Serenity Pushed Back to September

iontyre writes "According to Joss Whedon and reported at fireflymovie.com the much anticipated feature film adaptation of the superb but canceled tv show Firefly has been delayed till September from its original April release to supposedly avoid too much genre competition."

Comments

No way.

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefly has been delayed till September

The Public release just came out! It's my favorite browser! Damn, microsoft they must be behind this!

obligatory Seinfeld reference

[mgs1000]

SERENITY NOW!!!!

Re:obligatory Seinfeld reference

[Anonymous Coward]

Serenity now, insanity later.

I want it now

[vurg]

I want Serenity now!

Re:I want it now

[Computerguy5]

You wouldn't be satisfied with it now.

Wait.

Dang...

[A beautiful mind]

...Firefly is really superb. Its a shame they are delaying its premier. Maybe people can argue that, but not that it's unique in its own kind. I really loved the western feeling, although it only lived 14 episodes :\ I wish they would have supported it instead of those brainless reality shows, etc.

Re:Dang...

[Anonymous Coward]

It does not have a premier. It has a precedent.

(For those of you who cannot spell: that was a joke; ok, two in one)

Re:Dang...

[Anonymous Coward]

Superb? Firefly is horrible. The plots are boring, characters are lame and obvious, acting is below par...

Re:Dang...

[Cromac]

As opposed to that trash Lexx that has run for years .

Re:Dang...

[Babbster]

But it's cheap trash and that makes all the difference to TV networks, hence the surge in reality TV over the past few years.

Re:Dang...

[op51n]

I wish they would have supported it instead of those brainless reality shows, etc.

Damn straight. Firefly was probably my favourite show of the last ten years at least. And now five months longer to wait.
Still, I am very glad that they aren't wanting to alter it at all. Unless that note comes later...

Re:Dang...

[tap]

Lexx had four movies that ran on Showtime, then just three seasons. The first two for showtime, then the third for the sci-fi channel. I liked the first season, but the third was just terrible.

The sci-fi channel passed on buying Babylon 5: Crusade when TNT canceled it. They didn't pick up the Babylon 5: Legend of the Rangers spinoff. They canceled Farscape! But they did buy the third season of Lexx (crap) and Andromeda (crap after 1st season). Plus their reality show, John Edwards, Scare Tactics, etc. double plus crap.

Sci-Fi Channel: Stuff so bad, we get it really cheap.

Re:Dang...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget their newest pile of horse dung, Battlestar Gallatica. People in the U.S. will have to wait until January to check it out unless they're getting it via bittorrent.

what else?

[Anonymous Coward]

so what else is supposed to pop up in april that would cause such a ruckus?

Re:what else?

[Pxtl]

epIII. I sense great disappointment in you.

Re:what else?

[aled]

in you great disappoinment I sense?

Re:what else?

[draos]

Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy is due May 5th

Re:what else?

[stry_cat]

Haven't we already had Episode III? Oh wait 1&2 were so bad that I just wish the whole experience was over.

Oh well

Re:what else?

[kobaque]

Ok, so let me rephrase that: What else is there that I'd want to see.... May Yoda forgive me for not having the date burned into my memory. (of course i'd have to post something "insightful" at work where i post as an AC, blah)

Re:what else?

[CaptainAvatar]

Aside from the films others have mentioned, War of the Worlds (the period adaptation, not the Spielberg/Cruise version) is currently due to open on 30 March 2005. I hope it will be good enough to cause a ruckus!

In Movie Speak

[stupidninja]

Pushing a movie back due to competition means your movie sucks.

Re:In Movie Speak

[Anonymous Coward]

Pushing a movie back due to competition means your movie sucks.

As Joss said in TFA (emph mine)

This isn't about a lack of confidence in the film -- in fact, they told me this before they even saw it. And now they have seen it, and unless they're way better liars than I'm used to, they dug it. Actually, they dug it pretty large, which is a good sign since there's not a single finished effect in the film. There's no reworking the end, no reshoots, no "does it have to be in space?". It's just a marketing issue.

Re:In Movie Speak

[Khomar]

No, it just means that they don't want to put what is currently a cult favorite against the marketing giant known as Star Wars. Remember, most people have never heard of Firefly, and when put against a major film release, it could easily be lost in the marketing blitz (although I personnally do not care if I ever see Episode III).

It is much better to give Serenity the best chance of exposure. People who never watched the show will not realize how truly great it is. Most people would probably rather watch Star Wars being a known commodity than take a chance with something new and strange.

Re:In Movie Speak

[Ruprecht the Monkeyb]

No, it doesn't, necessarily. In this case, it's recognition that while you may have a good movie, it's based on a niche market that you hope to expand (in this case, fans of Firefly, who weren't significant enough to keep a TV show from being cancelled.) You move bad movies to October/November, or February/March.

Releasing two weeks before a movie that's bound to do $300 million domestic and appeals to the same broad demographic is bad. What's worse is the inevitable media coverage and advertising flood that will accompany Episode III, and that will be peaking right at the time you are trying to convince people to see your movie.

Re:In Movie Speak

[stupidninja]

As if a movie studio would admit to something like that. So what if they hadn't seen the movie. They were told it was bad. I mean, they've gone as far as to not allow people to review the movie, saying that they created it for the fans (what was that movie again? the two british spies with a weather controlling Sean Connery as the bad guy).

Re:In Movie Speak

[pogle]

Do we get to blame George Lucas for screwing with Firefly as well as our (original) Star Wars now?

Re:In Movie Speak

[m50d]

I think you're talking about The Avengers.

Re:In Movie Speak

[The Ultimate Fartkno]

> Pushing a movie back due to competition means your movie sucks.

Unless, of course, your competition is the last(?) installment of Star Wars. Who in their right mind is going to open another sci-fi movie against that? This way they push Serenity back a few months until Star Wars has run its course and everyone's hungry for a good space movie. And with only a $40M budget, I think Serenity is going to turn out to be a solid hit at the box office that goes on to an even better life on DVD.

Re:In Movie Speak

[rhombic]

"Unless, of course, your competition is the last(?) installment of Star Wars. Who in their right mind is going to open another sci-fi movie against that?"

As I recall, Warner Bros did exactly that in 1999 with pretty good results....

Re:In Movie Speak

[Embedded Geek]

Does that mean Jar Jar was a Browncoat or Alliance?

Re:In Movie Speak

[wavedeform]

The Avengers was a great TV show (perfect for its time) that was made into a really awful movie. The look was OK, I guess, but the casting was dreadful, and the writing worse.

Given that the average movie reviewer is probably about the right age to think that Diana Rigg was the hottest thing to come out of the UK in the 20th century, it's no wonder that they hid the Uma-abomination from them.
(nothing against Uma, actually, but she was all wrong for this part)

Re:In Movie Speak

[guidemaker]

Unless, of course, your competition is the last(?) installment of Star Wars. Who in their right mind is going to open another sci-fi movie against that?

The Hitchhiker's Guide movie is opening two weeks before Episode III. I'm in two minds whether this is a good thing or not.

Re:In Movie Speak

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I don't remember- what was the WB movie that opened after Star Wars in 1999?

Re:In Movie Speak

[rhombic]

Not after, but about six weeks before.

The Matrix

Re:In Movie Speak

[Babbster]

Just in case you're kidding, it was The Matrix (released by New Line, a division of AOL/Time Warner). I would argue, though, that The Matrix was less a hit because of the science fiction and more a hit based on being a rocking action movie. Firefly, on the other hand, is more traditional science fiction fare despite the western theme which makes it a bit different.

Re:In Movie Speak

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Ah, true- I'd also argue that The Matrix didn't exactly have interstellar or even interplanetary battles in it; I'd call it Zen Sci-Fi and thus not even close to being in competition with Star Wars and Lucas-style special effects.

Re:In Movie Speak

[The Ultimate Fartkno]

> I'm in two minds

Zaphod? Is that you?

re: in movie speak

[ed.han]

considering the impact he had on ep1, i think it's pretty clear that jar jar's a reaver... :>

ed

re: in movie speak

[ed.han]

similarly, if ep3 does poorly, all the firefly fans can tell their friends: "gee, you hated ep3? well, there's another sci-fi flick in a few months that will really crank your motor..." and lend 'em the DVDs.

ed

Re:In Movie Speak

[Anonymous Coward]

*Readers* of Sci-fi tend not to have problems with the big-tent definition of the genre. I'ved noticed.

Re:In Movie Speak

[stanmann]

Not necessarily, Harry potter decided(wisely) not to compete with LotR. likewise it is wise, not to go head to head with Star Wars.

Re:In Movie Speak

[Darth23]

As we all had learned by reading Slashdot, George Lucas is to blame for EVERYTHING.

Including selling his movies on DVD and NOT selling his movies on DVD.

As far as Firefly goes, pushing a movie from srpingtime to the Dead Zone of late September is almost NEVER a good thing.

Unless the movie is so good that it dominates all of the other weak releases that will be dumped into that part of the year.

Personally I don't understand the logic behind releasing a theatrical feature for a tc series that was cancelled after one season. Good or not, it didn't exactly have a chance to build a huge following beyond it's niche.

Back in my day a tv series had to play succesfully in re-runs all over the world for several years, and spawn a huge fanbase before it warranted getting it's own theaterical release.

I think a mini-series or a several tv movies would have been a better idea instead.

Re:In Movie Speak

[Anonymous Coward]

Jar Jar was the token nigger side kick. He was buckwheat to spanky.

Re:In Movie Speak

[Marxist Hacker 42]

*Readers* of Sci-fi tend not to have problems with the big-tent definition of the genre. I'ved noticed.

I don't have MOD points so I'll lend you my Karma bonus. This is a very insightfull comment. However, I am very much also a *Reader* of Sci-Fi- and there are just some pieces of the genre which should never be made into movies. TV Shows, fine, but I find overly philosophical movies to be rather boring. Even the movie adaptation of Asimov's ultimate classic, Nightfall, was horrible. No, for a sci-fi movie to be good, it has to have spaceships & lasers for me to a large extent- or at least one good massive battle scene.

I'd even leave made-for-TV movies out of that- I loved Riverworld as a book and the Sci-fi channel feature presentation was even better, if a bit short (I think they planned to turn it into a series but didn't get the ratings to justify a series).

Re:In Movie Speak

[Bullet-Dodger]

He didn't say he had a problem with the big-tent definition. It's because Sci-Fi includes a lot there can be different 'Sci-Fi' movies that are very different in content and tone.

really

[Anonymous Coward]

I like sci-fi shows but firefly was just a space version of BJ & The Bear.

Take my love, take my land,

[PIPBoy3000]

Take my release date too.

Sigh. Firefly was a great series, though it took awhile to grow on people. I've been making my coworkers watch the series on DVD. After watching the first one their response is "So it's like a western in space?" A week later they hand back the DVDs with a glum face, asking "Why did they cancel it? That was a great show."

Re:Take my love, take my land,

[A beautiful mind]

Yeah, quite the same here. Im a music freak and i was listening to the theme song over and over again...
~Burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me~

Re:Take my love, take my land,

[technomancerX]

Let me sum up. It came on TV. The first two episodes sucked, and mostly everyone stopped watching it at that point. It got canceled.

I was one of those that stopped watching it. If someone loans me the DVDs I'll watch them and give it a chance. Otherwise I could care less about it.

Re:Take my love, take my land,

[Romeozulu]

The first two episodes sucked

The first two episodes where shown out of order. No wonder they didn't make any sense.

Re:Take my love, take my land,

[Richard_at_work]

They were shown in order here in the UK, and *still* the majority of people I ask think it sucked (I think it sucked as well). And Im normally a guy who will sit through most things scifi.

Re:Take my love, take my land,

[myowntrueself]

Absolutely; it was the last two episodes that sucked.

'objects in space' I mean whats with that idiot bounty hunter??? Does he have a hearing problem or something? (When Reynolds asks him 'are you alliance?' he seems to think that he said 'are you a lion').

And 'message' (IIRC the name of the episode) I just wish Jayne had killed that idiot of a dead guy straight away; it would have saved us a wasted episode.

Firefly was great until the last 2 episodes IMO; its as if they knew they were going to be cancelled and just gave up.

Re:Take my love, take my land,

[dorsey]

I love it when people can't distinguish between "it sucks" and "I didn't like it". Or, as is more often the case, "I didn't understand it".

Re:Take my love, take my land,

[SamHill]

The first two episodes sucked

The first two episodes where shown out of order. No wonder they didn't make any sense.

But they still didn't suck. I admit, I wasn't completely taken with the show until the wondeful scene in which Mal gives the head henchman a chance to let bygones be bygones. He does the usual blustering ``I'll hunt you down across the galaxy'', and Mal's response is so amazingly uncliched I was an instant convert.

And it only got better....

As for making sense, well, I guess I'm used to reading books where you're tossed into the middle of a situation you're unfamiliar with -- characters with motivations that aren't obvious, a world that doesn't work quite the way you're used to, unfamiliar technologies, and so on. You just have to open up and absorb until it all starts to come together.

Yup. Banks, Powers, Dickens... Good stuff.

Re:Take my love, take my land,

[corbettw]

They were shown in order here in the UK, and *still* the majority of people I ask think it sucked

Yeah, but that's the UK. Westerns have always been more popular in the US. Ask most Americans*, and they'll tell you they think Red Dwarf sucked, for much the same reason (eg, it's just too different than anything they normally like).

* I shouldn't have to point this out, but Slashdotters are not "most Americans". So you don't have to reply with "But I loved Red Dwarf. Kryton's the man!"

Re:Take my love, take my land,

[SamHill]

Hmm. I'm not sure whether you're kidding or not.

'objects in space' I mean whats with that idiot bounty hunter??? Does he have a hearing problem or something? (When Reynolds asks him 'are you alliance?' he seems to think that he said 'are you a lion').

``Objects in Space'' is awesome. Early has, well, some issues, which come out by the end of the episode. There's also amazing narrative tension -- is River dead or alive? Could she have really merged with the ship? What powers does she have?

The conversation you mention was actually with Simon; Mal was already locked in his cabin, unconscious. Early's reply is classic: ``I don't think of myself as a lion. You might as well, though... I have a mighty roar.''

And the last line of the episode -- ``Well... Here I am.'' -- is right up there with ``No matter where you go, there you are.'' as a summary of existential philosophy.

Re:Take my love, take my land,

[LaCosaNostradamus]

Hell, I made myself do that, pard. After all th' ruckus on Slashdot, I done gone an' figgered there was sumptin' to the durned thing. Good lookin' series, I reckon. {tip o' the hat}

Re:Take my love, take my land,

[Anonymous Coward]

Agree. Agree. All of Early was character data--amazing stuff that increasingly gave the watcher the impression that he was not quite right in the head, and yet still a fully fleshed out person. See theme of: humans make the best aliens.

Re:Take my love, take my land,

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything I've read suggests that the UK network on which Firefly was aired was pissed and confused by the cancellation of the show. So I assume it was doing well (financially ergo audience-wise) there.

Re:Take my love, take my land,

[Anonymous Coward]

It could be that those who are primarily fans of sci-fi lit are those that are most taken by Firefly.

And Joss is always about busting the cliche.

Re:Take my love, take my land,

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I agree that this dialogue was far above par for television, or movies these days. How often do characters behave realistically enough to mis-hear a piece of random dialogue. Firefly broke a number of TV rules, and was better for it.

Re:Take my love, take my land,

[GlacierDragon]

I, too, have been trying to convert my coworkers. We were on the night shift and after all the supes left (I was psuedo-supervisor) I fired up the DVD player in the i-pod and positioned it so anyone near my quad could see it. I had the most popular desk in the building and my co-workers were also wondering why the show got cancelled. That's actually a great way to make a slow evening at work go much faster. =)

Re:Take my love, take my land,

[Richard_at_work]

Its worth pointing out that MOST British disliked RedDwarf as well, its more of a cult following rather than anything else, albeit a large following, but its definately not mainstream.

Re:Take my love, take my land,

[Whumpsnatz]

I just finished watching the entire series on DVD, and I had a similar reaction. I remember seeing a little bit of it when it was on, and not getting much out of it. (the typical "cowboys in space. I expected more from Joss" reaction. Watching it now, I'm impressed. It's very good, and would doubtless have pulled me in as effectively as Buffy and Angel, if it had had the chance. I would love to see Serenity lead to a resurrection of the series.

Re:Take my love, take my land,

[Snaller]

It wasn't just the two first episodes that were shown out of order, a lot of them where. And unfortunately many sites (like tvtome) just list them in the Fox broadcast order which was not the intented order.

Of course this only matters if you are downloading the series.... or if you are a foreign station checking the order :-/

I sense something...

[pogle]

As if millions of geeks suddenly cried out in anguish...

*sigh* Hopefully it'll be worth the wait. My Firefly addiction needs more material!

Re:I sense something...

[pogle]

*eyes troll*

*bites*

Aside from your remarkable counting ability, your desire to hide behind the shield of AC, and your obvious trollishness, I'll respond.

For people who grew up watching Star Trek, and then saw it utterly ruined after Gene died; for people who see modern television shows and gag in disgust; for anyone who lives the western or scifi in general...Firefly is for you. It was comical, serious, witty, thought provoking by turns. Its not the second coming or anything, but its a darn sight better than any other television scifi I can remember seeing in recent years. And despite diving in with multiple deep story arc possibilities, Fox did its usual* and killed it with crappy timeslots and mixing the episode order up.

You don't like it, thats your opinion. I don't get whats with you adolescents who feel the need to snipe at anyone and everyone who expresses an opinion about something simply to harass them.

*- Fox cannot let a good, innnovative show live unless it is the Simpsons, pretty much. Malcom in the Middle is trying hard to be added to that list IMO.

Re:I sense something...

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I would point out that the most recent set of Enterprise Trilogy episodes shows promise of returning to Gene Roddenbury style Star Trek...but only because the writer has actually WATCHED TOS, read a few of the books, watched the other series, and seems to actually be TRYING to fit into the universe (I love it, T'Pau as a 32-year-old Fundamentalist Terrorist- complete with a companion trying to get to her in the first episode named "Desert Wind" in Semetic (Arab)).

Re:I sense something...

[mclearn]

You should sign up for the direct-to-dvd poll they're running over there http://www.fireflymovie.com/directdvd.html. I would honestly pay $6-9 per episode (probably closer to $6), which is approx. half the price of a movie ticket (given a 60 minute ep).

Also, there is some interesting stuff on guerilla marketing. One of the best (and easiest) idea is to write "Firefly: Keep on Flying" on your dollar bills. People will inherently wonder what it's all about. Those saavy enough will plug it into Google and *bam*.

Re:I sense something...

[pogle]

Thank you! Filled out the form there. I'd heard talk of Direct-to-DVD before, but didnt know there was a signup place to express interest.

I'd def pay for new eps on dvd. Its a business model I wouldnt mind seeing take off for several older, cancelled shows.

Re:I sense something...

[Anonymous Coward]

Fox cannot let a good, innnovative show live unless it is the Simpsons, pretty much. Malcom in the Middle is trying hard to be added to that list IMO

Uh, Arrested Development? And Malcolm In The Middle won't be added to the list, because it's never been good. Arch, "quirky", odd-for-oddness-sake shows have never been funny because of what they are aiming for

Re:I sense something...

[pogle]

I feel about Arrested Development what you seem to feel for Malcolm in the Middle. Some of my friends agree with me. Some of them like both. Therein lies the matter of personal taste.

I find Malcom funny because of some of the actors, not necessarily the plotlines. Arrested Development didn't hold my attention thru the opening 2 minutes. I found Malcom entirely by accident somewhere in the 2nd or 3rd seasons, and even then only some of the episodes are truly outstanding.

The fact remains though that the Simpsons is the only show Fox has let live long enough to transition from excellent and innnovative to stale; most other shows go from innovative->dead in a few episodes, or from stale->gougemyeyesoutplease for seasons at a time.

Re:I sense something...

[Scrameustache]

$6), which is approx. half the price of a movie ticket

I saw "Incredibles" for around 5.50 Canadian dollars...
"Matinee" on a sunday : )

Re:I sense something...

[Durandal64]

Now now, Fox is letting 24 stay very healthy, and all three seasons have been nothing short of outstandinly addicting and intense. Then again, Keifer Sutherland is producing it.

Re:I sense something...

[Snaller]

You don't like it, thats your opinion. I don't get whats with you adolescents who feel the need to snipe at anyone and everyone who expresses an opinion about something simply to harass them.

Basic psychology, they feel insecure and unsure of own worth and when they hear an option which is different from theirs, they don't have the mental ballast and self assuredness to simply see it as another opinion, they feel it means they ARE WRONG, and that it makes them less - ie, they feel threatened by it and feel they must violently try to tear it down. Of course this insecurity can be present at any age it depends on the maturing process the individual has been through.

You can't take the Big Damn Movie from me....

[Futaba-chan]

Rats. I've been eagerly looking forward to the Big Damn Movie (Serenity) ever since my friends dragooned me into watching the DVD set, but I'd rather see it succeed -- and the franchise survive long enough for Fox's rights to expire and the show to get back on some other network or cable outlet -- than to have it sink into the swamp and be forgotten.

My experiences with Firefly

[Seek_1]

I'm posting this simply because I'd heard from a number of people that Firefly was worth watching, and want to continue to spread the word about it.

---

I download the Firefly pilot. I watched it. I enjoyed it so much that I then got off my ass, ran down to Futureshop and picked up the DVD set (that afternoon) without a second thought.

Not everyone may like this series, but I certainly did. Enough that even though I'd already downloaded a few of the episodes (without watching any but the first), I went out and bought the DVDs anyways, based on how good the first one was.

And it's NOT Sci-fi. It's set in a sci-fi environment yes, but the show itself is not sci-fi themed. (ie, there's no alien-of-the-week-kinda-crap going on..)

Re:My experiences with Firefly

[mmkkbb]

It's set in a sci-fi environment yes, but the show itself is not sci-fi themed. (ie, there's no alien-of-the-week-kinda-crap going on..)

alien-of-the-week has fsck-all to do with science fiction.

Re:My experiences with Firefly

[Anonymous Coward]

I download the Firefly pilot.

I'm a fan, but -

Relatively speaking, the pilot sucks - for all the reasons the network didn't run it as a pilot. I'm not sure which to recommend instead - the best ones (IMO) are probably Ariel, Out of Gas, War Stories and Objects In Space but you need some of the earlier ones first for continuity.

Re:My experiences with Firefly

[Anonymous Coward]

I know it is politically incorrect to say so (which is why I am posting anonymous), but I never liked the show. It amounted to little more than a standard western story line only set in space. Big whoop. The acting was better than most sci-fi's, but that didn't make up for the lacklustre plots and low end special effects. Yeah I know, the main characters weren't always "good guys" because they sometimes killed people. Again, big whoop. That's just another standard western style plot device. When I want to watch good science fiction, I want actual science FICTION, not warmed over rehashes of old spaghetti westerns. The original LEXX series is a great example of a brilliant science fiction plot. Yeah, the acting sucked and the special effects also sucked, but they had the right idea and did their best with it on a pretty low budget. With the money spent on Firefly, I was expecting something a lot better.

Re:My experiences with Firefly

[John Harrison]

If you are opposed to alien-of-the-week plots then you will love the new Battlestar Galactica when it comes out in January. The first several shows have a 24 feel to them as there is constant tension that moves it along.

Or you could cheat and download the episodes that have already aired in the UK...

Re:My experiences with Firefly

[scowling]

The new Galactica has been unexpectedly good. Arc-based story elements, three-dimensional characters, secrets, lies and explodo.

Re:My experiences with Firefly

[John Harrison]

Not to mention the unexpected Incredible Hulk reference in the most recent episode.

Re:My experiences with Firefly

[Anonymous Coward]

Northern Exposure + M*A*S*H + Star Wars + Hal Hartley.

Re:My experiences with Firefly

[Scrameustache]

And it's NOT Sci-fi. It's set in a sci-fi environment yes, but the show itself is not sci-fi themed. (ie, there's no alien-of-the-week-kinda-crap going on..)

That is the stupidest thing I have ever read.

"Hey, guess what, none of Isaac Asimov's books were sci-fi! They didn't rely on the freak-of-the-week formu..."
Sigh...

Here's the thing: If you have people in a spaceship trying to escape the futur's extra-solar military dictatorship... there's a good chance it is in the realm of SCIENCE FICTION. They have terraformed alien worlds, flying cars, laser pistols, human organ trafficking, psychics, faster-than-light travel, etc.

Re:My experiences with Firefly

[Spolster]

What I think he means is that it's more sci-FI than SCI-fi, i.e. the show isn't about the science/technology, but about people, who just happen to live on a space ship. It could have been equally well set on a boat at sea several hundred years ago.

Re:My experiences with Firefly

[Fweeky]

"faster-than-light travel"

No they don't. The Firefly universe is set in a single habitable/teraformable-body-rich system, colonized (pretty recently) by a seeder ship. Not that I dispute your point, but it goes to show how little emphesis it puts on the universe it's set in next to the characters who are in it.

I find it amusing that Firefly gets a lot of flack for its western-in-space style, when the likes of Star Trek has a far more laughable and shallow portrayal of humanity and space in general. Glass houses...

Re:My experiences with Firefly

[Scrameustache]

No they don't. The Firefly universe is set in a single habitable/teraformable-body-rich system, colonized (pretty recently) by a seeder ship.

No, its not.

They frequently mention going to other systems (conveniently not saying "star" or "planetary" systems, thus feeding our argument). There is no indication that it is in a single solar system, and much to the contrary, there are a great number of planets, only a few of which were shown or mentioned in the show's half-season run.

They never explained in depth the universe/propulsion, but I've seen your claim about this a few times (single solar system) and rewatching the DVDs gave me numerous mentions of travelling to distant stars, and nothing at all to imply a single star universe (except for the lack of outrightly saying that there are numerous stars, but lack of proof isn't proof of the contrary).

Example: The "core worlds". You would have those all be the system's inner planets and moons? Makes no sense, they clearly talk about them as if they were the first colonies, with the outer systems being younger and poorer. With the power to go from world to world in a matter of days or weeks (depending), they are either going at near lightspeed in a single system, as you believe, or they have FTL and never got around to explaining it, because the characters were more important than the technical details in this show. Technobabble was kept to a minimum.

Re:My experiences with Firefly

[blincoln]

No they don't. The Firefly universe is set in a single habitable/teraformable-body-rich system, colonized (pretty recently) by a seeder ship.

I find this very hard to swallow. There was a different planet on pretty much every released episode, all of which were habitable, and none of which could be seen from the others. Unless the solar system in question is some sort of engineered thing where a blue giant provides light and warmth to a ring of planets running around a single orbit, it just doesn't make sense.

Do you have a reference to back this explanation up?

Re:My experiences with Firefly

[Anonymous Coward]

Simply assume most of the non-core worlds are moons of Jovians, that gives you "systems," and the core worlds are three big terrestrials and say one big terrestrial moon, and you've got something that's pretty much consistent. I remember reading that it was set in a single solar system, too.

Re:My experiences with Firefly

[Senobyzal]

Right, given the limited belt that could handle earth-type worlds, that would have to be pretty crowded. I'm running a Neverwinter Nights campaign based on the Firefly verse (it's a total conversion done by another player, search for "Firefly" at Neverwinter Vault), and we're using a model based on a cluster of relatively closely situated stars. A number of folks have done a detailed review of the episodes, and found that there are roughly 30 or so worlds that are specifically referenced that support colonies. That would be tough to fit around a single star.

Plus the whole distinction between core and frontier worlds works better if you have multiple star systems, IMHO.

Re:My experiences with Firefly

[Scrameustache]

Plus the whole distinction between core and frontier worlds works better if you have multiple star systems, IMHO.

I second that humble opinion.

Re:My experiences with Firefly

[NullLogic]

And it's NOT Sci-fi. It's set in a sci-fi environment yes, but the show itself is not sci-fi themed. (ie, there's no alien-of-the-week-kinda-crap going on..)

WASH: Psychic, though? That sounds like something out of science fiction!

ZOE: You live in a spaceship, dear.

WASH: So?

Re:My experiences with Firefly

[Jonathan_S]

A lot of the confusion about 1 system vs. multiple systems comes from the character narrations during the opening of the episodes. These narrations were removed from the DVD release.

During this narration the character who is speaking talks about humans moving to a distant system and colonizing its planets and moons. Of course the Firefly setting doesn't really make sense as a single system, so removing the narration which referred to such (and talked about other things) causes anyone who has only seen the series on DVD to wonder how the heck this single system idea got into the fan's heads.

Presumably this would have been cleared up once and for all as the series continued.

I waited for HL2...

[Nijika]

I can wait for this... oh yes.. I'm sure I'll be able to... [quitely rocking in my chair]

Re:I waited for HL2...

[bslinger]

The new release date is September 30. I hope this doesn't mean we won't get it until November 16, 2006.

Delayed to avoid competition, huh?

[NthDegree256]

Well, I suppose I can't fault them for wanting the movie to do well, particularly when you consider that the success of this movie will directly affect whether or not we get even more Firefly after this point. Not that it makes me particularly happy. :-P

Logic failure

[Timesprout]

superb but cancelled

If was superb it would not have been cancelled, and the studio would be only to happy to milk it for revenue. It was cancelled because the majority of people did not think it was superb. Given that we live in majority rule world (for the moment anyway) its more correct to say that it was not a superb show and was unable to generate sufficient viewing figures and/or sufficient advertising revenue to sustain itself, so its probably pretty poor in the eys of most people.

Re:Logic failure

[NthDegree256]

I like how your signature mocks the lack of individualism in the world, while the text of your post clings to the majority opinion.

Re:Logic failure

[Anonymous Coward]

well it didn't help that fox didn't air the pilot first, then other episodes out of order and some not at all!

Watching the dvd set (which is very nice) its even more enjoyable.

Re:Logic failure

[phoebusQ]

Your logic only follows if the measure of a piece of art is entirely based on its popularity during a specified timeframe. There are plenty of examples, across mediums and throughout history, in which works have been ill-received initially, or by certain groups of people. This does not indicated that they are any "less good". Additionally, the unique nature of Firefly probably guarantees that it will take time to be accepted by the general populace. As geeks, we tend to thing of the majority as fairly ill-opinionated and ill-informed (and that's putting our general consensus nicely). Given time and exposure, I guarantee that a lot of people will come to like Firefly and its derivative works. Just look at all the posts by people saying "My friends made me watch it. At first I thought it was kinda dumb/weird/not what I'm into, but after becoming addicted I can say this is a great show!". So I think it's a little premature to say the show isn't superb. It just didn't generate superb Nielsens. DISCLAIMER: I think Firefly is f'ing awesome.

Re:Logic failure

[Scutter]

If was superb it would not have been cancelled, and the studio would be only to happy to milk it for revenue.

Superb != Popular. The problem is that the networks need to appeal to the lowest common denominator. In the U.S., the majority of the television watching populace is not interested in a program that makes them think, hence the popularity of shows like Fear Factor and Oprah.

Re:Logic failure

[Slurms]

If was superb it would not have been cancelled

No, it was cancelled because Fox doesn't want another 800 pound gorrilla like the X-Files and the Simpsons. They want to keep a steady churn of new shows that will capture interest for a season or two. Then, before they become too entrenched with popularity and the actors/producers start looking for more money they can dump the show and put the next-new-thing on in it's place.

They know people will complain about the show being cancelled, but that they will also tune in to the new show just as eagerly as the old one.

They can't dump the Simpsons because that is the cornerstone of their image, but they would dump it in a heartbeat if they could.

Re:Logic failure

[gambit3]

Interesting... but flawed..
apply that logic to Cheers... a show wich WAS cancelled... in its first season... it was allowed to continue only because NBC lacked a replacement. Or how about Farscape, which many here consider superb? THAT was cancelled to. Maybe it's because sometimes executives are gorram idiots? think THAT might have something to do with it?

By your (flawed) logic, I guess that makes Titanic a SUPER superb movie?

put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Re:Logic failure

[Mister Furious]

Then, obviously, the bachelor is superb.

Seriously, this is not really a logical issue. Regardless of the quality of Firefly, the fact is that it was not promoted. When the majority is completely unaware of something, how can the fact that they didn't tune in mean that they thought it was less than superb?

Re:Logic failure

[Chris Carollo]

If was superb it would not have been cancelled, and the studio would be only to happy to milk it for revenue. It was cancelled because the majority of people did not think it was superb.

That's assuming that everyone got to see it and then made their decision -- which clearly isn't the case. It's probably more accurate to say that the Fox marketing, scheduling, and promotion for it sucked.

Literally everyone I've forced my DVDs upon has absolutely loved it.

Re:Logic failure

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I'm sure a dozen other people will point this out, but there are a lot of reasons a series can fail that have nothing to do with quality of the series. I never saw an episode of Firefly on TV, and did not even know it existed until someone showed me an episode on DVD. It is one of the most entertaining shows I have ever seen, I I normally have a strong dislike for Wheaton's work. A little research showed me that the show was not advertised much, played on a network I don't even look for shows on, and played at a number of different times, when it was not preempted by sports. It makes it hard to build up a following in a series when your audience has to do research beforehand to know when and if an episode will be playing. I've since shown this series to a number of people, everyone has liked it, and several have bought the DVDs (I know I did).

Re:Logic failure

[Xibby]

Never underestimate the power of Fox and the timeslot of doom. Fox has a habit of shifting programs air time and day, then landing them in a timeslot that gets preempted by sports events. A most excelent way to ensure that no show has a chance to survive.

Re:Logic failure

[Khomar]

You obviously did not watch the show or track all of the terrible things that Fox did to it during its short run. First, they put in on a difficult night: Friday. Then they showed all of the episodes out of order. The pilot episode was not actually aired until the last week. It was this episode that explained who everyone was and the basic plot of the show. It made the show somewhat intriguing for those of us who like to solve mysteries but very confusing for everyone else. In addition, the show actually got good ratings, but the executives thought they could make more money with something else.

Remember, popularity doesn't even determine the longevity of a show. There are the production costs and often the personal whim of the station managers. Also, just because a show stays on the air does not mean it is "superb". Can you really call "Fear Factor" superb?

Re:Logic failure

[jwin1020]

Untrue, a show may certainly be cancelled in spite of being superb. A superb show does not necessarily generate sufficient revenue to produce a profit margin which is acceptable in the television industry. James Cameron's Dark Angel was a superb show which was cancelled in large part due to its high production costs.

Re:Logic failure

[TiggertheMad]

If was superb it would not have been cancelled

Yeah, because the Execs at FOX have NEVER blown a call on a tv series. Please! FOX has a rep in the industry for making bad calls about their shows. The show, 'Family Guy' was killed after about 3 seasons and then went on to be a massive hit on DVD. (I have heard that it is being considered to be picked up by cartoon network as a new series.)

It was cancelled because the majority of people did not think it was superb.

It was cancelled because nobody knew anything about it. It was repeatedly moved to differing timeslots (This is VERY bad for a shows ratings, in general), and they didn't even show the episodes in order. I'm not even sure that they aired the pilot episode that sets the whole story. (You can go read all the gory details about how it was mis-handeled on most firefly sites.)

so its probably pretty poor in the eys of most people.

No matter how good a show is, unless you properly support and market it, it will die. Everyone I have loaned my DVD to LOVED it, including people who aren't sci-fi fans. This isn't a case of the masses not liking something. This is a case of some stupid Fox execs that blew a call (Yet again).

Re:Logic failure

[Anonymous Coward]

How the fuck is this scored above +1??? This means the average IQ is dropping on /.!

Re:Logic failure

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only was it not promoted, it was also shuffled around in timeslots and shown out of order. Fox made it very difficult for it to gain popularity among the majority of people that watch TV the way the studios intend. Those of us with Tivo realyl don't notice these little games to try to counter them.

Re:Logic failure

[kyliaar]

Flamebait? Sometimes too much logic is itself a failure.

Re:Logic failure

[Anonymous Coward]

It was cancelled because the Fox Suits scheduled it to air Fridays at 8 pm. Everyone knows that the audience for this show does not watch the television at 8 pm on Friday. Everyone except those "reality" loving Fox Suits, that is. Now, get the hell outta my office.

Re:Logic failure

[scowling]

Classic argumentum ad numerum fallacy. Popularity and quality seldom meet.

If (say) CSI had been given Firefly's slot and shuffled around as much as Firefly was and pre-empted by sports as often as Firefly was, it would have been canceled, too.

Re:Logic failure

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder what is your private key, 2*3 or 1*6?

Re:Logic failure

[Gaewyn L Knight]

Ahh... but majority does not rule in TV land, unless you are talking about majority of money.

For example... Firefly was pulling in the same viewership or more as other shows that were not cancelled at the time. The reason it got axed... because it had much higher production costs then the reality TV shows that lasted.

Remember... $50k/week on fear factor is nothing compared to paying actors and writers in NBCs mind. Fox has caught on to this fact even more and has taken drops in ratings in order to save money in production costs and hence make more money.

So for this reason... good shows with good (sometimes even extraordinary ratings) get let go and we are left with reality TV drivel

Firefly was also placed in nasty timeslots to compete for viewership in that genre...

Re:Logic failure

[Anonymous Coward]

This is basically the same problem that Family Guy had. Once it got a stable time slot on Cartoon Network, its popularity exploded.

Quality is not the only determining factor in a show's popularity.

Re:Logic failure

[night_flyer]

It also got worse ratings that the show it replaced... Dark Angel

the reason it failed, was the same reason DA failed... they put it in a Friday timeslot

Re:Logic failure

[dhj]

A wondefully modest suggestion.

I was irritated when I first read this. Then I figured it out when someone pointed out your signature. It may be a troll, but I'd say it's more insightful catalyst than troll.

Troll on.

Re:Logic failure

[Anonymous Coward]

gotta be 2*3... they're primes.

Re:Logic failure

[Jtheletter]

It was cancelled because the majority of people did not think it was superb.

While there is certainly merit to this argument, I think a huge part of the problem was lack of awareness. I never even heard about FireFly until months after it was cancelled, along with most of my other geek friends. Having watched the entire DVD set I can say with no reservations it was leaps and bounds better (IMHO) than at least two of the major sci-fi franchises currently out there; SG1 and Enterprise.

It needed some work as well, but a second (or even just a full first) season would have gone a long way to smoothing out any wrinkles. The groundwork was all laid, the characters had depth and were believable, there was an evil empire to hate, space pirates, and there was less than usual number of abominations of physics than we see in most space sci-fi. Not to mention a whole social caste of high-class call girls, who couldn't get behind that?

I think what may have turned a lot of viewers off was the character-centric nature of the stories, too much "mushy stuff" for geeks to handle apparently. I don't know about others but after decades of hour long episodes devoted to finding a clever way of rebooting warp drives in record time, or decoding a signal before some hostile race killed everyone; some serious focus on characters and emotion - and how the future world actually affects people - was a welcome change.

Before I get flooded with responses berrating me for blatantly ignoring the humanitarian aspects of ST:TNG and the like, I know, they're there. And I love TNG, and DS9, don't get me wrong. But there was just something about FireFly that has been somehow lacking in scifi for a long time.

Re:Logic failure

[Scrameustache]

If was superb it would not have been cancelled

Since when does quality garantee survival?
What kind of insane world view are you basing this on?

Given that we live in majority rule world

See, again with the insane world view. The minority elite rules the world buddy, they just allow the unwashed masses to voice their opinion every few years on which of these two identical members of the elite is gonna be VISIBLY in power for the next few years. Works well too, people spend so much energy on elections, they don't even bother with bloody revolutions...

It was cancelled because the majority of people did not think it was superb.

Well, first of all, no. It was cancelled because a MINORITY of people had the power to cancel it and did so. That minority might even be one single Fox tv exec with too much power and not enough judgement.

But what IF a majority of people did not think it was superd? That doesn't mean that it wasn't superb. A majority of people didn't even SEE it. Why? Because they couldn't see it. It wasn't on when fox claimed it would be on, it was actually on a random shifting time slot of death (such as airing on 12:20am on a friday night. No kidding).

show and was unable to generate sufficient viewing figures and/or sufficient advertising revenue to sustain itself, so its probably pretty poor in the eys of most people.

It was killed BEFORE it ever got a chance to generate sufficient advertising revenue. And yet another company picked it up and is funnelling millions into it...hmmmm...
Man, you are either making a really half-assed attempt at trolling, or you are really gonna be screwed when you get around to the logic portion of your math education, or god forbid, college philosophy classes. Seriously, "someone cancelled it therefore the majority didn't like it therefore it is of bad quality" is probably the lamest logical leapfrog game I've seen all week and I read fark flame wars! Sheesh!

Re:Logic failure

[proverbialcow]

No, it was cancelled because Fox doesn't want another 800 pound gorrilla like the X-Files and the Simpsons. They want to keep a steady churn of new shows that will capture interest for a season or two. Then, before they become too entrenched with popularity and the actors/producers start looking for more money they can dump the show and put the next-new-thing on in it's place.

That's an interesting thought, even if it is wholly unsupported by facts. There was never any danger of Firefly becoming an 800-lb gorilla. It did poorly in its time slot, end of story. There was no hope of bringing it back as a mid-season replacement (like what did the trick for X-Files) because it cost $1e6+ per episode to produce, and you can always churn out another Joe Millionaire for a quarter of that.

Remember, for every X-Files that made the jump from Friday obscurity to Sunday limelight, you have a Lone Gunmen, Harsh Realm, M.A.N.T.I.S. and Brisco County, Jr. that didn't.

Re:Logic failure

[Babbster]

Dark Angel failed because after producing a pretty entertaining first season, they changed things around and made a really terrible second season. Even staring at Jessica Alba wasn't enough to carry me to the fourth episode of the second season.

Re:Logic failure

[Anonymous Coward]

I like how your signature mocks the lack of individualism in the world

No, he was mindlessly reciting a quote from Life of Brian. I doubt he understands it, he just thought he should quote somethign other people recognise as funny. Perfectly consist with his mindless droid outlook.

Re:Logic failure

[Holi]

OK I gotta disagree with Dark Angel if you include the 2nd season. The first season was excellent but once they brought in the whole mutant brigade, and most annoyingly the dog boy the show took a huge dive.

Re:Logic failure

[LaCosaNostradamus]

Not that I watch TV at all, but is this how Hollywood is really running TV these days? Ditch the starring actors before they ask for more money?

I've run my understanding about the current "reality show" fad (which seems to have settled into a modus operandi rather than a fad) as being a response to a writers' strike. So perhaps what you say makes sense along those lines.

Re:Logic failure

[Scrameustache]

Dark Angel failed because they brought Vincent from the 80's "Beauty and the Beast" in it, and the time warp thus created swallowed them whole! ;-)

Re:Logic failure

[clambake]

I've run my understanding about the current "reality show" fad (which seems to have settled into a modus operandi rather than a fad) as being a response to a writers' strike.

It's much more simple than that... If you can mae one show for a million dollers and episode, and in return make two million on ad revnue, you've doubled your profit... But if you can make a show for 50k, and each episode makes $200,000 on ad revenue, you've quadrupled your profit!

Sure, you don't make as much money as you used to, because there is a limited number of timeslots available, but did you just see, you are making 4x the return as you used to! Woot! Also, less sarcastically, cheaper shows means less cost of failure.

Re:Logic failure

[slashdot_commentator]

Your loss. I liked the 2nd season. Joshua was not Jar Jar. My two favorite episodes in the series was in the 2nd season. The only way you can justify dropping DA after the fourth episode is if you dropped Voyager and Enterprise in the same amount of time. Or perhaps your thought patterns closely resemble Fox executives.

I don't even understand why people are in such "mourning" over Firefly. Yes it was good and I liked it, but hey, I preferred ogling Jessica Alba and finding paranoid parallels to our current reality. Firefly seemed to be awfully partial to the losers of the Civil War, and after this year's general election (and the Red Sox beating the Yankees), I really don't see any endearing themes to take from the show. I'd like to think more hetero chicks are on slashdot generating this Firefly > DA vibe, but I'm thinking its probably something else...

Re:Logic failure

[slashdot_commentator]

Its more like $50K generating 1 million. They show more concern about the net profit than you purport. But you're still better off making 950K with less investment, than 1M with greater risk.
Oddly enough, even TV execs are realizing the limits of "reality show" programming. Unfortunately, they are replacing those slots with evening soap operas that are supposed to pattern "Dawson's Creek" season 1. Money is so important, it subverts art.

Eh, I watch too much TV anyway, and advertisers do not care about my demographic. I do more hacking and TV programmers plug-in more profitable programs for pod people. Win win. *sigh*

Re:Logic failure

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that I watch TV at all, but is this how Hollywood is really running TV these days? Ditch the starring actors before they ask for more money?

You betcha! Case in point: CSI. Two stars were fired for apparently being slow on re-signing their contracts for the new season. They were rehired only after much public begging from them. (The issue here was that the producers want to limit the actor's incomes by spinning new shows off, and cancelling the original CSI at the end of the slated 7 year run. That's why they started up CSI:New York).

Another case in point, from Fox: On the Simpsons, the voice actress for Flander's wife lived a distance from the recording studio - she had to fly in regularly to do her voice-recording. She didn't ask for a raise though; she asked if she could be reimbursed for the cost of the flights. So they fired her, and killed her character off. Nice.

Face it - Hollywood corporations are just as scummy as any other corporation. Their loyalty is to the bottom line, not to people or their "art". There is no sense of ethics past a casual adherence to the laws.

Re:Logic failure

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry. CSI will be cancelled once it has run 7 seasons. The actors originally signed on for 7 seasons, and there is no way the studio execs are going to re-sign them for big pay raises (if you followed the firing and rehiring of George Eads and Jorja Fox you'll understand).

In fact, it is obvious that they've been planning to cancel it after 7 seasons since they brought out its spinoff, CSI:Miami. Having a second spinoff, CSI:NY for a show that is only in its 5th season really clinches it.

So don't worry - CSI will die really soon now. The execs have to keep track of the bottom line after all. And the saps watching it will just have to migrate to the new shows.

oh oh

[fulana_lover]

Man how bad does your movie have to suck if you are scared of the next Star Wars?

Re:oh oh

[Scrameustache]

Man how bad does your movie have to suck if you are scared of the next Star Wars?

None at all.
They aren't affraid of the next Star Wars, they are affraid of the next Star War's marketing, which you'll admit is a formidable beast the likes of which none of us would be happy to be pitted against.

ph34r the marketing! PH34R IT! : )

Re:oh oh

[Samhaine]

... somewhere between Tyrannosaurus and soul crushing Black Hole lies... Star Wars Marketing

Re:oh oh

[SamSim]

How good would your movie have to be not to be scared of the next Star Wars?

Re:oh oh

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm scared of the next Star Wars, and I'm not even making a movie.

Serenity pushed back

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn. I loved her in "Double Feature".

(non-porn nerds may require these links

Re:Serenity pushed back

[erikharrison]

I knew that nerds and porn mixed readily. But a nerd dedicated to porn?

My hat's off to you.

Re:Serenity pushed back

[Babbster]

I got it immediately, and if I had mod points I'd toss one out to make sure it hit the people browsing at 1. That being said, linking to the adult film database? Wow. I mean, really, wow. Hehe.

What competition?

[Anonymous Coward]

Genre competition? What genre competition? There aren't any sci-fi movies coming out in spring-summer 2005, are there? I can't think of any offhand...

Re:What competition?

[Anonymous Coward]

Genre competition? What genre competition?

RTFA. It was demographic competition not genre competition.

For those asking "what is firefly"?

[RealProgrammer]

See the TV Tome writeup. I'd never heard of it before TFSS, so I can't say anything about TV Tome's accuracy.

Noooo!

[TiggertheMad]

Joss, don't make me kick you into an engine...

I WANT MY SPACEWHORES NOW!

Haw haw haw.

[NthDegree256]

You DO realize that no matter how badly Episode III sucks, it's still going to garner a massive box office take, right?

I hate to say it but the title is going to hurt

[Zed2K]

more than help. A good title is everything. Serenity is not a good title for a movie. What is their target audience? I don't care how good it may or may not be, people are going to see the title Serenity on the movie listings and go, "huh? I don't want to see that, lets go see something else".

Its not fair but its fact.

Re:I hate to say it but the title is going to hurt

[Scrameustache]

people are going to see the title Serenity on the movie listings

Actually, they are gonna see the babes and asplosions in the TV ads and go "Me likes!".

Who the hell decides on movies to watch based on their title seen in the listings?

Re:I hate to say it but the title is going to hurt

[Anonymous Coward]

They might think it is the Seinfeld movie.

Re:I hate to say it but the title is going to hurt

[erik_fredricks]

A good title is everything. Serenity is not a good title for a movie. What is their target audience?

Actually, geeks like us are the core audience. Chances are, there isn't going to be a big multimedia promotion blitz, and it won't matter if they call it Gigli 2. What'll count here is word-of-mouth from the fans--same thing that drove so many folks to catch the show on DVD.

Remember, this show (like Futurama) was subjected to almost every stupid tactic Fox could think of to sink it, and it still ended up successful. No matter what happens, this won't be a film made or broken by hype.

Re:I hate to say it but the title is going to hurt

[Zed2K]

The same people who want to go to the movies but don't know what they want to see so they just drive to the local mall and look at whats playing and decide based on what time it is and the title and poster. This happens a lot more than you think.

Re:I hate to say it but the title is going to hurt

[Scrameustache]

people who want to go to the movies but don't know what they want to see so they just drive to the local mall and look at whats playing and decide based on what time it is and the title and poster. This happens a lot more than you think.

I guess those are the same people that act like they're in their own basement living room and talk loudly amongst themselves then? I was wondering what they were doing at a movie they clearly don't actually care enough for to listen to.

What more is there to say, except...

[Dirtside]

:(

Re:What more is there to say, except...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow how did this get pass the lameness filters?

Re:What more is there to say, except...

[Methuseus]

how about: :'(

Re:Serinity now!

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed.. Parent's post is completely Off-Topic, but it's the best off-topic post I've seen all day.

This is actually great news.

[Doktor Memory]

"Mid-April release" usually means "disposable genre crap that the studio is rushing out early in hopes of making some money on the curiosity factor." Think "Bulletproof Monk" or "LXG".

"Late September release" means "we think this is good and we expect to make some serious money on it and maybe we'll think about a sequel."

Not the Only Reason

[Anusien]

I would doubt if that is the only reason. In an interview on fireflyfans.net, Kaylee (Jewel Staite) was saying that a few characters are making an abbreviated appearance because they couldn't get away from filming something else, and I wonder if this is not supposed to help that as well. And according to all the cast members and Joss, this is supposed to be 100x better because of less constraints from Fox.

Dang it!!! Dang it!! Dang it!!!

[gambit3]

"That seem right to you?"
(fand will recognize it) ... but, on the good news front, it gives me more time to work on my fan trailer i've been finishing...

it's gonna be a hell of a movie, boys and girls...

anyone wanna join me for a premiere in Dallas?

Re:Dang it!!! Dang it!! Dang it!!!

[geekoid]

just like SW EP:1!

the higher the hopes, the more likley the fall.

Damn it!

[sulli]

And I was hoping to have some peace and quiet by Christmas.

Serenity now...

[cfalcon]

... Insanity later....

Re:Serinity now!

[Blob Pet]

I loved Firefly, but when I saw the title of the article, all I could think of was Frank Costanza screaming that phrase.

A good idea

[voice of unreason]

The studio probably doesn't want it to get crushed by Star Wars the way Logan's Run was.

Re:A good idea

[The Ape With No Name]

>The studio probably doesn't want it to get crushed by Star
>Wars the way Logan's Run was.

This begs the question: Did Logan's Run deserve to be crushed? Survey says....

Re:A good idea

[Doppleganger]

Survey says....

Hmm.. looks like a tie between "What's Logan's Run?" and "Cowboy Neal".

Re:A good idea

[Scrameustache]

The studio probably doesn't want it to get crushed by Star Wars the way Logan's Run was.

SW came out a year after LR and had a quantum leap in SFX quality...
These two were scheduled weeks appart with similar SFX technology (and you just know how Lucas has gone "batshit loco" recently in regards to using SFX).

But speaking of Logan's Run, there's threats of a remake made in hollywood in recent years... that would be nice.

But, but ...

[gstoddart]

What about serenity now?? =)

Incorrect

[Anonymous Coward]

You can order Serenity right now online.

But I want Serenity now. Serentity now

[SensitiveMale]

Especially with Festivus upon us!

Superb?

[tuxlove]

I wouldn't use that word to describe Firefly. I thought it was mediocre, and somewhat forced. The space western aspect was a little over the top, clearly the result of some TV exec saying, "I know, let's mix genres and we'll have something new and fresh!" It was better than any sci-fi on TV at that time, except farscape, but that doesn't make it "superb".

Re:Superb?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the western aspects were based on Whedon reading Michael Shaara's Civil War book The Killer Angels about the Battle of Gettysburg.

'Execs' of the type we all loathe were not involved at all in that aspect of the show. Sorry you didn't like Firefly.

Re:Superb?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank god. Someone who agrees with me.

I watched Firely and had the "I could care less" feeling going on within the first 20 minutes of watching. Psi-factor is more entertaining to watch.

If I want space cowboys, I'll stick with Cowboy Bebop, who actually pulled it off.

Re:Superb?

[Scrameustache]

The space western aspect was a little over the top

A little over the top?
You must have missed the episode where they used their spaceship to illegally transport a herd of cows then. Now THAT my friend is pushing the "space cowbow" theme WAY over the top (and of course you missed it, it either didn't air or aired in the middle of the night, who knows...Fox was being "creative" with the show's timeslot).

clearly the result of some TV exec saying

BZZZT!!!! Wrong.
DESPITE of TV execs saying "does it have to be in space?" and "could they be a bit less cowoyish?".

"I know, let's mix genres and we'll have something new and fresh!"

Those genres have been mixed for as long as the sci-fi genre has existed. Star Trek was originally called "wagon train to the stars", there's been numerous japa animés in the genre, etc.

It was better than any sci-fi on TV at that time, except farscape, but that doesn't make it "superb".

Well, Farscape... that's a question of taste, and possibly of which one got your attention first. Lets not start listing the ways in which Muppets In Space was over the top and mixing genres (ok, the Loony Tunes ep was cute).

I'll give you the standard advice: Get your paws on the DVDs, watch it in the order they were supposed to be shown, and at your leisure. You'll either see why so many people think it WAS superb (maybe they are thinking only of Inara, you can't deny her charm). Or you'll just mumble about how you don't like cowboys all along, its a toss up ;-)

Re:Superb?

[Mant]

clearly the result of some TV exec saying, "I know, let's mix genres and we'll have something new and fresh!"

I love it when people say "clearly" something or other is true when they are flat out wrong. Joss Whedon, the series creator, has talked several times about the origins of Firefly and why he went for western in space.

Release pushed back?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll be in my bunk.

Re:Release pushed back?

[Macgrrl]

I'll be in my bunk.

*snork*

Re:Serinity now!

[flabbergasted]

Seasons 1,2, and 3 of Seinfeld come out today.

In news more relevant to this crowd, the DVD for Colussus, the Forbin Project was released today. One of the most underappreciated science fiction movies of the early seventies. How do you top a self-aware, megalomanical computer taking over the world? Build two of them!

inspiration for Firefly

[kyliaar]

I watched the Firefly DVDs and thought they were good, not the best thing I ever watched, but good. Definitely up there with the good episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation.

It seems like there is this new genre in sci fi developing. You've seen it before if you watch anime. Things like Trigun and Cowboy Bebop where they mix western elements with sci-fi. I wonder if Whelon drew inspiration from these.

And to throw something else into this posting, anyone remember Space: Above and Beyond? Yet another great sci-fi show that was cancelled early.

Re:inspiration for Firefly

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely! SAaB was vastly superior to Firefly.

I don't know what the big fuss is about Firefly to be honest - downloaded the DVD rips - sat through the whole thing as I'd heard it improves as it goes along. It wasn't a bad show, but really wasn't anything special. I found the rape threats in the final episode a bit too much to bear and the entire cowboy thing was pretty ridiculous - why shape weapons that fire some kind of energy pulse like today's (or even yesterday's) firearms? Makes me wonder if it's mostly people from the south that like Firefly, with the whole yankee / alliance vs the "good old boys" thing.

Personally I think comparing it to TNG is doing a big disservice to TNG, but I guess I'm a bit of a TNG fan.

Re:inspiration for Firefly

[NoahsMyBro]

I can't disagree with you more. I really enjoyed the few episodes of Firefly I saw, and can't wait to see the movie next year.

Space: Above and Beyond, though, was terrible. I really wanted to like it. I tried to like it. I watched several episodes. It was just bad. Boring, boring, boring. You really liked it?

Re:inspiration for Firefly

[Scrameustache]

It seems like there is this new genre in sci fi developing. You've seen it before if you watch anime. Things like Trigun and Cowboy Bebop where they mix western elements with sci-fi.

Like I just said in another post: "Those genres have been mixed for as long as the sci-fi genre has existed. Star Trek was originally called "wagon train to the stars", there's been numerous japa animés in the genre, etc."

Seriously, Even Toy Story touches that theme!

I have comix from the 80's where the Fantastic Four are fighting cowboys on rocket-horse-machine things. There were older jap shows with cowboys in space (late 70's or early 80's). As soon as people started writing stories with people in space, they wrote westerns in space. Its an old concept, Joss just went with it full blast instead of hiding it.

P.S. Loved Trigun and Cowboy Bebop : )

Re:inspiration for Firefly

[Drantin]

And surely there can be a hint of a western theme noted in the phrase "Space: The Final Frontier"

Re:inspiration for Firefly

[kyliaar]

I remember watching the first couple episodes when it first came out. I was really attracted to it because it had a lot of depth to it. You would thought that the pacing would have been a lot different since it was about space marines. However, it definitely was a lot more character driven than anything else. More recently I some reruns that didn't grab me as hard as the first ones did.

You know, it just occured to me. I remember their Christmas episode where they were stranded and running out of life support. That seems like such a cliche now. Firefly had their stranded episode, too.

Re:inspiration for Firefly

[kyliaar]

I am not from the south, fyi. :-) The thing that drew me into the series were the interesting characters and how they reacted to the world around them as well as with each other.

Initially however, it reminded me a lot of Bebop, just with the whole space western thing, even though the two series and incredibly different.

Re:inspiration for Firefly

[kyliaar]

Yeah, you are right about that. I even remember things from Archie comics where they were on some colony planet, righting mechanical rocket steeds.

As I think about it, I am coming up with more and more examples. It does seem to leap to mind when you think about pushing out the boundaries of human civilization and creating a new frontier.

Re:inspiration for Firefly

[slashdot_commentator]

You guys are totally missing the point. Whedon didn't incorporate cowboy stories because they sell or the Western is a beloved theme. Hell, no TV Western series could get pilot money from a broadcast network nowadays.

Whedon's goal was to avoid formulaic, crap science fiction perpetuated by the Star Trek factory. The future is not aliens humanoid enough for Terrans to portray them, in a galactic alliance, run by the military with a culture patterned after 19th century navy ships, looking to be do-gooders. (That is not what the Federation taxpayers blew quintillions of credits for.) As much as I loved ST:TOS, it has probably done more to destroy quality sci-fi than any other show. Star Wars is the same pattern, BattleStar Galactica is the same pattern, Space: Above & Beyond(?), same damn military shit. And the one sci-fi show that dared to be different (Babylon 5), got cloned by ST:DS9.

Inbuing a Western theme was a way to differentiate it from the tired Star Trek formula. And it has a lot to be argued for. Space colonization will not be done by rich people looking to spread Western Civilization values across the galaxy. It will be done to make money, by common people looks to strike it rich, seizing an opportunity they can't get in the developed world, or escape the soul sucking crush of "the Man". No saving the galaxy shit, no lets start armed conflict on secular humanist principles, no shagging alien chicks that are biologically closer to an armadillo than an ape. Yeah, sci-fi as a Western is an old theme, but it really wasn't about copying something people don't remember.

Re:Logic failure (Family Guy)

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. Talk about someone behind on their news. That whole "cartoon network as a new series" rumor was years ago.

FOX has picked Family Guy back up, they've re-aired old episodes to get people ready (for the last few months), they're in production of new episodes right now. New season of it starts in the spring.

come on.

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

You think firefly makes people think?!? I think you really need to practice your thinking. I think it was just trying too hard to be different without actually alienating anyone. Sort of like buffy, or Smallville, or dare I say it, .... Friends.

I hope it was better than the TV show

[mandrake*rpgdx]

Which was crap. I watched about two episodes of it. Terrible, terrible. It was bad acting and bad dialogue mixed with a terrible Civil War in space feel to it. God that show was awfull. It was like the civil war meets space crap.

Re:I hope it was better than the TV show

[Anusien]

Did you start at the beginning? (Fox aired the pilot last). You're clearly in the minority though; everyone I've showed it to has said it was the best TV they'd ever seen. Good writing, excellent acting, believable characters.

Obligatory Reply

[Anonymous Coward]

HOOCHIE MAMA! HOOCHIE MAMA!

Smart Move

[ronfar]

I bet the people behind Polar Express wished they had thought of that...

Re:Smart Move

[ronfar]

I bet the people behind Polar Express wished they had thought of that...

Modded as redundant, I hadn't seen the other reference. I'm assuming it was mod-bombing....

September release is a bad sign.

[ExileOnHoth]

Rescheduling, unto itself, doesn't necessarily mean the title sucks.

But pushing a movie back from early summer (yes, in Hollywood April is early summer) to september is a bad sign that the studio has no confidence in the film.

September is when they schedule "throwaway" titles that aren't expected to be profitable

I guess it's because I expected more from Joss

[mandrake*rpgdx]

But it bored me too tears. And it was really hard to get past all of the terrible accents. Add into the fact that I don't like Westerns or Civil War stories. BTW, my parent post is not a troll. It's my honest opinion.

Re:I guess it's because I expected more from Joss

[Anonymous Coward]

BTW, my parent post is not a troll. It's my honest opinion.

Here's some advice for you:

If you write a letter to a golfing magazine saying "golf sucks! god it's awful, it bores me to tears" then honest opinion or not, it's a troll and it won't get published.

If you write a post into the middle of a bunch of people talking about a show that they like saying that it was "crap" and "terrible terrible" and "it bored me to tears" then guess what? It's a troll. Doesn't matter whether you belive it.

Can you suggest any reason at all for choosing to go up to people and say "hey, you know that thing you like? it's crap Hu Hu Hu"? Doesn't matter how much you believe it.

If you've got actual rational points to make then by all means make them, but just attacking something other people like ("crap") but that doesn't appeal to you is pathetic, childish and perfectly eligible for "troll" moderation.

Or in summary: grow up.

Re:I guess it's because I expected more from Joss

[Anusien]

Okay, their Chinese suck. But what they are saying is really funny: http://fireflychinese.home.att.net/. And sure, the accents of Niska and Badger are kinda comical, in a villain caricature-type way. But the subtle details, like the "ain't"s and the way Mal talks especially, provides a massive level of detail. Everytime you watch it, you see more and more details. It's a very rich show. Too bad the budget was almost nil, and Fox intervened and said, "No, Whedon, do it our way." The movie is supposed to be darker, where every episode doesn't end in a hug and a happy moment, because everyone (read: Jayne) isn't always happy and getting along.

Rewatch The Series

[N8F8]

I bought the series and rewatched it in the Directory's intended order. Before I thought the series was great, but rewatching it in proper order made it awesome. Fox should be ashamed.

heh

[nomadic]

I would have loved to watch Whedon try and pitch this to the studios. "Yes, see, it's based on a TV show that failed because of lack of viewers."

Re:heh

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I don't think he had too much trouble. DVD sales of the series are pretty impressive. I should know, it is one of only two series I felt was good enough to purchase

Re:heh

[Scrameustache]

a TV show that failed because of lack of viewers

That might have been the excuse for the cancellation, but that is not why it failed.

How many people do you expect to be watching a new TV show that starts at 12:07am on a friday night/going-to-saturday-morning?

Re:heh

[Experiment 626]

I would have loved to watch Whedon try and pitch this to the studios.

It would hardly be the most difficult pitch Whedon has had to make. Anyone who can start with the utter crap "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" movie, convince network execs to make a TV series out of it, and then have the show go on to be a wild success must be doing something right. At least with Firefly there is a small but devoted fan base, and DVD sales that greatly surpassed expectations.

Re:heh

[Samhaine]

maybe more accurate to say "Starts somewhere between 9 PM and 12:07 AM (Friday eve/Saturday morn), depending on how the MLB game went, whether our programming director remembered to put it in the rotation, and what the chicken entrails and Magic 8-Ball told us"

Re:heh

[Scrameustache]

maybe more accurate to say "Starts somewhere between 9 PM and 12:07 AM

The week before (I think) it started somewhere between 12:15 and 12:20... I caught it at around 25 during the intro song IIRC...

whether our programming director remembered to put it in the rotation, and what the chicken entrails and Magic 8-Ball told us

I thought the chicken entrails were for the demon summonings at Fox... ah well.

A simple move...

[Dracolytch]

A smart move, really. I'm a big fan of firefly, and I know the movie's going to be good. However, if you pit it against the Star Wars series firefly will get squashed like it's namesake. It doesn't matter how BAD the Star Wars film will be, people will still go see the conclusion of their erstwhile favorite story, before taking a chance on a new film in the same genre. If Episode III actually turned out to be decent, then Serenity would be doomed. This is especially true since they're going for somewhat younger audiences, many of whom (College students, recent grads) are on limited entertainment budgets.

~D

Damnit, it's not like they're gonna Family Guy it.

[Grendel Drago]

Remember how Family Guy was really funny? And how Fox, assclowns that they are, cancelled it (seems they like cancelling good shows that begin with 'F'---producers take note), but DVD sales were so unignorably good that Fox was convinced to start the series back up again?

They're not going to do that with Firefly. No matter how successful the movie is. If it makes a ton---a ton---of money, we'll get a sequel. Maybe. But the story was meant to be told episodically, minor threads weaving subtly until they burst to the forefront. You can't do that in a movie; there's just not enough time. (See: Babylon 5.)

This whole mess just depresses me so. Damn you, Fox.

--grendel drago

encouraging, actually

[option8]

from TFA:
"And now they have seen it, and unless they're way better liars than I'm used to, they dug it. Actually, they dug it pretty large, which is a good sign since there's not a single finished effect in the film. There's no reworking the end, no reshoots, no "does it have to be in space?". It's just a marketing issue. Now you'll get to watch lots of trailers in the summer."

studio execs dug it large. how often does that happen?

i love the "does it have to be in space" comment, since i seem to recall one of the commentary tracks from the DVD set talking about how hard it was to convince people at fox that the show should, in fact, happen in space. or could, for that matter.

looking forward to september '05.

Grrr

[TheRagingTowel]

I wish I could swear in chinese...

In fact, there's a funny line in one episode..

[AzrealAO]

Wash: "Psychic, though? That sounds like something out of science fiction." Zoe: "You live on a spaceship, dear."

No, it isn't...

[devphil]

Characters talk about travelling between star systems, I believe. I remember lines and scenes about being in "deep space".

They don't show any faster-than-light travel, but possibly that's just because it's boring.

Re:No, it isn't...

[Scrameustache]

They don't show any faster-than-light travel, but possibly that's just because it's boring.

I think they did, but they didn't use the Star Trek "stars wooshing in the background" effect. There's quite a few shots of Serenity in deep space, going from one world to another.

But we know absolutly nothing about its propuslsion systems, so its all conjecture for us!

Re:No, it isn't...

[RevAaron]

But we know absolutly nothing about its propuslsion systems, so its all conjecture for us!

Not exactly. We humans have the gift of ... logic! It's pretty easy to deduce that they have FTL travel . Myself or someone else could do the outline of you need it. It's not like Star Trek has a monopoly on the idea.

Re:No, it isn't...

[Durandal64]

That's because Firefly, unlike Star Trek, actually focuses on character development and fleshing out interesting plots instead of positing a problem and then injecting technobabble buzzwords as a solution.

Re:No, it isn't...

[Scrameustache]

It's pretty easy to deduce that they have FTL travel .

What I meant by "we know nothing about it" is: Is it hyperspace? Or do they stay in regular space? Is it jumps, or a continuous speed increase? Do they have to decelerate from FTL or do they "drop" out of it? Etc.

They just never got around to talking about those details so near and dear to us slashdotters.

Re:No, it isn't...

[RevAaron]

When you put it that way I couldn't agree more. I think that the small amount of show there is really had gotten a good start toward creating a rich and detailed sci-fi universe. It's a shame really, but we all know that already. :/ So many little things mentioned, in the dialog or visually that were hinting at a really interesting fleshed out whole. *sigh*

Maybe we'll find out more about propulsion in the film. Or better yet, perhaps /. could do an Ask /. for Joss, where we could ask such questions! now that'd be great. :) (but no buffy questions, please!)

Re:Damnit, it's not like they're gonna Family Guy

[cdipierr]

Well this is true, but not for the reason you say.

First off, Fox sold the movie rights to Universal, who in turn made the movie.

However, part of the deal was that Universal couldn't create a TV series from the movie within X number of years (where X is undisclosed).

None the less, Universal has more or less talked about making a trilogy if Serenity does well, particularly on opening weekend.

Everything does poorly in that timeslot.

[AzrealAO]

Fox didn't air the pilot.
Fox showed what episodes they did show, out of order.
Fox preempted the series several times for baseball playoffs, and poorly communicated time changes.
Fox did almost no promotion of the show, the only promotion for the show they DID seem to do, hinged around the "girl in the box" scenario, which they never even showed, because it was from the Pilot episode (which never aired until they had decided to cancel it).

Fox could not have done more harm to developing an audience for an episodic series if they had tried.

No more series :(

[Anonymous Coward]

I had always hoped that the Firefly movie (Serenity) would be the gateway to renewing the series. That success in the movie would convince the studio to bring it back to tv.

Then I saw Joss Whedon in Wizard World Philadelphia (Comic Con).

The very strong impression he gave from his speech (and the awesome movie rough cuts we got to see!) was that even if the series was viable again, he wouldn't do it. He has too much going on right now, too much time has passed, and pretty much "that ship has sailed". The future of Firefly, if it has a future at all, lies soley in movies.

I was quite saddened after hearing that, because it snuffed out that small bit of hope. So the Firefly movie is somewhat bitter sweet.

Aggies

Reference, please?

[spun]

I did a quick google search on 'firefly history,' 'firefly background' and 'firefly faster than light' and I could find no reference to the series being set in a single system. In fact, references to intergalactic war and reviews mentioning faster than light travel were pretty easy to find. There certainly seem to be far too many habitable planets for a single system. What are you basing this assertion on?

Re:Reference, please?

[Anonymous Coward]

There certainly seem to be far too many habitable planets for a single system.

More than in any star system I've visited, I'd agree. Whether there's more than any star system could reasonably have I'm not so sure. What do you base this on?

Re:Reference, please?

[spun]

The number of habitable, earthlike planets is limited to the so called 'life zone' of a star, the area in which the amount of solar radiation allows water to exist in all three forms, and thus life to arise. Three would be about the maximum for a G class star without the planets being so close together that gravatic instability would eventually send one or more of them flying. Larger stars have corespondingly larger life zones (further out), but larger stars are thought to have a much lower chance of having planets as all the material has ended up in the star, not the proto-planetary disk. Also, larger stars use up their fuel much more quickly, meaning there isn't much time for life to develop. Granted, the planets could all have been teraformed, but not in the time scale of the show, it would take thousands of years, as planets without life will not have oxygen-nitrogen atmospheres like ours.

In any case, my main point was that the existing literature on the show doesn't seem to validate the grandparent poster's point, in fact it seems to point to the fact that there are many star systems in the firefly universe, although the evidence is admitedly hazy on the point, which is why I asked for references to back up the gpp's hypothosis.

Why... ?!

[Grendel Drago]

Why would Fox prevent Universal from making a TV version of Firefly? Clearly, Fox didn't want it; they rushed it off the air before they'd even aired all of the episodes.

--grendel drago

Re:Why... ?!

[dorsey]

So that they cannot succeed where Fox failed. Can you imagine how dumb they'd look if the series was resurrected and became a hit?

Re:Why... ?!

[Samhaine]

Because they're network exec a$$hats? Oh, wait, that was redundant, wasn't it?

Watch Battlestar Galactica Instead of Lamenting

[superultra]

Huge Firefly fan myself, and this news makes me sad. However, thanks to some "peers" of mine I've been watching the revamped Battlestar Galactica episodes and have been blown away. It's obvious that Whedon was not alone in his realist approach to science fiction. He was just one of the first of what appears to be a School of scifi reactionaries, creative TV people tired of the fantastic and generally ungrounded science fiction of Star Trek.

The new BSG begins airing "officially" in January. What it lacks in wit and humor ala Firefly, it makes up for with amazing drama that rivals anything on ER or West Wing. I would not be surprised if it comes up for Emmy, and not just for special effects. Watch it to quell the pain of Firefly withdrawl, and you mind yourself nearly forgetting about Serenity. Nearly.

Re:Watch Battlestar Galactica Instead of Lamenting

[Twirlip of the Mists]

I second that wholeheartedly. Forget everything you know ...forget that there was another TV show with the same name back in the 70s. The new "Galactica" is a wonder. It's realistic and gritty and unrelentingly dark and SMART. It doesn't underestimate the intelligence of its audience. In one episode the lead cast used the jargon term "UNREP" repeatedly, and not once did anyone explain it. The audience was expected to just glork it from context.

I'll say this, too: It's a show that would not have been made, or at least would not have been made in any similar way, before 9/11. I mean, for cryin' out loud: the premise of the show is based on the near-annihilation of the human race. During the first regular-run episode after the pilot, the civilian government (such as it is) is obsessed with getting an accurate head-count not of the casualties of the attack but of the survivors. Why? Because the number of survivors is smaller. The writers do not try to gloss over this aspect of the story in order to make the episodes easier to watch. They face it head-on and expect the audience to just fuckin' deal.

Watch it. It's incredible.

Re:Watch Battlestar Galactica Instead of Lamenting

[demachina]

Leave it to Twirp to spin a SciFi series in to some great parable about 9/11.

"I mean, for cryin' out loud: the premise of the show is based on the near-annihilation of the human race."

Uh, so was the original series and it was made just a tinch before 9/11, not to mention 9/11 is one part of the human race waging war against another which isn't a new concept. The original Star Wars trilogy was more or less the same concept, a small band of adventurers defending humanity from being devoured by evil. Dune is pretty similar though the hero race there is more Arab in character than Western.

Its a pretty common theme in fiction in general and SciFi in general and it has NOTHING to do with 9/11, your overreaching prose trying to make the tie aside.

Maybe the style is "gritty" but the style of most video is grittier than it was in the 70's and its not like it suddenly started on 9/11.

Lest we forget, way more people have died, or been maimed for life, in the war in Iraq than on 9/11. Just the death toll among Americans is certain to surpass 9/11 before its over. 9/11 was a tragedy but as you like to say when talking about the death toll in Iraq, way more people die in urban murders or traffic accidents.

Letting our government destroy our civil liberties and run rough shod across the globe, killing and torturing, has led to a situation where our governments reaction to 9/11 has done more damage to America's security than the original attack. The U.S. really does need to be a fortified, police state now that the whole world really hates it. Al Qaida no doubt wished for just that and they got their wish in spade. Abu Graib and Fallujah are recruiting posters for whole new waves of Muslims who want to launch suicide attacks against Americans. Moderate Arabs who might have once supported the U.S. and empathized with the U.S. over the tragedy of 9/11 have been pushed in to the "against us" camp in George W.'s simplistic "you're either with us or you're against us" view of the world.

Lets also not forget that if the Bush administration hadn't been asleep at the switch maybe they would have actually stopped 9/11. For example Ashcroft trying to deprioritize terrorism while the FBI was watching the perpetrators in flight schools training, and the CIA gave the President a briefing saying Bin Laden was determined to attack the U.S. with airplanes and as nearly as we can tell they ignored all the danger signals and did nothing. Bush being to busy "clearing brush" in Texas in August to focus on his job. You have to not the parallels to Pearl Harbor, another place the U.S. was ignoring signals of an impending attack because a sneak attack was the one way to mobilize the U.S. to support a war they would have otherwise refused to get involved in. You have to wonder if the Bush administration wanted the attack so they could get a blank check to launch their extremist agenda. Even if that wasn't the plan it sure worked out well for them.

Re:Watch Battlestar Galactica Instead of Lamenting

[Anonymous Coward]

In the second episode, the cylons hijack a passenger ship, load it up with explosives and try to crash it into the Galactica. In this week's episode, a suicide bomber sneaks aboard the Galactica and blows himself up.

If you don't think the new "Battlestar" is a parable for 9/11 and for terrorism in general, you're just not paying attention.

(Or, now that I look at your posting history, it's far more likely that you've never even seen the new show. You're obviously America, from your irrational fixation on Bush--didn't he win the election already?--and it's not showing in the USA until next year. You're just a troll, aren't you? I know, I know, IHBT and IHL. I will now HAND.)

Re:Watch Battlestar Galactica Instead of Lamenting

[demachina]

"If you don't think the new "Battlestar" is a parable for 9/11 and for terrorism in general, you're just not paying attention."

If its slipped that far in to political propaganda masking as entertainment I think I'd just as soon miss it. The fact that Twirp (a.k.a. Chicken Little) is raving about it is probably an indicator there is something fundementally wrong with it. Whose producing it, Fox?

Re:Watch Battlestar Galactica Instead of Lamenting

[demachina]

Heh, I stand corrected. Sky One is one of the backers of the series and that is part of Rupert Murdoch's empire, so it is pretty much the same as Fox News producing it. So, Twirp, you must be right, it is a parable on 9/11 or more accurately political propaganda about 9/11 masking as entertainment, especially for kids. I guess, like Madrasas we have to pump our kids full of the politics of fear at an early age and rather than use religious schools the tube is the tool of choice.

Remember the movie "Red Dawn", from the Reagan era, and the vivid images of Cubans invading the U.S.

"irrational fixation on Bush"

Not much irrational about it, he is without a doubt the most dangerous person in the world today unless you are a right wing extremist or fundamentalist Christian (Though Cheney and Rumsfeld are the really dangeorus ones really running things).

"didn't he win the election already?"

Not much you can do about that when:

A. A majority of Americans are dumb and easily manipulated, especially by fear
B. The democrats run a candidate as pathetic as Kerry.

Doesn't mean Americans with brains have to like the fact their President is an embarrassment. I'm nearly positive opinion polls show the vast majority of the people in the rest of the world have as much contempt for Bush/Cheney as I do.

Re:Watch Battlestar Galactica Instead of Lamenting

[Anonymous Coward]

confused! you say "majority of Americans are dumb and easily manipulated" then you say "vast majority of the people in the rest of the world have as much contempt for Bush/Cheney as I do"

majority of people are dumb, esily manipulated. you are in majority. what this tells you?!?

Re:Watch Battlestar Galactica Instead of Lamenting

[demachina]

Heh, it tells me you are the confused one. Can't you parse sentences. I said the majority of "AMERICANS are dumb and easily manipulated". That doesn't say anything about the majority of people in the rest of the world being dumb and easily manipulated. The fact that the majority of the people in the rest of the world see Bush for the nitwit that he is suggests they are smarter and not being by American/Murdoch propaganda. I eagerly await the day Blair has to face elections and George's poodle gets sacked, though he is apparently stoking the politics of 9/11 fear to stay in office too(reference recently leaks of a nebulous foiled terror plot in the UK).

You don't have to look any further than the number of Americans who buy into born again Christianity, far greater numbers than most of the world. You have to be pretty dumb and manipulated to hand billions of dollars to conmen (i.e. Falwell, Roberts, the Bakers, Swaggert, etc) and to live your life fixated on the imminent second coming, rapture and apocalypse. Why do you need to worry about 9/11, global warming or nuclear holocaust when you are waiting for the imminent arrival of the end of the world and your ascendence to heaven? Hate to break it to you but millions and millions of American's are basicly worshiping a suicide cult, and they vote for Bush in a big way.

"what this tells you?!?"

It tells me you are dumb and easily manipulated. Which are you, in the majority in America or in the minority in the rest of the world.

Re:Watch Battlestar Galactica Instead of Lamenting

[Anonymous Coward]

you say americans dumb, rest of world not dumb. why you say? americans somehow genetically inferior? like jews, blacks?

americans dumb because they disagree with you. others smart because they agree with you. that right?

i am christian, in hungary. i don't like way you talk about christians. why don't you like christians? same reasons you don't like jews, blacks, americans?

you are prejudiced, i think. i think you are fool.

Re:Watch Battlestar Galactica Instead of Lamenting

[demachina]

"same reasons you don't like jews, blacks, americans?"

Stuff the race baiting friend. Didn't say anything of the kind. I dislike the government of Israel and its backers, has nothing to do with being Jewish. Never said a derogatory word about blacks. Americans, yes, but thats because I've lived there and I've seen America's culture close up, and I've lived in others, and America's leaves a LOT to be desired. There are a lot better cultures in the world today, cultures better educated, more enlightened, more tolerant and less bent on dominating the rest of the world at the barrel of a gun.

Americans are badly educated and if you are in rural America, especially so. Americans score dismally compared to the rest of the developed world on basic things like geography, history and politics. They are completely clueless about the world yet they are intent on dominating it and forcing it in to their monocultural mold.

In rural America especially there is a protestant church on every block. If they spent a fraction of the time and money they waste on churches and preachers they would have the better hospitals, teachers, libraries and schools they desperately need.

Hard to say why America is like it is though one Christian sect after another fled persecution in Europe and set up shop in America. Ironically Americas separation of church and state let them all flourish and now they seem to be rushing to a destroy it with a fusion of religion and government which is the basis of the religious intolerance they fled in Europe (where the state pushed one religious sect to the exclusion and persecution of all others).

"i don't like way you talk about christians."

Well then offer a reasoned arguement in its defense instead of just race baiting. I think the world of the teachings of Jesus Christ. Unfortunately the organized religion that has grown around his name doesn't adhere to or apparently even understand most of his teachings. He taught tolerance, forgiveness, non violence and anti materialism, while most of his followers today gleefully support wars, wealth acquisition, and intolerance of everyone not like them(with noticeable exceptions like the Quakers and Amish).

Born again Christians ARE sitting around waiting for the second coming, rapture, and apocalypse(though perhaps in some sects more than others) whether you like it or not. Its a key reason the Bush administration is so rabidly pro Israel because a Jewish state in Israel, with an imperial master is as it was 2000 years ago. Its the basis for the second coming and the end of the world in their eyes. I don't really want doomsday cultists running the world's most powerful military or with their finger on a button that can trigger that apocalypse in a the space of a half hour using a nuclear arsenal. One man, the U.S. President, can unleash it at his whim.

You see I have a really good and valid reason to dislike the dominant Christian sects in the U.S. and I really don't care whether you like it or not.

At this point you can probably have the last word. So far you haven't said anything insightful or worthy of a good debate.

Re:Watch Battlestar Galactica Instead of Lamenting

[Anonymous Coward]

you write too many words. my english is not first best and i have hard time reading. most times i go slow and figure out and feel good to have figured out, but with you i get more angry as i read.

you are prejudiced. am i using that word right? means someone who has bad opinion without good reason, right? in magyar we say elfogult, i think means same thing. you are prejudiced against americans, against jews apparently, against christians. why are you so prejudiced?

i am christian, calvinist. i go to church every sunday. i love jesus and i believe in him. do you hate me? i think from reading your words that you do. you say i want to bring war, i know this is not true. you are saying things that are wrong. you say you have good reason for hate christians, but all you say is that you hate christians. why do you do this? you confuse me! i think maybe you are not

the very last thing you said i had to think about for a long time to understand. you said "worthy of a good debate." my dictionary says this word means vita, which means "fight with words." all i want is to have beszélgetés, you know this word? means to have a talk.

you say i am dumb, you say you hate christians. you want to fight with words. i want to have a talk. no wonder you are unhappy with our talk.

Re:Watch Battlestar Galactica Instead of Lamenting

[jim_az]

"Why do you need to worry about 9/11, global warming or nuclear holocaust when you are waiting for the imminent arrival of the end of the world and your ascendence to heaven?"

I can't believe I failed to make this connection before, but it makes 100% absolute sense! Being a European who lived in the US recently (I'm NOT going back), I just could never understand the lack of concern for global warming and other environmental issues, but I think you nailed it!

Thanks!

Jim

Re:Watch Battlestar Galactica Instead of Lamenting

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee, I wonder. Could it be because global warming is a fraud perpetrated on the European public by your anti-business governments? It's true. Look it up. There is absolutely no scientific evidence that proves that global warming is an actual phenomenon, much less that it has anything to do with human activity. The seminal study on the subject, the one that produced the so-called "hockey stick" temperature curve, was thoroughly discredited earlier this year when it was found that the mathematical model those scientists used to analyze their data would produce the same upward-trending curve when fed any data at all, including random numbers.

Global warming is the worst kind of pseudoscientific tripe. Should we be doing research? Yes, definitely. Do we have any reason to draw any conclusions at all? No, unless you take into account the anti-business, anti-trade political agendas of certain ruling parties in certain Western European countries.

And that guy called Americans dumb and easily manipulable. Heh.

Re:Watch Battlestar Galactica Instead of Lamenting

[demachina]

I appreciate English is not your first language. You are unfortunately not understanding most of what I'm saying and you are leaping to some fairly offensive conclusions about it.

You may not have understood it but I said I respect the teachings of Jesus, I also respect Christian sects who actually follow his teachings, like the Quakers and Amish. If your Calvinist sect is one of those I have no problem with them or you. These Christian sects who are true to the teachings of Jesus are very much in the minority in America if not the world.

Unfortunately in America many Christian sects have completely lost the meaning of the teachings of Jesus and that is what I oppose, vehemently. In the U.S. the military is dominated by "Christian" officers who despite the anti violence teachings of Christ kill people in his name as they pretend to pray to him. Many ministers are preaching from the pulpit support for wars like those in Iraq. They are really anti Christians, not Christians, and they give Jesus a bad name. Jesus preached tolerance and forgiveness, but in America fundamentalist Christians are the least forgiving and least tolerant of people.

Catholicism is as bad in America as fundamentalist Protestant churches. You need look no further than the widespread pedophilia Catholic priests have engaged in and their Bishops have condoned to see they have turned anti Christian too.

Again I don't hate Jews for any racial reason but I do despise the current government of Israel and the people, Jewish and Christian who support its tyranny.

My opinion of most Christian sects, in America, is based on good reasons. There are many bad people among them who've lost the meaning of the teachings of the New Testament and are trying to force their hypocrisy and malevolence on everyone else. Not sure its obvious in Europe but since the reelection of George Bush, who was heavily backed by these mindless hypocrites, they are claiming it is their right to dictate to our government, and the rest of the world their twisted world view. This is VERY, VERY dangerous to America and the rest of the world.

Re:Watch Battlestar Galactica Instead of Lamenting

[Anonymous Coward]

i think maybe you know less about christian than you say you do. i read about quakers, amish, and i think they have nothing to do with christ. i think maybe you are wrong about what you think about christ, so you are confused.

jesus did not teach no to violence. jesus taught that we are to give to ceasar what is ceasars, you know this? which means military service too. early christians were what you probably call pacifist because they expected christ to return in their lifes times, so they thought to fight was wrong. that wsa not christs teaching though. it came after.

i think maybe you decide first you are pacifist and twist christs teachings to support that, instead of learning christs teachings and then deciding whether to be pacifist. that is bad sin. you should not do that.

you say "my opinion based on good reasons," but this is not true. your opinion is based on lies. you say jews are tyrants. this is lie. you say christ was pacifist. this is lie. i have read some of your other comments. you also say saddam was not a bad man. this is lie. you say mr bush is worse than saddam. this is especially bad lie. i traveled to bucharest two years ago, stood in piata revolutiei in the rain to see mr bush. he is a great man. he understands what it is like to live under tyranny. i was young man when hungary has first election in 1990. i know what it is like to live tyranny. you donot know what it is like, i know because of what you say. you donot understand. mr bush understands though. he is a great man, usa is lucky to have him.

i think maybe i don't like you too much. i am not had too much school, but i think maybe you are stupid because of the things you say about christ and about saddam and about mr bush. i am sorry but this is what i think of you.

Re:Watch Battlestar Galactica Instead of Lamenting

[demachina]

"you say jews are tyrants"

I never said any such thing. Again, stop putting words in my mouth, its getting old. I said the current government of Israel are tyrants and that is not the same thing though that fact is lost on you.

"you say christ was pacifist. this is lie."

Well you are just proving you don't understand the teachings of Christ or the early church. The early Christian church was led by people who knew Jesus and heard his teachings directly. They were pacifists because that was, for the most part, what Jesus taught. It was only over time that Jesus's message was lost and Christianity was corrupted because pacifism ran counter to attainment of wealth and power by Lings, President's, Popes and Dictators who bent Christianity to serve their purposes.

Here is a pretty good article on the subject this

The extent of his pacifism is certainly a subject for debate, but when you start calling me a liar for saying it you are just proving how biased and closed minded you are.

In the ten commandments:

Thou shalt not kill

How do you reconcile this with fighting wars and killing people.

"Matthew 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also"

In this passage Jesus is overturning an age old testament teaching of vengance and replacing it with one of pacifism.

Romans 12:17 Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. 18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. 19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. 20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. 21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

"he understands what it is like to live under tyranny"

George W. Bush has no clue about tyranny. He's never had to face a day in his life with adversity. He was born to wealth and power. The only time he faced any risk was from the draft during Vietnam and he dodged that with help from his dad's friends. He had traveled the world less than I had when he became President and couldn't even name many of the world's leaders. That speech you heard was written for him by talented speech writers and designed to sucker gullible people like yourself. It obviously worked.

"i am not had too much school,"

I'm not really surprised. Having a poor education and not questioning the world around you, makes you easy prey for conmen, whether they by psuedo Christian ministers or George W. Bush. Its pretty much the same story in rural America which is the part of America which reelected George W. Bush. Rural America is full of people who are poorly educated and easily manipulated like you. The better educated you are the less likely you are to fall for George Bush's con game.

"i think maybe i don't like you too much...i am sorry but this is what i think of you."

Don't be sorry. I'm glad you don't like what I write. For me it is a badge of honor. I write what I write in the hope I might challenge people in to thinking about their world and consider viewpoints that differ from the one the tyranny of the majority, and the powers that be, inflict on them. Even if people reject what I write it does them good if they consider alternatives. You on the other hand appear to be a lost cause. Your mind is closed and as long as it is, its unlikely to grow. Why don't you try to avoid reading anything I write from now on. You apparently can't understand it, can't deal with it and it obviously upsets you.

Re:Watch Battlestar Galactica Instead of Lamenting

[Anonymous Coward]

I said the current government of Israel are tyrants

Have you ever noticed that anti-Semites LOVE to wrap their Jew-hatred in the cloak of Israel-hatred? I don't know who they think they're fooling.

How do you reconcile this with fighting wars and killing people.

The translation is "Thou shalt not murder," not "kill." The distinction is key. To murder is to kill unlawfully. To wage war is not to commit murder.

This is amateur-hour stuff, man. You're just a hate-monger who's trying to dress it up in religious trappings. You need to look deep, deep inside and try to figure out why you're so full of hate. Of course, from just the tone of this post it seems obvious that you're way to smug to ever consider the possibility that you might not be right all the time.

Re:Watch Battlestar Galactica Instead of Lamenting

[demachina]

"Have you ever noticed that anti-Semites "

Ever notice how its impossible to criticize Israel or America's blank check support for Israel without being called an anti-semite. Its why Israel quite literally get away with murder and brutal oppression in Palastine, like the school girl the Israeli army office pumped a clip in to(and was being charge with illegal use of weapon instead of murdger last I heard). In other nations Israel's behavior would be called apartheid or ethnic cleansing.

Ever notice Israel is the only nation on earth you can't criticize(unless you are in an Arab or Muslim nation).

"The distinction is key."

Only if you are a phony Christian trying to reconcile your thirst for war mongering and killing with a religion that would oppose it if it were true to its teachings.

"This is amateur-hour stuff, man..."

Heh. Only when you showed up. Is that you Twirp?

Re:Damnit, it's not like they're gonna Family Guy

[Anonymous Coward]

"Assclown"? Why not cocksocket?

Re:Damnit, it's not like they're gonna Family Guy

[GMFTatsujin]

Um... Babylon 5 might not be the best example for your argument that episodically-told shows don't get a second chance on the little screen.

TNT picked up the show after its cancellation at the end of season 4, and not only did JMS manage to make the 5th season go, he also got a number of movie deals *plus* a spin-off show. And the show hadn't even hit DVD yet.

I'm not worried about Firefly. Faith manages.

technical nitpick

[Scrameustache]

I WANT MY SPACEWHORES NOW!

Inara was a space call girl, not some street hussy! ;-)

Re:Serinity now!

[flabbergasted]

Oops! That was supposed to be Colossus, The Forbin Project

September is a miserable date-will make 50% less $

[mbourgon]

Hate to say this, but September is a miserable date, and will probably cause it to tank. Why? Statistics. Box Office Mojo had an article about this for Sky Captain - on the whole, a movie released in September will make approximately 50% of the money it would've made during the summer months. Lots of reasons (School starting, summer family vacations, etc), but it all adds up to a loss of income. Which is a shame. February's another bad month - that and September are usually where sucky movies go to die. Not that I think it'll suck, but it's a bad economics decision.

A conspiracy theorist tells why Fox killed Firefly

[software_trainer]

Hank Parnell of the Texas Mercury asserts that Fox deliberately killed Firefly for political reasons. Personally, I don't think Fox's politics had anything to do with it, but his article is entertaining. The complete essay is on fireflyfans.net. I copied the most inflammatory, er, interesting, excerpts below:

They wanted to kill this show. I believe that, as surely as I do that the sun rises in the east...

The conscious patterning of the Firefly milieu on the Confederate defeat that Whedon publicly stated was the case may have not set very well in the Yankee-dominated halls of Political Correctness that rules modern America, be they "liberal" or "conservative" ("neoconservative"; again, the two are virtually indistinguishable). Firefly was an unabashed post-Civil War space Western where the losers were the good guys; and everything about the series echoed that, from the desert settings of the frontier moons and planets, the costumes, the music, even the characters' patterns of speech. We knew who these people really were. They had no slavery to fight for, only the right of self-governance...

Firefly, in its way, was, in this post 9-11 climate, almost downright seditious. The Alliance enforcers--the "bad guys"--were called "Feds." The attempt to unite and homogenize people was seen, by Firefly, as not a "good" thing; and yet it is the undeniable Zeitgeist of the modern age and behind every bit of mischief and misadventure in the world today...

Nor do most people agree with Captain Reynolds' words (as quoted by Reverend Book in the episode "War Stories"), "The government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned."...Do not think that Firefly was not drawing allusions and parallels to our own society and its attendant beliefs, or that this implicit criticism went unnoticed by the powers-that-be...

And Firefly made the case, through Reynolds, as persuasively as it has ever been made in American fiction, print, TV, film or otherwise, in my opinion, for the ultimate superiority of the rule of honor over the rule of law...For you see, the rule of honor demands what law must defer: individual responsibility, personal culpability, what is fair and what is just, of every man (and woman) who lives by it...And it is the greatest offense, the greatest affront, that Firefly could give to our vaunted modern age, and why, in my opinion, Fox never gave the show any kind of a chance.

sci-fi != SF

[Anonymous Coward]

sci-fi != SF

To everybody who loved Firefly:

[SamSim]

Go and see this movie! Make everyone you know come with you! Buy the DVDs, show them to other people, make this franchise make money! And maybe, just maybe, Fox will pick it back up again.

Re:To everybody who loved Firefly:

[Methuseus]

No, no, no. We want someone other than Fox to pick it up this time. Someone who doesn't beat every good show into the ground.

Case in Point: Star Trek - Nemesis

[Anonymous Coward]

It came out just before Lord of The Rings.

It flopped.

Serenity is just before Star Wars. Dangerous waters. But looking at the Matrix, which was AFTER Phantom Menace is different.

Re:A conspiracy theorist tells why Fox killed Fire

[kalidasa]

Yeah, because Malcolm Reynolds and his fellow Independents were all fighting to keep their slaves. Don't be ridiculous.

Re:A conspiracy theorist tells why Fox killed Fire

[software_trainer]

Yeah, because Malcolm Reynolds and his fellow Independents were all fighting to keep their slaves. Don't be ridiculous.

In The Soul of Battle : From Ancient Times to the Present Day, How Three Great Liberators Vanquished Tyranny, Victor Davis Hanson discusses how the motivations for fighting the Civil War differed between rich and poor southerners. The rich were fighting to keep their slaves. The poor, who generally didn't own slaves, were fighting to keep their culture and right to self-rule. When the Union general Sherman marched through Georgia, looting and destroying plantations and Southern infrastructure, he concentrated on destroying the property of the rich Southerners. Of course, a lot of poor farmers got caught in the swath of destruction that he cut across the state, but his intention was to break the will of the Southern leaders by bringing the cost of the war home to them.

I think it was these conflicting motivations for fighting--greed vs. self rule--that gives rise to comments like yours and the conflicting view that many Americans have about our Civil War. For some Americans, it was about slavery. For others, it was about self rule.

Another interesting fact is that the original American colonists, who were English citizens, practically begged the English king to forbid slavery in the Colonies. They believed it was immoral, and feared that it would pollute and ultimately divide the culture of the new Colonies. The king insisted on permitting slavery in the New World because he thought it would help the agricultural trade. Guess those original colonists knew what they were talking about, didn't they?

What the slightly-paranoid writer of this article suggests is that Firefly (remember, this was a discussion about Firefly?) offers us a chance to explore the politics and emotional fallout of that war, without the slavery issue.

Best TV moment in the last few years...

[payndz]

"Grr!"
[Punt]
*Thwoop!*
[CHUDCHUDCHUDCHUD... SPUT]

Firefly was great - as Bender said, "Another great sci-fi show cancelled before its time." Still, there's a movie even if I have to wait for it, and in the meantime, the new Battlestar Galactica series absolutely. Kicks. Ass. Mondays at 8pm have become sacrosanct TV viewing!

one good technical nitpick deserves another

[BollocksToThis]

Sure, Inara was, but the house full of women was a house full of SPACEWHORES.

Re:Damnit, it's not like they're gonna Family Guy

[il_diablo]

However, part of the deal was that Universal couldn't create a TV series from the movie within X number of years (where X is undisclosed).

Actually, X=10, according to a Q&A session with Jewel Staite (who playes the engineer, Kaylee, on the show).

Proof that it's Science Fiction

[neonfrog]

From the script of 'Objects in Space'

WASH: Psychic, though? That sounds like something out of science fiction.

ZOE: We live in a space ship, dear.

Old into New

[superultra]

If anything, the more I watch the new BSG the more I realize how crappy the first was, and I used to absolutely love the old Battlestar. That Ron Moore took a half-rate show like Battlestar Galactica and not only gave it viable meaning, but somehow managed to integrate the old into it is absolutely brilliant. It's like someone taking the eighties show A.L.F. and turning it into Apocolypse Now.

Rescuing an old franchise and making it current and thought provoking is something Paramount has been trying to do with Enterprise, and to little effect. What they need to do is pay lots of money to Moore and bring him on to revitalize the series.

Whoops.

Re:Old into New

[wrecked]

Moore actually has quite a history with the Star Trek franchise. He wrote some of the best TNG episodes, including "Yesterday's Enterprise" (3rd season, Enterprise C time paradox), and was responsible for many DS9 stories (DS9 is the best Star Trek spin-off).

My wife and I are completely hooked on Battlestar Galactica. I remember the series when I was a kid, and I thought that it was unwatchable back then. This new series, in contrast, is completely brilliant.

Comeback doubtful now?

[Eil]

I heard through the grapevine (and it probably is just hopeful Firefly fans talking here) that if the movie did well, they would consider bringing the series back. I would presume this delay would obliterate the chances of that, as most of the actors probably can't afford (nor desire to) wait a year to see if the Firefly will fly again.

Firefox is currently showing on TV in Australia

[deek]

It's on at the prime time of 1 AM Tuesday night/Wednesday morning on Channel 7.

Well, I'm watching it at least. I was lucky that I couldn't get to sleep the other week, and discovered it while doing some late night channel surfing.

no.

[Unknown Poltroon]

fox shouldnt be ashamed. Fox should be beaten so stupid they enjoy their own stupid reality shows.

Re:A conspiracy theorist tells why Fox killed Fire

[kalidasa]

Leaving aside the question of whether Victor Davis Hanson, a classicist with expertise in ancient Greek agricultural and military matters, is necessarily the most authoritative writer on the subject of the US Civil War, and granting him that, it's not relevant to what the posting I responded to said. He's talking about current, northern attitudes toward the Civil War, and how they might have led to hostility against the series: but the most common contemorary Northern view of the Civil War is entirely that it was a war of liberation of the slaves (ahistorical as that view is). I think it's also useful for you to look at the context of modern pro-Confederate attitudes: those confederate battle flags on US state flags were added mostly in the 1950s, in implicit response to efforts on the part of the "Northern" federal government to push through desegregation. Before about 1980, State's rights arguments in the US, and ideas about how these relate to local "culture," nearly always end up revolving around issues of racialism. (You see it in the North, too, e.g. in Boston during the busing crisis, in which a lot of locals objecting to having black students bused into their neighborhoods, but masqueraded their racism with talk of "local control" and "neighborhood schools." Often the only difference between the neighborhoods concerned were the colors of their skin.)

No more opinions for me.

[mandrake*rpgdx]

This isn't a golfing magazine, numbnutz. It's an open forum. I don't see anywhere saying "Hey this is a firefly specific forum!". Nope, it's slashdot. It's a lot of things. But it's not just for morons who like crap television. Now, THIS is a troll. Fuckface.

Also...

[Snaller]

... on a minor note, the people who did the special effects for Firefly also do the effects for the new BSG - which means, the occasional out of focus space shot, cameramen a bit slow in tracking the action, the odd wild zoom when something 'unexpected' happens etc.

Doesn't seem to be a vote of confidence

[mzs]

According to the the second to last paragraph:

Serenity's is firmly slated for release in April of 2005, just a few weeks shy of Star Wars: Episode III. Whedon and crew hope that the slot will get a boost from the eager sci-fi crowd. "It's exactly where I want to be," Whedon says. "We call it the Matrix slot, as opposed to the death slot, which is what the show had. It's a spring movie. It was always a spring movie... I can't compete with the $200 million movies... It's a smaller film. It's like the crew itself, its a little run and gun, it's a little bit underdog... It's that time when people are getting ready. They've got that anticipation, they're excited to get into the summer and be disappointed over and over. (Laughs) I mean, and see the big movies, but it's not going to be swamped by them. So I'm just absolutely thrilled. To me, it's another huge vote of confidence from the studio."

Wow Whedon's own words really seem to contradict his recent statement. My guess is that the producers' faith is shaken and that they are better liars than Whedon is used to.

Don't overlook the reasons behind cancellations

[Snaller]

A lot of Slashdotters know of Babylon 5. Then the producer JMS was asked to do a spinoff called Crusade (which i think had potential) but it was quickly cancled. Why? Well fans had their ideas, but recently at a convention, when asked if Crusade would be out on DVD, JMS said that he would only be interested in working with them if he would be allowed to tell the truth on the DVD's, when asked what the truth was, he had this to tell:

JMS: I want the real truth to come out. Including the fact...I ran into some guys who worked for TNT about two years after Crusade went down. And they said, "Did you ever hear the rest of the story?" JMS: "What rest of the story?"
TNT guys: "We found out, we did a research survey, a five year long study of our ratings. This was just after Crusade got going. And, we found out that the audience for B5 came for B5, then left afterward. And the TNT regular viewers didn't stick around for B5 and went away and came back. B5 wasn't adding to our viewer base." So...they decided to pull the plug on Crusade for that reason and use the money to buy another show. But they couldn't say that because they'd be in breach of contract with Warner Bros. So their job was to make it impossible for us so they could then say, "We aren't getting the show we want, our notes aren't being dealt with, therefore we aren't responsible, we're canceling the show, this is your nut Warner Bros., you take care of it." That is why all the notes became so egregious. If I had given them everything they wanted, they still would have pulled the plug. They just wanted out. Yeah, I want that information out there. (Audience: We'll take care of that) On the DVDs."

I'm happy about this, really!

[JackJudge]

Because at least the studio is giving the movie a fighting chance. According to the WierdOne's comments they (the studio execs) "really, REALLY liked what they saw, this is before the SFX were added". They're not requesting any changes, alternates endings yada-yada-yada.
Speaking as someone who was active on the Firefly(TV) forums since the first week, the WierdOne's take on this has been very accurate from the get go, and he has never tried gloss over any bad news for the fans.
Bottom line is, if Joss is happy with this decision then so am I. He hasn't led us wrong so far and there's been no BS either.