Serenity Pushed Back to September 285
iontyre writes "According to Joss Whedon and reported at fireflymovie.com the much anticipated feature film adaptation of the superb but canceled tv show Firefly has been delayed till September from its original April release to supposedly avoid too much genre competition."
Re:I want it now (Score:1, Informative)
Wait.
Take my love, take my land, (Score:5, Informative)
Sigh. Firefly was a great series, though it took awhile to grow on people. I've been making my coworkers watch the series on DVD. After watching the first one their response is "So it's like a western in space?" A week later they hand back the DVDs with a glum face, asking "Why did they cancel it? That was a great show."
Re:In Movie Speak (Score:5, Informative)
As Joss said in TFA (emph mine)
This is actually great news. (Score:5, Informative)
"Late September release" means "we think this is good and we expect to make some serious money on it and maybe we'll think about a sequel."
Re:Logic failure (Score:4, Informative)
You obviously did not watch the show or track all of the terrible things that Fox did to it during its short run. First, they put in on a difficult night: Friday. Then they showed all of the episodes out of order. The pilot episode was not actually aired until the last week. It was this episode that explained who everyone was and the basic plot of the show. It made the show somewhat intriguing for those of us who like to solve mysteries but very confusing for everyone else. In addition, the show actually got good ratings, but the executives thought they could make more money with something else.
Remember, popularity doesn't even determine the longevity of a show. There are the production costs and often the personal whim of the station managers. Also, just because a show stays on the air does not mean it is "superb". Can you really call "Fear Factor" superb?
Re:Serinity now! (Score:2, Informative)
In news more relevant to this crowd, the DVD for Colussus, the Forbin Project was released today. One of the most underappreciated science fiction movies of the early seventies. How do you top a self-aware, megalomanical computer taking over the world? Build two of them!
Re:In Movie Speak (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Take my love, take my land, (Score:5, Informative)
The first two episodes where shown out of order. No wonder they didn't make any sense.
Re:what else? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Logic failure (Score:3, Informative)
the reason it failed, was the same reason DA failed... they put it in a Friday timeslot
Re:Superb? (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, the western aspects were based on Whedon reading Michael Shaara's Civil War book The Killer Angels about the Battle of Gettysburg.
'Execs' of the type we all loathe were not involved at all in that aspect of the show. Sorry you didn't like Firefly.
Re:In Movie Speak (Score:3, Informative)
As I recall, Warner Bros did exactly that in 1999 with pretty good results....
Re:Damnit, it's not like they're gonna Family Guy (Score:3, Informative)
First off, Fox sold the movie rights to Universal, who in turn made the movie.
However, part of the deal was that Universal couldn't create a TV series from the movie within X number of years (where X is undisclosed).
None the less, Universal has more or less talked about making a trilogy if Serenity does well, particularly on opening weekend.
Re:My experiences with Firefly (Score:4, Informative)
No, its not.
They frequently mention going to other systems (conveniently not saying "star" or "planetary" systems, thus feeding our argument). There is no indication that it is in a single solar system, and much to the contrary, there are a great number of planets, only a few of which were shown or mentioned in the show's half-season run.
They never explained in depth the universe/propulsion, but I've seen your claim about this a few times (single solar system) and rewatching the DVDs gave me numerous mentions of travelling to distant stars, and nothing at all to imply a single star universe (except for the lack of outrightly saying that there are numerous stars, but lack of proof isn't proof of the contrary).
Example: The "core worlds". You would have those all be the system's inner planets and moons? Makes no sense, they clearly talk about them as if they were the first colonies, with the outer systems being younger and poorer. With the power to go from world to world in a matter of days or weeks (depending), they are either going at near lightspeed in a single system, as you believe, or they have FTL and never got around to explaining it, because the characters were more important than the technical details in this show. Technobabble was kept to a minimum.
Re:Take my love, take my land, (Score:4, Informative)
Hmm. I'm not sure whether you're kidding or not.
'objects in space' I mean whats with that idiot bounty hunter??? Does he have a hearing problem or something? (When Reynolds asks him 'are you alliance?' he seems to think that he said 'are you a lion').
``Objects in Space'' is awesome. Early has, well, some issues, which come out by the end of the episode. There's also amazing narrative tension -- is River dead or alive? Could she have really merged with the ship? What powers does she have?
The conversation you mention was actually with Simon; Mal was already locked in his cabin, unconscious. Early's reply is classic: ``I don't think of myself as a lion. You might as well, though... I have a mighty roar.''
And the last line of the episode -- ``Well... Here I am.'' -- is right up there with ``No matter where you go, there you are.'' as a summary of existential philosophy.