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."
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.
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).
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.
isn't Joss a girls name?
Jayne's a girls name
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.
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!
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.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
...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.
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
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
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.
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).
-- Nothing unusual happened today
> A space cowboy, a space priest, etc all in a very unrealistic setting
So... Which SF shows do you think have realistic settings?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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.
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.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
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.
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...