no time travel by fermion · · Score: 5, Insightful
    That says it all. That is why i think firefly is a better that the late incarnations of Star Trek and B5. Don't get me wrong. B5 is a wonderful story that is more ambitious and make a better effort to be technically accurate than practically any other sci-fi show. And Star Trek is great, it is the Granddaddy.

    But the time travel, unless we are traveling in time and not space, is the overused plot device of the past ten or 15 years. Enterprise sucks because that is the basis of the whole show, and hopefully they can compensate for the mistake. B5 was nearly fatally wounded by it's misuse of the time line.

    But Firefly concentrates on the basics. The relationships. The flawed characters. The goal of living life the best you can. You don't have people floating willy nilly in and out of time. You don't have have people going back and forth in time so that the writers can cowardly destroy a ship at the beginning of the episode only to have it resurrected at the end. All you have is a totally unbelievable ship floating throughout a totally unbelievable universe with totally unbelievable characters. Just like real life.

    This is also why Battlestar Galactica was so cool.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    1. Re:no time travel by sadler121 · · Score: 1

      make a better effort to be technically accurate than practically any other sci-fi show

      I'll mention strieght up I haven't seen Firefly, (though I am a HUGE Whedon fan, own all of Buffy season 1-6, and Angel 1-3, which actually tempts me to by the Firefly DVD set with out watching it first), I am also a little skiptical about how technically accurate Firefly can be when two Nerdy charecters from the Whedon unviserse, (Willow - Buffy, Fred - Angel) would spout off incredably silly technobabble, that made absolutly no sense. Deffrent series true, but I also know a lot of the crew from Buffy/Angel also joined up for Firefly.

      Not saying that I probably wouldn't enjoy the series, just saying that in the past Whedons other shows, haven't made that much of an effort to be technically feisable.

    2. Re:no time travel by gilroy · · Score: 1
      Blockquoth the poster:

      This [no time travel] is also why Battlestar Galactica was so cool.


      And why -- among other reasons -- Galactica 1980 stank up the screen.
    3. Re:no time travel by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is actually possible to make good time travel stories. I just read an amazing one in Axiomatic by Greg Egan. Others, like 12 Monkeys and Heinlein's "All You Zombies" are at also entertaining and well-conceived. What ruins Star Trek is just bad writing, not time travel per se. Read this paper if you're really interested in the conceptual issues in Time Travel. It will make you hate that cheapo Star Trek crap even more, because you'll realize exactly why that "second time 'round" crap they always pull with time travel is completely incoherent.

    4. Re:no time travel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      > B5 was nearly fatally wounded by it's misuse of the time line.

      They used a time travel story exactly once, over two consecutive episodes, and they answered a CONSIDERABLE number of deliberately open plot points. B5 *would* have been fatally wounded without them.

    5. Re:no time travel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      This is certainly not an attack on time travel as a plot device. Every creative act needs a contrivance, whether it is space travel, time travel, minimally employed young adults living in $5,000 apartments, or teenagers having unsafe sex on demand with no fatal or long term consequences.

      To me the issue is when a writer stacks contrivances to force a story, rather than just letting the characters or action develop naturally, and, as result, have excess plot devices present in the story.

      Certainly many good time travel stories exist, and the ones you name are good examples. I will part with you and say that The City on the Edge of Forever was a good story. And, if there is some self depreciation, as in Sheep in the Big City, the excess and literal plot devices can become an asset. But really that is a clever exception and not a rule.

    6. Re:no time travel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the poster somehow confused B5 with Enterprise.

    7. Re:no time travel by Noren · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Hmm... I can certainly understand not liking the concept of time travel in science fiction, or of not liking specific episodes. But... in B5 there were only three episodes out of the 110 which contained any (out of sequence) time travel- "Babylon Squared" and "War Without End" parts 1 and 2. The three basically comprise one story (even though two years separated their production) and the net result was interesting in my opinion. Though not a totally novel outcome, it was at least mostly self-consistent and I hadn't seen it on the small screen before... unlike the average Star Trek "We must not alter the past and/or we must fix how someone else altered the past" or "Visit to Earth in some time period for which we already have sets" plot. More episodes were produced before the first time travel episode (19) than were ever produced for Firefly.

      There were a number of anachronistic things (e.g. "Comes the Inquisitor", "A Late Delivery from Avalon", Garibaldi's Daffy Duck poster and motorcycle) which were not results of nonsequential time travel, as well as some episodes which took place over odd timelines (the "camera" going years after the rest of the series) but which had no time travel per se ("The Deconstruction of Falling Stars", "Sleeping in Light")

      There was precognition at many points, though, and lots and lots of foreshadowing and glimpses into the future. What time travel there was also implied some amount of predestination. Was it the predestination more than just the time travel which you found objectionable?

    8. Re:no time travel by dswensen · · Score: 1

      Well, interestingly enough, back in the 60s, Gene Roddenberry's one-line summation of Star Trek was "Wagon Train to the Stars." Firefly is far more "Wagon Train to the Stars" than Trek ever was. It's very much a space Western.

      Not that this makes Trek bad, or Firefly derivative, by any means, just that Firefly is very much in the "pioneer spirit" vein of sci-fi; something that I think Trek has been missing for a long time.

    9. Re:no time travel by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, City on the Edge of Forever was cool. I took the original poster to be complaining about the new Enterprise stuff, not the classics

    10. Re:no time travel by forgotmypassword · · Score: 1

      What's sad is that the last Harry Potter movie had completely consistant time travel.

      It's very sad a scientist can enjoy a movie about magic more than the completely innaccurate garbage that passes for science fiction.

      How come we can see the laser beams? And why are they so freaking slow?
      How come we can hear in the vaccum of space?
      How come we only have inertia when dramatic events occur?
      How come nearly every alien species lives in an earth-like atmosphere?
      How come slowing down is infinitely easier than speeding up?

      Remember when Jordy tuned his visor to see neutrino's? I almost shat a brick.

    11. Re:no time travel by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      I loved Firefly for one because it was fresh. The captain didn't make long monologues about morality.

      I loved the tension of legal / moral between him and the Companion (sorry, I forget her name).

      It also gladly showed a future were humanity remains imperfect and is still subject to civil war and tyranny because that is practically human nature, IMO.

      I also loved Firefly because it didn't try to take itself too seriously, some Whedon style humor pops up here and there.

      What I find interesting is that those thirteen episodes are better thought out (IMO) than the first thirteen episodes of nearly any other sci-fi TV show I've seen, although I haven't seen the old Twilight Zone or Outer Limits.

      While the Outlaw Star Japanese animation predates it and has many similar ideas and structures, I think Firefly does a better job with it. Some did say it was a rip-off of Outlaw Star but that was only based on seeing too little of Firefly, something like a promo shot.

    12. Re:no time travel by aled · · Score: 1

      How come we can see the laser beams? And why are they so freaking slow?
      The movie is so dense that light has a hard way throught it.

      How come we can hear in the vaccum of space?
      The space in movies isn't fully empty to let director shout "Action!". It's kinda half empty. Or half full.

      How come we only have inertia when dramatic events occur?
      Inertia is the force of nature that keeps us watching this movie.

      How come nearly every alien species lives in an earth-like atmosphere?
      Because the cost of live is cheaper and better the aliens comes to take over the jobs of honest working humans that are becoming unemployed.

      How come slowing down is infinitely easier than speeding up?
      This is easily demonstrated by an easy home experiment. Just start running... into a wall.

      Glad to help.

      --

      "I think this line is mostly filler"
    13. Re:no time travel by aled · · Score: 1

      oh yes, and the explanation of vampirism if Buffy they give isn't very scientific

      --

      "I think this line is mostly filler"
    14. Re:no time travel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to agree. The newest installment of Harry Potter made damn good sense. Really, I cringed when I realized there was some time-traveling to be happening, but it was good, and not a distraction from the story.

    15. Re:no time travel by Karma+Sink · · Score: 1

      How come we can see the laser beams? And why are they so freaking slow?
      I'm not sure about the seeing part, but they're instantaneous in Firefly.

      How come we can hear in the vaccum of space?
      You can't, in Firefly.

      How come we only have inertia when dramatic events occur?
      One place where FF is a bit lacking, sadly.

      How come nearly every alien species lives in an earth-like atmosphere?
      No aliens in FF.

      How come slowing down is infinitely easier than speeding up?
      Not something I noticed on FF.

      -----

      I'm a bit of a fanboy, mind you, but if you haven't given Firefly a chance, you may want to. There's a flaw or two here and there, but overall its rather incredibly polished.

      --

      When encryption is outlawed, ?o'AZ-,++o+i++##4AoA+-/-C++bI+/.+~
    16. Re:no time travel by sql*kitten · · Score: 1

      But Firefly concentrates on the basics. The relationships. The flawed characters. The goal of living life the best you can.

      Absolutely - there's no technobabble. The closest they've come in fact was the Out of Gas episode, and even then, it wasn't anything more complex than needing a new compressor (IIRC) for the engine. And I don't miss it at all - who really cares how the engine works? Does anyone actually care how the engine on the USS Enterprise works? NO! So why do they waste half of each episode talking meaningless crap about obscure technical details?*

      * Actually that's a rhetorical question, I know the answer: because the writers don't have the wit to write intelligent dialogue.

    17. Re:no time travel by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1
      Good, relevant points, all of them...

      I would add to the comment about other planets having an earth-like atmospheres: In Firefly, the explanation is that the planets are terraformed (in a process that's not explained). So they didn't begin with a breathable atmosphere, presumably.

      Of course, one may wonder why the surely immense cost of terraforming would be justified if the planets were subsequently used only for primitive and impoverished sharecropping. I bet that would have been answered in Season 2. Damn you again, Fox!

    18. Re:no time travel by jtev · · Score: 1

      Good point. The anacronisms were a rather welcome bit of spice to the show, and the time travel mini arc is wonderfull. Although it gives you headaches thinking about how much Real Politik goes on in the minds of the Vorlons. They caused a war that countless humans died in, and not a few Mimbari, just so a space station would be built, that would later be stolen by the army of light, and sent back in time, allowing them to beat the shadows. To bad Sinclair was predesitned to tell the Vorlons about the future, but I guess the two of them introducing him to the contemporary Mimbari was the payment for that. I supose he could have just told Kosh, but he wouldn't have any reason for not trusting the other Vorlon, who I realy dislike. Um, I think that's enough rant for now.

      --
      That which is done from love exists beyond good and evil
  15. 14 months? by allanc · · Score: 0

    How the hell am I going to survive 14 more months without new Firefly? I'm jonesing! I may have to resort to reading fanfic, and I don't think I can take all the Jayne/Mal slash I'll undoubtably find!

    --AC

  16. Joss? by ackthpt · · Score: 1
    Slashdot brought the website down faster than Fox took down the tv show! Now I still can't get my Joss fix....

    Sure you can! "Bad Joss Taipan!"

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  17. Pathetically stupid web designers! by Rasputin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Shockwave required before you can see anything on their worthless page. Same with the "Ghost in the Shell 2" page.

    How hard is it to design a page that is usable by EVERYONE? Not hard at all and yet here we have examples of two groups that couldn't pull it off. Are web designers like these born stupid or do they learn it in school?

    --
    "I once preached peaceful coexistence with Windows. You may laugh at my expense - I deserve it." Be's Jean-Louis Gass
    1. Re:Pathetically stupid web designers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Offtopic: I haven't looked at the Firefly web page, but you definitely should grab the "Ghost in the shell 2" trailer.

    2. Re:Pathetically stupid web designers! by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

      How many non-geek people do you think are unable to view Shockwave sites?

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    3. Re:Pathetically stupid web designers! by nizo · · Score: 4, Insightful
      How hard is it to design a page that is usable by EVERYONE?

      That all depends on how many people you want to actually use your site. Note how fast yahoo/ebay/google/etc load (used by tons o' people every day). I hate flash sites, and any site that depends on flash must hate having people visit it, I mean how many people actually sit and watch the flash intro on a site? Excuse me while I go outside and throw a I-hate-flash tantrum.

    4. Re:Pathetically stupid web designers! by Blublu · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How many non-geeks do you think are interested in this website in the first place? It's not that we're unable to view them. It's that shockwave is freaking annoying. What if you want to download something? Oh, you can't just get a simple link you have to click on a "shockwave" link and if you're lucky, it might work (usually only if you're using IE) Also, shockwave sites can take years to load. (not to even mention when it's being slashdotted) Shockwave, flash and all that stuff is crap and it must die. It's okay for a few things, but WHOLE PAGES IS NOT ONE OF THEM!! Argghhh!!!! Aaah, now I feel better....

      --
      meh
    5. Re:Pathetically stupid web designers! by SpankMonkeyPox · · Score: 5, Funny

      But Shockwave is pretty! It's the PowerPoint eqivalent for the web. I love power point and shockwave so much, I hope the Microsoft People buy the Macromedia people and make a new company callded Macrosoft and make a program called SchockPoint.

    6. Re:Pathetically stupid web designers! by Malc · · Score: 1

      I appreciate their efforts. They did a me a favour by providing scrollbars that don't work as well as those provided by my browser! They also saved my middle finger, which is over-worked on the wheel scrolling every other window. Furthermore, they saved me from resizing my browser window down to something miniscule by forcing their synopsis in to the top left corner of the window. Yay!

    7. Re:Pathetically stupid web designers! by Hachima · · Score: 0

      Maybe there is just one?

    8. Re:Pathetically stupid web designers! by Methuseus · · Score: 1

      *puts on flame retardant suit*

      I personally think, when something as awesome as Firefly is involved, Shockwave is appreciated. The only time any Shockwave/Flash site has taken a while to load is under heavy loads or if the server is on a crap connection. Yes, I have high-speed. It's going to be the future, and if you think about it, why should we get rid of multimedia web sites? I've gotten it to work in quite a few different versions of Linux and every version of Windows. I dunno why you're having such a hard time....

      Would you be alright if they made alternate sites for flash or no?

      --
      Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
    9. Re:Pathetically stupid web designers! by fermion · · Score: 1, Offtopic
      it is worse than that. I have flash installed, but have it on demand (flashblocker). I can't see a thing.

      The stupidity is that this is not a site trying to support itself by selling third party products. this site is dedicated to promoting a single product, and should be designed to promote said product is any many different ways as possible to as many different people as possible. The way it is set up just indicates a careless webmaster or incompetant management. In many cases, the advertisements are actualy made with more care than the product, which in this case bodes ill for the movie.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    10. Re:Pathetically stupid web designers! by slaker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Bullshit. It's completely moronic for me to give up control of my browser to some every moron with a copy of Macromedia Fuckweaver and a bad idea.

      Let's see... standard web content: I can control text sizing, colors, whether or not (and which) images load, save or print things out, even use a screen reader if I'm particularly lazy (or, y'know, blind)... and generally make my browsing experience comfortable for myself.

      Flash Bullshit: I wait for hundreds of kilobytes of useless crap to stream onto my computer. I can't control sizing. I can't print it. I can't save it. Plus "people" (using only the most liberal definition) use it for stupid shit like dancing badgers and 1.5MB intros on motherboard manufacturer home pages. The only thing that keeps me from declaring fatwa on Macromedia developers is the living fucking saint who wrote the "Flash Click to View" plug-in for Moz/Firewhatever.

      Not that I'm bitter or anything.

      Yes, Flash sites should be available as an alternative. But only after the regular site conveys all the information one needs.

      --
      -- I wanna decide who lives and who dies - Crow T. Robot, MST3K
    11. Re:Pathetically stupid web designers! by sTalking_Goat · · Score: 1

      if they called it SclockPoint I might actually buy it.

      --

      My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...

    12. Re:Pathetically stupid web designers! by Drooling+Iguana · · Score: 1

      If they wrote the website in standards-compliant HTML, then no one using IE would be able to view it properly, and if they wrote it to be viewed correctly in IE, then everyone with a different version of IE from what the page was written for would have problems, since they all break the standard in a different way. Shockwave is the only to make a reasonably complicated website that can be viewed on a reasonably variety of computers. They'd all have to be running Windows, yes, but it would no longer matter which Windows version/IE version they had.

      --
      ... I'm addicted to placebos
    13. Re:Pathetically stupid web designers! by Malc · · Score: 1

      Can you explain to me what Flash does for this page: http://www.serenitymovie.com/synop.html? It's just bloody annoying. It stops me using my scroll wheel, and makes me scroll at the pathetic Flash specified pace. No thank you! That page could be straight HTML and CSS.

    14. Re:Pathetically stupid web designers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm, those of us who are blind? Or are otherwise using a text only browser? And yes, we do go to movies.....This Flash/Shockwave thing is one of my pet peeves. How hard is it to put a little link on the bloody page!? It's not that hard to make pages accessible. Just suck it up and do it.

    15. Re:Pathetically stupid web designers! by wash23 · · Score: 1

      It's not particularly difficult to install a flash player. If you want to control whether or not you're inundated with flash garbage, you can always use firefox & flashblock extension (it's what I use, and with adblock keeps everything relatively sane). If your problem is technological - tough. I have a few computers kicking around that don't have the capacity to run a graphical web browser, but that doesn't mean I complain when a site isn't lynx compatible :) "Get with the times, man."

    16. Re:Pathetically stupid web designers! by Rasputin · · Score: 1

      ...I mean how many people actually sit and watch the flash intro on a site?

      Exactly! What do you want to bet that the intro is the *only* part of the page that actually uses Flash?

      The only saving grace with this page is that they have a feedback link that can be used without the Shockwave plugin. The "Ghost in a Shell" page doesn't have one AND they don't have a webmaster alias.

      It seems like most sites that require Flash also have no webmaster alias. I guess, if they're too stupid to code their page correctly, they are (usually) too stupid to set up a webmaster mail alias.

      --
      "I once preached peaceful coexistence with Windows. You may laugh at my expense - I deserve it." Be's Jean-Louis Gass
    17. Re:Pathetically stupid web designers! by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Show me an open source shockwave viewer and you might have a point.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    18. Re:Pathetically stupid web designers! by nzkbuk · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing that /. is the exception to that rule.

      Not to mention almost every other standards compliant page

    19. Re:Pathetically stupid web designers! by Methuseus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm sorry, I replied before viewing the site (it was loading sloooow). The Flash does absolutely nothing that couldn't be done more easily with CSS and *whatever I'm thinking of but can't remember the name for*.

      That said, I do like sites that use Flash well, for something that is useflu. My favorite is Westwood's COmmand and Conquer websites. They use Flash but it is mostly unobtrusive and do things that would be inconvenient up to impossible with other tools.
      And, hmmm, it seems the Red Alert 2 website isn't working in Firefox at the moment. But it worked last week...

      --
      Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
    20. Re:Pathetically stupid web designers! by glwtta · · Score: 2, Informative
      "Get with the times, man."

      Oh no - flash is an abomination, not "the times." They want me to install a viewer for their non-standard animation format and then block %99.9 of what that viewer displays, just so I can click on the three links on the home page of their site?

      No, that's certifiably retarded, there's not much room for uncertainty there.

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    21. Re:Pathetically stupid web designers! by Malc · · Score: 1
      I think their web server is missconfigured. It's returning Content-Type: text/plain rather than text/html. Courtesy of Live HTTP Headers for Firefox:
      http://www.eagames.com/official/cc/redalert2/engli sh/index.shtml

      GET /official/cc/redalert2/english/index.shtml HTTP/1.1
      Host: www.eagames.com
      User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040614 Firefox/0.9
      Accept: text/xml,application/xml,application/xhtml+xml,tex t/html;q=0.9,text/plain;q=0.8,image/png,*/*;q=0.5
      Accept-Language: en-gb,en;q=0.7,en-ca;q=0.3
      Accept-Encoding: gzip,deflate
      Accept-Charset: ISO-8859-1,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.7
      Keep-Alive: 300
      Connection: keep-alive
      Referer: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=112289&cid=952 4154
      If-Modified-Since: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:00:00 GMT
      If-None-Match: "1b4810-38bd-1a9e1000"
      Cache-Control: max-age=0

      HTTP/1.x 200 OK
      Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 03:31:00 GMT
      Server: Apache
      Last-Modified: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:00:00 GMT
      Etag: "1dbe80-38bd-1a9e1000"
      Accept-Ranges: bytes
      Content-Length: 14525
      Keep-Alive: timeout=5, max=100
      Connection: Keep-Alive
      Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
    22. Re:Pathetically stupid web designers! by 87C751 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I personally think, when something as awesome as Firefly is involved, Shockwave is appreciated.
      If it's so "appreciated", why did they do such a static presentation? Ferchrissake, it's a goddamn still frame with one mouseover caption! No theme song, no flyby shot of Serenity, just a logo and three links.

      If you need Shockwave for that, you're some kind of messed up!

      --
      Mail? Put "slashdot" in the subject to pass the spam filters.
    23. Re:Pathetically stupid web designers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Methinks you are taking the internet far too seriously..

    24. Re:Pathetically stupid web designers! by Talking+Toaster · · Score: 1

      Excuse me while I go outside and throw a I-hate-flash tantrum.

      I'll grab a torch and join you.
      If we get enough people, we can form an angry mob and roam the town looking for web designers who use too much flash.

      People with Pitchforks are also welcome.

      --
      Howdy Doodly Doo!
      Anybody want some Toast?
    25. Re:Pathetically stupid web designers! by Talking+Toaster · · Score: 1

      How many non-geek people do you think are unable to view Shockwave sites?

      Quite a lot of them because their system is slugging along with all the spyware they have installed.

      --
      Howdy Doodly Doo!
      Anybody want some Toast?
    26. Re:Pathetically stupid web designers! by HybridJeff · · Score: 2, Funny
      You mean you diddnt like the badgers!?

      Badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger MUSHROOM MUSHROOM...

    27. Re:Pathetically stupid web designers! by the+real+darkskye · · Score: 1

      Well that certainly brings new meaning to the phrase "Flash Mob"

      Thank you, I'll be here all day, try the salad

      --
      Music is everybody's possession.
      It's only publishers who think that people own it.
      Fuck Beta
      ~John Lenno
    28. Re:Pathetically stupid web designers! by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 1

      They also saved my middle finger, which is over-worked on the wheel scrolling every other window.

      Sounds like they made you use that middle finger for something else though...

    29. Re:Pathetically stupid web designers! by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      Flash Bullshit: I wait for hundreds of kilobytes of useless crap to stream onto my computer. I can't control sizing. I can't print it. I can't save it.

      I've scaled (if you load a .swf file in a window by itself, no HTML, I find it naturally scales to the first constraining dimension of the browser window) and saved Flash content (simple when it is the only content in the window), imported it into QuickTime Pro, and exported it as an MPEG-2 movie for use as looping backgrounds for DVD menus. If I really wanted to print it (assuming there is static content), I'd do screen captures. There are many that will automatically crop to window content, and if not yet but soon they'll allow direct printing.

      The other points (not screen-readable for the blind by external packages and rarely provide an audio link for text-reading service themselves, rarely offering options to adjust volume, not searchable or spiderable) though are valid. Some can be addressed within the design, but any site that depends wholly on multimedia presentation without offering an alternative way to access the content is doing a disservice to many people.

      But I really wish archive.org would archive .swf files too. There's content that has disappeared from the net that I want for my DVD-Rs.

      That said, I simply suppress all flash at work. Even though my system is granted no sound card, it is too much of a distraction, and I don't care to allocate page real-estate for a click-to-view pane.

      Now if only I could get the flash advertisers on fark to stop making my browser automatically ask me if I want to save their ads to my disk!

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    30. Re:Pathetically stupid web designers! by Methuseus · · Score: 1

      You're right, I commented before the site came up due to the slashdotting in progress....

      SInce when is that new here, though? I didn't think I'd be one to further it, though.....

      --
      Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
  18. Gimme a break... by rtilghman · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Why on earth would anyone make a movie out of Firefly? Let's see, a totally unbelievable melding of the western and space genres in an almost direct take-off of Cowboy Bebop with cheesy dialog and cookie cutter characters. Yeah, right, I can see how this would be seen as original.

    I mean I know there are people out there who liked the show, but seriously, how can you even begin to compare this with the myriad number of other canceled but better shows that haven't gotten movie treatment? Let ALONE revised on TV itself.

    I'm calling it right now, this is going to be a flop of titanic proportions. Not only does it have a miniscule audience, but the main plot for the show (and any sub-polots you can dream up) can't in trhe least be compelling. A two hour extravaganza to deliver penicillin to Trillium-6! Hooray!

    The only credit I'll give Firefly was the scene in the first episode where he kicked the non-compliant bad guy into the engine's intake. THAT was original, unexpected, and highly amusing.

    -rt

    1. Re:Gimme a break... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think Titanic actually did pretty good at the box office, no flop there.

    2. Re:Gimme a break... by Cyno01 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, i think it won some award too...

      --
      "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
    3. Re:Gimme a break... by afriedel · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think you have it all wrong. This was simply one of the best shows on TV period. Not simply best Sci-fi show, best show overall.

      I made several other people fans of the show by just letting borrow my DVDs. These are female, non-geeks who hate anything sci-fi who simply love the show and were shocked that it had been cancelled.

      I don't know if you actually watched the show but it was the western motiff was just a small part of the show and only played a part in some of the episodes.

      The dialog cheesy and cookie cutter characters? Come on!! The dialog is great and very original. The characters were also unique. We had a legal prostitute, former military soldier (low rank, not a general of anything) turned business man, gorgeous amazonian warrior, not entirely loyal hired muscle, former minister looking for his way, very feminine female mechanic, dorky, talented pilot who landed the amazon and a weakly, gifted
      doctor who risked everything to save his sister.

      I don't know about you, but that is an extremely original group of characters thrown together in a very plausible way. I have never watched Cowboy beebop so I can't comment on that. What I can do is comment on is the quality of this show.

      I never post on /. but I had to on this. Go see this movie. You won't be sorry.

      --
      Aaron Friedel
    4. Re:Gimme a break... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      See above post on why the NeuroTypical just don't get the show. The whole point was a centrally controling military/industrial complex wins a big war and makes the rest of the world poor, including a part of itself. Replace planets with Europe/Canada/United States (after WWII) or the North in the Civil War, and you've got the REAL plot line. The rest is just surface story to bring out the deeper character development and commentary on the evil corporatists who seek to turn even human life itself to their goals (not sure what those goals are yet- I've yet to watch the DVDs but caught every episode Fox broadcast. WHY did they need to rip away that girl's ability to shield herself emotionally? What purpose did that serve?)

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    5. Re:Gimme a break... by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Criticism of the mix of high tech space stuff and low tech western stuff strikes me as silly, when all you have to do is look around in the real world, and you'll see a far wider range in technology levels on just this one planet than they showed in the whole Firefly galaxy.

    6. Re:Gimme a break... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it's not a direct ripoff of Cowboy Beebop. Cowboy Beebop is set in a solar system that's just like late 20th century Japan, and has a small crew of three major characters and two supporting characters (Radical Edward and the Dog) trying to get away from their pasts (ok, Faye doesn't know she's trying to get away from her past, but then her past is a lot further back than most), and none of them in the end succeeding. Cowboy Beebop is always on the side of the law, though they do bend it a lot. And "the law" on Cowboy Beebop is pretty anarchic. Also, in Cowboy Beebop, Earth still exists, even if it's a shambles.

      Firefly is about a much larger crew of 9 people who are all in one way or another trying to stay ahead of the always-encroaching Blue Sun/Alliance authoritarianism, mostly by breaking the law in a mildly good natured but not entirely excusable way. It's a solar system (and not ours) which is in many ways like the 19th century West. All in all, the main thing I can see that they have in common is that they're both small-spacecraft-based hard SF. In that sense, they have lots of predecessors.

    7. Re:Gimme a break... by sergeant_x · · Score: 0

      You are funny. I laughed, thank you.

    8. Re:Gimme a break... by kalidasa · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you can stomach anime at all, you'll probably like Cowboy Beebop. It's just similar enough in tone to Firefly to be interesting (but not enough to make Firefly "a ripoff").

    9. Re:Gimme a break... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, thanks for stopping by.

    10. Re:Gimme a break... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you didn't watch all the episodes i take it?
      All the episodes except one take place
      on the outer Rim colonies (planets, asteroids,
      moons, etc) .. where most ppl are poor, or mildly
      wealthy (middle class-like)..
      the one episode where the crew goes to the world of Ariel you see how rich they are..
      cameras everywhere, security systems protecting
      the hospital completely, all the security guards
      have massive laser guns..and the MIB-types
      have a badass stick thing that gives ppl aneurysms to kill them..
      yah, the inner worlds got the money and the power
      but it's also got the Alliance.. meaning it's
      a place Serenity and her crew *CAN'T BE*!!
      as far as the western motif, hey, they're poor
      farmers and cattle rustler folk out there,
      makes as much sense as anythign else..

      wrt to weapons, slug throwers are cheap, and
      you don't need no fancy tech facilities to build
      em , just a blacksmith :)
      so the "firefly universe" is not so odd as one
      might think... there is logic in there :)

      --vat

    11. Re:Gimme a break... by nzkbuk · · Score: 1

      former minister looking for his way

      Not so sure about that part of you watch some of it. I got the impression that there was alot more to the character after they used his ID in one of the episodes and were let free

    12. Re:Gimme a break... by AsimovBesterClarke · · Score: 1

      Not to dismaiss anything you wrote..... (really I do agree) but....

      > but that is an extremely original group of characters

      I suppose if your experience with science fiction has been centered around movies and the tube, it is extremely original. Hell, even if you don't limit it to science fiction.

      --
      Ads are broken.
    13. Re:Gimme a break... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Criticism of the mix of high tech space stuff and low tech western stuff strikes me as silly,

      That would be because you are not a 14 year old who's only life-experience amounts to what he can weasel out of mom-n-dad after the divorce.

    14. Re:Gimme a break... by afriedel · · Score: 1

      By no means did I mean that that was all there was to the Book character. I do believe he was a very religious man in the show. That does not mean he did not have a life before he found his religion. That is what is good about these characters. The depth behind them. The fact that we are even talking about it is a good thing. How often do you talk about the layers of captians Sisko(DS9) or Sheridan(B5)?

      --
      Aaron Friedel
    15. Re:Gimme a break... by neurojab · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >Criticism of the mix of high tech space stuff and low tech western stuff strikes me as silly..

      I agree. Think about it this way: Imagine if you were going to colonize another planet, that was earthlike in enviromnent. Which would you rather bring with you: A car, or a horse? A car requires a replenishable source of gasoline, a mechanic, new tires now and then, belts, hoses, wiring... a car is not viable outside a civilization that can support it. A horse, on the other hand, just needs some room to run and some plants to graze on. In the same token, would you rather have a knife or a laser pistol that runs on Duracells?

      I think Joss Wheadon was right on when he predicted that colonization would result in a return to older technologies... or at least not throwing away the tried and true.

    16. Re:Gimme a break... by Chagrin · · Score: 1

      Where Firefly is "gritty western" style, Bebop is "gritty urban" style. The grittiness is about the only similarity, but the characters of both series do have about equal depth, if you want to mark that as a similarity.

      If you liked one you'll like the other.

      --

      I/O Error G-17: Aborting Installation

    17. Re:Gimme a break... by Talking+Toaster · · Score: 1

      *** Possible Spoiler Warning ***

      It is possible that he is using the identity of Shepherd as a cover for being a secret agent or something.

      *** Possible Spoiler Warning ***

      --
      Howdy Doodly Doo!
      Anybody want some Toast?
    18. Re:Gimme a break... by aled · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Let's not forget the economics. There are laser guns, it's only that rich people have them. Why? I suppose they are too expesive for low class people that lives in the outer side of the galaxy.

      --

      "I think this line is mostly filler"
    19. Re:Gimme a break... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The chance of finding a planet that is somehow biologically compatible with Earth is ridiculously silly to even consider - what would these horses graze on?

      If the planets were terraformed first or something and THEN somehow were forgotten and reverted back to some more primative, but now, earthlike state then MAYBE...

      Having said, i loved the series - it was a stretch, but so is a bunch of aliens that look more like humans than chimps do (Trek, Star Wars, etc)...

    20. Re:Gimme a break... by Flyboy+Connor · · Score: 1
      A car requires a replenishable source of gasoline, a mechanic, new tires now and then, belts, hoses, wiring... a car is not viable outside a civilization that can support it. A horse, on the other hand, just needs some room to run and some plants to graze on.

      Until it dies, or gets ill... Actually, what I would bring is a car with cheap, easily replacable parts. And I would not bring horses but use the local fauna, if possible. There has to be local fauna if it's an earth-like environment: the fauna shapes the environment. In the same token, would you rather have a knife or a laser pistol that runs on Duracells?

      A laser pistol that runs on solar power. And a knife.

      Personally I thought it was weird that the colonists copied the old west in detail, including weapon design, outfits, and entourage. I was relieved to see a whorehouse covered in solar cells in one episode.

      All that said, I think it is silly to critisize an SF premise, whatever it is. It's a premise. As long as the authors do not deviate from it, you should accept it.

    21. Re:Gimme a break... by Illserve · · Score: 1

      An easy to maintain car is far more reliable than a horse. There's a million things that can go wrong with a biological organism that you can't hope to fix.

      But with a simple car, and a fair bit of nohow, you could run that thing reliably for years.

      Now one thing that horses do that cars don't is reproduce....

    22. Re:Gimme a break... by spike1 · · Score: 1

      Cars don't have a built in self-repair mechanism either.

    23. Re:Gimme a break... by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      Until it dies, or gets ill...

      Yeah, but you can't take two cars, a bottle of wine and candles and make a whole load of minis from them...

    24. Re:Gimme a break... by Fizzleboink · · Score: 1

      WHY did they need to rip away that girl's ability to shield herself emotionally? What purpose did that serve?

      Well it was because they were trying to experiement on an idea to create psychics, and she (Summer) was the guinea pig. By not being able to shield emotions, she would feel everything, including things that WOULD happen.

    25. Re:Gimme a break... by jasenj1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Cars are only useful where there are roads.

      Horses can navigate a FAR greater range of terrain than any wheeled vehicle.

      And a pair of horses can produce more horses.

      As for the technology divide in the show, I think it's right on. We have places on this planet where people ride from village to village with a satellite phone and make money allowing others to make calls.

      - Jasen.

    26. Re:Gimme a break... by nzkbuk · · Score: 1

      That's exactly what I was meaning.

      It's great that each character had such depth. And Book being a secret agent or something,

      There were hints there, but unless he was from some 5th column in the corp trying to protect the doc & sister, then why would a spy hang around with this lot ?

      There's only one thing that makes the crew / ship 'too small time' to be bothered with.

    27. Re:Gimme a break... by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      They're also hard SF set on a small spacecraft with crews that walk the edges of legality (on Beebop, the near edge, on Firefly, the far edge). Not only gritty, they're both quite dark in a pessimistic sort of way (though Beebop is DARK, and Firefly is only Buffy-dark). They have a number of similarities in tone, though there're pretty marked differences as well. I'd certainly consider them closer to one another than either is to e.g. *Pitch Black* or *Alien*.

  19. Don't get too excited! by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When was the last time you waited for a movie to come out and it was good?

    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    1. Re:Don't get too excited! by AvantLegion · · Score: 2, Funny
      When was the last time you waited for a movie to come out and it was good?

      D00d, all kinds!

      Star Wars Episode I

      Star Wars Episode II

      Teh Hulk

      Ma7r1x Reloaded

      Ma7r1x Revolutions

      Troy

      Jersey Girl

      Chocolat

      All aewsum!!!111

    2. Re:Don't get too excited! by Man+of+E · · Score: 1

      Lord of the Rings, for instance. Don't let Star Wars and the Matrix sequels embitter you forever, decent movies will still get made every once in a while. I'm sure the filmmakers appreciate it if there's some excitement building, and that's the way to bring people who didn't watch the TV series into the cinema.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une sig
    3. Re:Don't get too excited! by Surt · · Score: 1

      Dang, I agreed with all except one of those. Now I have to wonder if I missed something in the rest.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    4. Re:Don't get too excited! by arabagast · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Holy smoke, have you forgotten the LOTR trilogy already ?

      (Yes, there where some letdowns, but generally PJ did a fantastic job!)

      --
      Doolittle : ...What is your one purpose in life?
      Bomb no.20 : To explode of course.
    5. Re:Don't get too excited! by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

      I did forget. Thanks for reminding me. Though I have to admit I thought that I thought the last third or so of III was pretty bad. Luckily it was only a trilogy, the IVth movie would probably have been terrible. (Now that's a pretty absurd counterfactual.)

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    6. Re:Don't get too excited! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you're a negative shithead with the memory span of a housefly and we're all supposed to curb our enthusiasm in sympathy.

      I think not.

    7. Re:Don't get too excited! by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

      Go back to watching Matrix 2/3 & Star Wars 1/2.

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    8. Re:Don't get too excited! by HybridJeff · · Score: 1
      Ive got news for you, they're making a forth. (The Hobbit). Well, the probabally will be, once they figure out all the legal mumbo jumbo over who gets to make it.

      But then again, its harder to screw up a sequel if its allready been written. Its not like they're just saying, "Hey LOTR did great, quick lets think up another story to cash in on the bandwagon." Well they might be saying that, but that other story is already written. And it good writing.

    9. Re:Don't get too excited! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOTR

  20. No tv series for a while... by Mechanized+Elf · · Score: 5, Informative
    Posts by Nathan Fillion on one of the fansites indicated that the movie deal with Paramount was exclusive--i.e. that there would be no TV series until the film franchise has run its course. Assuming the deal is a standard 3-film option, we can assume that Firefly is reserved for the big screen for at least the next few years. Kind of a shame since the prolific Joss Whedon really shines in serial format.

    Maybe the answer is an entirely new distribution channel like Mark Cuban's HDNet. Whedon should not be burdened with product placements and FOX-style scorecarding.

    1. Re:No tv series for a while... by Daetrin · · Score: 1

      Wait, they've got a deal for _more_ than one movie?? And this is not good news how? As long as every geek makes sure to go out and see each movie three or four times, we'll get a couple movies out of it and much higher odds of another tv series after the fact :)

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    2. Re:No tv series for a while... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A deal for more than one movie is not good when you realize how few of them are ever actually made. More or less, they are betting big on the first movie. If it doesn't work out to be as big as expected, I wouldn't hold your breath on another coming out till the option expires.

      Personally I hope it rocks the box office, turns into excellent sequels, and is born again as a tee vee show. That said, I am not counting on it happening, just wishful thinking.

  21. Re:The unofficial site is also well worth a look.. by fermion · · Score: 1

    Congratulations on getting to be an extra. Went to the page, went to guerrilla marketing, and tried to look the money and forum link. In camino got an error on both, too many redirects. May not be your site, but something seems like it is broken.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  22. Two Words: Friday Night by BrickM · · Score: 1

    When Firefly was still on the air, Fox played it Friday nights, about 8ish if I recall. Even though I liked the one or two episodes I caught, I missed most of the season because I was never at home Friday night to watch TV. Classic Fox - just like airing Futurama on Sundays after sports events that ALWAYS run over time. Bah.

    1. Re:Two Words: Friday Night by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I missed most of the season because I was never at home Friday night to watch TV.

      Aren't all Nerds home on Friday programming their DVRs?

  23. What is Firefly? by mcguyver · · Score: 1

    Taken from imdb...

    The film centers around Captain Malcolm Reynolds, a hardened veteran (on the losing side) of a galactic civil war, who now ekes out a living pulling off small crimes and transport-for-hire aboard his ship, "Serenity." He leads a small, eclectic crew who are the closest thing he has left to family -- squabbling, insubordinate and undyingly loyal. When Mal takes on two new passengers -- a young doctor and his unstable, telepathic sister -- he gets much more than he bargained for. The pair are fugitives from the coalition dominating the universe, who will stop at nothing to reclaim the girl. The crew that was once used to skimming the outskirts of the galaxy unnoticed find themselves caught between the unstoppable military force of the Universal Alliance and the horrific, cannibalistic fury of the Reavers, savages who roam the very edge of space. Hunted by vastly different enemies, they begin to discover that the greatest danger to them may be on board "Serenity" herself.

    1. Re:What is Firefly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well if that's the plot for the movie I'll probably not see it. It would seriously discredit what was a great series cut short.
      It's just one of the episodes re-shot.
      Most of the fun part of watching a movie is that you don't know exactly what's going to happen or the plot twists.

  24. Ron Glass by hchaos · · Score: 4, Informative

    Is finally being listed in the cast. I've always thought Book was one of the more interesting characters of the show.

    1. Re:Ron Glass by Cyno01 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah, to bad the show got canned before they could get around to what his deal was. "How's a preacher know so much 'bout crime?"

      --
      "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
    2. Re:Ron Glass by kalidasa · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah, to bad the show got canned before they could get around to what his deal was. "How's a preacher know so much 'bout crime?

      "That's no preacher." I figure he must be an exile from Blue Sun who sided with the browncoats, but for some reason is still considered untouchable.

    3. Re:Ron Glass by Scrameustache · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "That's no preacher." I figure he must be an exile from Blue Sun who sided with the browncoats, but for some reason is still considered untouchable.

      "I don't give a damn if you're innocent or not! So where does that put you? Hmmm?"

      I don't think he sided with the loosers, I think he was a high ranking official who suddenly realised that the ends did not justify the horrible means he was using. He's obviously trying to atone for his sins.
      Though I think we'll curse his sudden but inevitable betrayal when he realises that the Alliance needs River (possibly to defeat the Reavers).

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    4. Re:Ron Glass by sql*kitten · · Score: 2, Funny

      Too... much... hair!!

  25. Obligatory Ballad of Serenity by methangel · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Take my love
    Take my land
    Take me where I cannot stand
    I don't care
    I'm still free
    You can't take the sky from me

    Take me out
    To the black tell 'em I ain't coming back
    Burn the land
    And boil the sea
    You can't take the sky from me

    Have no place
    I can be
    Since I found Serenity
    But you can't take the sky from me

    This is one of the catchiest show songs I have heard in a long time. I remember thinking it was kind of a weird song for a space show the first episode of Firefly I ever saw. Pretty soon I found myself singing along.

    I can't wait to see the movie!!!

  26. Story Correction by errxn · · Score: 0, Troll

    The phrase "The official Universal Pictures web site for the Firefly Movie 'Serenity' is up" should be corrected to read "The official Universal Pictures web site for the Firefly Movie 'Serenity' was up".

    Thank you.

    --
    In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
    1. Re:Story Correction by levin · · Score: 0

      Sig sig = new Sig();

      No, no, no. It's:

      Sig sig;
      sig = malloc(sizeof(Sig));

      --

      `which fortune`
    2. Re:Story Correction by errxn · · Score: 0

      Ha! Almost. It's actually:

      Masochist masochist;
      masochist = malloc(sizeof(Masochist));

      --
      In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
    3. Re:Story Correction by levin · · Score: 0

      Touche.

      *bows*

      --

      `which fortune`
    4. Re:Story Correction by sparrow_hawk · · Score: 1
      No, no, no... malloc() returns a void pointer, so it's:
      Masochist *masochist;
      masochist = (Masochist *) malloc(sizeof(Masochist));
      Geekier than thou... (wink)
    5. Re:Story Correction by errxn · · Score: 1

      Yet...somehow proving my point...

      *bows*

      --
      In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
    6. Re:Story Correction by sparrow_hawk · · Score: 1

      Can you tell I've been working on data structures in C lately?

      Oh! Harder! malloc() me harder!

  27. Re: why did Fox cancel? by Poseidon88 · · Score: 1
    PenguinOpus wrote: I didn't watch any of the episodes on Fox because I hadn't even discovered Buffy yet.
    You just answered your own question. Nobody was watching it. I caught two or three episodes, but mainly by accident (flipping through channels on a rare Friday night at home). But then, the reason nobody was watching it was because Fox didn't advertise it. Much like they did with Futurama, they set the show up to fail by not letting anyone know it was on.
  28. Re:The unofficial site is also well worth a look.. by Hortensia+Patel · · Score: 1

    No, it's not my site - I'm not affiliated with it in any way, which unfortunately means I don't get to be an extra. Maybe they should hold a competition; you know, send in a picture of some piece of land/sea which doesn't deserve to be burned/boiled...

    Odd that you're having Camino problems - it's still zippy even after being linked to on /., and has always worked fine for me (Moz 1.6).

  29. Re:Utter pish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes it is open source. Download it here

  30. Couldn't disagree with you more. by Mechanized+Elf · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The fusion of western motifs with space travel comes from Whedon's interest in the confederate south in the aftermath of the US Civil War. Totally unrelated.

    And it's Cowboy Bebop that has the cookie-cutter characters, not Firefly. Firefly's characters are among the deepest I've seen on any television show, ever. That's why it's audience has grown--even as FOX railroaded it off-the-air.

    I highly recommend a second viewing of the show on DVD, starting with the proper pilot episode, which never aired. You need to give this show another chance.

    You say you're "calling it right now" and that this is going to be a "flop of titanic proportions"? Whew! I'll take that bet as far as you like. This movie may not reign supreme at the box office, but it will outperform on DVD, just as the series has.

  31. meh by grahagre · · Score: 0

    how unnecessary, most people will still just use yahoo to look up movie showtimes ;-P

    1. Re:meh by AussieVamp2 · · Score: 1

      yahoo has movie times?

  32. What misuse? by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1
    B5 was nearly fatally wounded by it's misuse of the time line.
    What misuse? The [SPOLIER ALERT] Sinclair / Valen thing was perhaps the most ingenius use of the timeline I have ever seen.
    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
    1. Re:What misuse? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      I agree- Makes for a VERY interesting religious commentary as well. Judaism/Catholicism was evident throughout B5- then you end up having the most Catholic character in the whole series become a martyr, go back in time, and start the religion of an entire alien race who becomes central to fighting the ultimate evil of the Shadows. Best use of time travel I've ever seen.

      Those who do not like time travel in sci-fi are the ones who can't wrap their minds around the changes possible and the shifts in timelines. Enterprise is a great example- the end of the season cliffhanger had Reptilians thrown back in time to WWII and joining forces with the Nazis- that's why in the 22nd century Enterprise's shuttle was being shot at by Nazi propeller-driven planes. The Temporal Cold War is heating up- and is the REAL central theme of the show.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    2. Re:What misuse? by aled · · Score: 1

      Oh no! And I was sure it couldn't be worst...

      --

      "I think this line is mostly filler"
  33. Harry Potter!!!! by Fuzzums · · Score: 1

    But you have a point.
    A friend of mine discribed he feeled insulted and scammed after seeing the day after tomorrow ;)

    But hey. That's the power of the media (which can and will be bought). Look at a program like Idols. The whole concept is to create a mediahype and to profit from the spinn-off.

    Same thing with Bush by the way. In the aspect of using the media to influence the people.

    And how can media be independent if they depend on their income (generated by their advertisers).
    So if the advertisers fay a movie is good the media say 'how high'.

    Don't don't don't believe the hype. Wait 'till you hear the first reactions from your friends. Then you'll know if it was worth waiting for it :)

    --
    Privacy is terrorism.
    1. Re:Harry Potter!!!! by tricops · · Score: 1

      Insulted and scammed? Too bad, I kinda liked that movie. The plot was a bit cheesy/predictable, but the overall feel of the movie... well, as far as disaster movies go, I liked it a hell of a lot better than Armageddon/etc.

      Of course, I didn't really pay much attention to previews/media beforehand.

      --
      (\(\
      (^v^)
      (")")
      This is the cute vorpal bunny virus, copy to your sig or runaway, runaway in fear!
    2. Re:Harry Potter!!!! by Fuzzums · · Score: 1

      Those were his words...

      Maybe ist's a watch-on-tv-in-two-years-movie but I'm still curious :)

      --
      Privacy is terrorism.
  34. Buffy season 7... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Season 7 of Buffy sucked - do yourself a favor and skip it. Or if you have to watch it, just realize the show was awesome for seasons 1-5. Seasons 6 and 7 were downhill...

  35. I just went by the set of Serenity by duffhuff · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I was at Universal Studios Hollywood on Tuesday. During the studio tour (where you drive around on the busses) we went through a "quiet zone" where they were filming several movies. Right beside the Jurassic Park ride was the set of Serenity, and who was right outside the set? None other then Nathan Fillion, the Captain himself.

    Although I don't subscribe to the obsessive-fan mantra, being a huge fan of Firefly and seeing him, dressed in his usual captain garb, was the highlight of the day for me.

    I really hope the new movie does well, but either way, we've kept flying.

  36. Re: why did Fox cancel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No Futurama mainly failed because it kept getting run over by sports. Well, that and the Fox network executives suck.

  37. http://www.serenitymovie.com/blog/index.php by skoffus · · Score: 1

    http://www.serenitymovie.com/blog/index.php

  38. My first thoughts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    They're making a movie about a web browser?

  39. browncoats.serenitymovie.com/serenity/index.html?f by jesser · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's good that the site has such a short, easy-to-remember URL.

    --
    The shareholder is always right.
  40. Jewel Saite by doormat · · Score: 2, Funny

    Ever since I found out the cute engineer girl is married i lost all interest in the show. Sigh..

    --
    The Doormat

    If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
    1. Re:Jewel Saite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's just unbelievably pathetic and sad.

      Not that she's married -- that you feel that way.

      Loser.

    2. Re:Jewel Saite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She's married at age 22? Feh! Just wait a year or two, she'll be available again.

      My patience paid off waiting for Jennifer Garner's marriage to end, but then that bastard who's on Alias with her cock-blocked me before I could make my move.

    3. Re:Jewel Saite by PurplePhase · · Score: 1

      You're wrong - that really cute engineer Kaylee is not married! But there are blooming possibilities with Simon :)

      As for the actress... And if you don't think there's a difference, take a gander at the DVD boxed set and watch the extras/listen to the extra commentary.

      8-PP

    4. Re:Jewel Saite by LetterJ · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Because you had a chance. Dear Lord, if your fantasy life can't cope with marital status in your fantasy targets, you may need a little more imagination.

    5. Re:Jewel Saite by alwayslurking · · Score: 1

      Just make sure you're ready to call dibs when she's single again and get over it....

  41. But the DVD.. you owe it to yourself by Random_Goblin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Firefly is not a nerd-science sci-fi show, there is no techno babble, just really good scripting, and real characters.

    Don't go into it thinking its all about space ships, technobabble and special effects, its not.

    Its a set of really good stories,(think the good the bad and the ugly in space) told against a backdrop that happens to be sci-fi.

    In fact I think that is the mark of good sci-fi, (at least in print, most film adaptations suffer somewhat), the story is the important thing, the science part is just a way of looking at the human conditon through a different lens, and enabling new and interesting questions to be asked.

    I think it is probably the best science fiction series that has been aired on tv... which was probably why it was canned so quickly

  42. That explains it by Snaller · · Score: 1

    I was wondering why the site was so sluggish and timing out with errors.... slashdotting underway! *g*

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  43. Let's hope this version is better than the other by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    I sure hope this new version of this movie will be better than Kevin Costner's attempt at it!!!

    *crosses fingers*

  44. Who sued now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Firefly? Mozilla changed the name again?

  45. Re:Blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Haha - Loser! You wasted mod points on my comment? What a jackass!

  46. Re:The unofficial site is also well worth a look.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And let's not forget the more important movie: Fahrenheit 9/11 opens tomorrow, skewering all the Bush lies with a +10 Vorpal sword!

  47. ok, this tends to annoy me by glwtta · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Do you really need flash for a title, a release date and three links? If you REALLY want that swishy effect for the title (which I'll agree, is just groingrabbingly fantastic!), is it so hard to put the three freaking links outside the flash thing, as well?

    What's wrong with these people?

    --
    sic transit gloria mundi
  48. Mozilla Fire- by Shinglor · · Score: 2, Funny

    Sounds like good future name for Phoenix, Firefly 1.0?

  49. Oh, you don't mean *Fire*fox... by semifamous · · Score: 1

    For a second there I thought that Mozilla had changed the name of their browser again...

    Then I thought, "A movie based on a browser? That can't be right..."

    Then I remembered that Firefly is the show that got Dark Angel's timeslot when DA got cancelled.

    So I think my brain has caught up with the current train of thought, but I've never actually watched Firefly, so I can't really comment on that part of it. I guess I'll have to borrow my friend's DVDs before the movie comes out.

  50. Simpler link by Erick+the+Red · · Score: 1
    --

    DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE

    ok
  51. The unofficial site is better than the official by Talking+Toaster · · Score: 1

    The unofficial site is worth more of a look that the official one.

    The official one seems to be mostly flash or something. I click on Synopsis and it gives a popup that I can't scroll using my mouse or keyboard. You have to click on little arrows to get it for scroll.

    What the (explicatives deleted) is wrong with the (more deleted) web designers?????

    I ran a check with http://validator.w3.org/ and it found 22 violations. OK this is the first time I used this tool but there is hardly any content on this site.

    Then again, this really isn't suprising. It seems most official movie web sites suck.

    --
    Howdy Doodly Doo!
    Anybody want some Toast?
    1. Re:The unofficial site is better than the official by strider_starslayer · · Score: 1

      I ran google.ca through the validator and got 37 errors, so I dbought the effectiveness of this utility.

      --
      -Millions of Monkeys, Millions of typewriters, 6 hours of sorting through faeces encrusted pages to find: This post
  52. Re:Blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually it was very smart of them. They'll get meta-modded up for modding you down, and get even more mod points to play with. You're an idiot.

  53. New name for favourite browser by akincisor · · Score: 1

    Yes! This is the new name for your favourite browser!!

  54. Insensitive Clod by tqft · · Score: 2, Informative

    I tried all the DVD stores in Brisbane Australia. No Firefly released or planned to be released in Australia.

    Firefly not released in Australia (Region 4). Store guy recommened downloading it off the intenet.

    Anyone seen Region 4 DVD of the series available.

    BTW; it has also not been shown on TV here either.

    --
    The Singularity is closer than you think
    Quant
    1. Re:Insensitive Clod by jordand · · Score: 2, Informative

      According to EzyDVD, it will be available on 4 August 2004.

      If you can't wait that long, I recommend getting the UK edition (it's coded for region 2 and 4, so it will probably be identical to the local release)

      --
      .sigh
    2. Re:Insensitive Clod by tqft · · Score: 1

      Most brilliant find Sir (Ms/s?)

      Thank you

      --
      The Singularity is closer than you think
      Quant
  55. Re:Affiliate Link by Chatmag · · Score: 1

    No doubt about it. Take a look at the list of the top 10 members on the center left side of the page. serenitymovie.com

    --
    Pete Carr Owner Chatmag.com
  56. Theory on "Companions" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The "Companion" thing is a little bit strange. I think the idea is that it is a cultural thing that has spread from Chinese, or possibly Japanese, culture, but it still doesn't quite make sense.

    In traditional Japan, Geishas (who should not be confused with prostitutes) were and are revered members of society. They basically act as hostesses, and their special talent was conversing with men in a culture where men's and women's lives did not intersect and where men and women did not talk together. They are also entertainers, performing traditional music and dance. The word means something like "artist." And yes, some of them do/did have "special" men friends, but the relationship is earned by the man, not bought. If you want to read an explanation of this that has not been sensationalized into soft porn, I recommend Geisha by anthropologist Liza Dalby.

    In China, also, there were courtesans of varying status. Some were little better than prostitutes, but others-- the especially lovely and talented-- were of very high social status indeed. It is important to understand that the culture was not like our puritanical one. A girl would be chosen for a life as a courtesan when she was very young and would spend years training for her job. Becoming a courtesan was not something they had a choice about, and so being a courtesan was not associated with immorality as it would be in our culture. A really high-class courtesan would be supremely well educated, and again, a major part of her job was to be a hostess and an excellent conversationalist.

    This idea is not limited to Asia. In ancient Greece (a culture in which men would seal the door of the house with sealing wax so as to be certain that their wife did not go out and talk to anyone while they were gone), married women were basically owned by their husbands and were not allowed to learn to read or write. One of those ancient Greek guys, I can't remember who, made a remark that homosexual love was normal because how could you have anything in common with the incredibly uneducated women of their culture-- he found all women unlovable because of their lack of sophistication. (To avoid overgeneralization, remember that the Spartan women were better treated and had higher status.) However, there were "Hetaera," who again were educated courtesans who enjoyed social freedoms denied to most women. Like Geishas, they were hostesses, and would wind up as the mistresses of powerful men who spent no small effort winning their affection.

    However, even though courtesans with high social status like the "Companions" in Firefly have existed in history, they tend to exist in cultures where there is a big gap between male and female society and very well-defined gender roles. But the world of Firefly is very egalitarian, it doesn't make sense. I thought perhaps only the border worlds were egalitarian, but that society in the Core planets tended to keep its women in harem-like seclusion. But once we see episodes involving Core planets, that theory is blown out of the water. The only thing that I can think of is that perhaps in the world of Firefly, the art of "companionship" has developed to the point that people seek out those who are really good at it just as we seek out people who play musical instruments or sing really well so we can see them perform. Could "companions" be superstars of a kind of performance art? It's the only thing that makes sense to me.

    Sorry for long post.

    1. Re:Theory on "Companions" by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      However, even though courtesans with high social status like the "Companions" in Firefly have existed in history, they tend to exist in cultures where there is a big gap between male and female society and very well-defined gender roles. But the world of Firefly is very egalitarian, it doesn't make sense.

      Which is the source of my confusion. Upper class courtesans have existed throughout history, but they only appear in certain kinds of societies. And Firefly does not portray that kind of society.

      Now that you bring up the concept of geishas, I'm tempted to think that Joss is basing companions on them, but using a tawdry sensationalist account of them, rather than a more accurate historical view.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    2. Re:Theory on "Companions" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I should have also mentioned: "hetaera" translates as "companion."

    3. Re:Theory on "Companions" by TheRevenant · · Score: 1

      As you say, _historically_ that has been the case. But I doubt we've tried out every type of society yet. I could be wrong, but I think generally egalitarian societies (and a number of others) have tended to frown upon sex. Maybe all it takes for a high-class courtesan class to appear is a greater acceptance of sex. Or complete eradication of STDs. Or something else we haven't seen yet...

    4. Re:Theory on "Companions" by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      But I doubt we've tried out every type of society yet.

      We don't have to. Speculative fiction isn't about picking odd social traits and behaviors out of a hat and saying "look at me I've created a futuristic society!" That society must make sense and be internally consistant. You can't just have upper class courtesans slumming about in rustbuckets along the rim, without giving a reason why.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    5. Re:Theory on "Companions" by TheRevenant · · Score: 1

      Based on Joss Whedon's other work, I strongly suspect the answer was coming, but the show was axed before they had a chance to reveal it.

  57. However... by idontneedanickname · · Score: 1

    However there are pieces of sci-fi whose purpose is to introduce a new scientific concept by way of a story. Think The Fountains of Paradise. Also some of the best sci-fi stories are those who analyze/show the effects of some new invention, scientific discovery, etc. on society. So far I've found these exclusively in text.

  58. Astonishing X-Men by mattwolfewvu · · Score: 2, Informative
    I admit, I haven't watched any of Joss Whedon's shows. However, he is writing the new X-Men comic, and so far I am really enjoying his story setup and take on the characters. Issue 2 came out this week, as well as a "Director's Cut" of Issue 1.

    If you're out of the X-Men loop, (or never in it in the first place), Issue 1 does a decent job of setting up the situation and characters, though it does make more sense if you've been following the recent story lines. Hopefully I'll get to check out Firefly soon, since his comic writing reflects well on him.

    --
    "I think that when you become a Republican, you don't get to score any more." -- Butt-head
  59. Saw the Firefly episodes by Perdition · · Score: 1

    While I wish them all the luck in whatever world they inhabit, the series was drekkish. The characters were seemingly handcrafted for conflict and dichotomy to the point that it's almost Jerry Springerish out there. Everyone's volatile, all the relationships are strained and uncooperative, etc. It's just an easy way of drawing and maintaining plot tension through antagonism. Plus, you get the added bonus of knowing without a shadow of a doubt that they're never, ever going to kill off a character until they've run a few seasons down the pipe and determined viewer reaction. You're somehow telling me this fanatically incompatible hodge-podge of critically-massed character constructs sticks together like glue? Pshaw. It was vaguely believable in the Star Trek incarnations, due to there being a quasi-miltary reason for being aboard a common vessel, but on some smuggler's run-down ship?
    You want to impress me with this show, kill the captain in the third episode, have a struggle for possession of the ship itself (which costs namable characters' lives), and follow plot from there. Three episodes later, blow up the ship forever, strand them on a planet where they're dirt poor and unable to run from their pasts and chase their futures. Plus, they have to get a new ship. Have transient characters which are awesome and cool and leave for no explainable reason in episode 12 or so. They just say, "this is my stop", and hop off. Lather, rinse, repeat. One last beef: artificial gravity. Either lose it, or base the thing on a planet and never leave it.
    Calling a group of cool, quirky characters delving into their personal problems while embroiled in an epic struggle on a single ship where "down" is always the floor "innovative" is a bit dumb.

    --
    Windows XP SP2 told me to install third-party software that prevents viruses and protects stability... I chose Ubuntu
    1. Re:Saw the Firefly episodes by PurplePhase · · Score: 1

      Must not feed trolls....

      I'm just glad they don't want to impress you!

      8-PP

    2. Re:Saw the Firefly episodes by Scrameustache · · Score: 4, Insightful

      all the relationships are strained and uncooperative

      Ywah, that guy and his sister, what a strained and uncooperative relationship! Or the flirty thing he had with the mechanic! Whoa! Thalk about animosity there! Like cats and dogs!
      Oh! Or the preacher and the merc, training together, with the talking and joking around, boy, that was brutal! And that married couple? Now there's hate at its purest form! Or the captain and the mechanic, she loves her captain and he treats her like his daughter...I'm surprised they didn't kill each other in the first shows! Etc.
      Sheesh.

      Plus, you get the added bonus of knowing without a shadow of a doubt that they're never, ever going to kill off a character until they've run a few seasons

      When the show was cancelled, Inara had just told the captain she was leaving the ship...
      Whedon is the only writer out there not afraid to kill off his characters. Go troll some other thread now.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    3. Re:Saw the Firefly episodes by TheMeddler · · Score: 1

      "One last beef: artificial gravity. Either lose it, or base the thing on a planet and never leave it."
      Artificial gravity on a entry-level TV budget? Are you kidding? So let me get this straight - you can accept FTL space travel, "reaver" space pirates, and the transition of bluegrass to spacegrass, but you have a problem with artificial gravity?

      --
      90% Professional Slacker
    4. Re:Saw the Firefly episodes by sql*kitten · · Score: 1

      You want to impress me with this show, kill the captain in the third episode, have a struggle for possession of the ship itself (which costs namable characters' lives), and follow plot from there. Three episodes later, blow up the ship forever, strand them on a planet where they're dirt poor and unable to run from their pasts and chase their futures. Plus, they have to get a new ship.

      You've pretty much described the plot of the old BBC sci-fi series Blake's 7. Blake gets whacked, Avon takes over, their ship the Liberator is lost, they get a new ship (don't recall its name offhand) etc etc etc.

    5. Re:Saw the Firefly episodes by Lightwarrior · · Score: 1

      > Plus, you get the added bonus of knowing without a shadow of a doubt that they're never, ever going to kill off a character until they've run a few seasons down the pipe and determined viewer reaction.

      That's not how Joss Whedon does it. He makes you *LIKE* the characters before he kills them off. Season 2 of Buffy, he turned the heroine's love into a monster who rivals Hannibal Lector in terms of genius brutality, killed off the one person who knew how to save him, and ended the season by having the heroine send her love to Hell for eternity (who had *just* returned to his former self).

      You want me to list all the tragedies that occured in that show? Just as you were getting to like a character, or become comfortable with them, they have an aneurism, or get their eye poked out, or get shot in the chest and die. Buffy herself died twice.

      He's done it in his other show, Angel, too - at least four main characters died in the five season run.

      You don't kill off anyone important in the first season because the audience hasn't had time to get attached yet. If you can count on anything in the Whedonverse, it's that characters you care about are not immortal.

      -lw

      --
      Mods: Disagreeing with me != my post Offtopic / Flamebait.
      World without hate or war, invaded. Tragic?
  60. Re:Firefly rocks - and FOX SUX by crsgrg · · Score: 0

    I hope you're right. I lost all hope of it being picked up by another network since it didn't happen right away, and the cast and creators were bound to move on to other work. However, since they will be together again for the movie, "Hope Lives Again" (sorry, wrong show).

    At least I can watch reruns on DVD (although FOX did their standard substandard authoring of the set - pathetically slow menus, but at least it's widescreen).

  61. jeez, arrogant much? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    > The series seemed to confuse the NeuroTypicals
    >out there. ...
    >It just went right over his head. ...
    >so obviously the great number of boobs who would
    >fall for "Joe Millionaire" and other Fox Reality
    >shows just weren't smart enough to get Joss
    >Whedan. ...
    >And thus we're stuck watching the idiocy they CAN
    >understand.

    But how do you really feel? ;)

    1. Re:jeez, arrogant much? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Yes- having a certain level of arrogance about the ability to figure out complex traits is a part of having Asperger's Syndrome. For how those of us who are high functioning autistic view normal society with it's lack of integrity, lack of intelligence, and lack of common courtesy I suggest you go to The Institute for the Study of the Neurologically Typical which turns the whole conversation on it's head and shows why we should pity so-called "normal" people.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    2. Re:jeez, arrogant much? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      Yes- having a certain level of arrogance about the ability to figure out complex traits is a part of having Asperger's Syndrome.

      Are you self-diagnosed?

      For how those of us who are high functioning autistic view normal society with it's lack of integrity, lack of intelligence, and lack of common courtesy I suggest you go to The Institute for the Study of the Neurologically Typical [autistics.org] which turns the whole conversation on it's head and shows why we should pity so-called "normal" people.

      You're not setting much of a standard for "common courtesy" if you think of (and speak of) your fellow human beings this way. In fact, it would require almost superhuman effort to fairly treat people that you imagine are so inferior to you.

      I'm also not sure how "intelligent" it is to construct a fantasy world that attempts to just define away the consequences of social awkwardness. I almost fell into that trap in youth, but thankfully pulled myself out of it.

      I guess it depends on how you're defining "intelligence". The ability to manipulate abstract symbols seems a bit overrated in your worldview, in context of life and the big picture.

      Hey, it's up to you how you handle life's challenges. But it couldn't hurt to turn a critical eye on your strategies now and again.

    3. Re:jeez, arrogant much? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Are you self-diagnosed?

      Was originally- so I went and saw a psychiatrist about it. Self diagnosing is bad- it can lead to self medication, which simply doesn't work. I prefer having an actual doctor write my prescription for amitriptyline, thank you very much.

      You're not setting much of a standard for "common courtesy" if you think of (and speak of) your fellow human beings this way. In fact, it would require almost superhuman effort to fairly treat people that you imagine are so inferior to you.

      Some Asperger's Syndrome people have said the same thing- though many of them actually attribute it to a superhuman aspect of being able to be objective about oneself and others. After all, that is the core of truly fair treatment- being able to judge on the facts rather than on human emotion or relationships. I would argue that autistics are measurably better than others at this.

      I'm also not sure how "intelligent" it is to construct a fantasy world that attempts to just define away the consequences of social awkwardness. I almost fell into that trap in youth, but thankfully pulled myself out of it.

      Social awkwardness is something to be overcome, not simply defined away. But there is certainly the point to be made that there would be no social awkwardness if the majority, rather than the minority, of human beings were able to be objective about their relationships, and have at least some integrity about the fact that those relationships are mostly fictional.

      I guess it depends on how you're defining "intelligence". The ability to manipulate abstract symbols seems a bit overrated in your worldview, in context of life and the big picture.

      The manipulation of symbolic logic is a means to an end- it's the end that counts. Elimination of bogus criteria is what I'm really talking about- the ability not to judge on appearance alone. This is rare- but it's neither outside of human nature to judge on results rather than appearances, nor is it that strange to want to do so. It's amazing how many people I know who refuse to watch certain Star Trek episodes merely because they find the makeup of the actors for a certain race to be "ugly". They utterly ignore the story line, for the surface appearances. That's what I'm saying is not intelligent behavior. And it can lead you to a lot of mistakes in the context of life and the big picture to be surface oriented.

      Hey, it's up to you how you handle life's challenges. But it couldn't hurt to turn a critical eye on your strategies now and again.

      Completely agreed. If nothing else, than to avoid scaring the NeuroTypical Sheeple. People like me have been killed for less- and you're right to point out the insult.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  62. Scary... by emtboy9 · · Score: 1

    I love Joss Whedon's shows. I have seen every Buffy and Angel episode, as well as Firefly before it got scrapped... this movie is someting I have been hoping for for a while, so when I found out it was going to be a reality, I was ecstatic to say the least.

    But now misgivings are starting to creep into my idle mind... is it just me, or does ANY movie with one of the Baldwins in it suddenly become B material at best? I certainly hope it doesnt happen with this one.

    But take a look around the local video store, and see how many truely bad B movies that ALL of the Baldwin brothers star in... they are like Hollywood whores... anything for a buck.

    Heh... maybe the Canadians will bomb them :)

    --
    "Our funds have never taken part in toxic or death spiral convertible financings of any sort" -BayStar's managing partne
    1. Re:Scary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Adam Baldwin isn't a Baldwin brother. He's not related to them (Alec, Billy, etc.) at all. So, all is good.

    2. Re:Scary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This Baldwin isn't one of the brothers and he played animal mother in Full Metal Jacket.

    3. Re:Scary... by sammaffei · · Score: 0

      I loved BTVS, but I couldn't forgive Joss for the "Alien Resurrection" screenplay. What a stinker...

      --

      Political correctness is the newest form of slavery.

  63. Fire????? by michael+path · · Score: 1

    Firefly movie? A movie based on another Mozilla Fire* browser rename?

  64. Serenity Now! by TheMeddler · · Score: 4, Funny

    Serenity Now!

    --
    90% Professional Slacker
  65. The early bird... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get over it, guy! Girls like that you have to grab during their freshman year at college.

  66. No relation to the Baldwin brothers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    from imbd;

    Biography for
    Adam Baldwin

    Height
    6' 4" (1.93 m)
    Trivia

    No relation to the Baldwin brothers.

    And actually he is a very funny aspect of the
    series.

  67. Re:Affiliate Link by Asterisk · · Score: 1

    This link is personalized for an affiliate to track the amount of visits from Slashdot to the firefly site. The link submitter is most likely profitting from our traffic.

    Err... So?

  68. Arrogantly stupid web browser designers! by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

    Of course, it will work perfectly well with IE because IE does not honor the Content-Type header as it must according to the HTTP RFC and instead sniffs the content out and renders according to its findings. The RFC permits that if and only if the Content-Type header is omitted; any other situation it must not do it. IE treats "text/plain" as the empty string (i.e. IE doesn't know what "if and only if" means).

    --
    Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  69. Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're fucking retarded.

    MADE YOU LOOK, BITCH