Slashdot Mirror
Serenity Trailer Out Tuesday
SiliconEntity writes "Joss Whedon's movie Serenity, based on his much-loved but short-lived TV series Firefly, will have an official trailer out on Tuesday, according to an announcement from Joss: 'EXCLUSIVELY on Apple movie trailers (and linked through this site as well of course) will be a small, medium, large or FULLSCREEN trailer for Serenity the major motion movie. Yeah, THE trailer. And the following Friday said trailer hits theaters. Which theaters? Until I get confirmation you'll have to guess, but I'm betting you can.'"
Firefly was OK - the first time I watched it I was disappointed, but subsequent times gave me a chance to catch the subtlety and depth of the characters without having to concentrate on the plot too much.
:)
One series I have really enjoyed but doesnt seem to get much attention is Lost. Fantastic premise, great characters and a setting that is brilliant, Im hooked and I recommend the series to anyone I can. Plus it has Mira Furlan from B5
I really doubt it, I do.
Joss likes to tell stories about people, and the interesting thing is people who change. I've never found movies to be the best medium for that. There's just not enough time to get the audience to bond with the character at A and experience the complete transistion to B. I like series where it sort of starts out slow and change come creeping up on you.
I loved it in Angel how Wesley moved from being this uptight unintentionally (from his PoV) funny character, to a dark and gruesome killer, ready to do whatever it takes -- pretty much apexing with him taking an axe to the body of his former lover.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
I'm not Bill Gates, I'm not spitting $50 for something I've never heard of, sorry. The problem is: no one outside the USA has seen this serie and this is why it won't go anywhere. I'm not trolling, it's true: "Firefly" is the most unknown serie on earth and this is its biggest problem.
For what I think he has in mind for the story of Firefly, he won't be able to tell it properly in a movie or even a handful of movies. IIRC, he's said himself that he hopes the movie will cause some (non-FOX) exec to realize, "Hey, this will make a good TV show."
one of the reasons the tv show didn't go well is that it was played in a confusing order. the show has a logical flow which the dvds are shown in... but on tv it was all mixed around.
wouldn't it be confusing if they played the PILOT of all things last? well, that is exactly what fox did. they also rearranged other eps. it did themselves quite a disservice.
and yeah... it is odd seeing a sci-fi western, but it certainly hasn't been done like this before. its hard enough doing sci-fi on a low budget.
That's actually what they're trying to do to Arrested Development right now. Never mind the fact that it won the Best Comedy Emmy in addition to four others in its first season, and will most likely pull off something similar in its second. Never mind the fact that Malcolm in the Middle and a Topher Grace-less, Ashton Kutcher-less That 70's Show have already been renewed, despite both being well past their prime and having worse ratings than Arrested Development. Never mind the fact that nearly every critic has referred to it as the hands-down best show on television. Fox would rather make room for a repeat episode of the Simpsons or for the terrible American Dad, even though the former does worse in the ratings and the latter's reviews were all terrible.
Granted, they haven't formally cancelled the show either, but it still hasn't been renewed, which at this point in the year is not a good sign. You have to realize that this is what Fox does to good shows. They did it to the Ben Stiller Show, they did it to Greg the Bunny, they did it to Firefly, they did it to Family Guy (although it lucked out), and they're about to do it to Arrested Development. They screw around with good shows until they've rationalized an excuse to cancel them in their own "twisted minds" (their words, not mine).
As I recall it was more that when they run out of gas the life support fails, which is pretty reasonable. Unless we're talking about different episodes, but there exist only 14 to choose from.
In the commentary for Objects in Space, Joss Whedon comments that the bounty hunter takes people out in the most efficient way possible for their characters. (Something he didn't realize until his wife pointed it out.)
...
So
He beats up Mal.
He threatens to rape Kaylee.
He uses logic on Simon.
And the clincher
He comes at Book from behind, when Book is distracted, and knocks him out as fast as possible. He also comments, "That's no Shepherd."
Answer your question?
People use what's cheap and does the job. Did the four wheeler hinder them? Guns kill people and don't require expensive batteries and care like laser guns did in the show.
I keep saying this, but read about people living in Mongolia or the Amazon. In our age of cars they still horses to pull things? In our age of construction equipment they still build houses by hand? They still use machetes to clear brush?
There are people that live long and happy lives (even in the US or other modern countries) without ever personally using a computer. On a present day tv show do you complain that some people still do their taxes on paper?
I guess people like to hope that in the future we will all be in the future. Sorry, as a species we will never all be at the same technological level. Print out that prediction and read it every fifty years, it will always be true.
For one thing, spaceships don't make whooshing or rumbling sounds - scenes in space are completely silent. :-)
...
My cousin does sound mixes for movies, and pointed out that all those sound effects are actually a pretty significant budget item in special effects-heavy movies. Whether it was part of the calculation or not, they actually saved a bunch of money by doing it that way.
I like to think that was on purpose -- I'm definitely prepared to give Joss credit for being clever in more than one way at a time. And for the record, in a symbolic way at least I get sad for the world every time I remember that Firefly was cancelled. Groups of people with that much talent who like what they're doing that much shouldn't be broken up over money.
And babies should never die and no one you love should ever stop loving you back and war sucks too, I guess. It's just one of those things
But are TV shows required to just repeat the same old stuff over and over? I guess that's a dumb question -- of course they are. But every once in a while somebody who doesn't know any better tries to make a show that's sort of original. In this case, Whedon was trying to make an SF show about real people, who who don't have access to phasers and tricorders because the best technology belongs to rich people who don't share. What they end up with is a mixture of high-tech cast offs and revived 19th-century technology.
If you think in Hollywood stereotypes, than that's just a lame combination of "western" and "SF". But if you're into serious "hard" SF, or you know anyything about the history of technology, it's a thought provoking premise.
no one outside the USA has seen this serie
Uh, I live in South Africa and I've seen it. It actually got shown on TV. Various people I know bought the DVDs.
I was initially unexcited about the show, since it was billed as a "western in space" (which may be part of what it is, but definitely not all it is) and since everyone who recommended it to me was a frothing Buffy fangirl (and I find Buffy to be annoyingly over-hyped). I eventually watched it on DVD, and I think it's the best sci-fi series I've ever seen. I'm greatly looking forward to the movie, and so are at least a few other people down here - we're all hoping this will jump-start some kind of continuation.
I'm scratching my head right now.
Let's say for example that you have a big tank of gaseous hydrogen and a big tank of gaseous oxygen. How do you make water out of it?
Well, you burn it. You take a WHOLE SHITLOAD of both ingredients --that's a volumetric shitload, not a shitload of mass -- and you burn them.
And you get a teeny, tiny droplet of water.
Okay, but let's set that aside for the moment. Let's assume, just for sake of argument, that Our Beloved Heroes had the facilities to store a WHOLE SHITLOAD of both H2 and O2 and a safe way to burn them together.
Where, exactly, are they supposed to get a WHOLE SHITLOAD of H2 and O2?
Yes, hydrogen is believed to be the most abundant element in the universe. But do you know where it's all stored? Suns. It's all in use, you see.
Sure, if you measure very carefully, you could find some just floating out between the stars in deep space. But you'd be talking about one atom per cubic meter or something. And the vast majority of it wouldn't be just floating there at relative rest. No, being ionized and highly charged, it'd be moving fast.
So the idea of trying to just round up some hydrogen from the vacuum of interstellar space is pretty fucking far-fetched, my friend.
Let's not even talk about oxygen. Yes, it exists in rocky bodies in the form of oxides, but do you have any idea what it takes to get it out? Seriously, how do you get the oxygen out of iron oxide, or silicon dioxide, or sulfur dioxide? With a whole hell of a lot of heat. And how do you plan to produce that heat? Microwave oven?
Finally, let's talk about water ice. Okay? Let's discuss that. First things first: We have never discovered water ice on another planet. It's one of the holy grails of NASA's missions to other planets, and so far we've found nothing like it, not even any sign of anything like it. Ice? Sure. There's a hell of a lot of ice out there. But it's not water. It's stuff like methane, like carbon dioxide, like carbon disulfide.
And what if comets did contain water ice? What then? Wanna go out and find one? Fantastic. But keep in mind that the density of even the densest part of the Oort Cloud is thought to be on the order of one milligram per million cubic meters.
Talk about a needle in a haystack.
If you tuned out of "Battlestar Galactica" because you didn't like the science, maybe it's for the best. Because the show doesn't give in to the typical dumbass sci-fi clichés like "hydrogen makes up 90% of the universe, so we'll just open the window and grab some." If that's the kind of nonsense you were hoping for, you'd have been disappointed.