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.'"

Comments

Complaint about the writeup

[Dancin_Santa]

So is Serenity the movie adaptation of Firefly? Having never seen Firefly, I have to ask what the movie is about.

I've heard that Firefly is the Sci-fi fan's latest wet dream. But not getting Fox up here at the North Pole, I have to wonder what the attraction is.

The link doesn't seem to be working for me.

Re:Complaint about the writeup

[Anonymous Coward]

But not getting Fox up here at the North Pole, I have to wonder what the attraction is.

You don't get DVDs either?!

Re:Complaint about the writeup

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Complaint about the writeup

[vitamine73]

no one outside the USA has seen this serie

I must stand up for my fellow quebecois and canadian geeks! We love Firefly (which my geek runned video store has), were really pissed when the series was cancelled, and are eagerly waiting for Serenity to come out!

Re:Complaint about the writeup

[wojci2]

[..] no one outside the USA has seen this serie and this is why it won't go anywhere.

I bought it here in .dk on DVD. I managed to get one(1) other geek to watch it.
Good luck with any future arguments.

Re:Complaint about the writeup

[vitamine73]

Non, moi je parle français!
(No, I speak french) But, yes, I have many "united statian" cultural references. However, I think that anybody, anywhere , that as an interest in sci-fi and a computer and that understands english as possibly heard of Firefly.

Re:Complaint about the writeup

[Bhalash]

Except for here in Ireland, apparently, where its quite popular.

Re:Complaint about the writeup

[Jiminez]

BG, B5, SW are all great of course, but hey even talking about them in the same conversation as firefly is looney-tunes.

Re:Complaint about the writeup

[Jiminez]

I tried to get the DVD's here in England last xmas. Every single shop had sold out. Firefly is a growing colossus sunshine.

Damn, I fed the troll.

Re:Complaint about the writeup

[NetNifty]

Try Play.com.

Re:Complaint about the writeup

[Mudcathi]

"So is Serenity the movie adaptation of Firefly? Having never seen Firefly, I have to ask what the movie is about."

What?!?! I call shennanigans! How is it possible for a slashdotter, by definition a subset of the greater set "uber-geeks", is wholly ignorant of Firefly? Get thee hence to a Netflix subscription or Amazon DVD order page, you pseudo-geek, and prove thyself worthy!

Re:Complaint about the writeup

[Rei]

Amen. The last episode of Galactica that I saw, they were on a desparate search for water, and were scouring system after system for it in vain. You know, the compound of the element that makes up 90% of the universe (hydrogen) and the most common element in rocky bodies (oxygen)? Which, in the form of water ice alone makes up most of the solid material in the colder extents of planetary systems?

Firefly, on the other hand, was pure genius. I loved it so much that I made a forfune mod for it. ;)

Re:Complaint about the writeup

[magarity]

I've heard that Firefly is the Sci-fi fan's latest wet dream

Yes, because it is:
1. Black box. There is no rambling techno-babble. Fixing the ship in Firefly is no more technical than Han Solo wrestling with some kind of wrench in a bundle of wires while telling Chewie to put "that one here, that one there."
2. Same goes for driving the ship, how the ship gets from one solar system to another in a reasonable time frame, how one model ship goes faster than another, etc. The pilot just pushes on the controls and the characters just walk down the loading ramp on a new planet in the next scene. Sometimes the Captain worries about affording enough the (apropriately generic named) "fuel".
3. Good sci-fi is not about techno-babble in repairing the ship or moving the characters from one place to another. Good sci-fi is about human society in new situations. What other genres offers more variety of places in which to imagine humans trying to get along than sci-fi since the entire galaxy (universe) can be used? It's when sci-fi focuses on the people that it becomes excellent. There are no aliens, no bumpy forehead people, bored omnipotent beings, etc, etc in Firefly. Good sci-fi doesn't need those things, if done properly. And Firefly is exceptionally well written in that regard.

Re:Complaint about the writeup

[DavidTC]

I think we can figure out how knowledgable you are if you think Buffy and Angel weren't for adults.

Re:Complaint about the writeup

[Snaller]

I have to ask what the movie is about.


Its a film about people in trouble. Try it, It's good.

Re:Complaint about the writeup

[ThJ]

What's Firefly?

-- Norwegian

Re:Complaint about the writeup

[TheWormThatFlies]

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.

Re:Complaint about the writeup

[Cariboo]

I take it you don't get Space then. Firefly is on every Thursday night at 8:00PM PDT. Check it out.

Re:Complaint about the writeup

[As Seen On TV]

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.

Re:Complaint about the writeup

[trendyhendy]

We got it in New Zealand: late at night, but in the correct episode order. It was damn good.

Re:Complaint about the writeup

[LocoMan]

Firefly was shown at least 4 times (first time and 3 reruns at 2 different timeslots) in the latinamerican fox network, in english with spanish subtitles. It was also very heavily marketed the first 2 times it was shown.

Re:Complaint about the writeup

[LocoMan]

Forgot to add, it was shown in Spain too. I didn't get to see it while I was there (no cable where I was staying), but they had it on the commercials for the cable TV systems. I guess (like all TV and movies there) that it was dubbed in spanish.

Re:Complaint about the writeup

[EMH_Mark3]

Neeyala: We were regaining dimensionality when our ships collided and must've been subjected to a massive burst of photonic distortion. Once the phaztillon generator is repaired, we'll dose ourselves and hope your living ship doesn't interfere with the non-thermal dimensional forces.
Aeryn Sun (to John): Do you understand any of those words?
John Crichton: Yeah, I watched all kinds of Star Trek, it's just the order that they're in.
^^

Re:Complaint about the writeup

[Rei]

First off, containing and burning hydrogen and oxygen is nothing for a ship that can *bloody well travel through interstellar space*. That should be quite obvious here. There are a dozen ways other than outright combustion to combine hydrogen and oxygen - for example, fuel cells do it quite peacefully using a semipermiable membrane.

And, as I mentioned before, most of the solid matter in the outer reaches of stellar systems *Is Already Water* (ice).

Even if you ignored the fact that you can get it *already in the form of water* from *bloody everywhere*... lets just pretend that you have to harvest your components individually, for the sake of absurdity. The upper atmosphere of any gas giant is... wait for it... you guessed it... *mostly hydrogen*. How quickly do you want to pick it up? However quickly you want to collect it determines how deep into the gas giant's atmosphere you want (the density steadily scales from pressures high enough to make the hydrogen a liquid metal, to the density of interstellar space).

Oxygen ... but do you know what it takes to get it out?

These people can *travel faster than the speed of light*, and you're saying that they can't strip the oxygen from a couple tons of ore? Not that they need to, as ice is readily available in space.

We never discovered ice on another planet

False. And just ignoring planets, it's what almost all of the Kupier belt, Oort cloud, Saturn's moons, Saturn's rings, and a good chunk of Jupiter's moons' mass is made of. And it's all over the spectral signature of the rest of the galaxy. The only place you can get away from it is inner solar systems (where it can vaporize), and even then, only sometimes.

Ice Is Everywhere In Our Solar System. It is the most abundant compound after H2 - more common than even the iron oxides of the inner solar system. The Oort Cloud alone may have as much mass as Jupiter.

It's not a cliche; it's a fundamental part of astronomy: Ice Is Everywhere. Since you seem blisfully unaware of this, it's no wonder that you liked the show. Even TNG wasn't that bad with pseudoscience.

Re:Complaint about the writeup

[elrous0]

I've heard that Firefly is the Sci-fi fan's latest wet dream.

No, that would be the new Battlestar Galactica (one of the, if not the most intelligent sci-fi series ever made).

-Eric

Re:Complaint about the writeup

[elrous0]

These people can *travel faster than the speed of light*, and you're saying that they can't strip the oxygen from a couple tons of ore?

Yeah, and probably burn up 10 times as much as they would gain in the time they would have to waste to do it. Clearly, in the situation they were in, they needed a lot of it and they needed it fast. They weren't looking to establish a long-term mining operation.

And BTW, in case you haven't watched the series, BSG technology is actually pretty comparable to our own (except for FTL travel).

-Eric

Re:Complaint about the writeup

[As Seen On TV]

First off, containing and burning hydrogen and oxygen is nothing for a ship that can *bloody well travel through interstellar space*.

Ah, yes. The ever-popular "We can put a man on the moon" fallacy. As in, "We can put a man on the moon, so why can't we create a non-fat fudge cake that doesn't disappoint in the flavor department?"

The characters on the TV show are not omnipotent. It's flat-out dumb to assume that they should be able to do X, particularly when we don't know how to do X, and even more particularly when doing X would torpedo the dramatic tension of the story.

And, as I mentioned before, most of the solid matter in the outer reaches of stellar systems *Is Already Water* (ice).

And as I mentioned, (1) that's just a theory, and (2) there's so little solid matter in the Oort Cloud that you'd be better off recycling spit.

The upper atmosphere of any gas giant is... wait for it... you guessed it... *mostly hydrogen*.

Assume for the moment that it's true. (It's just a theory. We don't know that it's true.) How do you plan to collect it? Just open the window and breathe in?

These people can *travel faster than the speed of light*, and you're saying that they can't strip the oxygen from a couple tons of ore?

We can put a man on the moon, but we can't blah blah fudge cake.

Not that they need to, as ice is readily available in space.

Why do you keep repeating that? It isn't true. First, we've never found ice in space, not once, not ever. Second, even if it is there, do you have the foggiest conception of how big interstellar space really is? Seriously, we're talking about milligrams of matter in volumes the size of Earth's orbit here.

False.

You think we've discovered ice somewhere off the Earth? I'd love to know where you think we've found it. Considering, as I said, it's the holy grail of solar system exploration and all.

And just ignoring planets, it's what almost all of the Kupier belt, Oort cloud, Saturn's moons, Saturn's rings, and a good chunk of Jupiter's moons' mass is made of.

The Kuiper Belt is believed to be composed of rocky objects. You're thinking of the Oort Cloud. And while comets are, indeed, believed to be composed in part of water ice, it's just a theory, and not even a particularly well-founded one. They could just as easily be composed of other volatile ices like methane or carbon disulfide. Saturn's rings are thought to be composed of silicates. It's suspected because of electromagnetic evidence that Europa might have a briny subsurface sea, but again, it's just a theory, and it's considered to be a very big deal because it's the only evidence of actual water, or even water ice, that we've ever found.

Ice Is Everywhere In Our Solar System.

I'm going to ask you again: Why do you keep repeating this as if it were a fact? It's not. It's not even a theory. It might be a hypothesis, but it's not a particularly well-supported one.

It's not a cliche; it's a fundamental part of astronomy: Ice Is Everywhere.

Actually, the fundamental part of astronomy is that space is big and that things are far apart. Even if ice were everywhere, it would still be practically nowhere. See my point?

But even more fundamental than that is the idea that nothing is true until proven true. You keep saying ice is everywhere, but we've never observed it. You're advancing a hypothesis, and a fairly wild one, as fact. That's not science. That's science fiction.

I think maybe you've been reading too much science fiction and not enough, you know, actual science.

Re:Complaint about the writeup

[Rei]

Yeah... now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go land and take off from gravity wells as if they're nothing; first, though, I'll use energy from my tylium energizer to power up my laser blaster, in case my ship's ridiculously powerful ion engine gets disabled and I need protection.

Surely you were kidding about it being "modern tech". And I'll note that you've decided to ignore the fact that ice is *everywhere* in the galaxy. That's one of the main reasons why we use infrared telescopes - you get the water ice IR band. Water is the third most common molecule in the galaxy as a whole.

In Battlestar Galactica, they can land on atmosphere-covered huge gravity wells, and can find their proportionally tiny ships in deep space (and small objects on huge planets, etc), but they, of course, can't manage to find any of the trillions of icy bodies, some quite large, that surround almost every star, which even a modest modern observatory could find. It is preposterous.

Re:Complaint about the writeup

[Rei]

Wait... you're claiming that a ship that handles all sorts of volatiles can't *combust* *hydrogen*? There was strong evidence in original galactica that the ship had fusion power, for YHVH's sake. They're dealing with dangerous 'tylium' and 'solium'... it's silly to think that they can't handle having a hydrogen torch inside a tank with cool walls.

that's just a theory

That is not a theory. The spectral signature of ice is all over the bloody place.

there's so little solid matter

Yeah... most ice is gasseous at near the background temperature. Suuuure ;) We know what's in the Oort cloud - when they get close to us, we call them "comets". Inwards from there, you get kupier belt objects, like Pluto and Quaoar. Inward still, you get ice on almost every moon in the outer solar system, some made almost entirely of ice.

The Kupier Belt is believed to be composed of rocky bodies

Saturn's moon Phoebe is the most studied kupier belt object thusfar, and it's mostly ice. The Kupier belt is bodies made of rock *and* ice, mostly ice. Heck, Uranus and Neptune are known as *ice giants*, because they have accumulated so much ice-laden material from the kupier belt that they have large icy cores. The icy worlds Pluto and Quaoar probably have the next best Kupier belt data.

Oh, and Saturn's rings are mostly ice. A good chunk of their moon's masses are ice - Enceladus being some of the most pure ice in the solar system. Ice is the dominant surface material in Saturn's moons, and once of the most dominant in Jupiter's moons

Please... get serious here.

Re:Complaint about the writeup

[elrous0]

power up my laser blaster

Like I said, you've obviously never watched the show (or have it confused with the cheesy 70's version).

-Eric

Re:Complaint about the writeup

[As Seen On TV]

Wait... you're claiming that a ship that handles all sorts of volatiles

Beg pardon? Where did you get that idea, exactly? What volatiles does it handle, exactly?

There was strong evidence in original galactica that the ship had fusion power, for YHVH's sake.

I think you might be confused or something. The nature of the power plant aboard the Galactica has never been discussed. There's no reason for it to have been; it doesn't have any impact on the story. Besides, what if it were a hypothetical fusion reactor? So what? Are we back to the "We can put a man on the moon" fallacy again? They have a fusion reactor but they can't blah blah fudge cake?

it's silly to think that they can't handle having a hydrogen torch inside a tank with cool walls

Actually, it's far more silly to assume that they can. If we don't know how to do it, why should they know how to do it? The only reason to invoke magic in science fiction is to advance the setting to the point where an interesting story can be told. That's why spaceships travel from star to star via magic. If they didn't, it'd be basically impossible to tell an interesting story.

As for the rest ... sigh. I'm not a scientist, but I got my bachelor's in physics. I know enough about science to know the difference between a hypothesis and a fact.

You, on the other hand, seem completely incapable of drawing the distinction.

What's worse, you take spectrographic data of distant galaxies and extrapolate to the conclusion that accessible water ice is scattered every few feet throughout the universe.

I'm tired of reading these completely hypothetical assertions repeated as if they were cold, hard fact. That's not science. If you knew the first thing about science, you'd know that.

Re:Complaint about the writeup

[Rei]

has never been discussed

As I mentioned, in the original theory, it was suggested.

If they've got a fusion reactor, they have the tech to store and handle hydrogen in bulk. Fill any container with oxygen (with a spark plug near an inlet), and pipe in hydrogen through that inlet with the spark plug ignited. The rate you pipe it in determines the size of the flame and rate of reaction; you can burn at any rate, so long as you have adequate cooling and insufficient pressure/poor enough ratios to allow a deflagration to detonation transition.

Heck if that is too hard, they could simply allow a small hydrogen leak to burn *inside the craft* like a candle. The humidity will condense on any cool object overhead or to the side. Pretty much any container of any kind with sufficient size would work.

This is all assuming that they don't have fuel cells, or even a basic chemistry set.

if we don't know how to do it

Excuse me? We don't know how to burn hydrogen?

Burning hydrogen is no harder than burning propane. *Containing* hydrogen is difficult (it has low density except at extreme temperatures, weakens metals, leaks easily, etc), but burning it is laughably simple. I'm talking high-school chemistry simple (seriously - my high school chemistry teacher *did* burn hydrogen in class)

sigh. I'm not a scientist

Obviously, as you're arguing against basic science. There's not a solid single body from Saturn onward that we've looked at the spectral signature from and not found water *on the surface* *in large amounts*. Thermodynamically, elemental hydrogen and elemental oxygen from stars *want* to be in the form of water, and late-stage stellar fusion produces copious amounts of oxygen. Oort-cloud-like masses show up, with the spectral signature of water, around almost every star that's been near enough for us to study. Water's spectral signature is everywhere, and makes up most of the dust found in the interstellar medium (i.e., it's not just near us, but all over the galaxy). It's not just some hypothesis that water ice is all over the galaxy: it fits every bit of theory and experimental data gathered thusfar.

The universe *doesn't make sense* without water being all over the place, because it is the thermodynamically favorable product of such common elements. Near stars, furthermore, matter coalesces; again, the universe doesn't make sense without this occurring. And our solar system and our views of the universe through telescopes back all of this up.

Re:Complaint about the writeup

[As Seen On TV]

First of all, you're talking about two completely different television shows. Secondly, you're referencing a Web site about a completely different television show.

Bottom line: This show is not for you. This show is for grown-ups. Go back to watching Japanese cartoons, or whatever the hell makes you happy.

Re:Complaint about the writeup

[Rei]

I *stated* that I was talking about original galactica in ref. to the fusion power issue; don't try and pretend that I didn't. Furthermore, I've noticed that you've ceased discussion about how easy it is to burn hydrogen, and how readily available. Trust me - if those links aren't enough, I can get you plenty more. Copious amounts of ice are on everything far enough away from the sun that it doesn't evaporate/sublimate quickly, and in the spectral signatures of almost any direction you can point a telescope in.

Re:Complaint about the writeup

[xian16]

I'm from the Philippines (but now in Singapore) and I've watched and loved the series. I'm a Whedon-fan which also means I'm a Buffy and Angel fan. I do agree that not a lot of people liked Buffy but I disagree that it's "annoyingly over-hyped". :)

Re:Sorry

[RalphSouth]

Firefly was the best scifi series on tv since Babylon 5. Fox canned it to concentrate on reality shows... Great characters, great stories, and a cool blend of cowboy and tech.

Movies a better medium for Joss now?

[CCelebornn]

He created Buffy then its spinoff Angel: both doing well, especially the former. Now every TV exec will be expecting him to produce shows that pull in the kind of audiences the likes of Buffy did. Firefly was a victim of that: here at least, the first few episodes didn't bring in the ratings, so the rest of the series got put together in a muddled order and just wasn't given a chance. After being burned by this experience, at least with a movie he gets to write a script and a story that WILL get shown in its entirety.

Re:Movies a better medium for Joss now?

[carlhirsch]

I'd say comics are a better medium for Joss. I mean, have you read Astonishing X-men?

Re:Movies a better medium for Joss now?

[NOLAChief]

Firefly didn't pull the same audiences as buffy for 4 major reasons, none of them having to do with the skill of Joss Whedon: 1. the Friday night timeslot it was put in virtually guarantees a lack of audience to begin with. Granted there are some examples of shows that survived such slots (like X-Files), but coupled with: 2. the intense lack of promotion that Fox gave the show, 3. the fact that they began airing and promptly preempting it for the MLB playoffs, and 4. the fact they decided to show it out of order, FOX pretty much made sure it was DOA. The first I'd ever heard of the show anywhere was here on /. I watched the first episode and liked it, though, try as I might I couldn't always catch it because it was a crapshoot as to whether it was on (I missed "Jaynestown" the first time around that way.)

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."

Re:Movies a better medium for Joss now?

[mbourgon]

5. It's a western. My wife and her best friend, both of which were HUGE Buffy fans, had no interest at all. "It's a western. Who cares." My personal belief is that, yes, those other factors contributed, but the fact that it was such a genre-bending show was the biggest. Western fans wouldn't watch because it was sci-fi, and sci-fi fans wouldn't watch because it was a western. (I wouldn't have watched, except that it was Joss)

All that being said, why the hell are they putting out a trailer now? The movie's not due out for another 5 months or so.

Re:Movies a better medium for Joss now?

[Fezmid]

They're putting out the trrailer now for one big reason -- lots of sci-fi movies being released. The movie was supposed to be released in April, but because of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Star Wars, and a few other sci-fi movies coming out at the same time, Universal didn't want to compete so moved it to September to better market it.

Think about it. Everybody knows Hitchhiker. Everybody knows Star Wars. Not many people know Firefly/Serenity. If the trailer is done well, everyone going to see those types of movies will say, "Hey, this Serenity thing looks cool, I think I'll go see that in September." That will draw in bigger crowds. And it's been documented that if the movie does well, we'll get a full trilogy which would be awesome. After the trilogy, it's POSSIBLE that we'd get a TV series again (apparantoly the Fox contract says that there can't be a TV series for 5-10 years.... Damn Fox execs.)

Re:Movies a better medium for Joss now?

[Gulthek]

Remember when the first Spider-man trailer came out? Lots of movies have trailer lead times of four months or more. For big movies over six months is not uncommon.

Re:Movies a better medium for Joss now?

[Cecil]

It wasn't given a chance (or aired in the right order) from the get-go. The pilot episode didn't even air until the show had already been cancelled.

Re:Movies a better medium for Joss now?

[mdfst13]

"Actually, Firefly pulled better numbers than either Buffy or Angel by a couple million viewers. Problem was they weren't big enough numbers for Fox. UPN and/or WB would have been thrilled with Firefly's numbers."

This is true of almost every Sci-Fi series that Fox cancels. I wish that people would just stop offering Sci-Fi to Fox. Fox has no interest in Sci-Fi. They don't understand what makes good Sci-Fi. They don't understand why the Sci-Fi that they make is often bad. Nor do they push it to be better (if anything, they push it to be worse).

Of course, part of the problem is that Fox the studio produces the shows that Fox the broadcaster cancels. I.e. Buffy, Angel, Firefly, Tru Calling, etc. were all produced by Fox. It was Fox (studio) that pushed Whedon to add a third series even though he was already struggling to handle two. It was Fox (studio) that pushed Buffy to UPN (where it never lived up to expectations; further, it took away the popular Buffy/Angel crossovers). It was Fox (studio) that pushed him to add a third series (Firefly) before his popularity dwindled.

The other part of the problem is that Firefly was expensive to make. I don't know that UPN or the WB could have made it. That was also part of the reason why Fox cancelled it. It was more expensive than its ratings allowed (Buffy and Angel did not require props as expensive as the ship was). Fox had been expecting the kind of ratings that Dark Angel (also expensive) had gotten in its first season. Firefly never matched up to Dark Angel's second season ratings.

Re:Movies a better medium for Joss now?

[47Ronin]

...I wish that people would just stop offering Sci-Fi to Fox. Fox has no interest in Sci-Fi. They don't understand what makes good Sci-Fi. They don't understand why the Sci-Fi that they make is often bad. Nor do they push it to be better (if anything, they push it to be worse).

Actually they are the #1 purveyors of sci-fi. They call it Fox News

Re:Movies a better medium for Joss now?

[EddieBurkett]

It was Fox (studio) that pushed Whedon to add a third series even though he was already struggling to handle two. It was Fox (studio) that pushed Buffy to UPN (where it never lived up to expectations; further, it took away the popular Buffy/Angel crossovers).

I thought it was the WB that pushed Buffy away (maybe not to UPN explicitly). Like Angel, they just wanted to get 5 seasons of the show out so it could be syndicated and then they wanted to replace it with whatever pop-crap was in the pipe (so they could rush that out to syndication). If Fox (studio) pushed Buffy to UPN, it was only because they knew that Fox (network) would be death.

Which division runs FX though? They replay two episodes of Buffy daily, which is nice if you're home in the afternoon and need your Buffy fix.

Re:Movies a better medium for Joss now?

[fm6]

Firefly was a victim of that: here at least, the first few episodes didn't bring in the ratings, so the rest of the series got put together in a muddled order and just wasn't given a chance.

No, the muddle started even before the first episode went on the air. The first episode made was a two-hour thing that introduced the characters and the backstory. It didn't get shown until 3 months after the show premiered and the decision had already been made to cancel.

At least the official decision. There's a lot of evidence that most Fox execs wanted Firefly to go away. SF shows cost a lot to make, so even if they have a broad appeal, they tend to lose money. And Firefly was too cerebral a show to have broad appeal. The suits might have been more charitable if Whedon had been willing to turn the show into a brainless shoot-em-up, but he had no interest in that.

The only reason Joss Whedon ever became an TV mogul is Gail Berman, who persuaded him to turn Buffy into a TV series when she was a big power at Fox studios, and backed Firefly when she was President of the Fox network. But it appears that she never really had control of the network, despite being its titular head.

As for movies, I don't see Whedon doing any better there. Movies are an even bigger economic gamble than TV shows, so they're more politically charged. Whedon sucks at politics.

I hate to say it, but I think Joss Whedon's 15 minutes are up. He done a lot of work I admire (and I few things I'm not so enthusiastic about), but he has not ability for working in the big organizations that make TV shows and movies. Every single project he's played a major role in has been marred by his inability to get others to understand his ideas. The Buffy movie basically got taken away from him, because he couldn't make people understand that it was a serious concept, and couldn't go along when it mutated into a campy comedy. X-Men dropped almost all his script contributions. The making of Alien Ressurection was marred by epic battles betwen Whedon and the director. And so on.

Even his one major success, Buffy, went into the toilet when he pulled back from day-to-day managment. This happened because he failed to educate anybody as to the ideas and backstory that made the show work. For that matter, Firefly had a lot of problems with details and premises that were never properly developed . Didn't matter in the end, because the show was doomed before it aired. But its another indication of Whedon's limitation.

I love the guy's past work, but I think we've already seen everything he can do that's really good.

Re:Movies a better medium for Joss now?

[AtariDatacenter]

Actually they are the #1 purveyors of sci-fi. They call it Fox News

Wouldn't that make it poli-fi?

Re:Movies a better medium for Joss now?

[blofeld42]

Both Buffy and Angel were cult shows. They didn't have huge mass market penetration, but had a respectable and loyal following. For example, Buffy got cancelled on the WB and moved to UPN around season 5. That doesn't happen to hit shows.

Re:Movies a better medium for Joss now?

[Snaller]

Actually they are the #1 purveyors of sci-fi. They call it Fox News

But is there any sci isn't it just fi?

Re:Movies a better medium for Joss now?

[doublem]

Don't be silly. It's not science fiction. It's just fiction. No science about it, as that would confuse most of their target audience. Remember, as Barbi said "Math is hard," and you need math to do science, so science must be hard!

Re:Movies a better medium for Joss now?

[MegaFur]

If you haven't actually *seen* Firefly yet, then I'm going to have to disagree with your last sentence.

Ok, so maybe all Joss's problems with having shows die and having movies yanked away are his own fault for not being able to communicate his ideas to others--I mean, I'm not saying I agree with that necessarily, but it could be true I guess.

Regardless, about 12 episodes of Firefly did get made and in general, IMHO, they're really, really good.

Re:Movies a better medium for Joss now?

[Morden]

Now every TV exec will be expecting him to produce shows that pull in the kind of audiences the likes of Buffy did. Firefly was a victim of that

Actually Joss has said on several occasions that Firefly outrated Buffy and Angel in spades by virtue of the fact that it was on FOX instead of UPN or WB.

EXCLUSIVELY

[saboola]

It's EXCLUSIVELY in FULLSCREEN this SUNDAY, SUNDAY, SUNDAY. THE trailer. Get your tickets now.... TO THE MAX, EXTREME!

Re:EXCLUSIVELY

[CrackedButter]

"You'll pay for a whole seat but only use the edge"!
Thats what I remember from the advert which I pissed my pants over when watching the Simpons and that was the words to hype up a show for Truckasorous or something.

Re:EXCLUSIVELY

[Peale]

"If you don't see this you BETTER BE DEAD, OR IN JAIL. And if you're in jail, BREAK OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOUT..."

Re:EXCLUSIVELY

[CrackedButter]

Something I don't watch...

Re:EXCLUSIVELY

[James_G]

The quote you're thinking of was in Bart the Daredevil (the one where Bart attempts to jump Springfield Gorge on his skateboard), but I don't recall them using the "only need the edge" line. Google seems to back me up on this..

Here's the full quote, according to Google:

TV Announcer 1: Plus the amazing...
TV Announcer 2: The outstanding...
TV Announcer 3: The unbelievable...
All 3: Truckasaurus!!
TV Announcer 2: Twenty tons and four stories of car-crunching, fire-breathing prehistoric insanity!
TV Announcer 1: One night only!
TV Announcer 2: One night only!
TV Announcer 3: One night only at the Springfield Speedway this Saturday
TV Announcer 1: If you miss this, you better be dead or in jail.
TV Announcer 2: And if you're in jail, break out!
TV Announcer 3: Be there!

</Completely OT>

Space Western

[Torgen]

The short (and not very detailed) explanation is a "Space Western." But that's not doing the series justice. Like so many other innovative series, Firefly was sandbagged by network execs that have the same level of comprehension as Paris Hilton. They nixed the pilot that explained who everyone was and set up the situation, so everyone was confused as hell. The suits then used that as justification to kill the series in favor of Queen Latifah's latest vehicle, or whatever. Google for it, and you'll find plenty of info.

Re:Space Western

[Gulthek]

Firefly was a western set in, what, the future? I mean they used revolvers, had train robberies and all of the characters were predictable and pedestrian. I mean, c'mon - the ship's preacher is named Shepherd Book?

Right. Just like now in our modern times no one uses horses, or swords, or lives in farming communities.

Read up on the anachronisms of the present day (Mongolia, The Amazon, etc.) and you won't be surprised if guns are still a cheap way of killing in the future. The modernized alliance forces (and rich people) had futuristic laser guns and non-lethal stun guns. Just like...forever, people with nothing get by with what's cheap or available.

Re:Space Western

[aussie_a]

I hate Buffy, couldn't stand Angel, loved Firefly. I'd hardly call me a "fan with undying loyalty."

Yeah, it was a western, but it was a good western. This coming from someone who hates westerns.

Re:Space Western

[Anonymous Coward]

Star Wars was a space western

"farmboy saves princess from black knight using magic sword a wizard gave him"...
You call THAT a western? Star Wars was a Space Opera.

all of the characters were predictable and pedestrian.

River was predictable? She was unpredictable by way of insanity.
Inara was pedestrian? If you consider high-class space call girls commonplace!
Wash was an hawaiian shirt-wearing, amazon lovin', plastic dinosaur playing spaceship pilot. Neither predictable nor commonplace.
There, that covers a third of the cast.

I mean, c'mon - the ship's preacher is named Shepherd Book?

No, you damn troll (who's modding that crap up?), the ship's shepperd's last name was "Book", and it's probably not his real name, either.

Re:Space Western

[CloudsSpaz]

Exactly. Just because a laser can kill someone, does it mean a bullet can't? Lasers might prove to be more effective in the future, but all that will mean is cheaper "old-school" guns and ammunition. Afterall, didn't Slashdot just run a story the other day about NASA using 20-30 year old computers for similar reasons?

Re:Space Western

[Rei]

Probably the best thing about Firefly was the dialog and the expressions. Mal's reaction when he discovered River was just great. ;)

Re:Space Western

[roseblood]

Right. Just like now in our modern times no one uses horses, or swords, or lives in farming communities.

In this modern era of satelite guide weapons (JDAMs) laser guided weapons and self flying weapon platforms (CAFVs) why do people use weapons aimed via the alignment of metal posts within iron rings(M-16, AK47, match-lock muskets)? Because it's dirt cheap, qiick, easy, and reliable. What the hell do you do with your fancy multi-megawatt laser when you lack a multi-megawat power supply to recharge it?

Re:Space Western

[Citoahc]

Yes, the ship's "Preacher" is named Shepard Book.

If you watch the show for very long it becomes obvious that it probably isn't his real name. From the weapons training he has had, the military knowledge and the control over the government I'm guessing that preaching isn't his full time occupation.

This is just one of many areas where it would have been nice to watch the show develop.

Buffy WAS good until it ran out of places to go, Angel was "interesting" and Firefly had potential.

Citoahc

Re:Space Western

[Woody77]

THE best monosylabic line/grunt I've ever heard.

Re:Do it again?

[Richard_at_work]

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 doubt it.

[eddy]

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.

Re:I doubt it.

[VirtualWolf]

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.

Or even better, shooting (what he thought was) his father without a second thought when he threatened Fred.

Caution: Trailer has SPOILERS

[Exp315]

Joss also warned in that post that the trailer has major spoilers for Firefly fans who are familiar with the TV series and would prefer to see the movie unspoiled. For what it's worth, Firefly is one of the better SF series ever made. For one thing, spaceships don't make whooshing or rumbling sounds - scenes in space are completely silent. :-)

Re:Caution: Trailer has SPOILERS

[magetoo]

So the trailer will be out, but I can't see it? (Yeah, I'm one of those.) Arrghh...

Where do I find someone who's geeky enough to have heard of Firefly but not geeky enough to refuse to watch potential spoilers? Do such people even exist?

Re:Caution: Trailer has SPOILERS

[Man of E]

For one thing, spaceships don't make whooshing or rumbling sounds - scenes in space are completely silent. :-)

That's neat, but for some reason spaceships in the series burn their engines continuously, and when they run out of gas they stop moving entirely ... I love the show, but it would have been neat if they had given more than just that little nod to physics.

Re:Caution: Trailer has SPOILERS

[snol]

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.

Re:Caution: Trailer has SPOILERS

[SamSim]

In my experience the space scenes in Firefly are generally suffused with a pleasant acoustic guitar-based country and western soundtrack, but your point is taken.

Re:Caution: Trailer has SPOILERS

[LaissezFaire]

Boy, I can't think of a trailer in the last 10 years that hasn't just been a one minute version of the movie. And not nearly as well done as the Simpson's five minute Hamlet, at that. ('No one can out crazy Ophelia! Hey, nonny, nonny and a ha cha cha.' *splash*)

Re:Sorry

[zenneth]

To call it the "best" scifi series on TV is quite a stretch. The CGI looked great, but the costumes and props were a far cry from being completely believable. They used a four-wheeler on their spaceship to haul stuff? No gravity-defying carts to help that? Maybe Mal was on a very limited budget when he started his business and couldn't afford one of those fancy shmancy floaty-things.

What about the other props? Their weapons, for instance? What's with the nod to westerns of old by using weapons that bore more than a passing resemblance to some of the weapons from a Sergio Leone film? The opening scene for the original pilot had them using what we'd call "modern" weapons, the HK G36. While it might look space-age, it's not really helping to fit into the rest of the mold with everyone else using wanna-be sixshooters.

I'm not sure I have a point to make, other than calling it the best scifi is a stretch... which I already said.

Lost doesn't get much attention?

[Anonymous Coward]

What rock are you living under? It's one of the biggest hits of the season, recently featured on the cover of Entertainment Weekly?

Trailer attached to...

[Malfourmed]

It's likely that the Serenity trailer will be attached to The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.

Re:Trailer attached to...

[Malfourmed]

It's called "-1, Overrated". Go for it. :-) I wasn't karma whoring, just adding some information which - though not terribly insightful - needed to be said for those not familiar with movie release schedules.

And who knows - maybe it'll be attached to XXX: State of the Union. ;-)

Re:Sorry

[eddy]

Wow, you really didn't get what it was all about, did you?

One of the points of the Firefly universe, if I may be so bold, was that things wouldn't be too different from what they are here and now! There's still good and evil, there are still hierarchies, things are dirty, messy... and the old motivator of wealth is still driving people on...

And as always with Joss, it's about people. So yes, if your only reason to watch a show is to experience hi-tech gadgets, then Firefly isn't for you. It never was.

If you're going to evaluate something, at least do it in it's proper genre.

Say it together now

[rechelon]

Shiny!

firefly...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:firefly...

[aussie_a]

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.

Don't worry, fans of Firefly will not be dissapointed. The first 30 minutes of the show will be played last, while the last 30 minutes will be played first. And they'll throw in some commercials, and announcements for other movies at the bottom of the screen halfway through the movie. Just so it feels like the television show, for us purists out there. Yeah baby!

I missed the episode!

[EnronHaliburton2004]

How AWESOME was that mirror universe episode?!

Oooo! I missed the episode!

Was it about a mirror universe where time-travel wasn't an over-used plot device?

Re:I missed the episode!

[eddy]

No, it was a mirror universe where the girlie crew uniform is very nice (if you like bellies), and pretty much everyone is evil in very UNSUBTLE ways.

I think the concept meeting went like this; "Hmm.. what if we write in an alternative universe where Napoleon conquered the earth and instituted guantanamo bay..."

Re:I missed the episode!

[Colol]

It also served to further highlight the gigantic lack of internal consistency in the modern Trek universe as they step from this shiny high tech ship from "Enterprise" to the comparably crufty and spare Original Series-inspired ship.

I wondered from the first episode how they were going to handle the fact that the first Federation ship is a hell of a lot more advanced than later ones. I thought they were going to get away with not even addressing it, but then they went and put a TOS-style ship in the series.

Given the way Paramount works these days, they'll probably still solve it:
1. Evil Archer and The Naked Belly Crew are in one alternate universe.
2. Good Archer and The Technically Advanced SuperShip are in another.
3. The Original Series took place in yet another alternate universe, explaining away the technology differences.

And through subspace rifts, these can all come together and somehow inject Riker and Troi!

Someone just needs to take Trek out in the pasture and get it over with. Time travel and subspace rifts can't be a plot device every episode and still have a watchable series.

Me, I'll be counting my pennies and buying DS9 a set at a time.

Re:I missed the episode!

[As Seen On TV]

I'm no fan of "Enterprise," but even I know the answer to that one. They explained it in pedantic detail in the pilot episode. In that movie where the Next Generation crew comes back to Earth and meets that Cochrane guy, they alter history. "Enterprise" takes place in that altered history. That's why they got whashisname to come back and reprise his role as Cochrane in the pilot episode.

I really never understood all the complaining about continuity. The writers explained it on day one. It's like everybody heard that, ignored or didn't understand it, and just kept bitching.

Re:Sorry

[mshiltonj]

Firefly was the best scifi series on tv since Babylon 5.

Firefly was much better than Babylon 5. The show was cancelled to early, but held great promise of being the best scifi show ever.

Re:Sorry

[thumperward]

C'mon, this is Slashdot. You're allowed to be a proper fanboi. It already was the best sci-fi show evar. Sealed it after about two episodes.

- Chris

Re:Sorry

[Manchot]

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).

Lightweight crap

[Ars-Fartsica]

Joss likes to tell stories about people, and the interesting thing is people who change.

And if this is as far as the /. crowd gets to exploring human nature in culture, thats sad. Try some Tolstoy, he had the heights and depths plumbed and gutted out in its honest form before Whedon's grandparent were born.

Re:Lightweight crap

[Daniel Dvorkin]

So you're saying everybody should just shut up and stop telling new stories because it's all been done?

Re:Lightweight crap

[danudwary]

Let me know when Tolstoy writes about vampires or spaceships. Half of War and Peace was enough for me.
Pompous ass.

Re:Lightweight crap

[Ars-Fartsica]

No, just injest some cultural artifacts more advanced than that which I would feed a ten year old.

Re:Lightweight crap

[Daniel Dvorkin]

If you're going to engage in literary criticism, check your spelling.

That being said, I'm curious as to why you consider Firefly sufficiently advanced only for ten-year-olds. Is it because it's science fiction, or because it's a TV show (and now a movie)? Either way, of course, your prejudices are clearly blinding you; I'd just like to know which variety of pretentiousness I'm looking at.

Re:Lightweight crap

[Snaller]

And if this is as far as the /. crowd gets to exploring human nature in culture, thats sad.

What's sad is that you think only a few have monopoly on human insight.

Re:Lightweight crap

[McNally]

And if this is as far as the /. crowd gets to exploring human nature in culture, thats sad. Try some Tolstoy, he had the heights and depths plumbed and gutted out in its honest form before Whedon's grandparent were born.

Who (besides you?) says that's as far as "the /. crowd" goes?

I've read quite a bit of Tolstoy, including War and Peace, purely for pleasure and not because it was required. Except for Tolstoy's heavy-handed exposition of his historical theories in the epilogue, I think War and Peace is a wonderful novel and have recommended it to several friends.

But you know what? I also enjoy Buffy and am secure enough in my tastes to do so without fear of contradiction. I can also enjoy the mathematically precise compositions of J.S. Bach and the insanely cutesy bubblegum pop of the Japanese girl-band Shonen Knife. Learn to deal with it, or better yet, learn not to care at all about what other people like and just live a little..

If you want to talk sad, let's talk about people who are either so uptight or so intimidated by intellectual authority that they're unwilling to praise anything that lacks the imprimatur of the generally accepted canon. There's a big wide world of culture out there and you don't have to limit yourself to just the bits and pieces of it that other people tell you are good. Every single person on Slashdot (except for the people who post the Yakov Smirnov jokes) has a mind, and most of them seem comfortable enough making that mind up for themselves about what they do or don't like. Why bring "should" and "shouldn't" into it?

OK, enough troll-feeding for one day..

Re:Lightweight crap

[Ed Avis]

I stopped watching Firefly when they changed the name from Phoenix.

Can't wait for the movie...

[gellenburg]

I just want to know what the f_ck is up with Ron Glass' character, "Shepherd Book". I mean, who the hell is he?

How many preachers carry an ident-card that gets them royal treatment at an Alliance Cruiser?

Re:Can't wait for the movie...

[Gulthek]

Or know criminal psychopaths by name. Or can identity guns used by analyzing their burn patterns. Or know a lot about a lot of shady things.

You know that Book was probably a made-up on the spot name right? When Kaylee asks him his name he looks at the book in his hand and says, "Book...yes, my name is Book." Kind of odd. He's probably someone in law enforcement, except that I don't think even cops get that kind of treatment. So my favorite theory is that he's an alliance general (or high military), specifically one that orchestrated the battle for Serenity Valley. After the war he checked into the Abbey to start a life of peace. Then got to feeling that he needed to make some kind of amends. At the spaceport on Persephone he was looking at the ships, but he was searching for Serenity.

Re:Can't wait for the movie...

[jmelloy]

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?

Re:Can't wait for the movie...

[Urchlay]

So my favorite theory is that he's an alliance general (or high military), specifically one that orchestrated the battle for Serenity Valley...

I'm convinced!

That's the best Firefly conspiracy theory I've ever heard.. had I mod points, you'd get +1 Insightful.

Re:Can't wait for the movie...

[goat_of_wisdom]

That is insightful. I hadn't thought of that.

I do remember in the commentary Joss saying they put a lot of foreshadowing into the series they didn't get a chance to pay off.

Re:Can't wait for the movie...

[NOLAChief]

That's pretty much what I was thinking. He either commanded the Alliance forces at Serenity Valley or was involved in action immediately after. Maybe he ran a prison camp. That might make an interesting connection to Mal and Zoe. We know they were ordered to "lay down arms." What we don't know is if they were captured and treated as prisoners of war or as "enemy combatants." If Book's a war criminal who found God, well, that could be an interesting day when Mal and Zoe find out.

Good eyes, BTW. I did not pick up on him looking at the book. Here's one for you to look for. In "Trash" when Kaylee's reprogramming the garbage drone, the screen looks like it's displaying a Windows 9x install with a wizard open. Coincidence? Cost savings? Or is Joss a Linux/Mac geek? I can see their slogan in 500 years. "Windows...It Just Works...As A Garbage Disposal."

Re:Can't wait for the movie...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's Windows 2000. With the Add New Hardware Wizard.

I really shouldn't know this. Now super-geeks are allowed to beat me up and take my lunch money.

Re:Can't wait for the movie...

[AdamTheBastard]

"Something he didn't realize until his wife pointed it out." - does that seem right to you?

Re:Can't wait for the movie...

[NOLAChief]

No beatings from me. You're OK in my book, AC. You've confirmed that I'm not completely crazy. Just one question, though:

How do you know?

Just curious...

Re:Can't wait for the movie...

[Gulthek]

Whoa, I totally didn't catch that. Time to spin up the DVDs again and, as long as I have them out, rip them for easy viewing.

Maybe I'll make a note of all the places I see "Blue Sun". Did you catch that Jayne was, for the first time, wearing a "Blue Sun" t-shirt when River slashed his chest with the knife? She then says, "He looks better in red." Creepy. I suspect, but am not positive, that the cans River was tearing the labels off of were Blue Sun products.

Re:Can't wait for the movie...

[NOLAChief]

Like you needed an excuse. :-)

I didn't pick up on the bit about the shirt until I read about it somewhere...either in a comment here or over at fireflyfans.net. Makes sense though. Supposedly Blue Sun and the Alliance government are pretty tight. As far as the cans, that will require some closer examination. I know I could make out the UPC and the "Nutrition Facts" box on a couple of em the first time around. More reasons to watch...

Re:Do it again?

[DavidNW]

True, IMHO, though it seems it has some very loyal fans, some of whom compare it to Bab 5, which is totally off. Personally, I think that Whedon has suffered a bit of the old Lucas disease, whereby a once good creative talent loses it. It seems to me that such tends to happen when that person developes a following, and is told that he is a genius for a long period of time by everyone around him. What such people need is for someone to follow them around and whisper to them that they're mortal.... Otherwise such a person starts to buy into the genius thing, and starts thinking anything he does is great. Which typically manifests itself as doing what they think is "edgy" work. They start to darken their work, making it more needlessly violent, including mysogonistic and/or racist themes, and descend into self-parody. I submit the last couple of seasons of Angel and Buffy as additional evidence. Buffy gets raped, and decides to love her rapist, who then becomes the real star of the show, (and later of Angel). Other characters turn suddenly homicidal without much build-up, and never suffer any consequences from their actions. At its best, when it was fresh, Buffy was wry and witty, violent, but not needlessly so, and never unendingly dark and grim. But it, along with Angel descended into the pit of Star Wars sequels. As for Firefly itself, for me, it just never really clicked. Not as bad as late Buffy or Angel, but not really good, it never really seemed any more clever than say an episode of Enterprise, (ok, that IS pretty bad). It was an idea that had been done to death before in various media, unlike Buffy, and its execution was tepid and uninspired at best. Why exactly he was given the opportunity to direct a movie on the strength of this, I don't know, (actually I do, DVD sales). I'll venture a prediction that Serenity will never quite find an audience outside of hardcore Firefly fans. It might earn back its cost in the US, if its released in a weak movie time, and if Fox decides to heavily promote it, (these days a movie about a guy scraping roadkill off the highway will make thirty million in the opening weekend if the studio promotes it enough). Otherwise, it will take foriegn and DVD sales to turn a profit, if indeed it does. That's probably the fate of a genre film in a year flooded with higher profile films in that genre, a film without bankable stars.

Objects in Space

[andy4322]

The last episode (sadly, it was never aired by FOX...) was really the first time where all of the potential chemistry of plot elements and character interaction came together as well as something out of Angel season five. Brilliant, and showed how cool a full season or two could have been. Looking forward to the movie!!!

Re:Objects in Space

[Kaimelar]

The last episode (sadly, it was never aired by FOX...)

That seem right to you? :-)

Re:Objects in Space

[andy4322]

the episode is part of the dvd set.

Re:Objects in Space

[Dionysus]

I'm pretty sure "Objects in Space" got broadcasted. Only three episodes didn't get aired: "Trash", "The Message" and "Heart of Gold".

Re:Objects in Space

[andy4322]

oh... well, sure. You probably know better than I do. Still, it was a cool episode.

Re:Objects in Space

[shokk]

They're included on the DVD set! Still not in the right order, though.

Re:Objects in Space

[StrangeInterlude]

Yep, it was the second-to-last episode to be aired on Fox -- it's last in the story sequence, but since Fox aired 'em all out of order, well... BTW, did anyone else notice that "Objects In Space" was actually Firefly's cliché Christmas episode? It originally aired a week or so before Xmas 2002, and in that context the ep's storyline (insane, red-suited bounty hunter sneaks onto ship while the crew's tucked away in their bunks) seems like a twisted take on "The Night Before Christmas." Whedon doesn't mention it in the commentary, but the intention was there, all right. Think about it, won't you?

Artsy-fartsy losers.

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't see him produce a tv-series though. Kinda "lose by default" on that one.

Re:Sorry

[Fyz]

... things wouldn't be too different from what they are here and now! There's still good and evil...

My man, you watch entirely too much television if you think good and evil are facets of reality. Black and white hats are concepts that exist only as mythologies in peoples minds; sweet, sweet concepts that makes it terribly easy to label everybody as friend or enemy, but tell me, is there any person who was ever motivated by a conscious desire to be Evil.

But anyway, this is my take on Firefly: Though the setting is basically Western, it doesn't have much in common with old shows like Gunsmoke, where moral boundaries were very clear. Most of the characters, both protagonists and antagonists are motivated simply by survival and moral standpoints are secondary. I also think that the choice of characters in the series is to emphasize this and challenge them to find more to live for than just taking it one day at a time.

that's why they are calling it "Serenity"

[johnpaul191]

they do not want people to think they can't see it if they never saw the series. from what i remember, it will take place a few months after the series left off, but it will be done so somebody knowing nothing about the series will understand.

you can watch the trailer tuesday and see what you think. plenty of people go see movies based on a trailer and reviews.... maybe it's something you will like and maybe not.

the series really was derailed by the execs. i don't know if it would have lasted anyway being run on friday nights. my housemate has the series boxset and it makes a lot more sense to see it in order. there are also episodes that were never aired.

you can always get it from netflix or a rental place. or go see the movie and if you like it then get the box set.

Re:Do it again?

[MatB]

doesnt seem to get much attention is Lost Sorry? I'm in a building with no cable or satellite, the wrong side of the hill for digital in a small backwater in the south west of England. Never seen the show, but I've heard of Lost. Maybe you could consider, y'know, getting out more? Firefly is one of the best series I've seen for a long time; what I caught on TV I loved, the write ups on the rest I read was good, so I bought the DVDs and they're doing the rounds of my friends. Some people don't get it; that's fine, niche audience shows are supposed to work like that. shame Fox et al forgot the basic premise.

Re:Such rampany faboi-ism here...

[Jiminez]

fanboy-ism makes no sense in terms of firefly. If you have watched it, then you will be a fan, whether you like sci-fi or not...

Firefly is so good...

[Jiminez]

...the world gets excited not about the film, not about the trailer for a film, no... we're excited about an announcement of a trailer for a film. Hot diggity, it's that good.

Re:Firefly is so good...

[Cliffy03]

... we're excited about an announcement of a trailer for a film. Hot diggity, it's that good.

I can't wait for the BBspot review!

Re:Sorry

[Gulthek]

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.

Obligatory "I miss Buffy" post

[krajo]

It's been 2 years now since one of the best TV shows ever made ended. I hope Joss will get a chance to create something like that again. In the mean time, let's go watch Serenity...

Seinfeld reference anyone?

[Man in Spandex]

SERENITY NNNNOOOOOOWWWWW

silence is cheap

[Heisenbug]

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 ...

Re:silence is cheap

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope it was on purpose - my appreciation for Firefly was cemented in one particular scene:

The Reaver's ship de-orbiting in the pilot episode. It is shown flying backwards under full thrust, then flips over for atmospheric braking. THAT was when I realized they got the physics right. I don't remember if that was the same time when I noticed there was no noise in space scenes.

Awesomely cool, and a great aspect of Firefly.

Re:silence is cheap

[dvdeug]

I like to think that was on purpose

To me, I thought that was pretty clear when I watched the DVDs. The first episode had a large scene where they did space right; no sound and things moved realistically. Having watched the whole thing, I got the impression that with that scene, they were trying to tell their audience that they were going to do hard science fiction, not normal TV science fiction.

Re:silence is cheap

[Heisenbug]

My punctuation was bad in that last post -- what I was trying to say was, "They actually saved a lot of money by not having sound in space. I like to think saving money was on purpose." Of course the no sound thing was on purpose. The effects were very sophisticated, like the handheld camera and imperfect zoom and so on. I just admire film styles slightly more if they actually make life easier for the filmmakers *while* making it a better show for the viewers -- like the way El Mariachi got complements for the odd cutting style, when really he just couldn't get the lips to sync all the time and had to cut away ...

Re:Do it again?

[aussie_a]

I'm in a building with no cable or satellite, the wrong side of the hill for digital in a small backwater in the south west of England. Never seen the show, but I've heard of Lost.

And I'm in Austalia and even I have heard of Lost.

Firefly is very useful

[Illserve]

If I'm contemplating whether I want to get to know someone, I lend'em firefly and ask them what they thought of it.

It's as good a personality test as I've ever found.

Re:Firefly is very useful

[goat_of_wisdom]

That's funny. I do something similar (I loan people my Firefly DVDs). I don't think I'd distance myself from someone just because they didn't get Firefly, but if they do get it, it's an instant "in" with me.

Re:Sorry

[An Onerous Coward]

If I understand your complaint, you're just whining because not every scene in the series made use of the most advanced weaponry and gadgets available in the Firefly universe.

Sorry, but that's truly lame.

More than any series I've come across, Firefly has a truly believable setting. Fantastic weaponry exists, but it's too pricey for regular schmucks. Most people are rather poor, and just scraping by. It's not like Star Trek, where the main characters always have crisply pressed uniforms and the latest technology. That distinction is saved for the Alliance troops. The overall western flavor is never really explained, but it seems pretty obvious that they use chemically-propelled projectile weapons (aka 'guns') because they're cheaper and more reliable than energy weapons.

I've never seen Farscape or Babylon 5, so I don't have the necessary background to call it "the best scifi on television," but I think it beats every Star Trek series to date, hands down. Your complaints completely miss the point, because Firefly was about showcasing the characters, not the technology.

Re:Sorry

[gizmonic]

Heh. I'm looking forward to Serenity much more than the next Star Wars film Lucas has crapped out. Although I am a geek and I do want to see them both. :)

Re:Do it again?

[pipingguy]

Agreed. I've watched many of the Buffy series episodes as syndicated and some were really good. After the first couple seasons they were grasping for ideas and hyping-up the "character interactions" (AKA the soap opera phenomenon) with blood, guts and monsters thrown-in to appeal to the original fans.

It became a teen angsty show because, you know, kids are the market most easily influenced to buy useless stuff and repeat memes and smartassims they heard last night on TV.

Repeat after me: we are all individuals.

Re:Do it again?

[An Onerous Coward]

"Buffy gets raped, and decides to love her rapist, who then becomes the real star of the show, (and later of Angel). Other characters turn suddenly homicidal without much build-up, and never suffer any consequences from their actions."

Sorry to go all fanboy on you, but that's a blatantly unfair summary that intentionally removes all context in order to shore up a very weak point.

I'm too lazy to summarize what really happened. Okay, maybe a short version: Buffy and Spike's reconcilliation took an entire season, never actually led to Buffy loving Spike, and required great sacrifices from him. He suffered greatly for his sins, got a severe alteration to his personality, and finally sacrificed his life (to save the world, of course). Meanwhile, Willow's transition was foreshadowed throughout season 6, and her powers were crippled by her own fear until the very end of season 7. Yes, there were dissatisfying elements to both plot arcs, but Whedon had a series to wrap up.

In closing, use bloody whitespace, and learn to spell "misogynistic". Thank you.

Spoiler!

[An Onerous Coward]

From the announcement:

But close scrutiny will definitely learn you much of what's to come. (Anakin TOTALLY goes evil.)

I hate it when directors let crucial plot points slip like this. I just wish he hadn't said anything.

He's ruined the whole movie for me.

Re:Sorry

[harlows_monkeys]

I will not watch any new series on FOX anymore. Not even the first episode or two to see if it is any good. Most likely it is crap anyway. If it isn't crap, worst case is I wait a couple years and can rent the complete series on DVD.

When Simpsons, King of the Hill, Malcolm, and That 70's Show go away, the only use I'll have for that channel will be for watching syndicated stuff shown locally.

Language Coup

[Sloppy]

How lucky for the movie industry, that they get to refer to their advertisements using a word other than the hate-laden "advertisement."

Re:Language Coup

[Joe Tie.]

If I had mod points at the moment, they'd be piled on here. Even more, I'd say how lucky for the movie industry that they've gotten the public to refer to their commercials as something else. It's OK to want to see an advertisement for a product one is interested in, but please, don't pretend that it's anything but a piece inserted between television shows in order to sell you products.

Re:Sorry

[Mudcathi]

"Wow, you really didn't get what it was all about, did you? One of the points of the Firefly universe, if I may be so bold, was that things wouldn't be too different from what they are here and now!" Yeah, I hear anglos cursing in Chinese all the time down at the used spaceship lot.

Re:Not totally bad, but...

[coyotecult]

Yes, but then the new momma gets to shoot the Daddy! I don't think that one is too overly used.

Re:Sorry

[goat_of_wisdom]

I don't envy you. I can see you're going through the the same stages of grief I went through when I realized they were going to cancel Firefly.

Just take things one day at a time and hope they'll someday make Arrested Development into a movie.

Enought with the Westerns!

[fm6]

Well, if your definition of a good western is Matt Dillon outdrawing the bad guy of the week (try that in real life, and you'll shoot your foot off), then yeah Firefly was a bad western. And if your idea of good SF is glossy Star Trek bullshit, or B5 thud and blunder, then yeah, Firefly failed there to.

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.

Re:Enought with the Westerns!

[AussieVamp2]

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. -- If you haven't read lots of other stuff, perhaps.

Re:Sorry

[UWC]

Go rent (or buy, it's worth it) Arrested Development Season 1 DVDs today. It's an amazingly refreshing series with a unique style and incredibly dense humor held together by narrator Ron Howard. Every cast member performs amazingly and the timing is pretty much the best I've seen in a TV comedy. I saw all the episodes this season (the second) and can't wait for the DVDs, for watching and lending. If it's canceled, it will be probably the most disappointed I've been at a show's cancellation, with, I guess, the possible exception of Futurama.

Tolstoy: In one eye out the other

[Anonymous Coward]

Try some Tolstoy

Done that: terrible drawn out stuff. Not a hint of the wit that pervades Whedon's stuff.

Except....

[Snaller]

....Firefly had better ratings than Buffy and Angel (combined!), but it was on a different network - they had much greater expectations...

Re:Do it again?

[HrHolm]

it has some very loyal fans, some of whom compare it to Bab 5

Which is obviously silly (said as a very loyal fan of both shows). Unless the comparison is "Firefly is nothing like Babylon 5, except in being an amazing sci-fi-show". And that wouldn't even be all true, since Firefly never got the chance to show it's full potential.

Re:Do it again?

[HrHolm]

After the first couple seasons they were grasping for ideas and hyping-up the "character interactions" (AKA the soap opera phenomenon) with blood, guts and monsters thrown-in to appeal to the original fans.

The soap thing was an integrated part of the show from day one - it was never just a monster show. The brilliance of Buffy is the way Joss combined the genres and used the monsters as a metaphor for all the teen angst, growing up-problems, and generel soapyness. Well, that and the humour and emphasis on story.

Re:Do it again?

[pipingguy]

I understand that and the metaphors that he used, but there's a limited amount of TV-generated teenage angst to go around. As the father of a 14 year-old boy, I want to see more media attention paid to growing up as a teenager.

Re:Do it again?

[blackpaw]

You're in Australia and the series is currently running here.

It's not really a western

[DingerX]

Dunno about Serenity, but it's interesting finding people trying to come to grips with Firefly.

First, I'll say that I've seen maybe 3 episodes of Buffy tops, and never seen Angel. I can't stand the silly prosthetics and nonsense of Babylon 5, and frankly haven't enjoyed much science fiction television lately. I happened to tune into to Firefly for Bushwacked, and saw maybe 4 episodes broadcast before it was pulled. Since then I bought the DVD set and have watched it religiously. It's just damn good, and I haven't met anyone whose seen (or to whom I've shown) the show who has found it anything less than great fun.

Enough about me.
Folks around here seem to be posting a bunch of things about Firefly, and they don't quite seem to have "gotten it".
Yes, Firefly is a science-fiction show.
Science-fiction often gets used on television and in movies to explore irreal circumstances: time travel, the nature of reality, how many lines of probable-sounding technobabble an actor can read with a straight face. Firefly didn't do that. Firefly used science fiction as a= means to bridge several traditional genres of action entertainment: Submarine Movies, Heist films, and yes, some westerns. At times, the plot is lifted from somewhere else: Unforgiven and Silent Running are both "borrowed" for episodes.
Like your 'Star Trek'-class show, the cast of Firefly play characters who are good at what they do; but they're not superheroes, and they're working neither for high-sounding ideals, nor for a faceless bureaucracy. Sure, there are times when the show slipped into cliche; almost always it would then wink and subvert tradition.
And yeah, as science fiction and on television, it's about as light entertainment as you can get. Don't get all worked up about it; but yeah, I gotta say I'm excited, but slightly apprehensive. Can they actually get 9 characters to work convincingly in a 2-hour movie?

Re:Sorry

[Princeofcups]

I think you mean to say that Firefly was the best sci-fi since Blake's Seven. (Youngsters! :-)

PoC

Re:Do it again?

[As Seen On TV]

You must have only seen the first couple of episodes. "Lost" started strong, but completely spun out in mid-season.

Rule of storytelling: You can't start out strong with a fantastic premise and then not go anywhere. You can't tell a story entirely in flashback, and you can't expect your audience to accept weird-for-the-sake-of-weird.

Re:Sorry

[As Seen On TV]

That's not a ringing endorsement. While I do know that there are people out there who, bafflingly, thought "Babylon 5" was the greatest thing since 64 slices of American cheese, it seems that my personal demographic (mid-30s, Silicon Valley, modestly well-off) is composed entirely of people who've either never heard of it, or saw it and found it to be dreadful.

Strangely enough, there seems to be a strong correlation between people who think that "Babylon 5" was good TV and people who think that The Lord of the Rings was good fiction. Virtually everybody I know -- and we talked about this at length one night when the last movie came out --couldn't get through the books, and found the movies to be really good except for all the crap about wizards and elves. Fortunately, Pete Jackson put in just enough wizard-and-elf silliness to keep the hard-core fans happy, then let it drop and told the story without all the unicorns-and-rainbows crap.

Re:Sorry

[As Seen On TV]

Never mind the fact that "Arrested Development" took a massive quality hit in the second season, either, evidently. The first season, with a few small exceptions, was top-shelf good. The second season has been almost uniformly lame. Hence the massive tuning out of the audience.

For the record, "The Ben Stiller Show" was physically painful to watch, and "Greg the Bunny" had exactly one funny moment in its entire run and now I've forgotten what it was.

Re:Sorry

[As Seen On TV]

Sigh. You took a perfectly valid observation, utterly misinterpreted it, then mocked it mercilessly. Net result? You look like an uninformed ass.

Look, friend, let me explain this to you in terms that might sink in. Good and evil are real. The term you want to look up is psychomachia. It literally means "the war for the soul," but it's used to describe the internal struggle in every person between choosing to do good and choosing to do evil. This is, like, modern storytelling 101.

It's also some pretty fundamental philosophy.

To deny that good and evil exist is to succumb to the worst kind of moral relativism. It's that kind of moral relativism that lets terrorists blow up buildings or a president kill 100,000 Iraqis. Denying that evil exists is a horrible, horrible error, and a big part of what's wrong with this world today.

Re:Sorry

[Fyz]

It's that kind of moral relativism that motivates terrorists and neocons? Now that's a laughable statement!

Bush, who paints an "Axis of Evil". Osama who calls USA the "Great Satan". These guys are moral relativists?

You're right, it is pretty fundamental philosophy. It's Machiavelli. It's Hitler. It's Platos "Noble Lie". Good and Evil are perpetuated myths that people like Bush and bin Laden use as their power bases to manipulate their followers into righteous frenzies. They are the very concepts that are at the root of all the animosity and self-righteousness.
And that's a big part of what's wrong with the world today.

If you don't buy this, which I'd be surprised by if you did, watch the BBCs The Power of Nightmares and I think you'll find that your view on the world today and moral relativism is somewhat misconstrued.

Finally, I'm very sorry if I came across as a merciless mocker. It was not my intention in my post. But of course, you did the same to the great-great-grandparent, didn't you?

Re:Sorry

[vandelais]

'canned it to concentrate on reality shows'

It's also hard to create loyal viewership when your initial series is interrupted by the best baseball postseason in modern baseball history. It was the Cubs, Red Sox and Yankees (among others).

Re:Do it again?

[DavidNW]

As for the whitespace, give me a break, it was my first post, and one after a very long and bad night, so I was a bit frazzled. Come to think of it, I still am. Which also explains the spelling. I was a bit too tired and sick to spell check or edit it. You never mispelled a word?

Actually, it was quite a fair summary. Sure Whedon tried to dress it up a bit, but never really did it right, IMHO. Hell, he never really even seemed to try all that hard. His redemption of Spike seemed at times forced, and at others tacked-on.

Which is of course, MY opinion, something I freely admit. Which of course is something Whedon's base of defenders rarely seem to do themselves.

You have a different opinion of how he dealt with it, which is fine. It isn't however, fact, any more than what I say on a creative matter is. There are some people who swear that Jar-jar Binks is a great character, and the follow-up Star Wars were superior to the original. They are entitled to think what they want, just as I am to present my views.

Whedon IMHO may have tried a bit to present the Spike storyline as you say, but a few weakly done episodes did very little to present it as a viable storyline, or even a very coherent one.

In closing, learn to distinguish between presenting things as fact, and presenting them as your own personal opinions. Thank you.

Re:They were for adults?

[DavidTC]

Those shows, except 90210, which doesn't belong in that list at all, are all copies of Buffy aimed at teenagers, and stripped of anything that might appeal to adults. (Well, except Mutant X, which is just semi-generic sci-fi. It might star young people, but it wasn't 'about' anything at all.)

And 90210 is just a soap opera by another name. I don't know why you put it in that list, except to have something that predates Buffy.

In other words, TV people figured out that teenagers (Hopefully not tweens!) were watching Buffy and created a bunch of shows aimed at them that were fairly similiar in setting, about people with superpowers. (You left out Birds of Prey.)

Saying that the shows that followed somehow determine who Buffy was aimed at is insanity. And Buffy was only about teenagers for the first half of its existence. And Angel was never about teenagers.

What Buffy was about was high school.

Excellent trollery.

[Eric S. Smith]

It's that kind of moral relativism that lets terrorists blow up buildings or a president kill 100,000 Iraqis.

Delicious. I moderate your comment as "+1 Papal".

Re:You're out of your mind

[DavidTC]

No, if I was insecure over enjoying a teen/tween show I wouldn't admit to watching Charmed, would I? Which would imply I was either a 14 year old boy watching for the T&A or a 35 year old woman who identifies with the sisters, considering those are the two markets that watch it. However, I am a 26 year old male, and I don't watch for T&A.

Party of Five was another soap opera, although I think calling it a teen show is stretching it a bit.

And My So-Called Life is, so I've heard, pretty good, although I've not seen it. I don't know who it was aimed at.

What those shows have to do with Buffy I don't know. The average age for a Buffy viewer in 1998 was around 28 years old, according to the Neilson ratings. Buffy's demographic has always been skewed to the 18-34/18-49 male crowd, although it gained female viewers later on.

1998, BTW, was the end of the second season, with only one more year left in high school. People seem to have this impression the whole show was in high school, when the show had 2.5 years in high school, and 4 years not in high school. So the viewership wouldn't have skewed younger as time went on.

And Joss has always said it was aimed at college kids, which is really the only market that 'high school is hell' makes sense to aim to, although obviously you'll pick up some high schoolers along the way. (Which was just the original premise. The premise of the entire show could be something like 'Life's a bitch, then you die. Then you have to do it again.')

So...it's aimed at 18-25 year olds, and watched by 18-34 year olds. I'm failing to see how it's a show aimed at teen/tweens. (Unless you want to quibble that 18 and 19 year olds are 'teens', but that's just how the demographics are broke up.)

Here's a serious question: Did you ever watch Buffy? People who didn't watch it often have quite a different idea of what it was about than people who did.

For one thing, people who watched it know the show is totally inappropriate for tweens for quite a few reasons.

Re:Do it again?

[An Onerous Coward]

You presented your opinion as fact when you first posted, so I assumed that the "this is my opinion" was simply implicit. The difference is, while I presented evidence to back up my position, I felt like you intentionally hid evidence to strengthen your position.

Spelling? No, I don't often misspell words.

Sorry to hear about your rough night, though. Hope things get better.

Re:Sorry

[AussieVamp2]

far too simplistic to be the best show ever???

Re:Sorry

[AussieVamp2]

I agree! :) Rule 1 What would Avon do? LOL!

Re:Do it again?

[AussieVamp2]

yeah, watched half an episode, thought it was very ordinary Firefly of course, was on in here pseudo-randomly, way after it was cancelled, around 1 a.m.

Re:Do it again?

[blackpaw]

Brilliant series - I ordered the DVD on the strength of the raves on slashdot - no regrets.

My wife and I rationed our episodes to one a evening, it was hard by it lasted that way !

Makes noise in atmo

[cfalcon]

When they are in an atmosphere, they have all the normal attendant sci-fi noises. It's just space that's silent.

They probably saved some money. Either way, I loved it.

Re:Makes noise in atmo

[Heisenbug]

a) yep, they did b) amen.

Re:firefly Vs. lexx

[mink]

If a LEXX movie was made and it was in the mood of the first set of shows (before SCI-FI chan got ahold of it) then I would be all for it.

I didnt much like what was done for the SCI-FI channels version.

VMMV

Re:Sorry

[mink]

So far I have seen about half of Blakes 7. I think the last episoe I saw was the one where they free the world that was in the outskirts of known space, or where ORAC upsets the balanceof the 3 computers that control the races who made Liberator.
I wish we could see something as well done today. I think the character who has had the most development is Space Commander Travis. He went from uber bad ass with a thing for augments, to a single minded blind ot the costs maniac, to a whipped (and he knows it) lacky. Poor Travis.

As for what Avon would do, traditionally he would first insult the intelligence of everyone around him, then declair how pointless that activity is, followed by another smart remark as he finally goes off and does it.

What heppens when Intel or AMD builds ORAC.