Science Channel Buys Rights To Firefly
citking writes "The Science Channel has purchased the rights to Firefly and plans to air all episodes in order and in high definition. In addition, physicist Dr. Michio Kaku will appear to explain the theoretical science behind the show's sci-fi concepts. There's a brief interview in the article as well with Nathan Fillion, who chimes in with his thoughts on Firefly and playing Mal."
Since when is it news that a second rate basic cable channel gets the rights to air a show? Call be when they buy the rights to make new episodes.
Leave Firefly alone, you attention whore!
I can't watch half of the Science channel programs because I'm sit of seeing him spew bullshit on camera.
Seriously, i think i'm mostly interested in finally seeing in detail what those "skyscraper" class capital ships are like :) That show focussed waay too much on the single firefly class ship. Or maybe that was it's charm.....
My turn.....
what a novel idea!
the whole first attempt at airing this was a textbook trainwreck, and the result was blamed on the show's merit.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
(yeah, so I ripped off a different show for that title, but...)
Maybe this will (I hope?) mean that the Science Channel picks up some actual Hard Sci-Fi (as in "science", kids, not "horror") shows, perhaps expanding on them?
Doesn't necessarily have to mean making new Firefly episodes (though it would be damned cool if they did that too). Just making new shows that don't suck will suffice.
They can play 'em on one or more nights of the week, and have documentaries (and yeah, even An Idiot Abroad, semi-sucky as I consider it to be) during the rest of the time.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Okay, yay Firefly and all that. But the science? I'll be very interested to hear how interplanetary travel, which takes a matter of days, almost invariably results in passing within a couple hundred feet of another ship headed the opposite direction at a few feet per second relative velocity. ...very small solar system? With a couple hundred planets?
Seriously, Kaku just doesn't seem to understand that sometimes it's better not to take every single offer from the Media.
The only physicists who were more overexposed than Michio Kaku died as Los Alamos.
You are welcome on my lawn.
About time! Let's hope they don't botch it now.
Oh, you mean the "How It's Made" channel!!!
Or maybe it's the "Technology Channel".
Yeah, I know it. So now it gets even further off track with sci-fi?
What's next? Wrestling and reality shows?
Seriously, I couldn't agree more. Science Channel did wander a bit off the reservation with the whole 'Punkin Chunkin' thing, but otherwise they tend to stay pretty much within the realm of science-related bits.
I'm kind of hoping they could cough up a weekly/daily topical news show (err, again?), and a little Science Fiction would do the place wonders, IMHO.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Actually, most cablecos do it with a moderate package deal (e.g. Comcast does it as part of their 2nd-tier up from basic cable). Out here in PDX, we get it on channel 272, nestled in w/ NatGeo, History International, Military, and (for some odd reason) that distracting celebrity-crap channel A&E stuck in there somewhere...
As far as the general crap on TV goes, that particular grouping of channels makes for a relatively sane place to hang out.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
they should buy the rights to SGA, SG1 and SGU and make SGA S6 and SGU S3!
SyFy (*puke*) is a whole different channel. The Science Channel is part of the Discovery channel ecosystem (not perfect, I know, but still better than SyFy...)
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
The URL is http://science.discovery.com/ WTF, Slashdot?
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
They've been running commercials for over a week now. I'm assuming they bought the rights a while back.
Battlestar Galactica
I missed that entirely. Thanx.
Have to say that Comcast absolutely sux, since we do not get science with them. I am looking to change out to Dish and pick that up.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
why? because SGA and SG1 have hundreds of episodes, SGU died as it didnt follow the SG mantra.
Firefly on the other hand had SG1 potential but was cut short due to incompetency, with only 10 episodes (i think) it had gotten a huge following, with a movie aswell... this plainly shows there is a HUGE demand for it, buying the rights to this show would be a winner, just get in there before someone makes a try hard copy and ruins it for everyone.
It's not a typo if you understood the meaning!
it had gotten a huge following, with a movie aswell... this plainly shows there is a HUGE demand for it,
If you ignore the fact that the movie bombed...
it had gotten a huge following, with a movie aswell... this plainly shows there is a HUGE demand for it,
If you ignore the fact that the movie bombed...
Well duh. Not even Firefly could make us come out of our moms' basements. Put it on TV or the Internet and there won't be a problem.
Someone else on another board ( perhaps on this one as well ) mentioned that The Science Channel didn't buy the Firefly IP rights but only bought the syndication rights. Can anyone confirm or deny this?
Still can't believe they murdered a fine sci-fi action adventure series with that garbage.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
As much as I like Firefly, how many times can you watch the same 14 episodes? If Firefly had a longer history it would make a lot more sense.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/02/why_do_physicists_think_they_a.php
Well, we can jump the shark and discover that the harpoon that killed Wash was covered with reaver-vampire blood and a few days after the Serenity crew leaves him behind he rises again, with a lust to regain his piloting role on a Serenity filled with a vampire crew.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Or at least, it won't be funding public television and their programming (Sesame Street, etc). ... but that's only what I know based on stuff that was reported on public television; I haven't read the budget myself, so it's possible that there's other for-profit TV channels that'd get some sort of funding for education stuff, like cable in the classroom or similar.
Anyway, the PBS press release from yesterday regarding their funding:
http://www.pbs.org/about/news/archive/2011/pbs-statement-elimination-funding-public-broadcasting/
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
The Timeline did not start before the series. The sequence where you see Simon rescuing River at the beginning of the movie is through the Operative's eyes watching recordings of the event. He pauses and rewinds it and then walks right through the holo-recording.
I was actually talking with my flatmate about that very topic as soon as we saw the commercial for Flrefly on the Science channel (and *not* on the 'syfy' channel (note, I refuse to pronounce 'syfy' like 'sci-fi'; I prefer a pronounciation that rhymes with 'iffy')
But, shows seem to make no sense based on what the channel claims to be for:
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
On the one hand, the awesomeness of Firefly.
On the other hand, Michio Kaku.
*shudder*
I dated a girl, a long time ago, who was taught to spell phonetically. She wasn't an idiot. In general, I try to avoid making shallow judgements lest I look like an idiot myself.
Berried? You're an idiot.
Or a friend of Strawberry Shortcake.
Movie? Just alliance propaganda.
You can't stop the signal.
Oh my. I would sacrifice a chicken to get more Firefly. Heck, another movie would be swell too, even without the full cast! Any voodoo priest here that would like to help?
Red Dwarf.
"Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast."
To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
Isn't this the show where the writers said that at the start of the series they weren't exactly clear on the differences between a solar system and a galaxy?
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Oh , okay, she was only taught by idiots.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Hyperdrive was 10x better
It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
They don't need to make SGU S3. Just go watch "As the world turns", it will give you the same excitement, the same deep drama that even Shakespeare can't match, and similar fantastic quality camera work! The science fiction content is slightly less, but so little it's just not worth talking about. Really!
I drink ceylon for breakfast, loserboy nerd.
Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
The only thing stopping them at this point is their ability to get the full staff on board for a second season, and possibly a couple decent writers to make it akin to the spirit of the original.
Are you kidding? Have you seen the DVD bonus material? These people would give Wash'es right arm for another chance to do more Firefly episodes. The writers, though, may be a bigger challenge, unless Joss takes it upon himself to dedicate a couple of weekends to the cause.
"Good news, everyone!"
SGU was good because it *didn't* follow the SG mantra. I'm not a Stargate fan. I loved SGU.
It was your Deep Space Nine. It's a shame Stargate fans weren't able to expand their horizons a bit and embrace something new.
-mrxak
Onions Will Kill You
Because ultimately, nobody wants to watch 168 hours of television on a particular topic every week, and the people who like one kind of thing like other predictable sorts of things. Now, if you can afford to keep 168 hours of television programming going every week, with some of it making no money at all due to demographic dilution, so be it. But if you're running a business that wants to make money, you need more variety in your programming.
Certainly I disagree with SyFy doing professional wrestling and all the other atrocities they're committing these days, but at least it makes business sense. Ultimately, the best thing we can hope for is having a lot of other channels trying to do sci fi on their line-ups to take advantage of SyFy's weaknesses. One channel being the place for sci fi was never going to work out. A lot of people would agree with me, I think, when I say that the 90s were great for sci fi, and back then there was sci fi on all sorts of channels. Shows had to compete head-to-head for the same demographics in the same sort of time slots, and everybody won. With just one sci fi channel, you end up with other networks ignoring the whole sci fi viewership, and that one sci fi channel competing with itself. It's far easier to pare back to just a small number of shows in that case, so the demographics don't get spread over too many shows.
-mrxak
Onions Will Kill You
There are some Firefly fans out there who would say the whole series was a pinnacle of awesomeness.
Then again, some of those fans think Josh is such a creative genius that he can surpass his own best work so far no matter how good it is.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I got the boxed set of S:AAB after giving in to a reminiscent moment. First impression: oh my god the production quality is shocking! Acting was a bit weak and the script was wobbly, but all three did improve and made it a worthwhile addition to my shelf. In fact I may watch some right now :-)
I managed to miss the last episode THREE times! (Part of the reason I gave in to the set)
Kind of like how you embraced the other two Stargate shows?
I guess the only news here is that it kind of puts a dent in Nathan Fillion and co's plans to buy the rights to Firefly and distribute it online.
Though I guess with recentl-purchased IP comes the outside possiblity of another series.
...Netflix you can already do this. Both the episodes and the movie are in HD.
Get your dogma outta my yard!
SGU was good because it *didn't* follow the SG mantra. I'm not a Stargate fan. I loved SGU.
It was your Deep Space Nine. It's a shame Stargate fans weren't able to expand their horizons a bit and embrace something new.
So, you're saying that you don't actually like science fiction, but, rather, soap operas? If they're in space, that's just an exciting background right? Face it, SGU was the sci-fi show made for the Twilight generation. It was high school drama in space, and that's why it sucked. At least the original two series had competent and intelligent women in them who were able to solve problems and look good while doing it.
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
Oh, Michio Kaku is going to be talking about science in Firefly? Guh.
I wish Discovery would have the guts to rename the damn channel, for all the shit they care about the science on it.
As always, The Onion put it best: Science Channel Refuses To Dumb Down Science Any Further
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
*chimes in* Red Dwarf is awesome-sauce, so at least 2 viewers :)
This is the sig that says NI (again)
When Firefly first came out, my local Comcast service didn't include the Sci-Fi channel in their standard cable service, only in extra-price bundles where that was the only station I cared about. A couple of years ago, it was even part of the standard package on the other side of town, but not my side, though it finally started working most of the time, and hasn't bounced off and on the list in a couple of months.
Now that Firefly might be showing up on Science Channel, does Comcast carry it? Nope, "Channel 272 Not Authorized"....
And my Tivo's DVD player can't play the standard DVD sets, because they've got some stupid copy protection that it can't cope with.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
The major question here is did it really cost $39 million in production costs or did Hollywood accounting throw a few extras unrelated to the film into the mix? Hollywood accounting is the petty crap of mid sized companies where costs from one department gets shuffled to another to make them look good or bad writ on a truly epic scale.
Maybe it was the only honest bit of accounting coming out of Hollywood in three decades and the numbers are right. Maybe it's higher or even lower to make the numbers come out to a slight loss for tax purposes without making it look like either a total bomb or minor success.
We can sort of trust the box office numbers because the data comes from a lot of sources but the production numbers come from what is known to be an untrustworthy source. We can only really speculate as I can and wonder where $39 Million went now that special effects are cheap and there were no "major name" actors that can demand millions. What other films did that fund or more likely whose pockets did the money flow directly into for no services rendered?
3 & BBC SF generally.
Why can't this happen for Space: Above and Beyond... I miss that show :-(
So say we all!