Slashdot Mirror


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."

4 of 295 comments (clear)

  1. "It's almost a tradition" by gowen · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "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?
    --
    Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
  2. Re:Not seeing the allure by Mordaximus · · Score: 3, Insightful
    "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.

  3. Re:Why in Space? by bourne · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  4. The absence of poor people would be unrealistic. by Scrameustache · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --

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