First Clip from Firefly Movie to be Shown at Comic-Con

Snaller writes "It's almost a tradition. At Comic-Con a few years back, Joss Whedon showed a stunned audience the first clip from Serenity, the pilot for his new show Firefly. Although the movie isn't due to open until April 22nd next year, Whedon is ready to show the first clip from from Serenity, the motion picture based on the Firefly series. He'll do it this weekend at Comic-Con, also present will be the cast from the series/movie (all 9 actors), editor Lisa Lassek, special effects guru Loni Peristere and producer Chris Buchanan. It will take place on Sunday July 25th, 1-2pm, Room 20, afterwards there will be a signing session in room 28DE. This was reported on what used to be the official Fox board, by the user 'AffableChap' which has previously been confirmed to be Chris Buchanan."

Comments

"It's almost a tradition"

[gowen]

"It's almost a tradition"

I think the phrase you're looking for is "something similar has happened once before." Thats a pretty quick leap from "unique event" to "tradition".

Lets wait for something to happen three times before declaring it a part of our regular cultural fabric, eh?

Re:"It's almost a tradition"

[david.given]

Lets wait for something to happen three times before declaring it a part of our regular cultural fabric, eh?

Hey, kid, this is the Internet. Things move fast here. We don't have time to wait for it to happen three times! Hell, a lot of the time if you wait for it to happen twice, some newer, more aggressive e-tradition will get in before you and steal all your mindshare!

In fact, soon you won't even be able to wait for something to happen even once. You'll have to declare something to be a tradition before it's happened at all. You can already see this beginning to happen with urban legends...

Re:"It's almost a tradition"

[Xanlexian]

Three times? This is Slashdot. Give it some time, and this story will be posted two more times.

Slashdot. Keeping the "Story Duplication Tradition" alive!!

--Xan

Re:"It's almost a tradition"

[Anonymous Coward]

In Bergen, a city in Norway I used to live in, everything that was done once was, and is, a tradition. So, Bergen is probably the most traditionally'est place in the world.

Re:"It's almost a tradition"

[Anonymous Coward]

I recall sportscasters express how a team "snapped a two-game losing streak", so the practice of ascribing long-sequence names to short-sequence events is by no means unique to this forum, dude.

Re:"It's almost a tradition"

[Anonymous Coward]

This week, Dave Niehaus described Willie Bloomquist as "having a two game hitting streak going".

Re:"It's almost a tradition"

[the_weasel]

In fact, soon you won't even be able to wait for something to happen even once. You'll have to declare something to be a tradition before it's happened at all...

Thats called marketing.

Re:"It's almost a tradition"

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

>Lets wait for something to happen three times before declaring it a part of our regular cultural fabric, eh?

No, at that point it is declared a conspiracy.

Re:"It's almost a tradition"

[the_soulman]

CowboyNeal's tounge was clearly stuck in his cheek when he wrote that.

(And just in case: no, I did not mean that literally.)

No TV series for a while...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:No TV series for a while...

[ifwm]

Um, I thought there was a TV series already. That got cancelled. Quickly. Unless the movie does really well (big, big if), why would anyone bother to put it back on TV?

Unless I'm wrong (not a fan, never watched) in which case I'll shut up.

Re:No TV series for a while...

[thinksnow]

Well, it (the show) got Fox'ed, which is to say they fucked it up. They played the Pilot ep last, for gorram sake! It would be moved for time slot to time slot and day to day, IIRC.

I think the DVD's have enjoyed some decent sales, which is why the show, which was only able to air 10 eps (of 12 or 13 made) is going to see the big screen.

Re:No TV series for a while...

[TheGax]

It's not like Family Guy is ever coming back either based on the strength of what happened *after* the show was cancelled. Oh wait...

Re:No TV series for a while...

[ifwm]

Well, I think the difference here is that Family Guy had a decent run, was critically acclaimed, and was liked by more than a few sci-fi fans. And as the expression goes "there's always an exception."

Re:No TV series for a while...

[Tauvix]

It might be worth noting that Paramount has absolutely nothing to do with the movie being made, for the rights were picked up by Universal...

Re:No TV series for a while...

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefly was also praised by the critics, and drew a bigger audience share than the first run of Family Guy, in spite of never running more than two weeks in a row with the same time-slot, and being forced to begin with episode two.

Re:Wait a minute...

[Lord Kano]

I think it's unisex like Jamie, Kendall, Marion, Stacey, Tracey, etc...

LK

Firefly..

[manavendra]

..um, it's perhaps terribly ignorant and un-geeky, but what's a "Firefly Movie"?

Please oh please, not a bunch of kids on a mission to save earth (or something like that)

Re:Firefly..

[triskell]

It's the movie of the Firefly TV series, which was a cowboys-in-space sci-fi show that got canned after one series. It's made by Joss Whedon, the same guy behind Buffy and Angel.

Re:Firefly..

[Anonymous Coward]

film based on strangely good space western - funny, good plot, character development. Neat fx, more millenium falcon bucket of bolts style future, than super shiny trek style. So of course it got yanked after 1 season. Didn't help that the episodes weren't shown in order, and not all shown on TV at all.

Bunch of rogues, misfits, escort, etc. on a mission to line their own pockets, and not get killed by whoever they bump into that week. You can pick it up on DVD.

Re:Firefly..

[isorox]

Of course the fact the DVD's were #1 on the amazon selling list for weeks is irellevent

Re:Firefly..

[Karhgath]

Are you sure you watched Firefly and not John Doe or Fast Lane? True, you had to watch more than a couple episodes to get into(especially since the first few eps Fox decided to show were just OK, while the pilot(that they showed at the END of the series...?) was great, maybe that's why you 'hated' it. Or maybe that, for you, sci-fi = aliens and space battles? It's probably the total opposite of Star Trek in terms of Sci-Fi.

And, I dunno, I HATE westerns and all, but the movie never dwelled into a 'cowboys' in space thing. It's more of a setting things. Sure sme bar fights here and there, a couple of horse rides and shootouts, but it added an interesting element to the story, wasn't just for show.

Still, I coul understand someone not liking it, as it was not something standard at all, but hating it? That's a bit strong, isn't it?

Re:Firefly..

[M1FCJ]

I watched all episodes (yuck). :)

No, it isn't strong. This isn't what SF is supposed to be. SF is supposed to be intriquing, interesting, intellectually challenging. Cowboys and especially cows in space isn't (the episode about them buying the ship and getting the crew together).

Re:Firefly..

[Anonymous Coward]

there is no end to american stupidity

Re:Firefly..

[Psiren]

This isn't what SF is supposed to be. SF is supposed to be intriquing, interesting, intellectually challenging. Cowboys and especially cows in space isn't...

Interesting. I have the exact opposite view. I found the entire series incredibly interesting and challenging. Mainly because it didn't follow the "pre-defined rules" of sci-fi. A lot of it made sense to me. People are going to need to eat, they're going to want cattle, so someone is going to have to move them.

Fair enough, you didn't like it. But I don't think your arguments hold water personally.

Re:Firefly..

[julesh]

Cowboys-in-space, what a stupid concept. Lifted straight from a fake American dream. Had nothing interesting, no proper stoyline, no intriquing science-fiction element.

To address your comments 1 at a time:

Cowboys-in-space. Cowboys doesn't seem quite right -- more kind of bandits. But you got the general feel, at least.

Stupid concept. I'll agree there -- it really didn't seem to work right, and this is probably one of the reasons so few people watched it first time around. It feels dumb.

Had nothing interesting. I think the characters were interesting, and that was enough to make me watch; after all, there are a lot of very popular shows where the characters are the only thing even approximately out of the ordinary.

No proper storyline. How many episodes did you watch before coming to this conclusion?

No intriguing science-fiction element. Well, that's hard to judge -- a character who's been turned prescient-but-slightly-crazy by medical experimentation? I think that counts. It's probably the only one, though, and is soft SF at that. Yeah, sorry, it's not hard SF.

But, guess what, other people have different tastes, and resent your suggestion that they shouldn't be allowed to indulge them. If you don't like it, don't watch it. Nobody's forcing you.

Re:Firefly..

[thegrommit]

Had nothing interesting. I think the characters were interesting, and that was enough to make me watch; after all, there are a lot of very popular shows where the characters are the only thing even approximately out of the ordinary.

No proper storyline. How many episodes did you watch before coming to this conclusion?

Call it a symptom of Attention Deficit Disorder - on the part of Fox and the poster you're replying to.

It didn't help that Fox juggled the order of episodes, but the show needed time to breathe. Time it didn't get. Many viewers expect shows to hook them within one or two episodes, whereas Whedons shows sneak up on you over time. Watch how well the show is received by people who watch it on DVD - in the order they were intended.

Re:Firefly..

[schemanista]

Stupid concept. I'll agree there -- it really didn't seem to work right, and this is probably one of the reasons so few people watched it first time around. It feels dumb.

My first exposure to Firefly was when I bought the DVD set on the strong recommendation of some friends. I think your opinion of the show would change if you watched the series in Whedon's intended shooting order.

Rent, beg or borrow the DVDs. Firefly deserves a second chance.

Re:Firefly..

[M1FCJ]

You have the technology to go faster than light. You have the energy to take a ship out of a damn deep gravity well w/o sweating and you don't have the technology to breed cattle from embryos and you have to ship it around in a spaceship which is full of forementioned technology.

Similarly, you have a ship which can go in space but your "cowboy mates" still sit in 1850s kitchen to have their lunch.

It just doesn't work.

Re:Firefly..

[M1FCJ]

I painstakingly downloaded them, one by one and watched all episodes. I still hate it. I haven't watched just one episode and decided, I forced myself through all episodes and still hated it.

There were some nice touches like the captain not being a perfect (aka Captain "Bloody" Picard) being. I quite like a character who will kill a nasty piece of "bandit" by throwing him into the engines but still the characters just didn't seem real. They were caricatures of the "American Cowboy" dream (which is a complete fabrication itself).

I love Space Opera where the hard SF takes a back seat. If you've read Iain M. Banks you can understand what I mean. That's how a space opera should be laid out, not this cowboy-fantasy crap.

Re:Firefly..

[julesh]

It didn't help that Fox juggled the order of episodes.

Hmmm, that would make it tricky. At least here in the UK, Sci-Fi channel got it right. And they showed all of 'em, including the 3 that Fox never bothered with (one of which, the second-to-last I think, was the best episode in the series, if you ask me).

Re:Firefly..

[maxpublic]

It just doesn't work.

It isn't any more ridiculous than faster-than-light travel. If I can suspend disbelief for that nonsense I can certainly do so for the other elements of "Firefly".

Max

Re:Firefly..

[Anonymous Coward]

I found it challenging to come to terms with freaking telephone poles in Space.

Re:Firefly..

[Scrameustache]

Cowboys-in-space. Cowboys doesn't seem quite right -- more kind of bandits. But you got the general feel, at least.

Well, they had cows that one time...

Re:Firefly..

[ovit]

Their are millions of people on this planet right now who exist in even more primative conditions than the "Cowboy" setting of this show... The only difference is that they are culturally different... How can this be when we have jets, and computers, and everything we do?

The answer, and the reason the show was believeable is that their will ALWAYS be those who live on the outskirts of civilization... Even in the future, and they will almost certainly have less technology than it takes for you to read this message...

On the other hand, it's not like the whole galaxy was filled with cowboys... On the episodes where they went the center of civilization... It was very modern... Very advanced... And THEY were the strange looking ones...

On the whole, the show got me thinking about the future in a lot less 1 dimensional a way... Come to think of it... Maybe I should write a sci-fi novel that explores the even more likely scenario of the existance of culturally VARIED primative societys on the outskirts of a galactic civilization.. IE, somewhere their should be a planet of Samurai...

Re:Firefly..

[Urchlay]

> You have the technology to go faster than light. You have the energy to take a ship out of a damn deep gravity well w/o sweating and you don't have the technology to breed cattle from embryos and you have to ship it around in a spaceship which is full of forementioned technology.

The yous in those sentences don't all refer to the same entities.

Most of the show takes place in the outer worlds, recently settled and far away from civilisation. Also, there was a civil war (the captain fought on the losing side), and the formerly independent worlds are in a state similar to the Southern states after the US Civil War (the South was not a nice place to live during the Reconstruction).

So yes, in the firefly universe, there is high technology, like FTL travel or cloning, but only the inner worlds have it... and we don't see those worlds often in the series (and when we do, there aren't any cowboys or 1850's tech).

In case you can't tell, I really like the show, looking forward to the movie.

When it was first described to me as a space western, I thought I'd hate it (all I could think of was Battlestar Galactica, which is exactly like a western, basically about a wagon train in space)... but Firefly got my attention in a way that no TV show has since Blake's 7 (which I recommend to anyone who likes Firefly and doesn't mind terrible BBC special effects from the 1970s).

Re:Firefly..

[Fweeky]

There's no FTL in Firefly; it's all set in one system after being colonised by a sleeper ship of some sort.

They obviously have the technology to breed cattle from embryos, but such technology isn't very useful when you don't have the time or resources to grow them, never mind the money to pay for or run all that expensive hi-tech equipment.

That's a big issue with Firefly; that high technology is expensive and in limited supply (manufacturing etc is limited to a core of heavily populated inner planets mostly interested in looking after themselves; the outer planets are full of the poor). As for cheap spaceflight? Well, it's not that cheap; that they're constantly low on money to pay for fuel and parts is one of the key points of the series; they're not going to want to pay even more for hardware they can do without -- why spend a few million on a hard-to-fix kitchen-o-matic when you can make do with pots, a tin opener and some tins? Why smuggle out an expensive top of the line ray-gun from a core world when you can get a cheap projectile weapon you can maintain yourself?

This isn't Star Trek here; it's more like a group of people in a second hand van driving around some frontier/third world country, struggling to make enough money to keep the van running.

It works surprisingly well, not least because it doesn't take itself all that seriously.

Re:Firefly..

[Anonymous Coward]

http://sevendeadly.com/index.php?p=buypage&design= damnsearchengine&

Re:Firefly..

[Fweeky]

"Stupid concept. I'll agree there -- it really didn't seem to work right, and this is probably one of the reasons so few people watched it first time around. It feels dumb."

I can say the same about Star Trek. The difference is, Star Trek seems to take itself quite seriously; Firefly, er, doesn't. Joss is trying to provide entertainment here, not some vision of the future.

Re:Firefly..

[Wescotte]

Hmm.. I think they have to have some pretty quick ship if they can go to so many planets in such little time. I recall a scene where they said because of creative navigating a 2 day trip took most of the week to do. That's gotta be pretty damn fast to get from one planet to another.. The closest Mars can come to Earth is 56 million kilometers so.. So let's just say that's about the distance they travel on this trip. So we're looking at something like 325km/s.. Ok, so that's pretty damn far from light speed but I say it's still pretty quick.. Which I believe to be about Mach16.4ish?

Re:Firefly..

[M1FCJ]

Well, there was this civil war in the middle of 19th century where the lost part wore gray and then mostly became outlaws (i.e., Jesse James). Does it ring any bells? Does it sound familiar?

At the same time there was this great, vast continent, untamed(!) and at the fringes there were people taming(!) the fringes of the civilization by invading Indians' land.

It's a huge ripoff from a dreamy American history, a history that never happened. It's just not a good story.

The movie can be fun but it won't be good. It won't be a movie to watch again and again in the coming years. It won't be a movie to remember because the series doesn't have these qualities either.

If they invented the whole thing from scratch but still managed to give this backward-feeling, that'd be great. Take Farscape. There are high-tech planets and low-tech planets. There are high-tech ships and low-tech ships but since it is completely new, completely genuine, you actually believe it very easily. You don't have to go over a huge speed-bump of rip-off/unbelievability problem. They didn't have to rip the whole concept from mid-19th century american-dream.

Re:Firefly..

[kannibal_klown]

That's because just about everyone that isn't part of the big uber-federation is pretty much poor. Hell, in one episode they go to a "core planet," and it looked more technilogically advanced than some Star Trek sets. The hospital was very hi-tech, everything was shiny and metal, and flying vehicles were all over the place.

The back story (from the pilot) went something like this.

- They had to pretty much evacuate Earth some time in the past.
- The US and China had the most ships, thus their culture and languages are prevalent. One neat part of the show was them cursing in Mandarin Chinese.
- They threw as many people onto the ships as they could, with as little supplies it would take.
- They found planets that would support life, and dropped the ships on them, and pretty much washed their hands of them.
- Most had to survive in new environment by building things from scratch, and scrapping their ship
- Other than the "upper class" citizens of core planets, most people are thus forced to live a poor existence a la "western style'
- It's easier to build / maintain a Colt .45 than a lazer rifle if you don't have the tech.

Sure, the tech is out there for them to have FTL travel AND cloning AND nicer kitchens. But, most can't afford it. So they live on what they got.

Re:Firefly..

[ghjm]

I think the question is this:

In what conceivable economic circumstance could it be worthwhile to ship cows from one planet to another by putting them in the cargo hold of a spaceship?

No one is disputing the point that in a future universe, there will be poor people who still herd cattle. The issue is that the poor people who herd cattle inherently don't have enough money to pay Captain Mal and crew to operate Serenity. The fuel cost of achieving escape velocity must surely be higher than the total value of all the cows you can fit in the hold.

Except - even when they were near-broke, did we ever really the Serenity crew complain about a planetary landing and takeoff? For that matter, did we see them refueling more than once in a dozen or so planetary landings? Whatever their propulsion system, it was clearly not subject to the same constraints as the ones we're used to in our 20th/21st-century world.

So, look at it this way. Nobody's complaining that Serenity stopped to pick up passengers. But these passengers clearly weren't paying outrageously expensive fares. In today's terms, we're talking no more than $1000 each. So if it's worth making a stop (and flying all the way to a destination) to earn maybe $5000 in passenger fares, then it's definitely worth making a few landings (etc) to transport 10 or 20 cows worth maybe $1000 to $2000 each. Particularly if the premium on food value in the outer worlds means that they're actually worth much more.

Basically, this ship just plain don't fit the profile of a NASA man-rated chemical rocket. Getting to orbit just isn't that big a deal in their world.

-Graham

Re:Firefly..

[OpenSourceOfAllEvil]

We have the technology to feed everyone on the planet, supply everyone with all the free energy they need, supply basic medicine and health care for everyone, grow food anywhere on the planet on any terrain or underwater. And yet we don't do it and leave billions in a horribly sub-standard existence.

How can you be critical of a show as being unrealistic that says we won't do it in the future either?

Re:Firefly..

[Fweeky]

The trips aren't necessarily between planets, but also between moons of systems like Jupiter. A transfer between moons probably has a lot more opportunity for "creative navigating" than an interplanetary one.

Besides, it's not as if speeds like that are unprecedented -- lots of sf have ships with sufficient fuel to constantly accelerate for long periods -- with 24 hours, 325km/s isn't even half a G: (325 (km / s)) divided by (24 hours) = 3.76157407 m / s^2 (1G being around 10 m / s^2 iirc). Certainly easier to swallow than Star Trek's magical impulse engines which go from 0 to 50% c in about 2s flat ;)

Oh, and (325 (kilometers / second)) divided by speed of sound at sea level = 955.067736 :)

Re:Firefly..

[ryanwright]

In what conceivable economic circumstance could it be worthwhile to ship cows from one planet to another by putting them in the cargo hold of a spaceship?

When shipping cows is illegal, hence black market, hence gangsters are paying good money to get their hands on said cows.

Let's rephrase your question: In what conceivable economic circumstance could it be worthwhile to move pot into the United States by putting it in the cargo hold of an airplane? The answer is the same: When it's illegal to do so, and people with money want it done anyway.

Re:Firefly..

[kdark1701]

yes, but buffy sucks

Re:Firefly..

[Jonah Hex]

but Firefly got my attention in a way that no TV show has since Blake's 7 (which I recommend to anyone who likes Firefly and doesn't mind terrible BBC special effects from the 1970s)

Couldn't agree more about Blake's 7 (created and many scripts by Terry Nation - famous for creating the Daleks on Doctor Who), even the universe is much alike with some high-tech worlds (mostly the Federation) and many others covering the spectrum from alien to just terraformed wild-west style. And to top it off a totally ruthless and immoral hottie, Servalan (Jacqueline Pearce), as the arch-enemy in revealing outfits, yummy! It'd be a damn hard choice between a new TV series of Firefly or Blake's 7... however since Terry Nation's estate denied the use of the Daleks in the new Doctor Who series perhaps we'll never see a new Blake's 7.

Jonah Hex

What's with Comics?

[john_smith_45678]

Why is it that geeks are the only "grown" men (well, other than those with an elementary school education) that still read comics?

Re:What's with Comics?

[Anonymous Coward]

On the contrary. It is well known that it is novels that are being read less and less, and that the next emergent literary form will be the humble comic book , aka Graphic Novel.

Comics are the perfect storytelling form for our hectic times, combining the urgency of drawing with the flexibility of the written word. I'm a big comic fan and collector (I've got issues from back when X-Men was still called X-Man and drawn by Steve Ditko), and I'm proud that the Graphic Novel is finally coming into its own.

Re:What's with Comics?

[meringuoid]

My problem with graphic novels is... I started with Sandman, then read Dark Knight Returns, and it's been all downhill from there.

DK2 was OKish, I suppose, and some X-Men stories aren't too bad, and Preacher was good fun... but maybe because of those first two, my expectations are unrealistically high.

I've been following Lucifer for a while, and it seems to me like Sandman but without the humanity. If Sandman had cut out The Doll's House and A Game of You and so on, and just got on with the main story... well, that's Lucifer.

Re:What's with Comics?

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

My problem with graphic novels is... I started with Sandman, then read Dark Knight Returns, and it's been all downhill from there.

If you like The Dark Knight Returns, I hope you've checked out the contemporaneous and excellent Watchmen.

Anticipation...

[Kulic]

I loved the series and I can't wait to see this. No doubt Joss will give us something that leaves us begging for more.

Meanwhile, a hint about my thoughts on Fox...

: We shall rule over all this show, and we shall call it... this show.
: I think we should call it your grave!
: Argh, curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!
: Raaaaaaaarghhhhhhh!
: Raaaaaaaarghhhhhhh!

(Apologies to Joss Whedon).

Re:Anticipation...

[Kulic]

Should have previewed, /. mangled it...

Joss: We shall rule over all this show, and we shall call it... this show.
Fox: I think we should call it your grave!
Joss: Argh, curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!
Fox: Raaaaaaaarghhhhhhh!
Joss: Raaaaaaaarghhhhhhh!

(Apologies to Joss Whedon).

Re:Anticipation...

[ComaVN]

It's still not funny.

Re:Anticipation...

[Patrick Lewis]

The pilot of Serenity performs this little skit with plastic dinosaurs at the beginning of one show.

Well, at least I thought it was funny.

Re:Anticipation...

[bgarcia]

It is if you understand the reference.

You, however, have exposed yourself as NOT being a true Firefly fan.
shoo!

Re:Anticipation...

[Heywood Yabuzof]

That little skit at the beginning basically sold me on the show. ;-)

(I watched it on DVD, not broadcast, so I actually got to watch the FIRST episode FIRST).

Re:Anticipation...

[harlows_monkeys]

No doubt Joss will give us something that leaves us begging for more

So he's like a big jam doughnut with cream on the top?

But does he shine out like a shaft of gold when all around is dark?

Re:Anticipation...

[Fweeky]

Wasn't that an ad-lib from Alan Tudyk?

Re:Anticipation...

[portforward]

No, I don't think so. On the DVD they showed it as part of his audition. But to be honest, I don't know if that was verbatim.

Re:Anticipation...

[JabberWokky]

But does he shine out like a shaft of gold when all around is dark?

If you have to ask that question, you've clearly never seen the man's hair. Like a yellow tribble by Dali.

--
Evan

Re:Anticipation...

[unikron]

Well now that Wolfram & Hart is destroyed (?), it's time to go to the worse of scum and villainy, the movie executives, also known as the 9th circle of hell.

(That's why there are more slayers now.)

Re:Wait a minute...

[isorox]

isn't Joss a girls name?

Jayne's a girls name

MOD PARENT DOWN

[King_of_Prussia]

Parent is plagiarised from another slashdot user, go to anti-slash, click on "tools", then "use the database tool". Search for "Joss Whedon" and it comes up verbatim on the second page.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[Zeroth_darkos]

Sure you're right. The info is stolen. BUT that doesn't make a good reason for modding it down, because it actually is good information anyway.

Re:Mod Parent Down

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont think he was making a grammatical correction so much as pointing out the the poster was talking complete bolllocks, purely to grab a headline.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[Walkiry]

>Sure you're right. The info is stolen. BUT that doesn't make a good reason for modding it down, because it actually is good information anyway.

You are 100% correct. Specially given that it was posted as Anonymous Coward. It's not like the ACs can really go Karma whoring. Jeez, some people...

Re:Wait a minute...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, Jayne ain't a girl.

The fears of a Firefly fan

[Elamaton]

Here's hoping some sort of preview clips find their way to the net some time soon.

I'm having mixed feelings about the prospect of a full-blown Firefly movie. One side of me is skipping and jumping with joy, but my more skeptical side is wary of several things, even though I've learned to trust God^H^H^HJoss Whedon implicitly.

The original two-part pilot for Firefly was about the length of a full feature film, and yet it only introduced the characters, the universe and some of the backstory. The movie will have to do the introductions all over again, since I'm thinking they'll try to lure in more than just the fans of the TV series. How is the movie going to relate to the aired episodes? Is it a complete retelling? How much time will there be to tell a decent story that would satisfy an already-converted Firefly fan? Or how big a priority is that, anyway?

Maybe the film SHOULD be directed at the average moviegoer at the cost of mildly displeased fans. I mean, if the ultimate goal is to draw crowds large enough for the network to bring back the series (is it?), then maybe the hardcore fans should accept a "lesser" film than they'd hoped for, in the interest of this goal.

It remains to be seen how many compromises Whedon ends up making to cater to both interests: fans AND average moviegoers, many of whom may not have any prior contact to Firefly. I'm just afraid that the end result will be a film that tries to cater to so many various tastes and expectations that it ends up pleasing nobody.

I have no doubts that the movie will be entertaining and a pleasure to watch, at some level - it's just that I'm afraid I'll have to pretend the series never existed to feel that way.

Well, Whedon usually manages to surprise me positively, so in any case I remain carefully optimistic.

Re:The fears of a Firefly fan

[Anonymous Coward]

The movie starts of where some time soon after the last episode (Objects in Space).

Actually Josh is good at introducing characters in a short amount of time. Fox didn't air the pilot until the show was almost canceled. So Josh had to write a lot of the episodes such that you could get to know the characters in just a few minutes. Watching the pilot plus the other episodes will help, but it won't be necessary to watch the movie.

Re:The fears of a Firefly fan

[Gossi]

Information:

The movie is 2 and a half hours long, in script form. Universal has a 3 movie deal, depending on success of first film. Fox holds the TV rights to Firefly for 10 years, so we have, what, 8 years left?

aintitcoolnews.com have a review of the Serenity script up, and say the first 10 minutes reexplains the Firefly 'verse - the rest is new story.

Re:The fears of a Firefly fan

[TheGax]

The original two-part pilot for Firefly was about the length of a full feature film, and yet it only introduced the characters, the universe and some of the backstory.

A "2 hour" TV show is only about 82 minutes long. If the studio will give Whedon the full 2 hours (or more) then he'll have around 40 more minutes to use to tell stories.

Re:The fears of a Firefly fan

[SpooForBrains]

My primary feeling on this is that Joss should never compromise to try to gain a wider audience. Mutant Enemy did that for the beginning of Angel Season 5, to attempt to garner a wider audience, which I think we can all agree was a mistake. That season only picked up when they stopped doing that, about half way through.

Re:The fears of a Firefly fan

[andr0meda]

The only reason for me to watch a TV series episode is because:

a) I've heard about it and my friends like it for some reason.
b) It's vastly better than most of the crap out there, and doesn't give in to what the average Joe Sixpack can grasp in his nightly mental floss sessions.

So far I have not been able to come to appreciate none of that BWitched, WitchHereAndThere, BuffyTheVampireSlut and everything else in that department. What could get me arsed about watching TV were SOME (SOME!) episodes of Voyager, DS9, X-Files, Friends, Sex & The City and 24.

Must be getting old..

Re:The fears of a Firefly fan

[fallingdown]

I mean, if the ultimate goal is to draw crowds large enough for the network to bring back the series (is it?)

I doubt they would try to bring back the series ever. If the film is a success, they'll want to make more movies because that's the way they'll make the most money off the IP.

Either way, the profiles of the cast will be raised considerably so making a TV series with them all will be a tad more expensive than the first go around.

My concern for the film is that it won't really be Firefly - a show largely about this ensemble traveling around space together. Action movies give very little time to the development of the lead characters, much less 9.

Look at the Star Trek films. Each one is largely about the captain du jour and his closest side kicks. The rest of the crew pops up for a line or two and dresses the set for the rest of the film. There's no time for anything else. It's a shame. I really like the ensemble chemistry of Joss Weadon's shows. I don't find Buffy/Angel/Captain Reynolds all that interesting on their own but when put in context with the ensemble along with some of Wheadon's dialoge and it's a pretty good hour of TV.

I look forward to the movie - the producers can count on my $10 but I'm willing to bet that this won't be the same show.

Re:The fears of a Firefly fan

[mmusson]

TV series have a different pacing than movies. Movies have to be more compressed in time and are able to do much more elaborate and detailed scenes due to much higher budgets.

My guess is that the movie will jump right into the main plot and introduce the characters by showing them doing their thing. Joss has a gift for dialogue so I bet he can sneak a lot of exposition into the action as they go.

My worry with the movie is studio oversight and stupid changes due to clueless executives. I can see it now. 'We want Nathan to be more hunky have him ride horses with no shirts.' or 'Wash should have more control switches, he is always flicking that switch to his upper right.'

Re:The fears of a Firefly fan

[shelleymonster]

Well, considering they didn't air the pilot (which set up the story, explained the characters and the universe) until the end, and the people who watched the show were able to catch on pretty quickly, I think we'll be ok. Even though it will be a story accessible to people who haven't seen the show, I have complete confidence in Joss's ability to not underestimate his audience. He doesn't dumb stuff down or give people time to catch on - he dumps you in the middle and expects the audience to be smart enough to figure it out. You don't have to know what a story is going to be about at the beginning to enjoy it - it's what you learn by the end that matters.

Re:The fears of a Firefly fan

[sql*kitten]

I mean, if the ultimate goal is to draw crowds large enough for the network to bring back the series (is it?)

The terms of the contract are that the movies and the TV series can't coexist - only when the movie(s) are finished can a(nother) TV series go into production. If the movie does well, then there'll be another, that's how Hollywood works, which will push any possibility of another series further back.

Re:The fears of a Firefly fan

[Anonymous Coward]

Sex & the city? To quote Zap Branigan,"What are you, gay?" Yes, nothing is better than 4 vapid females, running fast into menopause, realizing they aren't 20 anymore. That's great TV.

Re:The fears of a Firefly fan

[andr0meda]

In case you haven't noticed, life contains a mysterious female half of the population running fast into menopauses and realizing they aren't 20 anymore. Well at least the biggest part of that population.

And I'll be damned: recognisable situations turned upside down and with extreme twists here and there ARE comedy after all.

Re:The fears of a Firefly fan

[Anonymous Coward]

Rumours on various fan boards have indicated that the movie is likely to begin with an extended "Here's how it was..." sequence.

Re:The fears of a Firefly fan

[xconslash]

My guess is that the introductory parts of the film will be akin to the quick introductions in "The Train Job". A style that's used in other TV Shows/Movies. Where little questions and bits are slipped into dialogue to give you backstory while simultaneously advancing the plot.

For those not in the know, "The Train Job" was the first episode aired. While the pilot "Serenity" explained how the crew met up in great detail, Fox refused to air it. So Joss Whedon had to great a normal length episode which started the show, introduced everyone, and was an episode( a very good one I might add ).

Re:The fears of a Firefly fan

[Richard M. Nixon]

'We want Nathan to be more hunky have him ride horses with no shirts.'

Well, there was one episode that had Nathan completely nekkid, but he wasn't riding a horse at the time. You might have a point about control switches, but they already built the Firefly set for the TV series, and it was a pretty cool set too. You could actually do a pan from one end of the ship to the other.

Comics and the Evolution of a Geek

[Anonymous Coward]

Geek (n): A person with a devotion to something in a way that places him or her outside the mainstream. This could be due to the intensity, depth, or subject of their interest.

The simple curiousity and imagination that is "hammered" out by the desire to conform and perform faced during the adolescence. Geeks are happily unaware of the "peer pressure" in this 13-18 period which often mould the "grown" man in the form of his peers.

John: and we had so much fun at the beach ..
Teacher: That was very good John . Now, Kevin , tell the class what you did for the summer vacation ..
Kevin: I went to my grandpa's and we worked in the garden and he had this first edition Spiderman comic ...

Imagine the response an average kid will get and the results ....

Re:Comics and the Evolution of a Geek

[john_smith_45678]

Geek (n): A person with a devotion to something in a way that places him or her outside the mainstream. This could be due to the intensity, depth, or subject of their interest.

Nah, it's just that so many geeks are immature and juvenile, intellectually and emotionally. Ergo, their interest in comic books which are only also read by grade-schoolers.

I'm at the Con!

[cyberzephyr]

I'm at the Comic-Con this year. I can't wait to see Whedon's work up close and personal and hopefully, ask him a question.

Re:I'm at the Con!

[Zaranne]

Dang! I was SUPPOSED to go...but unless I can hitch a ride down there, I'll be left at home. *sigh*

Not seeing the allure

[gad_zuki!]

A space cowboy, a space priest, etc all in a very unrealistic setting flying about in spacecraft which much cost a small fortune just doesnt do it for me. This show was cancelled for a reason, it just wasn't good. In fact many people think its terrible.

Yes, good sci-fi is hard to come by and its difficult to make it into either TV or Film, but this show really puts the 'Wheadon is a goldenboy' meme to rest.

Re:Not seeing the allure

[Zorilla]

A space cowboy and a space priest walk into a bar...

...never mind.

Re:Not seeing the allure

[TwistedSquare]

this show really puts the 'Wheadon is a goldenboy' meme to rest

To many, Firefly actually confirmed that he could produce good TV outside of the "Buffy-verse". As with most Whedon productions, it included a mix of great characters, good interplay between them, and a polished mix of drama and comedy. He often seems to inspire love-him-or-hate-him reactions, but has declared in the past that he would rather produce something loved by 1,000 fans than liked by 1,000,000 (or something to that effect).

Firefly lacks some of the usual cliches in Sci-Fi (aliens, time-travel, etc) and I personally prefer it to most of the other stuff being produced. But each to his own I guess!

Re:Not seeing the allure

[julesh]

I'm sorry you didn't like it. And yes, it was cancelled because a lot of people thought the format was bad and didn't look beyond that, which is a shame. Because behind that was some of the best written TV I've seen in years.

Re:Not seeing the allure

[CAIMLAS]

Wow. That sounds utterly rediculous, as you paint it. You reminded me of some of the cheesy anime films that get put on cartoon network (IMO).

But then, you kind of just described Star Wars, too. So it's all a matter of perspective. Not having seen the show, I can't comment directly.

I'm all for a good scifi film, though. Good scifi is too few and far between.

Re:Not seeing the allure

[Snaller]

This show was cancelled for a reason,


The reason being that fox is run by a bunch of incompetent wankers.

it just wasn't good. In fact many people think its terrible.

No, not many people. Very few people actually. Its like Lord of the Rings: 99% of the people who actually watch it (try the DVD's and watch it in order) they love it. But for some reason, the tiny minority who does not like it aren't satisfied with simply accepting that tastes differ, but they have to vocally try and put it down every chance they get.

Weird that.

It'll be totally bad when Whedon gets his first Oscar ;)

Re: Not seeing the allure

[Black Parrot]

> A space cowboy, a space priest, etc all in a very unrealistic setting

So... Which SF shows do you think have realistic settings?

Re:Not seeing the allure

[Gossi]

I realise you are probably a troll, but the guys name is spelt W-H-E-D-O-N. One whedon, two whedon, three whedon, ah-ah-ahhhhh.

Re:Not seeing the allure

[Mordaximus]

"all in a very unrealistic setting flying about in spacecraft which much cost a small fortune just doesnt do it for me."

You mean like the hyper-realistic Star Trek $FLAVOR_OF_THE_DECADE? Maybe Farscape? Anything involving a Spaceship, aliens, languages that stopped evolving? Teleporters? Touch screen interfaces that never have fingerprints on them?

It's sci-fi, not a documentary. And while there are some minor plot elements that I still question (even as a huge fan of the show) overall Joss does a much better job of a painting a future universe than most ever have.

It seems that you haven't even watched the show. They aren't just "flying around in space", they are taking whatever job they can just so that they can continue to fly!

They make it painfully obvious that it IS expensive to run the ship, and that most of the time they are just scraping by. In fact in the pilot, they can't afford a replacement for a critical part, and it come back to haunt them further in the season. They are excited when the preacher has fresh vedgetables and spices. Because they generally eat crap.

Try actually watching the show, before criticizing. I looks like all the knowledge you gathered about the show came from a 30 second commerical you might have seen a few years ago.

Re:Not seeing the allure

[Whitemice]

Yes, NO TIME TRAVEL. Thank gawd. What a cheap hack to rustle up a story line, a definite sign of "jumping-the-shark" in my book. As soon as a show does 'ZYX gets sucked back in time' you know its over - just shoot the writers now.

Re:Not seeing the allure

[FireFury03]

Infact I have yet to talk to anyone (IRL) who's seen it who doesn't like it. Fox just seem interested in the cheap-but-popular reality shows. Unfortunately it seems that most of the population are happy sitting infront of reality crap and soap operas leaving those of us with more than 2 braincells with nothing worth watching. I'm afraid I have more interesting things to be doing that don't involve the TV if all that's on is mindless reality TV.

Re:Not seeing the allure

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

That critical part wouldn't happen to be the engine, would it? You know, the roughly cylindrical device that looks like a giant turd wrapped in tinfoil and then squashed slightly? A tinfoil-covered turd that just spins slowly, like it's roasting on a spit? I suppose that's there to turn the propeller. The engine that they stretch an entire episode around, where they treat it like it's some redneck's V8 in his 22 yr old Firebird, complete with airhead slut (who becomes the mechanic? Engineer? Scotty was an engineer, she's a monkey with a wrench.).

Josh Whedon's "great" space western is one part really bad scifi, one part bad western, with a pinch of bad acting. But to do it right, to make this movie the shitfest that it strives to be, Josh needs to think big. This movie needs George Lucas as CGI director, and Rick Berman as a scriptwriter or at least plot consultant.

Re:Not seeing the allure

[Anonymous Coward]

No, trolls are grammar nazis, like you. Thanks for playing.

Re:Not seeing the allure

[runlvl0]

Some people call him the Space Cowboy - some call him the gangster of love.

Re:Not seeing the allure

[schon]

its like Lord of the Rings: 99% of the people who actually watch it (try the DVD's and watch it in order) they love it. But for some reason, the tiny minority who does not like it aren't satisfied with simply accepting that tastes differ, but they have to vocally try and put it down every chance they get.

Huh?

I didn't care for LOTR (couldn't make it through the books, watched the movies, but didn't like them) but I don't go off putting it down *any* chance I get. (If you want to hear why, I'll tell you - but if you don't want to hear it, I'm not gonna go off like a nut.)

Oh yeah - I loved Firefly. :o)

Re:Not seeing the allure

[Anonymous Coward]

So "Quantum Leap" jumped the shark after the first ten minutes?
What about "The Time Tunnel", from the 1960s.
Or "Doctor Who"?

Re:Not seeing the allure

[Mordaximus]

I'll do my best to answer all of your well thought out questions

" That critical part wouldn't happen to be the engine, would it?"

No. It would be the compression coil. Or catalyzer.I most certainly would understand if Mal said no to Kaylee asking for a new engine.

"You know, the roughly cylindrical device that looks like a giant turd wrapped in tinfoil and then squashed slightly?"

I'm pretty familiar with how the engine looks in the show, but no. It's not the engine

"A tinfoil-covered turd that just spins slowly, like it's roasting on a spit? I suppose that's there to turn the propeller."

Likely to turn the propeller, but no, it's not the enigne. Nice try though!

"The engine that they stretch an entire episode around, where they treat it like it's some redneck's V8 in his 22 yr old Firebird..."

Teehee Firebird, Firefly! Nice!

"complete with airhead slut (who becomes the mechanic? Engineer? Scotty was an engineer, she's a monkey with a wrench.)."

Well, I don't think any engine is complete without an airhead slut. After all, someone has to sit there and turn the handle to make the tin foil covered slow roasting turd spin the propeller. But in fact, this particular engine originally shipped with a surfer boy, who was later upgraded to an airhead slut. Not a bad upgrade I think.

"Josh Whedon's "great" space western is one part really bad scifi, one part bad western, with a pinch of bad acting."

Don't forget a dash drama! Oh by the way Commander Troll, it's Joss, not Josh.

Re:Not seeing the allure

[some guy I know]

leaving those of us with more than 2 braincells with nothing worth watching."

Try the Sci-Fi channel (except for "Crossing Over" and the UFO conspiracy shows).
"Stargate SG-1" is pretty good.
"Stargate Atlantis" is too new to judge yet.
"Twilight Zone" reruns abound.

Also, USA (or BBCA, I forget which) is doing reruns of "The Prisoner".
Speaking of BBCA, "Black Adder", "The Thin Blue Line", and "Monty Python's Flying Circus" are all in reruns.

Star Trek reruns from the various series are playing on SpikeTV and elsewhere.

And don't forget "The Simpsons" on Fox.

Finally, "Question Time" on C-SPAN (where Tony Blair and his adversaries trade verbal abuse) is pretty amusing.
(I'd like to see GWB in a similar situation.
It would be hilarious.)

If all you have is broadcast TV, then I'm afraid that you're pretty much limited to "The Simpsons" and "The McNeil/Lehrer Report" (or whatever its called these days).

Re:Not seeing the allure

[Snaller]

Ok, 99% of the 1% did that ;)

Re:Not seeing the allure

[Om242]

[This movie needs] Rick Berman as a scriptwriter or at least plot consultant.

I'll pencil your lynching down for Saturday at 10:00PM. Is that good for you?

++Om

Re:Not seeing the allure

[FireFury03]

Try the Sci-Fi channel (except for "Crossing Over" and the UFO conspiracy shows).

Whilest we do have the SciFi channel in the UK, it doesn't carry very high profile shows (to it's credit, it did premier FireFly, and it actually did the complete series in the right order). Happilly we don't have to put up with Fox, but Fox still does affect us by cancelling production of good shows.

"Stargate SG-1" is pretty good.

SG1 runs on Sky One here and is currently between seasons.

"Stargate Atlantis" is too new to judge yet.

Looks like we might get Atlantis sometime towards the end of September (why oh why can't the UK and America show the same stuff at the same time?) Although I guess if I get really bored I can go download some episodes of Atlantis and see what they're like.

"Twilight Zone" reruns abound.

Ugh, never got on with the twilight zone

Speaking of BBCA, "Black Adder", "The Thin Blue Line"

They appear frequency on UKTV Gold... seen them to death (although they're worth watching if there's nothing else to do).

And don't forget "The Simpsons" on Fox.

Sky One is "The Simpsons Channel" here in the UK.. 50 million reruns a day... [yawn]

and "Monty Python's Flying Circus" are all in reruns.

Never got on with Monty Python...

Finally, "Question Time" on C-SPAN (where Tony Blair and his adversaries trade verbal abuse) is pretty amusing.

Bah, have to put up with Tony Blair enough on the news already. :)
There was an amusing comment made on the radio the other week.. Think it was "It's Been a Bad Week" on BBC Radio 2... They were talking (with the Thunderbirds theme playing in the background) about that new film where "a puppet living on an island off the coast of Europe goes around helping forign presidents out of trouble" (I thought it was funny anyway :)

Re:Not seeing the allure

[julesh]

Time travel's fine, as long as it is well thought out. Take, for instance, the relatively small amount of time travel in Babylon 5 (it all actually occurred in a single 2-part episode in series 3). By the time it happened, it was the only way to make sense of various plots that had been left dangling from as far back as the end of series 1 (and mentioned in the pilot). Plus, it influenced the progression of the rest of the series, setting out a big 'is it fate?' question that wasn't answered until the next series. It also made it clear that the prophecies that had been mentioned from the very beginning were very shortly going to stop working; the characters were on their own. I'd say that _really_ worked.

OTOH, most time travel in Star Trek utterly failed, largely because it wasn't planned for in advance. The writers just sat down and said 'let's do some time travel', and everyone thought it was a great idea.

Re:Not seeing the allure

[Aerog]

This show was cancelled for a reason, it just wasn't good. In fact many people think its terrible.

Not from what I've seen. I have a friend who thinks it's terrible, and we just accept that we have differing opinions of the show. Almost everybody else I know either likes or loves it.

this show really puts the 'Wheadon is a goldenboy' meme to rest.

Am I the only one out here who couldn't give a rat's ass whether or not it was Joss Whedon? I thought it was a good show, plain and simple. It may have been done by the same guy who did Buffy, but that's not why I watched it. Now, granted he did a fantastic job, but for the most part it doesn't matter what he did before. I just liked Firefly for itself.

And as far as another comment goes:
be honest with the fact it was a cliche ridden show that blatantly stole from both star trek and cowboy bebop, except it stole badly.

Sure. I can see both references (less Star Trek, though). But compared to most of the shows on TV (how many medical dramas do we need that are mostly just an ER ripoff, or formulaic sitcoms?) I thought Firefly was still decently original. It just did something for me, and I'm hoping the movie does, too. However, if it isn't your bag, then it isn't. That's why we have x-hundred channels these days.

I'll still be getting my tickets early for an opening-night show.

Re:Not seeing the allure

[maxpublic]

In fact many people think its terrible.

No, *you* think it's terrible, and like most self-important types you extend your personal opinion to include "many people", as if you were elected to speak on the behalf of anti-fans everywhere.

Time to stop smoking the crack and get over yourself.

Max

Re: Not seeing the allure

[Anonymous Coward]

A Space Cowboy... Hmmm... I vaguely remember a young chap named Luke Skywalker or was it that Han Solo guy...

A Space Priest... Hmmm... Does Obi-Wan Kenobi ring a bell?

Not so "unrealistic" now, is it?

Re:Not seeing the allure

[isorox]

Blair on Question time? Not very often, mostly his cronies. Best politics show arround in This Week though.

Re:Not seeing the allure

[slashdot_commentator]

A space cowboy, a space priest, etc all in a very unrealistic setting flying about in spacecraft which much cost a small fortune just doesnt do it for me.

So lets see, in the future, there are no agro planets, no planets with cattle ranching, no religion, and no southern crackers? Whew, what a relief. Sorry, I'm not buying it.

Do you think a show set in the 21st century, where people can afford supercomputers for only $300 is equally unrealistic? And where the hell is my flying car???

This is the only thing I hate about Star Trek. It was so freaking sucessful, it attracted the commercial interests that proceeded to suck out all the creativity out of the sci-fi genre. Now little droid heads like you have to ruin my entertainment yammering about how if there are no holodecks and humanoid looking aliens, its not "realistic" science fiction.

Besides, I don't recall covered wagons for hire trying to smuggle stuff from state to state. Its not a mere western, the whole premise is setup around private enterprise merchant mariners.

Re:Not seeing the allure

[Scrameustache]

a very unrealistic setting

You mean, more unrealistic than Star Trek? Or Star Wars? Or Matrix? Or Spider Man? Or Back to the Future? Or Metropolis? Etc?

This show was cancelled for a reason

Yes it was cancelled for a reason: Fox killed it.
Played it out of order, on alternating weeks, on the random shifting time slot of death, and played the FIRST ep LAST. Then, when no one could know when it was on, or understand what the hell was going on from the incoherent order of the eps, they claimed "low ratings" and canned it.
You know what? NO show would have had good ratings with that treatment, and they know it. They decided to kill it, they wanted Whedon to make another teen hit, in space, but instead he made something original. So they killed it, it wasn't the immediate gratification that they wanted, it wasn't another Buffy, they were mad.

just doesnt do it for me [...] it just wasn't good. In fact many people think its terrible.

Funny, everyone I've loaned my DVDs to absolutly loved it, in fact, some bought the set after having already seen them all. Come to think of it, I had a hard time finding the DVDs for myself because they were sold out in the first 3 stores I went to.
Of course some people won't like it. Do you really think its humanly possible to make a show that will be liked by 100% of the population? Whedon and co. were not trying to make a bland piece of commercial masses-feed to be tolerated by all, he was making somethiing good, wich will be loved by many and disliked by some. That's art.

Look, find someone to loan you the DVDs, and watch them in order, starting from the beginning, make your way to the second DVD. You should see the allure by then.
Of course, if your mind is already made up and you just sit there feeding your hate with every shot you see...there's no point. But there is a reason why it was an instant cult classic, if you're a sci-fi geek, you should try to see why.

Re:Not seeing the allure

[Anonymous Coward]

And while there are some minor plot elements that I still question (even as a huge fan of the show) overall Joss does a much better job of a painting a future universe than most ever have.

...ummm, do you have any winning lottery numbers for me? From the future universe, you know.

Re:Not seeing the allure

[ShinyBrowncoat]

In fact many people think its terrible.

You keep using the word 'many'. I do not think it means what you think it means:

Average Customer Review on amazon.com: ***** (5 stars out of 5) Based on 1054 reviews

Re:Not seeing the allure

[ShinyBrowncoat]

This show was cancelled for a reason

Not so much to respond to your trolling, but in case other, more reasonable, people might be curious, let me quote from my letter to Entertainment Weekly:

Dear Entertainment Weekly,

Your May 21st, 2004 article "The X Factor" cites Fox as stating, "We wish Firefly had found an audience." It would be more accurate to wish the audience could have found Firefly, with all the schedule changes and preemptions, the out-of-order airing of the episodes, and the friday-night-death-slot with which Fox saddled this wonderfully funny and intelligent show. Fortunately for fans of quality storytelling, and despite Fox's lack of support, audiences HAVE been able to find Firefly - mostly from word-of-mouth - and DVDs have been flying off retailers' shelves by the hundreds of thousands, which has made it possible for Joss Whedon and company to bring Firefly to the big screen in 2005 with the highly anticipated movie "Serenity". Fans around the world are hopeful that a box office success will mean a return to the small screen for this beloved show, preferably on a network whose mission statement is not using reality television to promote self-image problems in young girls.

Re:Not seeing the allure

[Anonymous Coward]

Between this and John Doe (both on Fox, and
for a while back to back) I liked JD better.
Both were okay though. Hey, everyone has
their own likes and dislikes. I can't believe
someone modded the original poster as a Troll!
So much for free speech on Slashdot...

And I ALWAYS post anonymously now. I got modded
down for too many stupid things (like this guy)!

Re:Not seeing the allure

[Mostly Monkey]

You nailed it. Even my TIVO had a hard time keeping up. I had to micromanage it to ensure that all the eps were recorded.

Re:Not seeing the allure

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and some people call him maurice...
But I'll be damned if I know why.

Re:Not seeing the allure

[runlvl0]

I think that it's because Captain Tightpants speaks of the Pompatus of love.

Re:Not seeing the allure

[some guy I know]

Whoops!
I keep forgetting that this is an international forum.
Sorry for my US-centrism.

Re:Did anyone even watch this show?

[M1FCJ]

To be fair, the remake of Battlestar Galactica was pretty good. There were a couple of good story points compared to the original one like the lost colony not existing, betrayals. On the other hand Starbuck shouldn't be a woman. He's a womanizer, not a woman!

Re:Wait a minute...

[Anonymous Coward]

How the hell can that be offtopic in a firefly thread? Unless mods never watched firefly and therefore shouldn't be modding

Re:Wait a minute...

[Anonymous Coward]

The mods are apparently more stupid than the kid who threw himself infront of a bullet meant for the Hero of Canton..
*sigh*

Spoilers

[Snaller]

The movie is supposed to take place about 6 months after the series ended, and centers on a reaver attack on a planet, and a very very efficient alliance agent tracking down the doctor and his sister.

And it is indeed meant to be seen by everybody. That's the reason its going to be called "Serenity" and not Firefly. Universal felt that it wouldn't be good for business if people thought "oh its a movie based on a tv series i never saw, i probably won't know whats going on". So there apparently there won't be any references to the series.

Re:Spoilers

[Gossi]

> > So there apparently there won't be any references to the series.

Uhm, except for the fact the movie is called the ship name and TV series pilot episode name, and we have the same 9 crew members and actors, and the plot you described being about Reavers, which the TV series pilot was about...

Re:Spoilers

[Snaller]

Come on - pretend you have an IQ larger than a dead rat.

Re:Spoilers

[superflippy]

a reaver attack on a planet

I wonder how they're going to explain this? I thought part of the whole point of Reavers were that they lived in the middle of nowhere for so long that they went crazy. They're sort of the spiders of the galaxy, waiting for prey to get close enough for them to nab instead of going out and seeking it.

Then again, Reavers are crazy, and insanity may be a good enough reason to explain the change in their modus operandi.

(Yes, I am a geek who is overthinking this.)

Re:Spoilers

[isorox]

But reavers are getting closer to the core each year - they were near Patience's planet in Serenity, and they chased Serenity into the atmosphere (just befre the Crazy Ivan). It's been mentioned before that they destroy whole communities too.

Re:Spoilers

[SquadBoy]

I'm going to feed the troll. What is meant is for example there will be no jokes about "Mrs. Reynolds" and Inara kissing her. Or stuff like that.

Re:Spoilers

[Snaller]

I think you are wrong in the "waiting for prey" - or at least that they have started to change their ways. In the pilot (which i assume you have seen on DVD :) Mal mentiones that one guy he has done business with is dead because reavers attacked his town and apparently killed everybody.

I don't think they'll be attacking any of the core worlds, but some of the smaller colonies on the rim might be in for it.

Re:Spoilers

[superflippy]

reavers attacked his town and apparently killed everybody.

I'd forgotten this tidbit. Clearly, I need to watch that episode again. It's been at least a month since I last saw it. :)

Re:Spoilers

[Snaller]

I need to watch that episode again. It's been at least a month since I last saw it. :)


Work work :)

alternate distribution

[Gridpoet]

I wonder if hollywood will ever wake up to the fact that sub-cultures and small fanbases can have nearly the same income potential as the large dis-intrested masses.

I for one am a HUGE firefly fan...i was skeptical of the show at first..western in space, BAH...
but after watching the show i was instantly hooked...the subtle char interactions and the real depth they are given makes for an incredible watch.

Wich brings me to my point...i love this show so much i would...no question...pay 150$ a year for a dvd set with the entire season on it, and I dont think i'm the only one out there that feels this way. I have no problem paying for somthing i enjoy...

Producing a high quality show like firefly and bringin it straight to dvd would definetly be risky...but i really belive it could pay off in the long run..based on the sales of the 1st season compilation we are talking multi millions in revenue.

Re:alternate distribution

[schemanista]

i would...no question...pay 150$ a year for a dvd set with the entire season on it

Send me the $150. I'll ship you a DVD set of the entire first season of Firefly.

This is a limited time offer. You must act now! Operators are standing by.

Re:alternate distribution

[Anonymous Coward]

Send me the $150. I'll ship you a DVD set of the entire first season of Firefly.

This is a limited time offer. You must act now! Operators are standing by.

don't listen to him! he's trying to rip you off!!!
i can get you the entire show, all the aired seasons, for only $100!!

Re:alternate distribution

[JabberWokky]

The entire first season? All 22 eps? Wow!

I'm impressed - I wouldn't think that the $150 would even start to cover the filming of the remaining episodes written for the first season.

Tell you what - just let me know who the Big Bad at the end of the season is (I'm guessing Niska, as the other plots are too big for one season, and Saffron seems like a running character), and I'll mail you $5. But you have to show proof.

The DVDs are frustrating; if you're familiar with how Joss builds, you can see the threads starting to appear that would come together for the series. But an Emmy, Hugo and VES later, and the show is cancelled. Morons.

--
Evan

Lynching

[GothChip]

...present will be the cast from the series/movie (all 9 actors), editor Lisa Lassek, special effects guru Loni Peristere and producer Chris Buchanan. It will take place on Sunday July 25th, 1-2pm, Room 20, afterwards there will be a public lynching of the Fox executives who cancelled the show. Book your tickets early as this one's going to be a sell out.

Why in Space?

[lxdbxr]

I'm sure this is going to make me unpopular, but here goes...

As much as I liked Firefly (and I liked it a lot) in almost every episode I watched I kept on thinking, "if Whedon wanted to do a Western, why did he set it in space"? I assume that it was to do with selling it to the studios, who wouldn't have bought a new "Wagon Train" or "Rawhide".

But really every plot could have been done just as easily in the 1870s rather than the 2700s (or whenever it was meant to be). The psychic girl could just as easily have been a mystic rather than surgically enhanced, most of the other characters (the preacher, the prostitute, the hard-bitten veteran) would be basically the same. Most of the plots would be exactly the same (e.g. the train robbery).

I think it would have been even better to just do a Western-set "historical" series (with fantasy elements) rather than shoehorn things into a far-future, science fictional setting. But probably the networks aren't buying Westerns any more (though there was that TV version of The Magnificent Seven a while back).

Re:Why in Space?

[thinksnow]

My take on it was that it wasn't so much a Western-western, as it was in the "Western" genre, meaning the hard times for people on the Frontier, getting by smuggling things when you can't get honest work, taking care of your people, and whores having an acknowledged place in the works (honored, in this case).

Re:Why in Space?

[Dante_H]

What about Deadwood?

Re:Why in Space?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it would have been even better to just do a Western-set "historical" series (with fantasy elements)

This has already been done. That show is called The Adventures of Brisco County jr. It was great television, which was given a crappy timeslot and was subsequently axed by retarded Fox executives.

Re:Why in Space?

[mwlewis]

It kinda reminded me of Heinlein (think Time Enough for Love). You've got people spreading out to a new frontier, where it's not always easy to simply transplant all of civilization to new planets.

You're right, it all probably could have been done, more or less, in a straight western setting, but the SF setting gives it a more 'modern' frontier feeling (let's explore what could happen when people start moving out into the galaxy). We also get to sympathize with a guy who fought for the losing side in the Civil War (although his side is definitely more deserving of our sympathy than the original losing side--you get all the states rights without the nasty property laws).

Personally, I'd prefer the SF-with-Western-Shoehorning than a Western-with-Fantasy-Shoehorning, but that's just my preference. I think that an SF setting allows (not that it's always--or even often--taken advantage of) exploration of ideas in a more neutral setting than something based on reality.

Joss also probably wanted to do something a little different than the modern fantasy stuff he'd already done.

Re:Why in Space?

[lxdbxr]

This has already been done. That show is called The Adventures of Brisco County jr. It was great television, which was given a crappy timeslot and was subsequently axed by retarded Fox executives.

Interesting - don't think that has made it's way across the pond yet (not on terrestrial television anyway).

Re:Why in Space?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can see things in Firefly that make me believe it may have been loosely based on the RPG Traveller.
In fact, Wash says "Hold on, Travellers" in the pilot as Serenity fires its engines.
Also, I think "Space Western" qualifies as a new genre.

Re:Why in Space?

[FireFury03]

But maybe he thought that a western in space was cooler?

Just because something could be done differently doesn't mean it necessarilly _should_ be done that way, and I also think that the spectacular CGI really enhances the story, and thats something that just wouldn't fit into a plain western.

He had a vision of what the future might be like and I for one find that more interesting than looking back at the past. He has also managed to capture a much bigger fanbase that I would expect a western to get - most scifi fans probably wouldn't watch something that was listed in the TV guide as a western.

Re:Why in Space?

[TwistedSquare]

Strictly speaking, neither has Firefly yet (I believe it got an airing on Sci-Fi or something). The DVDs of Firefly are out region 2 though.

Re:Why in Space?

[bourne]

Most of the plots would be exactly the same (e.g. the train robbery).

I think the train robbery was pretty clearly the hand of the studio at work. We know that it got moved up from something like 10th to replace the planned debut, because the studio wanted something more straightforward (read: predictable) to hook viewers. That alone probably helped doom Firefly; it started in the middle with characters we knew nothing about, but with an episode that presumed a bit was already known.

I think it would have been even better to just do a Western-set "historical" series (with fantasy elements)

You're assuming that the raison d'etre for Firefly was to explore fantasy elements in a western setting. I don't think that's true; I think that Firefly was meant to explore the question of frontiers - with the viewer in a present that is, for the first time in centuries, without convenient frontiers to escape from society to. We've got the ocean and space left, and neither of those is accessible to the types that have historically pushed out frontiers and rewritten society's code.

I think Firefly was meant to think about where we're going rather than where we've been. How well it did that is another question (not terribly well) and it's unclear how much that was Whedon and how much that was studio influence.

Re:Why in Space?

[jkovacik]

The fact that it could have been done in the 1870s instead of the distant future underscores the point Joss was trying to make: the same problems, fears and frustrations that people faced 2000 years ago will still be plaguing them 2000 years from now. Technology changes, but human nature doesn't.

Re:Why in Space?

[MonkeyT]

So he could throw a guy into a twenty foot turbine engine. Actually Whedon often explained that the western flavor came from a simple premise: if you were colonizing a distant planet, with limited access to supplies, manufacturing capabilities and limited contact with the outside universe, which would you rather have at your disposal - and engine that would need replacement parts and fuel, or a horse that could eat the grass and make more horses? Until 'civilization' took over, technology would be expensive and hard to maintain, horses would be cheap.

Re:Why in Space?

[kria]

IIRC from the discussions on the DVDs, Train Robbery or whatever the episode was called was written and filmed veryvery quickly because the Fox execs didn't like the slower paced, less action oriented Serenity pilot ep.

Re:Why in Space?

[NexusTw1n]

While I like Firefly, I agree it was "shoehorned" into an American West in Space Scenario.

An 1870's setting, with some fantasy elements - perhaps a genuine fortune telling mystic, or good guys lost the civil war alternate reality, would have been just as interesting as the sci-fi setting.

More crucially, an 1870's setting would have been at least half a million bucks an episode cheaper, without all the CGI, which may well have saved it from the Beancounters.

There is a reason the companies especially the sci-fi channel don't do space-fi anymore. It is cheaper to do non CGI earth based dross. You can get away with a smaller audience share, if the cost of producing an episode is relatively cheap.

And CGI at the moment doesn't come cheap.

If Joss had created an alternate reality 1870's western, rather than create a contrived science fiction setting, we'd still be enjoying his work on TV, rather than having to wait years between movies.

Re:Why in Space?

[sql*kitten]

why did he set it in space

Because there are things with a small ship setting that you can't do with a land setting. For instance, once they're "in space" there's nowhere for anyone to go; characters are forced to deal with interpersonal problems, which means more involved dialogue. It would have been difficult IMHO to make a series where the characters were in a small sailing ship trading up and down the west coast of the US in the 1800s. For a start, if they're never far from the coast, you lose the plot device of isolation - events in one location are far less separate when people can move on land almost as fast as a ship can sail.

Remember, Firefly isn't Star Trek. There is no stupid technobabble, this is a show about PEOPLE not technology. There isn't always a happy ending and a moral to the story. It's no Babylon 5 with pretensions at deciding the entire fate of the species then wrapping up neatly at the end of the series, it's just about the lives and fate of ordinary folk living on the outskirts of civilization. It's no "weird for the sake of weird" Farscape or Lexx. Whedon is to be applauded to the originality he'd brought to both Western and sci-fi genres.

Re:Why in Space?

[_Sprocket_]

We know that it got moved up from something like 10th to replace the planned debut, because the studio wanted something more straightforward (read: predictable) to hook viewers. That alone probably helped doom Firefly; it started in the middle with characters we knew nothing about, but with an episode that presumed a bit was already known.

I'm a bit shocked at myself... but I may be agreeing with the actions of the studio. The first (aired) episode presented you with Serenity's crew in action. But at the same time, it hinted at the dynamics and characters involved. Things to be curious about. A hook.

Consider that one of the hallmarks of good modern scifi is an implied familiarity with technology and devices. Characters don't spend much time on commonplace items no matter now uncommon they would be to us. This is a change from classic scifi which often went to considerable length in describing the mechanics of some technology. It's akin to Sam Spade having a long conversation about the telephone instead of simply making the call. That's not to say that there's no room for the background of such devices. Star Trek is a classic example of introducing "commonplace" technology that gets treated to increased detail over time.

The same can be applied to character development. Firefly showed us characters already in play. Characters with distinct personalities, existing relationships, and slowly shifting relationships. Part of the interest to the series for me was slowly finding out more about the characters. If anything, I think I appreciated the intended pilot more for providing nuggets of background information than the origional intent of introducing characters I didn't know or (yet) care about.

Re:Why in Space?

[Asterisk]

I think it would have been even better to just do a Western-set "historical" series (with fantasy elements)

But Fox cancelled The Adventures of Brisco County Jr. too!

Re:Why in Space?

[TVC15]

>"if Whedon wanted to do a Western, why did he set it in space"

perhaps the same reason he set 2 vampire shows near/in LA? and cast them with Valley girls? because it's funny? unexpected? opens the situation to odd juxtapositions? makes a comment about how even in unusual situations, people still have the same odd concerns about the fit of their clothing and whether or not their hair's flat?

i'm not a huge Joss fan but i do see the humor in checking for broken nails after killing a Vampire or hiding out on an astroid after a train robbery.

toss in an assortment of hotties of various flavors/genders/orientations to hook different people and you have a Whedon show.

Re:Why in Space?

[Anonymous Coward]

or good guys lost the civil war alternate reality

What do you mean "alternate reality?"

Re:Why in Space?

[schemanista]

But really every plot could have been done just as easily in the 1870s rather than the 2700s (or whenever it was meant to be)

Absolutely. Out of gas reminded me of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly in exactly the same way that Moby Dick didn't.

Re:Why in Space?

[rsklnkv]

Cause then he'd have to bog the series down with the underlining plot of a bunch of white people committing genocide on native inhabitants.
But really, this is perhaps the greatest sci-fi series ever made. It also gives some hope that MAYBE in the future not everyone will have to be a member of some Federation to survive, difficult as that may be. Not to compare, but Star Trek always scared me, with that crazy hierarchical militaristic approach. Reminds me of Starship Troopers (the book) where to have a voice you needed to be in the military. Yikes.

Re:Why in Space?

[Anonymous Coward]

"In some ways I admire the Borg, they have a nice, rigid sense of order," attributed to Captain Jean-Luc Picard, Starship Enterprise.

Re:Why in Space?

[architimmy]

That's the whole allure to the series! It takes two things that have been done many times, (who wants to watch "another" western or sci-fi series?) and puts them together to make something that's cross genre and can utilize plot devices and character types that bridge the two genres. What you get is something that marries two things we're all used to and you begin to see stereotype (gunshooter, space pilot) turn into something a bit different. It might still be stereotype but it ISN'T the same old thing.

This is hard to explain. The whole point is that most any story can be adapted to most any time period. Some of the coolest storys and storylines are about what happens when different times or different stereotypes meet (Herbert's Dune shares many similaritys with the story of sheikh el-jabl the "man of the mountian" Fedayin is a term often used to describe that historical figure's followers, as apposed to fedaykin in Dune).

You might enjoy just knowing what's going to happen next because it's just another action/drama/adam sandler/teen/slasher/western/romance/fantasy/etc show/movie but sometimes it's really fun to get a remix on the same old same-old.

For this reason Firefly was a great show (in addition to fantastic visual effects, great acting and characters, and enticing hidden storylines). I'm really looking forward to the next season of enterprise for this same reason... but if this is a predominant attitude (cliche = good) then I guess we should expect enterprise to be cancelled pretty soon as well.

No actually parent is on topic

[Snaller]

and i'll be in my bunk *g*

Because nobody like westerns anymore

[Sesticulus]

Do you remember Brisco County Jr.? Great Bruce Campbell series, western, good characters, quirky humor, started and cancelled in the same season they started X-Files. Folks these days are turned off by the whole western theme and don't look past that to the core of the story.

Hmmm, am I seeing a pattern? If it's on Fox and I like it, it's doomed.

Brisco County Jr.
Space Above and Beyond
The Tick
Firefly

If it isn't a bootlegged reality concept or something about attacking critters, Fox isn't interested.

Two words: WOO HOO!

[LordJezo]

WOO HOO!

I have been going through the DVDs and at the end of each episode I think to myself "Damn you Fox! This is one of the best series I have seen in a long long time and ranks right up there with Band of Brothers in terms of TV quality. How could you have screwed this up?"

By looking at the air dates of the episodes and seeing how everything was played on TV out of order (it's a linear series, it's not a good idea to play a series that was written in order all jumbled up) I can understand how a whole lot of people would have just given up on in.

But thank goodness for the DVDs and if this movie is as good as the series I will be very excited come next spring.

Will be fun

[salesgeek]

The Firefly series was just too out there for the average TV viewer... it would have done great if it had the same positioning as Farscape... It will do really well in theaters as a movie because it has the look and feel that will work. Can't wait to see it.

No sound...

[SiChemist]

I loved the series and I must say that any science fiction that respects the "no sound in space" rule gets additional kudos in my book.

(That would be SiChemist's Big Book O' Kudos for the curious.)

Re:No sound...

[91degrees]

So, you don't like sound in space, but you're willing to accept that someone strums away on the banjo every time they turn on their stardrive?

Re:No sound...

[SiChemist]

I think it's usually a guitar and violins, not a banjo :-)

I think that the "no sound in space" adds to the menace that such an inhospitable environment presents. It was used quite effectively in the pilot episode, near the beginning.

However, that doesn't mean that I think incidental music should be abolished from all science fiction because it's "unrealistic". Effective use of music adds to the drama and tension of the scene. In the same way, I think that the absence of sound in space was used very effectively to enhance the dramatic impact of those scenes that occur outside the ship.

So, a fact that contravenes the Sci-Fi cliche (of noisy space) was used to make the series more dramatic and original. I don't see why anyone would object.

Re:No sound...

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

So, you don't like sound in space, but you're willing to accept that someone strums away on the banjo every time they turn on their stardrive?

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but incidental music is for the audience, not the characters -- they don't hear it. (Does your life give you musical cues? I'm jealous.) Being against sound effects in space is standing up against the storyteller telling you something not valid. Being against incidental music is like objecting to the use of pages in books -- "no one I know lives on a two-dimensional sheet of paper". It's part of how the story is told.

Re:No sound...

[91degrees]

Yes, but the space sound effects are also for the audience. It's just non-musical incidental music to tell us that the Enterprise has whizzed by.

Re:No sound...

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

Hmm yeah maybe, but it still doesn't deal with a much more important sci fi fallacy, the space battles at very high or near relativistic speeds. Going at, for example, 10,000 km/hr in space (so slow you're almost going backwards) other ships would be a twinkle in the sky at any stage of a battle. Any how are you going to work out a firing solution when by the time your radar catches up with the target and bounces back, they are already far from their original location? A series that deals with that in a sexy way has MY vote! :D

Re:No sound...

[91degrees]

Fair enough.

Essentially though, I've just always seen incidental music and sound effects in space as more or less the same thing; Additional sounds to add context to the story. Total silence makes it look flat.

OTOH, I am pleased that the makers have worked out a decent way of portraying space without resorting to something that - I agree - is a cliche.

Re:No sound...

[Blakey Rat]

What pissed me off about it (and the new Battlestar Galactica did this, too) is that the space scenes were filmed with, what appeared to be, a man holding a steadicam. That makes no damned sense. Why is someone filming this with a steadicam? Where are they standing?

The steadicam was designed to do point-of-view shots, i.e., when the film shows a descent down the stairs it looks as if you are walking down the stairs behind the actors. What does this mean if you use it in a space setting? That the audience is sitting outside the ship in a space suit? Even if they are, how can you use a steadicam in microgravity? (You can't.)

Anyway, those effects were just dumb. I know this'll get modded down, but I thought Firefly was mediocre at best (and yes, I *have* seen many the episodes in more-or-less the correct order.) I'm also not a fan of Buffy, but there you have it.

Re:No sound...

[No Such Agency]

What pissed me off about it (and the new Battlestar Galactica did this, too) is that the space scenes were filmed with, what appeared to be, a man holding a steadicam. That makes no damned sense. Why is someone filming this with a steadicam? Where are they standing?

I imagine this was done for purely aesthetic reasons - Joss & co. liked the way it looked, and thought we would too. I didn't find it odd or distracting at all. Then again, I don't consider "following" shots to be an attempt to simulate the viewer literally following the character. A closer idea might be the "ghost mode" from a game like Counterstrike - you are viewing the action from a dynamic but disembodied point in space.

Re:No sound...

[sickdawg]

Battlestar Galactica and Firefly had the same FX people. It was a technique that was developed for Firefly that fitted in with the camera style of the show. Quite a hard technique to do, as it involved far more work on the CGI side of things to get shots that looked correct as it was easier to arse up.

Incidentally, did you know that Serenity appears in a scene in Battlestar Galactica? ;)

http://www.fireflyfans.net/bluesunimages/3F99F4D04 A501127C11B979B1E1AEBEC.jpg

Re:Did anyone even watch this show?

[Anonymous Coward]

BAH!... What are you talking about..

I think the idea that Starbuck is a woman AND still a womanizer is a great idea.

What's the appeal?

[Khelder]

Ok, I may get flamed into oblivion for this, but I'm genuinely curious, so:

What's the big draw of Firefly? I loved Buffy and Angel, but I just don't see why so many people seem so taken with Firefly. I saw all the eps that aired on TV and it just seems mediocre to me. Is it that I'm not a big western fan?

Re:What's the appeal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fair enough. If you've seen every episode that aired, you probably won't get flamed because you at least have an educated opinion. Here's why I like it:

1) Good characters with very human failings. Even Mal Reynolds (the Captain) is not above poking someone in the stomach with a sharp sword just for fun. And you actually care what happens to them.

2) Great writing. I thoroughly enjoy not only the plots of each episode and the editing structure, the dialogue is hilarious. And getting actors who can deliver those great lines was very skilled work on the part of the casting director. Adam Baldwin and Alan Tudyk are great examples of this.

3) Great production values. When Fox cared, it was a slickly produced show. It helps that you don't expect a cardboard wall to fall down at any minute (a la ST:TOS).

As to why you might have disliked it:

1) A western set in space? WTF? Watch the whole series on DVD and it will make more sense.

2) What's with all the Chinese language? Watch the whole series on DVD and it will make more sense.

3) The episodes don't seem to follow any coherent pattern! Blame Fox. Then watch the whole series on DVD.

Re:What's the appeal?

[bay43270]

Isn't it funny that there is so little quality scifi on TV that most fans will watch every episode of a show they don't like, just to give it a chance? I've done this with a few shows including firefly. It wasn't until just before I found out the series was being canceled that I began to like it. After watching it all again on DVD I figured out that I was loosing a good deal of the character development because Fox wouldn't show the episodes in order.

BTW, the solution I've found for my hunger for scifi was to bump up my netflix subscription and start renting tv shows. That way I can watch them in order from the beginning at my own pace. I've rediscovered quite a few good shows that I never got into before because they were several seasons into the story when I heard about them.

Re:What's the appeal?

[BadDream]

I can only speak for myself of course. I am not a western fan at all.

What I liked most was the way the actors seemed to be so comfortable with thier characters from the start.

The crew is "good" people, but they are not pure. They have intersting, unexplored, and questionable pasts. None of them really knows where they are going, but they are going none the less.

The crew relationships also existed on many levels. Each person was unique, and also had thier own relationship with others on the ship. And all that came to be real for the viewer very quickly, and the mechanism never seemed forced.

I also liked the non-space-traditional plot tactics. Good guys don't typically run bad guys through thier engines. Perhaps its because I do not like westerns that I am unfamiliar with these types of plots, I can't say.

Re:What's the appeal?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

As a fan of all of Whedon's shows to date, all I can say is that I got the same things out of Firefly that I did out of Buffy and Angel: great dialogue, interesting worldbuilding, neat twisty plots, and perhaps most important of all, a talented ensemble cast playing characters I genuinely liked. Likable characters is a big one for me -- I find the characters in many (most?) movies and TV shows so irritating that I quickly cease to care what happens to them. Whedon's characters are almost universally people you'd like to sit down and have a beer with.

Re:What's the appeal?

[JPelorat]

Great points. Don't forget to tell them to listen to the commentaries on the DVD also - we get a ton more backstory and explanations out of those.

Re:What's the appeal?

[Galvatron]

Personally, I thought Firefly was great, but found Buffy thoroughly uninspiring. I think I'm just not a big high school drama fan. That's okay, you like what you like, and I like what I like. Simple enough.

Re:What's the appeal?

[{8_8}]

Did you see all the episodes as they were shown on TV, or did you watch them in chronological order? It might make a difference in your opinion. I watched them on DVD and wondered why the series got canceled. Imagine my surprise when I found out that Fox aired the episodes out of order.

Like you said, perhaps you just didn't like the western theme. For me, there was always some tension between the sci-fi setting and the western imagery, but I overlooked them in favor of the character interactions and Whedon's one-liner style.

Perhaps there wasn't enough Buffy-style drama for you? Buffy and Angel were, IIRC, big on relationship drama. That was one of the things that I wasn't a big fan of on, but I can understand why people would enjoy that. For me, I found Firefly to be just slightly more realistic, drama-wise, than Buffy or Angel. On the other hand, Firefly only lasted a single season while Buffy and Angel had multiple seasons to develop the characters. Perhaps, given a few seasons, Firefly would have turned out to be just as relationship drama-based as Buffy and Angel. That's not necessarily a bad thing; I enjoyed Buffy and Angel just as much as I did Firely.

Re:What's the appeal?

[Wescotte]

When it first airred I watched every episode and I recall not really getting into the show. I watched the entire series again after I learned of the unairred episodes (and that they were out of order) and I fell in love with the show. I now consider it the best scifi series I've seen on TV. (My top 3 right now are Firefly, Farscape, DS9.. I've seen pretty much all treks and most of B5.. I was very dispointed with B5 btw)

Not a great idea, Joss

[argStyopa]

...releasing the first clips of the movie so far in advance.

I used to *hate* trailers that gave away a movie's storyline (back when I used to go to movie theaters), now I'm starting to get sick of 'driblets' and trailers and all the 'leaked production clips' that seem to end up sprinkled all over the net.

Lacking any sort of self-control, I frequently download said clips, and by the time the movie comes out, I've seen 2/3rds of it. It sucks.

Aside from that, there's the whole difficulty of keeping a fanbase whipped up for so long. Maybe Joss'll take a page from Gabe Newell: "oh, we were GOING to release the film in September, but someone hacked our email so we're going to have to 'check' it for the next 12 months before ACTUALLY releasing it."

Re:Not a great idea, Joss

[whathappenedtomonday]

since i can't mod you 'funny', i'll have to reply:

I used to *hate* trailers

well, then just don't download / watch them.

Lacking any sort of self-control

ah ok. but if that's the case, those trailers should be the least of your problems... :)

Aside from that, there's the whole difficulty of keeping a fanbase whipped up for so long.

i think that depends on the fanbase and thus on the quality of the project / film / series. i'll be glad to wait, just as long as there will be more Firefly *drool*

Re:Not a great idea, Joss

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

Lacking any sort of self-control, I frequently download said clips, and by the time the movie comes out, I've seen 2/3rds of it. It sucks.

Ah, yes, the great American hobby: Blaming others for the faults in yourself. It's not a "bad idea" just because you happen to (apparently regularly) ruin your own experiences.

Personally, since I do have self-control and don't want to be spoiled (and so don't download trailers, etc.), I couldn't care less whether he does it or not.

Re:Not a great idea, Joss

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can't control yourself from downloading, then that's your problem. What are you, two years old? "I want my milk now!!! wahhh." Grow up.

Re:Did anyone even watch this show?

[FishermansEnemy]

Err, didn't battlestar galactica get picked up?
http://www.scifi.com/battlestar/

new show!? oh...

[option8]

in my precaffeinated state this morning, i was skimming the /. headlines, saw Joss Whedon's name and the phrase the pilot for his new show Firefly, and just about shat.

new show? firefly reborn?

then i woke up enough to read the first part of the post, "a few years back." sigh.

when the show was on, i thought it was a trek-killer, a new (to prime-time american audiences, at least), less anaesthetic vision of the spacefaring future, sure to spawn movies and probably become a *gasp* franchise, like whedon's other creations. i just thought it would be on for a few seasons first.

and yes, i'll go see the movie, even if everybody tells me it sucks. and yes, i'll buy the DVD. if only because it has jewel staite in it.

Re:new show!? oh...

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope we get to see her naked.

Re:new show!? oh...

[JabberWokky]

i'll buy the DVD. if only because it has jewel staite in it.

My SO is a blond research chemist, very science and very girly. She absolutely loves the character of Kaylee. So many engineers/scientists are portrayed as stiff unemotional robots or starlets with full makeup working on equipment. Kaylee is a pretty girl who is feminine and is good with equipment. That's a really rare character. I liked that she wore clothes that make sense if you were an engineer and wore no makeup (except the one time she got the dress and went to the formal ball). Sarah wears a t-shirt and jeans under her lab coat, comes home with the scent of buffer in her hair and can take a shower, slip into a dress and head out for the evening.

Kaylee is a very well balanced character, and I have a sneaking suspicion that there are loads of women in science and engineering that dug the character.

--
Evan

Re:new show!? oh...

[option8]

i learned from the DVDs that jewel had to *gain* 20 pounds in order to play the part. she was apparently too thin when she auditioned for the part of kaylee. i think they didn't want the show's "conscience" and the emotional appendage of Serenity to draw more eyeballs than the professional companion.

but i, for one, find any woman that can go from stained two-sizes-too-big coveralls to formal evening dress without missing a beat very seksi.

Re:new show!? oh...

[cfuse]

when the show was on, i thought it was a trek-killer ...

No, that would be Bergman.

Firefly was too good for American TV, which is why it got canned. God I hate America.

Informative?

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this scored as Informative? It's the only post where I burst out laughing. Shouldn't it be Score:5, Funny?

Re:Did anyone even watch this show?

[FireFury03]

It got cancelled after 1 complete season because Fox insisted on showing the episodes out of order in a timeslot that many other shows had already died in.

Since it hit DVD, it stuck at Amazon's number-1 slot (a pretty spectacular accomplishment in itself) and is perhaps one of the alltime best selling DVDs.

Seriously, go grab the first couple of episodes off a p2p network and if you like them buy the DVDs. The stories are entertaining and often insightful, the photography is excellent and the CGI is probably the best I've ever seen - you really do forget that the CGI scenes aren't real. (The CGI is all rendered as if it's shot with a handheld video camera, which fits in perfectly with the rest of the filming which is all done on handheld cameras - it really does make you feel like the camera man is right in the middle of real action.

glass houses...

[gad_zuki!]

>those of us with more than 2 braincells with nothing worth watching.

Its this kind of elitism that makes people wonder why theres so much shitty sci-fi out there like Firefly, Lexx, badly produced and translated anime, etc. From the perspective of non-fanboys your love of some of these shows makes you look like the very same idiot you decry.

Sci-fi is popular and everywhere. Being a fan of the genre doesnt make you some kind of uber-man.

And then consider the people who dont even watch TV, they must think you're an idiot for not cracking open some good books.

In other words, glass housing is relative and you're setting yourself up for a fall defending some show, especially when TV entertainment is so very subjective.

Not to mention your condescending attitude doesnt really make any point other than "I'm a fan, I'm better than you non-fans!!!" Which is pretty sad.

Re:glass houses...

[FireFury03]

And then consider the people who dont even watch TV, they must think you're an idiot for not cracking open some good books.

Umm.. but I do.

In other words, glass housing is relative and you're setting yourself up for a fall defending some show, especially when TV entertainment is so very subjective.

I'm not defending some show, I'm complaining that there is very little on TV worth watching - hell, we have more mindless reality shows than practically any other genre at the moment because people watch them and they're cheap to make. It's just not something I want to watch so I get a bit annoyed when they cancel stuff I want to watch to make way for yet more of the same mindless drivel.

I have the same problem with football (soccer) - when it's football season the channels clear their schedules and put on nothing but football. I don't want to watch it, I'm not in any way interested in it, so why should wall-to-wall football replace the (quite broad) collection of genres I'm interested in for weeks at a time?

Similarly I doubt I'd be especially happy if all the channels did wall-to-wall scifi - I'm interested in other things too and don't want them cancelled to make way for more and more of just one type of show.

Re:glass houses...

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

Its this kind of elitism that makes people wonder why theres so much shitty sci-fi out there like Firefly, Lexx, badly produced and translated anime, etc.

No. I might get flamed here but the reason there's "so much shitty sci-fi" is Star Wars. And I mean "A New Hope", not the prequel trilogy crap. The unexpected, unprecedented, and overwhelming success of the first Star Wars movies permanently branded Sci Fi onto the retinas of movie moguls looking for (what they think will be) quick and easy blockbusters. Now, I liked Star Wars and still do, but almost no one took away the lesson that a movie succeeds on its human elements. Everyone decided that big badass SFX mattered most, and so we've gotten generations of bad TV and movies based on that premise (including the aforementioned bad prequels, which are virtually a mathematical proof of the falseness of this fixation).

Re:glass houses...

[maxpublic]

Its this kind of elitism that makes people wonder why theres so much shitty sci-fi out there

As compared to your obnoxious arrogance?

Sci-fi is popular and everywhere.

You're delusional. In terms of movie and book sales, scifi/fantasy comprise a very small portion of the total amount. Reason? *Most people don't care for scifi or fantasy*.

But once again you think your personal opinion is actual fact, regardless of evidence to the contrary.

In other words, glass housing is relative and you're setting yourself up for a fall defending some show, especially when TV entertainment is so very subjective.

And yet you have no problem screaming "Firefly sucks!" every chance you get. So which is it? Moron or hypocrite? Or both?

Max

Re:glass houses...

[Ray Radlein]

In terms of movie and book sales, scifi/fantasy comprise a very small portion of the total amount.

You would have been okay with "book sales," perhaps, but movies? Of the top eight highest-grossing movies of all time, all save Titanic are fantasy or SF. If you include movies where animals talk (Finding Nemo and The Lion King), you have to go all the way down the list to Forrest Gump at #17 and The Passion of the Christ at #23 to find movies which are unambiguously not fantasy or science fiction. It's not until Troy, Saving Private Ryan, Jaws and Pretty Woman at 39-42 that you finally get an actual run of consecutive movies on the list which aren't fantasy or science fiction.

If you look over that list, the top fifty highest-grossing movies of all time are almost all fantasy or science fiction.

So when he says that "Sci-fi is popular and everywhere," he's pretty much right.

On the other hand, Firefly was an absolutely tremendous show, and people who don't like it pretty clearly hate Jesus and eat babies. I cannot wait to see this movie, and I, for one, welcome our new Firefly Overlords.

Re:glass houses...

[Scrameustache]

It's not until Troy, Saving Private Ryan, Jaws and Pretty Woman at 39-42 that you finally get an actual run of consecutive movies on the list which aren't fantasy or science fiction.

Troy is fantasy. Well, mythology, but that's not much different : )

On the other hand, Firefly was an absolutely tremendous show, and people who don't like it pretty clearly hate Jesus and eat babies.

Yup, reavers, the lot of them.

Mod Parent up!

[Libertarian_Geek]

LMAO- That was funny.

Unrealistic?

[Per Abrahamsen]

Unlike Buffy the Vampire Slayer?

Whedon use some obviously unrealistic settings in order to tell some very realistic stories about being human. Unlike almost all other TV which use some apparently realistic settings to tell very unrealistic stories about humans.

Firefly had the markings of a show that could have been great, had it not been for the interference from the network and the premature death.

Yeah, but about that "no air" thing...

[BenEnglishAtHome]

The lack of sound in space as depicted in the series is a good thing, sho nuff. But am I the only one who was irritated by the assertion that Vera (that over-accessorized tart of a rifle) required air to function? They put the thing inside a space suit, fer cryin' out loud, in order to shoot it in a vacuum.

Firearms work fine in a vacuum. In fact, if you think it through, they'd work far *better* in a vacuum. If you don't want to think it through, just look up the Glock "sub aqua" pistol variants to find pistols that work fine without air while submerged.

Maybe there was a reason Vera needed air but I've been through the DVDs with a fine-toothed comb and I don't see any explanation about why.

My "willing suspension of disbelief" has taken a big hit here. Can anybody help me get it back?

Re:Yeah, but about that "no air" thing...

[kria]

Maybe it's just that I don't know much about guns, but wouldn't they need oxygen for the propellant to burn?

Like I said, I don't know anything about guns really, but just a hypothesis... and of course, most of their guns aren't really bullet propelling guns, I would guess from the sounds, so who knows what they need...

Re:Yeah, but about that "no air" thing...

[jbb999]

Maybe Jayne didn't read the owners' manual and just thought it needed air to work?

Re:Yeah, but about that "no air" thing...

[Anonymous Coward]

I was under the impression that in the episode where they introduced Saffron, "Our Mrs. Reynolds", Jayne was trying to trade the rifle to Mal, and had said something about the gun that tipped the air thing off. I don't have the ability to watch the show right now, so I can't confirm, just fishing for an answer ;)

Re:Yeah, but about that "no air" thing...

[LordJezo]

Maybe in the future they have guns that require air to work.

Re:Yeah, but about that "no air" thing...

[BenEnglishAtHome]

I don't know much about guns, but wouldn't they need oxygen for the propellant to burn

No, guns don't need oxygen. The gunpowder in the cartridge contains all the elements required for combustion. Guns are often fired in environments without oxygen, such as underwater. That was my reference to the Glock "sub aqua" models; they have a design change or two that makes them work better underwater. But even a regular Glock fires underwater just fine.

Given the lack of air resistance and low gravity in space, conventional firearms of today would have far better performance in space. No resistance equals faster bullet velocity in a straight line that just keeps going on forever. In an atmosphere, air drag slows down the bullet, gravity pulls on it, and the result is that it becomes less effective with increasing range, follows a curved trajectory that complicates aiming, and eventually just falls to the ground harmlessly. In space, none of those limiting factors exist. Firearm performance would be fantastic.

Man, this thing is really bugging me again, all over again.

Re:Yeah, but about that "no air" thing...

[BenEnglishAtHome]

Tonite, I'll rewatch the segment on the gangway where Jayne tries to trade the rifle to Mal. I didn't see or hear anything during that segment the last dozen times I watched it, but it never hurts to try again.

Re:Yeah, but about that "no air" thing...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think the problem lies with the propellant.
I think that decompression on the bullet case when entering vacum would cause the bullet head to separate frome the case due to atmospheric pressure within. Also the primer may rupture.

Posting ac cause I have done some mod work here.

Re:Yeah, but about that "no air" thing...

[BenEnglishAtHome]

That's the first theory I've heard with even a glimmer of possibility. I don't think it's right since I don't think the tiny bit of air normally inside a cartridge case could expand sufficiently or forcefully enough to damage or dislodge a primer or bullet. However, I want to thank you, my anonymous friend, for giving me back at least a little of that "willing suspension of disbelief" that I was grieving. Yours is the first theory that could inspire me to seek experimental test results, if only I had the facilities

So - Anybody around here have a vacuum chamber? Would you like to throw a couple of mil-spec rounds inside, pump out the air, and see what happens? (An SS109 round would do fine.) If so, please post back. :-)

About that "airhead slut"

[BenEnglishAtHome]

Thanks for the really funny post. I'd throw you mod points if I had them.

Just a comment, though, on the viability of the movie and the inclusion of the "airhead slut." Here goes: If Whedon wants to guarantee that the movie is a smash hit with much of the current fan base, all he has to do is emphasize that "slut" stuff.

Even in her work before Firefly, Jewel Stait just makes me drool...

Space Hookers!

[raygundan]

He forgot to mention the space-hooker.

It's amazing how stupid you can make something sound. I thought it was good, though, and I didn't like Buffy or Trigun (the painful space-cowboy/space-priest anime) much.

Obligatory Cheech and Chong Reference

[Anonymous Coward]

and hopefully, ask him a question.

"Who does your hair?"

No, it's right Re:"It's almost a tradition"

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

Lets wait for something to happen three times before declaring it a part of our regular cultural fabric, eh?

Ok. If it takes three times to make something a tradition, then two times is certainly "almost" a tradition.

Argh!

[some guy I know]

"whatever it's called".
Sorry.

Fox Then and Now

[some guy I know]

When Fox was first starting out, they took a lot of chances, and the result was great shows like BCjr.
Unfortunately, now that they are "established", they have become as entrenched in the mainstream as the other three major networks, and for the most part are afraid to try anything new or innovative.

Re:Did anyone even watch this show?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's try not to exaggerate, okay? "number-1 slot" on Amazon, hahahaha. I'm a fan and all, but you just sound like a fucking idiot when you blow it all out of proportion. And look at that username, try to less of a fanboy and more of a man, alright?

Re: Genres

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, I think "Space Western" qualifies as a new genre.

Well, Star Trek (TOS) was billed as a "Wagon Train" in space back in the 1960s, so I don't know how "new" the genre is.

Very few SF shows are "pure" SF.
They almost always have elements of other genres in them.
(But, really, that's true of any genre.)

Re:Naww I watched them. All of them

[Om242]

Ok, I'm going to feed this Troll in hopes of educating others what this shows purpose was.

So lets get started...

It was a vehicle for more cheesy western tales with a sci-fi twist.

Ok, I honestly dont understand what your problem is with this mixture. You see, at first you complain about it being 'cliche', then you chastise it for being different. I really feel you need to stay consistent with your outright slamming of this show's premise. No other show tried melding these two conecepts, so you cant possibly sit there and say its cliche'.

That's cheesy star trek as you can get, and lets not fault star trek too hard as it was original at its time.

Uhhh... go watch 'A Fist Full of Datas'... or that one episode where Data raises a 'daughter'... "her name is Lol.". Lol indeed! Comparing Firefly to this dredge is an utter insult to yourself... not to anyone who understands the marked differences between these two shows. Not to mention the continuity of Firefly! I am now addicted to television that has an overarching storyline. I cannot stand each episode being a nice little package a la Star Trek. Babylon 5 had the balls to start that trend, and Whedon perfected it, in my opinion.

The girl who was experimented on really didnt go anywhere and seemed horribly out of place.

What do you mean by that? Out of place? OF COURSE SHE WAS! That was the point. If you understood the Captain, you would see a tortured, rather tragic figure. The 'girl' (River was her name) was running from the Big Corporation (A mystery that didnt get explained due to the cancellation). She was there because of her brother, the Doctor. The Captain, at first, took them on board because:

A) He has a natural distrust of 'The Corporation' and the Alliance in general.
B) He's broke off his ass and could use a doctor.

Sounds pretty logical to me. Not only that, but that added some intrigue to the story that adds excellent tension throughout the show.

Then the cheesy religious figure.

Ok, this line really is what prompted me to write this diatribe since he was one of the primary reasons why I wanted the show to continue on. Let me just get this out of the way, he *was* a cheesy religious figure on the outside. However, there were so many hints in that show that made any sane man beg to know more. For example, there was one episode where Jayne (the strongman on the ship) and Shephard went out patrolling, and came upon a guy who was shot in the head. The Shephard looks down at him, and goes "Looks like he was killed by a at a range of 200 yards." Jayne looks at him oddly and goes 'Do a lot of shooting at the abbey?'. Another example was when they infliltrated one of those Corporation medical facilities and Shephard was a dead-eye shot, taking people's knee-caps off. HELLOOOO... you arent a bit interested in this guy now? How the Hell does he understand weaponry so well? How did he become such a good shot? Futher, what the fuck is he even doing with this crew? Whats his agenda?... etc... etc. Dude, this is excellent character development if I ever saw it, in my opinion.

I could go on and on about this, but I'll start summing this up. You are implying that the majority of the people hated this show... Where are you getting your information? Those are simply unsubstantiated figures you are pulling out of the air to support your completely empty bashing of this show. You are just saying 'it sucks' to keep this thread alive and giving no examples like I have in my counter. It got canceled due to Fox putting it in the worst time slots... and *then* moving it around 2 or 3 times in various time slots. For a show that had such continuity in it, it demanded the watcher to stay tuned week-to-week. That became increasingly hard with every Fox-move it made on the show.

Time to wrap this up... this was by far the best sci-fi I have ever seen on a television show. It has spoiled me rotten, and it only went 15 episodes. I highly suggest you guys (and the poster that I'm responding to) to go and buy the DVDs (cheap, since its only 15 episodes) and actually watch them. I assure you, you will understand.

++Om

Re:Did anyone even watch this show?

[M1FCJ]

hmm, that's an idea...

would you be interested in him if he was still a man and preferred men?

Thought not.

Maybe I missed something

[Anonymous Coward]

I just really thought that show sucked. Maybe Whedon didn't have the time to devote to it with his work on Buffy and Angel. I watched both of those shows and am a big sci-fi buff. I'll give most sci-fi programs at least a season to let it get going. But this show stunk. And I thought the concept was actually pretty good. Maybe the western theme was a bit much. If it had been toned down a bit maybe it would have had a better appeal.

Re:Did anyone even watch this show?

[mshiltonj]

To be fair, the remake of Battlestar Galactica was pretty good.

That is a lie, and I demand a retraction.

Re:Did anyone even watch this show?

[superflippy]

Fox insisted on showing the episodes out of order in a timeslot that many other shows had already died in.

Not to mention that it was on at the same time as Farscape, the only other decent sci-fi show on TV at the time, IMO (sorry, Enterprise fans). How's that for splitting your audience? If it had been just one hour later I wonder how much better it would've done.

Re:Did anyone even watch this show?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or even better, Starbuck be a woman and a womanizer. That would have been hot!

Re:Did anyone even watch this show?

[FireFury03]

Not to mention that it was on at the same time as Farscape, the only other decent sci-fi show on TV at the time, IMO (sorry, Enterprise fans). How's that for splitting your audience? If it had been just one hour later I wonder how much better it would've done.

Actually this is something that I've noticed TV companies doing (certainly here in the UK). They seem to intentionally show programmes that will attract the same audiance at the same time. e.g. Sky One used to show Alias at the same time as BBC 1 showed Spooks (ok, they're fairly different but they're both spy dramas so will attact similar audiances). They seem to be under the misimpression that "our channel's better - everyone will watch us all the time" rather than the more true "people will watch the sort of shows they like nomatter what channel they're on". So the channels battle eachother for audiances for the same types of show instead of staggering their schedules so the viewers can watch both channels. The result - you have to choose which one of the shows you're really interested in you want to watch and then spend the rest of the evening or week with nothing to watch.

Has anyone head of Cowboy Bebop anime?

[mlbrooks]

It is interesting how similar firefly is to the anime Cowboy Bebop in the sense that it is a western set in space... I think the combination of the stale western theme with the sort of over-played sci-fi theme really brings something new and fresh to the table... go Joss!!!

Re:Has anyone head of Cowboy Bebop anime?

[Scrameustache]

Yes, space-cowboy is a sci-fi sub genre.

Firefly, cowboy bebop, trigun, star trek, star wars, they all had that sub genre to some degree (amongst many other).
Look at a picture of Han Solo, imagine him with a cowboy hat. There you go : ) He even has an indian (wookie) life partner.

What amazes me is the amount of people unaware of this sub-genre. Its as old as sci-fi! Heck, there's even a bit of space-cowboyism in Toy Story.

Firefly, or why intelligent TV fails without risk

[Goose3254]

as a response to many of the salient points raised in the smashing of this show I'd like to offer some arguments. Some have probably been mentioned in other posts, but these are mine and my reasoning alone

1. Western in space - anytime anyone sees the low slung pistol belt and horses, the comparison to a western will be made. Simply put, the same problems and attitudes with which the American frontier was settled, would translate into any "push in the bush". Tech level would drop to a point where it could be maintained on a local level, with various exceptions based on money/power. Sci-Fi references to this situation abound..."Ringworld" "Time enough for Love"

2. Incoherent story line - Fox producers didn't think that the original pilot had enough draw power to snag the target demographic so Joss and crew had to gin up the train job episode. Maybe a smarter move would have been to show the pilot as a movie first, but we'll never know. Also directly related to this , IMHO, is the fact they put the show in a timeslot that pretty much guaranteed that the demographic that the show would appeal to (intelligent non-teenagers under 50) would be unlikely to see, mostly because those folks usually aren't watching TV on a Friday night! Sunday's would have been better, ferchrissake!

3. Characters are one-dimensional. That's opinion, but I think that, just like in life, it takes time to really know a character, and just when you think you got them down, boom, here comes the curve ball. Mal's character went through the most changes, again IMHO, from reserved and sullen, to a likable, loyal rogue. River's tragic character didn't have time to properly develop and we only got hints at it, primarily from the last (in series not televised) episode. She went from pitiful and weak to downright scary powerful and it would have been interesting to see how the others in the group reacted to this new wrinkle. The preacher Book had a past obviously, ripe for exploration. Kayleigh's savant like talent for machinery and obvious need for acceptance was fully grounded in reality. Zoe could have been a great role model, loving and tender one minute, strong smart and able to kick @$$ the next. Jayne's full-on mercenary character is rooted in today's society(willing to sell out anyone to make a buck...remind you of the Fox network?). Simon and Wash's characters didn't have enough time to truly develop, but I suspect Wash was Joss's way of putting the viewer into the mix, plus the fact that he was the archtypical classclown of the group. The supporting characters and long story threads we re interesting to me. It showed that the writers were willing to invest as much time as the viewers. Niska and Saffron were different sides of the same coin and most of us "know" these characters in our lives. Add the ever present Alliance, with the Blue Sun corporation over sight, with the majoirty of the population going along with it as long as they get entertained, food on time, and creature comforts at the expense of freedom and a misguided sense of safety, and you've got an analogy to every powerful society ever concieved by man.

4. The comparisons to every other Sci-Fi space opera franchise ever. This isn't another iteration of Star Trek. Not knocking ST, but it did get preachy at times. Not star Wars, with it's convoluted sense of self. Farscape, interesting, but they kinda lost me early with the muppet character and the Alien for the sake of Alien tone. This was the story of humanity reaching the stars and bending them to it's will, for good or bad. That's what we do, we bend the environment around us to suit us. So it's only logical that we continue this practice into the future, not the "Prime Directive", which ignores the viral aspect of human behavior. This show takes the stance that man is his own worst enemy. And that, my friends, is damn interesting TV, much easier and more interesting than the "alien invader" scenario.

In closing, Firefly could have been the flagship series for Fo

Vera is not a Glock "sub aqua" pistol..

[LordJezo]

So it would need to have an explosive charge to make the bullets fire.

What makes you think it wouldnt need air? No air -> no fire -> no explosion -> no propellant.

Re:Vera is not a Glock "sub aqua" pistol..

[BenEnglishAtHome]

So it would need to have an explosive charge to make the bullets fire.

I'm not quite sure where to start with this. How about just a quick list of the many things you've got wrong. ONE - I never said that Vera was any kind of Glock. However, for the people (like you) who don't know how firearms work, this was an example illustrating the fact that firearms don't require environmental oxygen to work. TWO - Virtually no firearms today need to have an explosive charge. Gunpowder is not an explosive. It is, IIRC, a class B flammable solid, meaning that it supplies its own oxygen and will burn very fast even without environmental oxygen. In doing so, it releases large quantities of gas that propel the bullet. There is NO explosion. THREE - What makes me think that Vera wouldn't need air is that Vera is clearly an AR-pattern semi-auto rifle. Those don't need air today and it just strikes me as supremely wrong that a space-faring race would adopt technology more backward that wouldn't work in space if they didn't have to.

I could go on, but I hope I don't have to.

Despite all the deep thinking going on around here about cultural and philosophical stuff, the notion that multiple levels of technology can exist side-by-side where they are appropriate is the reason I thought the old west settings were being used. IOW, the outlying planets look like the old west because that's the level of technology they can self-sustain, given the way they're so poorly connected to the central planets. So if Vera looks like a given level of technology, why would that technology have undergone such a regressive evolution as to require environmental oxygen to function? It just makes no sense.

Re:Vera is not a Glock "sub aqua" pistol..

[ShinyBrowncoat]

You do know that Joss admitted they made a mistake with the gun needing air to fire, right? Apparently they asked someone who didn't really know what he was talking about...

Re:Vera is not a Glock "sub aqua" pistol..

[BenEnglishAtHome]

No, I didn't know that.

Any links? I'd like to read about it.

Re:Vera is not a Glock "sub aqua" pistol..

[ShinyBrowncoat]

I had remembered reading several discussions about this on FireflyFans.net and I could have swore I read one where they said Joss admitted they made a mistake with the gun needing air to fire, but I couldn't find it. I did find this thread, though, which is still an entertaining read:

http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=73 9

Re:Vera is not a Glock "sub aqua" pistol..

[BenEnglishAtHome]

Thanks so much. That was a good read. I think I might have to join in with some of those folks. I haven't been involved in a fan community for decades, though, so if you'll suffer another favor for me - Where would I find gatherings of Firefly fans? You've shown me fireflyfans.net. Are there others that you would recommend?

tia

ben

Re:Vera is not a Glock "sub aqua" pistol..

[ShinyBrowncoat]

Absolutely. Here's the run-down:

The original Fox "OB" (official board) -- the navigation on this site takes a bit of getting used to (you should immediately go to preferences and set the number of posts displayed per page to the max when you register/sign in) and you should stay out of the off-topic forum if you don't have thick skin (there are a lot of political threads and it gets very heated at times); however, this is among the oldest and largest FF communities, it's very friendly and chatty (some threads look more like IM/IRC chat logs than newsgroup threads -- say a quick hello in the infamous "Serenity Saloon" thread if you want to see what I mean) and folks like Chris Buchanan and Adam Baldwin post there (Adam mostly in the political threads; Chris mostly to announce news)

FireflyFans.net -- also one of the first FF sites, the volume is lower than the OB (although some would argue with a better S/N ratio) -- threads here stay pretty show-focused, with only an occasional political thread that is easily avoided. Includes a great "blue sun room" section for fan-created artwork, fanfic, and filk (fan lyrics)

The new official movie site forum. still getting its legs under it, and not as popular yet as the two major sites above, but it's growing (11K+ members) and they have a point earning system to win T-shirts and stuff (note my restraint in not giving you the URL that would have given me recruitment points!) ;)

Also, be sure to check out BrownCoats.com -- it's not a forum but a great resource/catalog/archive/pedia of firefly information (episode info, bloopers, costuming, history, interviews, etc.)

Cowboys-in-space

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

>Cowboys doesn't seem quite right -- more kind of bandits.

Hmmm...Sidearms modeled after long-barreled cap and ball Smith and Wesson revolvers, worn low on the hip in gunslinger rigs, at least one episode where people are riding horses and wearing dusters and cowboy hats, they actually haul cows as cargo, and so on. Since I own horses and ride a lot, I don't see any of this as a bad thing. The Firefly universe is a bit seedy, but it works. You not only get westerns, but a bit of Dickens thrown in as well.

As parent notes, the characters worked. The Ron Glass character was developing nicely, as was the very messed up River. And, I would be happy to sit for hours and watch Jewel Staite do anything, anything at all. Seriously too bad the show got cancelled. It had some real potential.

Re:Cowboys-in-space

[Scrameustache]

And, I would be happy to sit for hours and watch Jewel Staite do anything, anything at all.

Now THAT is a reality show I would watch! : )
Especially if strawberries are involved...

Re:Cowboys-in-space

[BenEnglishAtHome]

Sidearms modeled after long-barreled cap and ball Smith and Wesson revolvers

Just what sidearm is the foundation for that thing that Mal carries? I keep looking, but I just can't figure it out.

revolvers, worn low on the hip in gunslinger rigs,

Which is irritating as all hell, because those rigs aren't "old west." They're pure "1950s television western."

I would be happy to sit for hours and watch Jewel Staite do anything, anything at all

I was happy for her, and all that, but somehow pissed off when I found out she had gotten married. Lucky bastard. I wonder if there's any possibility some of their homemade naughty videos might leak onto the net?

HEY! Don't look at me like that! It's happened to other famous people. Can't a guy have a little hope? :-)

Looking forward to the movie

[jafiwam]

I for one will go see the movie.

Recently a friend loaned me the DVD set, so I got to watch them all in a row in the correct order.

Due to the time slot, I only saw one or two episodes on TV.

Sure there are problems with the show (later episodes gathered more and more) but I was genuinely entertained by it.

Plus, you gotta think that any show placed in the far distant future that shows Windows XP as the operating system running a dumpster is pretty cool.

[The "steal the laser" episode where Sapharron makes her second appearance. The dumpster they highjack to get the loot has windows on it's screen.]

Re:Looking forward to the movie

[TrentC]

Plus, you gotta think that any show placed in the far distant future that shows Windows XP as the operating system running a dumpster is pretty cool.

Geez, the product activation for that copy must be insane...

Jay (=

Firefly is great - Serenity now!!!

[jeff13]

Hi,
A space western is certainly a Sci-Fi standard and has been around longer than me (and at 37 that's a while!).

Firefly gave us nine fully formed characters who were instantly lovable thanks to the fantastic writing team of Joss Whedon and company. Each show broke more rules and presented exciting new scenes, ideas, and most notably FX from the incredible artists at Zoic! Truly the new standard for space ships in screen (can't wait for thier Battlestar Galactica stuff to come!)! If only FOX hadn't ssabotaged the show from day one we might still be enjoying the best Sci-Fi show to arrive on TV since the original Star Trek.

After the cult success of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, and now the massive fan support for Firefly, it's easy to tell that Joss is THE new voice in Sci-Fi today.

Or are you little geeks gonna try and tell me that childrens shows like B5 and SG1 are somehow better?

Re:Firefly is great - Serenity now!!!

[txtracer]

B5 was better because it got to tell its entire story and spawned two spin-off series (admittedly one only went one episode). SG1 is better because it's on what, season 7 now (?), plus it has a spin-off of its own. Firefly was off to a glorious start, and was cut down in its youth by rapacious suits who judge the quality of TV by demographics and ratings, not by production quality or artistic merit. I have no problem putting Joss Whedon up there with JMStraczinsky or the guy who created SG1 (can't remember his name!) as excellent storytellers. But "THE new voice"? Whedon was around for years before Firefly!

I just hope the movie (or movies) does well enough to give Firefly a second chance as a series.

Re:Firefly is great - Serenity now!!!

[Snaller]

B5 was better because it got to tell its entire story

Its funny with B5: Lame effects, bad writing, mostly bad acting (sometimes every totally atrocious "acting" - the president at the end of season 4 should be replaced with YarYar Binks and it would be a vast improvement) - but its still entertaining to watch because of the overall arch.

But better than Firefly? I no possible way. Even if Firefly had been after the pilot it would have been infinitely better.

Re:Wait a minute...

[ShinyBrowncoat]

isn't Joss a girls name?

Jayne's a girls name.

Well Jayne ain't a girl.
She starts on that "girl's name" thing, I'll show her good an' all I got man parts.

Frickin' HI-larious show!

Ah! That explains it!

[Grendel Drago]

They were caricatures of the "American Cowboy" dream (which is a complete fabrication itself).

Oh! Why didn't you say you hated America? That makes everything so much clearer, now.

--grendel drago

Re:Ah! That explains it!

[M1FCJ]

Where did I say I hate America? Please stop trolling.

Uh

[Anonymous Coward]

If there aren't any, will that change the chances?

Re:Wait a minute...

[Scrameustache]

isn't Joss a girls name?

Yes, and he knows it. He's a feminist.

I suspect its a ploy to get chicks, personally ;-)

Re:Wait a minute...

[centauri]

Iso.

Equal.

In Greek.

The absence of poor people would be unrealistic.

[Scrameustache]

You have the technology to go faster than light. You have the energy to take a ship out of a damn deep gravity well w/o sweating and you don't have the technology to breed cattle from embryos and you have to ship it around in a spaceship which is full of forementioned technology.

We have the technology to go faster than sound, we have the energy to take a ship out of the damn deep gravity well, we have the technology to breed cattle from frozen embryos.

Doesn't mean everyone has the budget for it.
Have you ever been faster than sound? Or out of the gravity well? Why not? You have the technology don't you?

You know that right now, on this planet, there are people eating genetically altered foods grown hydroponically while working on the latest fusion rector designs, while somewhere else, on this very planet, someone is planting rice, by hand, and worrying about the health of the family donkey? A donkey they need to get their rice to the market! What will they do if the donkey dies? Use a fusion reactor to move their rice from their crappy hand-built hovel to the market?

Similarly, you have a ship which can go in space but your "cowboy mates" still sit in 1850s kitchen to have their lunch.
It just doesn't work.

Yes, because, as soon as you invent FTL travel, you have no more need for a gorram kichen table.

Look at us now, its the 21st century, we have telecommunications satellites and doors that open by themselves when you walk up to them. No one, no where, uses wooden tables anymore!

Personal anecdote:
I once took a jet plane to mexico, from the airport I rode in an air conditioned pick-up to a comfy solar-powered fith-wheel trailer in a camp ground. There, I watched as vacheros (mexican cow boys) on horses hurded their cows to the nearby village.
According to your logic, this is impossible. If we have the technology for jet propulsion airplanes, therefore everyone on the planet is rich enough to afford all the latest technology and will therefore never EVER again ride on a horse (a self-replicating, self-refulling, edible, semi-autonomous all terrain vehicle) to herd cows (self replicating food sources that can be used as farm equipment AND that fertilises the very soil it uses to feed itself). As soon as a commercial spaceship goes on sale, WHAM, all of humanity stops herding cows.

I mean, as soon as someone invents something high-tech, humanity as a whole has no more use for its low-tech predecessors. Right?

And right now, as throughout all of history, some people live in high-tech luxury, while others have to run barefoot for hours to find barely-drinkable water. They think a fat insect is a feast. They struggle to scratch a living off the dry dirt they had the misfortune be born on, or were displaced to forcibly by well-armed thugs. This is reality: People are poor, people are uneducated, dirty, desperate, while others are rich, educated, comfortable and well fed. Any other setting is unrealistic. Having very rich people in one place and very poor people in another, THAT is realistic.

Serenity Now!

[Anonymous Coward]

As impatient Firefox fans and George Castanza would say.

Re:Did anyone even watch this show?

[Blakey Rat]

(The CGI is all rendered as if it's shot with a handheld video camera, which fits in perfectly with the rest of the filming which is all done on handheld cameras - it really does make you feel like the camera man is right in the middle of real action.

That's the part that turned me off on the show. That was so stupid it just boggled my mind. Where is this camera man standing? Is he just floating in space with a steadicam? How does it move the camera without any gravity to assist with it? Battlestar Galactica did the same thing.

Call to action; and why it's in space

[dionwr]

And for those of you that are going to the SF Worldcon in Boston, there are two "Firefly" shows on the ballot for best dramatic work, short form. Rather than have them knock each other out of the voting, I'd like to see everyone concentrate their votes on "The Message," so that Joss can get the Hugo he should have gotten years ago for "Buffy." The other nominated episode, "Heart of Gold," wasn't written by Joss, and I don't think it's as good.

Also, in answer to the question "why set it in space?" Alan Tudyk answered that in a recent interview on NPR. Tudyk was being interviewed because he plays the robot in "I, Robot," and the interviewer (obviously a fellow sf fan) asked the question about "Firefly." According to Tudyk, it's a plot point. The cheapeast way to settle newly terraformed planets is to land some people on them with tools and horses, and leave them to their own devices. It also effectively gives the Blue Sun Corporation, which is paying for the terraforming and the transport of settlers, indentured serfs who are totally at their mercy.

dionwr (dee-uh-NOOR; it's Welsh)

Re:Wait a minute...

[Malfourmed]

So's Angel.

Opposites attract

[Scrameustache]

As much as I liked Firefly (and I liked it a lot) in almost every episode I watched I kept on thinking, "if Whedon wanted to do a Western, why did he set it in space"?

He actually wanted to do a sci-fi show, the western theme is there for flavour.
And remember, space-cowboys is a time honoured sci-fi sub-genre, dating back to the early days of science-fiction itself.

The psychic girl could just as easily have been a mystic rather than surgically enhanced [...] Most of the plots would be exactly the same

Well, for what we actually saw, the one-show plots, yes. But he was definatly going somewhere with this, he had a meta plot that wouldn't work in a simple western setting. The psychic was made that way by a group within the Alliance government, there is a conspiracy story there that wouldn't be the same with a mystic, psychics aren't designed by western governments, they are designed by sci-fi governments.

really every plot could have been done just as easily in the 1870s rather than the 2700s (or whenever it was meant to be).

I think the main reason why he made a story in the future rather than in the past is because of the storytelling freedom it gives him. He can shape the future any way he wants to, but the past has to conform to what we read in the history books.
In his future, humanity lives under a bicultural hegemony, the Anglo-Sino Alliance. In the past, that wasn't so. He couldn't have had everyone biligual in english and chineese in an actual western. In fact, it was part of the mood of the show, to have a western feel while at the same time have the chineese a dominant force, while they were dominated and abused in the actual western past.

I'm sure this is going to make me unpopular

Nah, there's plenty of trolls for us to hate, we won't pounce on you for having an honest opinion.
I think its actually interresting too, most people complain that the sci-fi was tainted by the western, you see it the other way around : )

Personally, I think that mixing the two together is one of the aspects of the show's feel, its intrinsic nature. Its a constant dichotomy:

• Western / sci-fi, old and new.
• English / Chineese, west and east.
• High-tech / low tech, rich and poor.
• Heroes / villains, good and bad.
• Wimpy pilot / Amazon warrior, husband and wife.
• Coarse captain high on morals / Sofisticated call girl, (you get the picture).
• Etc.

The show was made of opposing things mixing together, yin and yang, it made it the fascinating watch that it was.

Re:Did anyone even watch this show?

[superflippy]

So true. I remember reading about when Oprah Winfrey and Phil Donahue had talk shows on at the same time competing for the same audience. At that point, VCRs had gotten common enough that people just taped one and watched the other later, apparently surprising the TV execs. You'd think that, all these years later, Nielsen would've found a way to account for that in their ratings system.

Re:Did anyone even watch this show?

[Eric S. Smith]

That's the part that turned me off on the show. That was so stupid it just boggled my mind. Where is this camera man standing?

Also, there's music playing under the dialogue in many scenes, yet it's never established why invisible musicians are following the characters around every week. Unprecedented and baffling!

Re:Firefly, or why intelligent TV fails without ri

[indros13]

Ted Turner is pretty eloquent in his explanation for why new TV stations and programming are endangered. Slashdot story: Ted Turner's Beef with Big Media.

It's not that the show was bad (I thought it was good). Probably just didn't smash the ratings charts for the megabuck$$$.

Jayne knows best?

[Scrameustache]

So if Vera looks like a given level of technology, why would that technology have undergone such a regressive evolution as to require environmental oxygen to function? It just makes no sense.

Does Jayne know this?
Jayne is handy with a gun, but does he know about oxydisers and such? He's the one who said Vera needs air to fire...

Also, maybe there is some kind of pneumatic system in there, a recoil dampener or whatever that does need air to fuction properly, we just don't know.

But mostly, if you disagree with the scientific validity of what Jayne "if I wanted schoolin', I'd had gone to school" Cobb says, you take it up with him.
;-)

Re:Firefly, or why intelligent TV fails without ri

[Anonymous Coward]

You make a lot of great points but I have to ask, What show were you watching? I did not see nearly as much depth as you did based on point number 4. I wish someone would make a show that would be a more realistic portrayal of humans staking there claim to other worlds and having to survive in a unsanitized environment. But this show wasn't that. I thought it took a few things a bit too far as far as the western theme goes.

bring smelling salts

[Illserve]

That is going to be one of the worst smelling rooms in the history of worst smelling rooms.

I call shenanigans!

[Scrameustache]

I saw all the eps that aired on TV and it just seems mediocre to me.

Considering that I was hooked from the first show and that I made a lot of effort to try and catch them all, but couldn't, I have a hard time believing that someone would manage to watch them all if he found it mediocre.

When Fox first aired them, they would advertise it to be on friday nights at 8, and sometimes it was, but sometimes it didn't play at all, or played at 12:05am, another time at 12:20am... you just couldn't know in advance.

I did try my best to watch them all, but missed one or two.

But in case you got a magic TiVo, or by "aired on TV" you mean not by Fox, and not in the states:

What's the big draw of Firefly?

Great FX, great writing, great characters, serious sci in their fi, and Kaylee. Hmmmm.... Kaylee...

Re:I call shenanigans!

[Khelder]

I kept watching even though I was initially unimpressed because I was a huge fan of Buffy and Angel, so I expected Joss to do more stuff that I liked. Also, series often get off to bad starts but turn out to be really good (e.g., ST:TNG).

BTW, I do have a Tivo, so recording it was pretty easy. I think I saw all the ones that were on Fox, but it's possible I missed a few.

And maybe if it had gone on longer or if I'd seen them in the proper order (as opposed to the aired order), I have liked it more.

No complaints about the effects. The characters were likable enough, but I thought the writing wasn't nearly as good as for Buffy & Angel. (Overall, that is.)

Re:Did anyone even watch this show?

[Scrameustache]

That's the part that turned me off on the show. That was so stupid it just boggled my mind. Where is this camera man standing?

Also, there's music playing under the dialogue in many scenes, yet it's never established why invisible musicians are following the characters around every week. Unprecedented and baffling!

And sometimes, that cameraman is right in someone's bedroom when they wake up, or even when they are making love! Are we to believe that it is an invisible cameraman? Preposterous!

Re:Did anyone even watch this show?

[Scrameustache]

Let's try not to exaggerate, okay? "number-1 slot" on Amazon, hahahaha.

Er, it was. The day that Amazon started accepting preorders for the DVDs, it got to the top of the "top five" list of DVD sales...that is, until they stopped accepting preorders (that very day).

you just sound like a fucking idiot

Yes, you do, you anonymous troll you. Whozza troll? Whozza troll? You are! Yes you are, you trolling coward you...awww...he's all scared of loosing karma, ain't that cute!

Re:Did anyone even watch this show?

[M1FCJ]

Come on? Which bit was particularly bad? The whole thing stank of post-9/11 America but still they managed to paint a more realistic storyline compared to the original one. I didn't like the bit about the succession of power (lowly minister becomes the goddamn president of the USA, ops, pardon, something). It was much more gritty, the destruction of the planets was much more graphic and realistic compared to straffing streets with Cylon ships and plants exploding into water droplets. The bit where only a couple of people would be saved off a planet was realistic but overacted. The bit where they had to leave a large number of ships behind, just to be destroyed almost immediately was incredibly realistic (in WWII atlantic, when a ship was torpedoed, no one was allowed to stop to rescue the stricken crew, they were usually left to die).

It had its faults, I loved BG as a child and it was plain wrong in many was but it was fun and it was fresh.

I didn't like the humanoids though but the Cyclon babe was gorgeous. :)

Re:Naww I watched them. All of them

[Golias]

No other show tried melding these two conecepts, so you cant possibly sit there and say its cliche'.

I love Firefly, but it was far from the first to combine Westerns and Sci-Fi.

What made Firefly great was that it combined themes from good westerns (ie., John Ford's "The Searchers") with well-thought-out Sci-Fi. I especially enjoys a lot of the physics elements (no sound in space, ships keep moving on momentum alone once they have their speed and trajectory set correctly, the Firefly has one propulsion system for space, another for atmospheric travel, etc.) The one thing I wish they would have explained was how they went about simulating gravity. It appears to be an active system which is part of the life support systems, but it's never really explained.

Re:Did anyone even watch this show?

[FireFury03]

At that point, VCRs had gotten common enough that people just taped one and watched the other later

Ah, but we're back to square one these days - with satellite you can only receive as many concurrent shows as you have decoders and LNBs for.

Thankfully these days I run MythTV and there are anough reruns of a show within a short space of time that it's usually able to reschedule the recordings so they don't collide (even if it's having to record stuff at stupid-o'clock in the morning)

Firefly is the only SF series to ever...

[OpenSourceOfAllEvil]

Firefly is the only SF series to ever have NO SOUND IN SPACE! No whoosh as spaceships go by, no booms when things blow up in space. The only other piece of SF to do this was 2001.

At a quick glance, Firefly seems like a dumb old hicks in space western, even using a similar theme of many old westerns, a group of disenfranchised post Civil War southerners just trying to get by after being reamed by "the man".

Fortunately, it survived and used this premise very well and develop strong characters as well as a wide range of stories from action adventure to horror to comedy. Every time I introduce someone new to the DVD they can't believe they missed it during its run.

p.s. The "sonic boom" of the Enterprise going to warp (along with its colorful burst effect) has got to be the stupidest gimmick ever.

Where's the .torrent?

[OpenSourceOfAllEvil]

Who wants to wait until Sunday?

I should point out...

[raygundan]

You're delusional. In terms of movie and book sales, scifi/fantasy comprise a very small portion of the total amount. Reason? *Most people don't care for scifi or fantasy*.

But once again you think your personal opinion is actual fact, regardless of evidence to the contrary.


I would now like to draw your attention to the top ten highest-grossing movies of all time:

1. Titanic
2. Star Wars
3. Star Wars: Episode I
4. E.T.
5. Jurassic Park
6. Forrest Gump
7. Lion King
8. Return of the Jedi
9. Independence Day
10. The Sixth Sense

Six of ten are sci-fi.

The top books of 2003 put a "mere" 3 sci-fi/fantasy books in the top ten. (including #1 and #2) Not a majority, but 33% is hardly a "very small portion of the total amount." Especially considering that the rest of the top ten includes two diet books, a self-help book, and two biographies. So... of the top 10 books of 2003, there are only five fiction books, and three are sci-fi.

It seems the original poster is not the only one mistaking his personal opinion for actual fact.

ok then

[Scrameustache]

I think I saw all the ones that were on Fox, but it's possible I missed a few.
And maybe if it had gone on longer or if I'd seen them in the proper order (as opposed to the aired order), I have liked it more.
No complaints about the effects. The characters were likable enough, but I thought the writing wasn't nearly as good as for Buffy & Angel. (Overall, that is.)

Well, I suggest getting your hands on the DVDs to see them in order. Its better that way.
I really enjoyed it myself, and, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "writing", maybe you had a problem with the future space-southern accent? Anyway, the general consensus seems to be that getting the proper order makes a BIG difference.

You are right about series needing time to hit their stride, though this series seemed to hit it much faster than most. By "objects in space"...man, it was getting intense. I was actually caring about these people, that's not something I'm familiar with ;-)

Though if you already don't like it...

Blue Sun

[Aexia]

It also effectively gives the Blue Sun Corporation, which is paying for the terraforming and the transport of settlers, indentured serfs who are totally at their mercy.

Blue Sun Corp is probably also the people behind the government school that fucked up River's brain. Some of her "acting out" is against stuff with the Blue Sun emblem. The food cans that she peeled labels off of, for example. Jayne was wearing a Blue Sun t-shirt when she attacked him.

And of course, there's the blue hands men...

A correction

[raygundan]

On that movie list, seven of ten are sci-fi/fantasy, if you're willing to count the Sixth Sense. I was on the fence about that one, but I think it will do.

This is pretty smart marketing. . .

[Fantastic Lad]

These clips will only be viewable at the comic show. Hence, almost nobody will ever see them, but the show will get great press and buzz.

I think the movies, good or bad, will be just movies. They'd have to be as amazing as Indiana Jones or Star Wars for me to prefer them over a solid television series, and with an ensemble cast of nine characters and Joss's skills all having been honed on long television story arcs? I'm not expecting the moon here. Firefly is not designed to work well in a movie theater. It's designed for slow development.

What I AM hoping for is that enough fuss will be kicked up and enough of a fan following generated through PR stunts like clips being shown at comic shows, that another shot at a television series will be granted.

On the other hand. . .

If Joss decides that he actually wants to make a great movie, then he's suddenly got this weird, round-about chance. What an interesting way to snag a shot at the big screen and a big screen budget! Not everybody, even well respected TV producers, are offered a chance to make a film every day!

If he totally re-thinks and re-works things, (that is, if he demonstrates adaptability, which he certainly has done in the past), then he could well put together something which could stand out brilliantly; something which could not have otherwise been done on a TV budget or a small screen.

After all. . . Including Darth Vader, Star Wars had eight central characters, and that film worked out okay. . .

-FL

Pathetic remake of Outlaw Star

[Anonymous Coward]

Get an original idea and maybe people would give a shit. Recycling already done stories/plots is just absolutely pathetic.

I mean really, what the fuck!