Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Sci-Fi Media Movies

First Clip from Firefly Movie to be Shown at Comic-Con 295

Posted by CowboyNeal from the first-looks dept.
Snaller writes "It's almost a tradition. At Comic-Con a few years back, Joss Whedon showed a stunned audience the first clip from Serenity, the pilot for his new show Firefly. Although the movie isn't due to open until April 22nd next year, Whedon is ready to show the first clip from from Serenity, the motion picture based on the Firefly series. He'll do it this weekend at Comic-Con, also present will be the cast from the series/movie (all 9 actors), editor Lisa Lassek, special effects guru Loni Peristere and producer Chris Buchanan. It will take place on Sunday July 25th, 1-2pm, Room 20, afterwards there will be a signing session in room 28DE. This was reported on what used to be the official Fox board, by the user 'AffableChap' which has previously been confirmed to be Chris Buchanan."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

First Clip from Firefly Movie to be Shown at Comic-Con More

First Clip from Firefly Movie to be Shown at Comic-Con

Comments Filter:

  • "It's almost a tradition" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gowen ( 141411 ) <gwowen@gmail.com> on Friday July 23, 2004 @04:55AM (#9777784) Homepage Journal
    "It's almost a tradition"
    I think the phrase you're looking for is "something similar has happened once before." Thats a pretty quick leap from "unique event" to "tradition".

    Lets wait for something to happen three times before declaring it a part of our regular cultural fabric, eh?
    • Lets wait for something to happen three times before declaring it a part of our regular cultural fabric, eh?

      Hey, kid, this is the Internet. Things move fast here. We don't have time to wait for it to happen three times! Hell, a lot of the time if you wait for it to happen twice, some newer, more aggressive e-tradition will get in before you and steal all your mindshare!

      In fact, soon you won't even be able to wait for something to happen even once. You'll have to declare something to be a tradition befor

    • Blockquoth the poster:

      Lets wait for something to happen three times before declaring it a part of our regular cultural fabric, eh?

      Ok. If it takes three times to make something a tradition, then two times is certainly "almost" a tradition.

    • >Lets wait for something to happen three times before declaring it a part of our regular cultural fabric, eh?

      No, at that point it is declared a conspiracy.

  • No TV series for a while... (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Posts by Nathan Fillion on one of the fansites indicated that the movie deal with Paramount was exclusive--i.e. that there would be no TV series until the film franchise has run its course. Assuming the deal is a standard 3-film option, we can assume that Firefly is reserved for the big screen for at least the next few years. Kind of a shame since the prolific Joss Whedon really shines in serial format.

    Maybe the answer is an entirely new distribution channel like Mark Cuban's HDNet [hd.net]. Whedon should not b

    • Um, I thought there was a TV series already. That got cancelled. Quickly. Unless the movie does really well (big, big if), why would anyone bother to put it back on TV?

      Unless I'm wrong (not a fan, never watched) in which case I'll shut up.
      • Well, it (the show) got Fox'ed, which is to say they fucked it up. They played the Pilot ep last, for gorram sake! It would be moved for time slot to time slot and day to day, IIRC.

        I think the DVD's have enjoyed some decent sales, which is why the show, which was only able to air 10 eps (of 12 or 13 made) is going to see the big screen.
      • It's not like Family Guy is ever coming back either based on the strength of what happened *after* the show was cancelled. Oh wait...
        • Well, I think the difference here is that Family Guy had a decent run, was critically acclaimed, and was liked by more than a few sci-fi fans. And as the expression goes "there's always an exception."
    • I wonder if hollywood will ever wake up to the fact that sub-cultures and small fanbases can have nearly the same income potential as the large dis-intrested masses.

      I for one am a HUGE firefly fan...i was skeptical of the show at first..western in space, BAH...
      but after watching the show i was instantly hooked...the subtle char interactions and the real depth they are given makes for an incredible watch.

      Wich brings me to my point...i love this show so much i would...no question...pay 150$ a year for a dvd

      • i would...no question...pay 150$ a year for a dvd set with the entire season on it

        Send me the $150. I'll ship you a DVD set of the entire first season of Firefly.

        This is a limited time offer. You must act now! Operators are standing by.

  • ..um, it's perhaps terribly ignorant and un-geeky, but what's a "Firefly Movie"?

    Please oh please, not a bunch of kids on a mission to save earth (or something like that)

    • Re:Firefly.. (Score:4, Informative)

      by triskell ( 324989 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @05:13AM (#9777832)
      It's the movie of the Firefly TV series, which was a cowboys-in-space sci-fi show that got canned after one series. It's made by Joss Whedon, the same guy behind Buffy and Angel.

    • Re:Firefly.. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      film based on strangely good space western - funny, good plot, character development. Neat fx, more millenium falcon bucket of bolts style future, than super shiny trek style. So of course it got yanked after 1 season. Didn't help that the episodes weren't shown in order, and not all shown on TV at all.

      Bunch of rogues, misfits, escort, etc. on a mission to line their own pockets, and not get killed by whoever they bump into that week. You can pick it up on DVD.

  • Anticipation... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Kulic ( 122255 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @05:01AM (#9777802) Homepage
    I loved the series and I can't wait to see this. No doubt Joss will give us something that leaves us begging for more.

    Meanwhile, a hint about my thoughts on Fox...

    : We shall rule over all this show, and we shall call it... this show.
    : I think we should call it your grave!
    : Argh, curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!
    : Raaaaaaaarghhhhhhh!
    : Raaaaaaaarghhhhhhh!

    (Apologies to Joss Whedon).

  • The fears of a Firefly fan (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Elamaton ( 771817 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @05:40AM (#9777904)
    Here's hoping some sort of preview clips find their way to the net some time soon.

    I'm having mixed feelings about the prospect of a full-blown Firefly movie. One side of me is skipping and jumping with joy, but my more skeptical side is wary of several things, even though I've learned to trust God^H^H^HJoss Whedon implicitly.

    The original two-part pilot for Firefly was about the length of a full feature film, and yet it only introduced the characters, the universe and some of the backstory. The movie will have to do the introductions all over again, since I'm thinking they'll try to lure in more than just the fans of the TV series. How is the movie going to relate to the aired episodes? Is it a complete retelling? How much time will there be to tell a decent story that would satisfy an already-converted Firefly fan? Or how big a priority is that, anyway?

    Maybe the film SHOULD be directed at the average moviegoer at the cost of mildly displeased fans. I mean, if the ultimate goal is to draw crowds large enough for the network to bring back the series (is it?), then maybe the hardcore fans should accept a "lesser" film than they'd hoped for, in the interest of this goal.

    It remains to be seen how many compromises Whedon ends up making to cater to both interests: fans AND average moviegoers, many of whom may not have any prior contact to Firefly. I'm just afraid that the end result will be a film that tries to cater to so many various tastes and expectations that it ends up pleasing nobody.

    I have no doubts that the movie will be entertaining and a pleasure to watch, at some level - it's just that I'm afraid I'll have to pretend the series never existed to feel that way.

    Well, Whedon usually manages to surprise me positively, so in any case I remain carefully optimistic.

    • Spoilers (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Snaller ( 147050 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @06:16AM (#9778012) Journal
      The movie is supposed to take place about 6 months after the series ended, and centers on a reaver attack on a planet, and a very very efficient alliance agent tracking down the doctor and his sister.

      And it is indeed meant to be seen by everybody. That's the reason its going to be called "Serenity" and not Firefly. Universal felt that it wouldn't be good for business if people thought "oh its a movie based on a tv series i never saw, i probably won't know whats going on". So there apparently there won't be any references to the series.
      • a reaver attack on a planet

        I wonder how they're going to explain this? I thought part of the whole point of Reavers were that they lived in the middle of nowhere for so long that they went crazy. They're sort of the spiders of the galaxy, waiting for prey to get close enough for them to nab instead of going out and seeking it.

        Then again, Reavers are crazy, and insanity may be a good enough reason to explain the change in their modus operandi.

        (Yes, I am a geek who is overthinking this.)
        • But reavers are getting closer to the core each year - they were near Patience's planet in Serenity, and they chased Serenity into the atmosphere (just befre the Crazy Ivan). It's been mentioned before that they destroy whole communities too.

    • TV series have a different pacing than movies. Movies have to be more compressed in time and are able to do much more elaborate and detailed scenes due to much higher budgets.

      My guess is that the movie will jump right into the main plot and introduce the characters by showing them doing their thing. Joss has a gift for dialogue so I bet he can sneak a lot of exposition into the action as they go.

      My worry with the movie is studio oversight and stupid changes due to clueless executives. I can see it now.

    • Well, considering they didn't air the pilot (which set up the story, explained the characters and the universe) until the end, and the people who watched the show were able to catch on pretty quickly, I think we'll be ok. Even though it will be a story accessible to people who haven't seen the show, I have complete confidence in Joss's ability to not underestimate his audience. He doesn't dumb stuff down or give people time to catch on - he dumps you in the middle and expects the audience to be smart eno
    • I mean, if the ultimate goal is to draw crowds large enough for the network to bring back the series (is it?)

      The terms of the contract are that the movies and the TV series can't coexist - only when the movie(s) are finished can a(nother) TV series go into production. If the movie does well, then there'll be another, that's how Hollywood works, which will push any possibility of another series further back.

  • Lynching (Score:5, Funny)

    by GothChip ( 123005 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @06:18AM (#9778016) Homepage
    ...present will be the cast from the series/movie (all 9 actors), editor Lisa Lassek, special effects guru Loni Peristere and producer Chris Buchanan. It will take place on Sunday July 25th, 1-2pm, Room 20, afterwards there will be a public lynching of the Fox executives who cancelled the show. Book your tickets early as this one's going to be a sell out.

  • Why in Space? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by lxdbxr ( 655786 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @06:23AM (#9778030) Homepage

    I'm sure this is going to make me unpopular, but here goes...

    As much as I liked Firefly (and I liked it a lot) in almost every episode I watched I kept on thinking, "if Whedon wanted to do a Western, why did he set it in space"? I assume that it was to do with selling it to the studios, who wouldn't have bought a new "Wagon Train" or "Rawhide".

    But really every plot could have been done just as easily in the 1870s rather than the 2700s (or whenever it was meant to be). The psychic girl could just as easily have been a mystic rather than surgically enhanced, most of the other characters (the preacher, the prostitute, the hard-bitten veteran) would be basically the same. Most of the plots would be exactly the same (e.g. the train robbery).

    I think it would have been even better to just do a Western-set "historical" series (with fantasy elements) rather than shoehorn things into a far-future, science fictional setting. But probably the networks aren't buying Westerns any more (though there was that TV version of The Magnificent Seven a while back).

    • Re:Why in Space? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by mwlewis ( 794711 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @07:22AM (#9778251)

      It kinda reminded me of Heinlein (think Time Enough for Love). You've got people spreading out to a new frontier, where it's not always easy to simply transplant all of civilization to new planets.

      You're right, it all probably could have been done, more or less, in a straight western setting, but the SF setting gives it a more 'modern' frontier feeling (let's explore what could happen when people start moving out into the galaxy). We also get to sympathize with a guy who fought for the losing side in the Civil War (although his side is definitely more deserving of our sympathy than the original losing side--you get all the states rights without the nasty property laws).

      Personally, I'd prefer the SF-with-Western-Shoehorning than a Western-with-Fantasy-Shoehorning, but that's just my preference. I think that an SF setting allows (not that it's always--or even often--taken advantage of) exploration of ideas in a more neutral setting than something based on reality.

      Joss also probably wanted to do something a little different than the modern fantasy stuff he'd already done.

    • But maybe he thought that a western in space was cooler?

      Just because something could be done differently doesn't mean it necessarilly _should_ be done that way, and I also think that the spectacular CGI really enhances the story, and thats something that just wouldn't fit into a plain western.

      He had a vision of what the future might be like and I for one find that more interesting than looking back at the past. He has also managed to capture a much bigger fanbase that I would expect a western to get - mo

    • Re:Why in Space? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by bourne ( 539955 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @07:52AM (#9778393)

      Most of the plots would be exactly the same (e.g. the train robbery).

      I think the train robbery was pretty clearly the hand of the studio at work. We know that it got moved up from something like 10th to replace the planned debut, because the studio wanted something more straightforward (read: predictable) to hook viewers. That alone probably helped doom Firefly; it started in the middle with characters we knew nothing about, but with an episode that presumed a bit was already known.

      I think it would have been even better to just do a Western-set "historical" series (with fantasy elements)

      You're assuming that the raison d'etre for Firefly was to explore fantasy elements in a western setting. I don't think that's true; I think that Firefly was meant to explore the question of frontiers - with the viewer in a present that is, for the first time in centuries, without convenient frontiers to escape from society to. We've got the ocean and space left, and neither of those is accessible to the types that have historically pushed out frontiers and rewritten society's code.

      I think Firefly was meant to think about where we're going rather than where we've been. How well it did that is another question (not terribly well) and it's unclear how much that was Whedon and how much that was studio influence.


      • We know that it got moved up from something like 10th to replace the planned debut, because the studio wanted something more straightforward (read: predictable) to hook viewers. That alone probably helped doom Firefly; it started in the middle with characters we knew nothing about, but with an episode that presumed a bit was already known.

        I'm a bit shocked at myself... but I may be agreeing with the actions of the studio. The first (aired) episode presented you with Serenity's crew in action. But a

    • While I like Firefly, I agree it was "shoehorned" into an American West in Space Scenario.

      An 1870's setting, with some fantasy elements - perhaps a genuine fortune telling mystic, or good guys lost the civil war alternate reality, would have been just as interesting as the sci-fi setting.

      More crucially, an 1870's setting would have been at least half a million bucks an episode cheaper, without all the CGI, which may well have saved it from the Beancounters.

      There is a reason the companies especially

    • Re:Why in Space? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by sql*kitten ( 1359 ) *
      why did he set it in space

      Because there are things with a small ship setting that you can't do with a land setting. For instance, once they're "in space" there's nowhere for anyone to go; characters are forced to deal with interpersonal problems, which means more involved dialogue. It would have been difficult IMHO to make a series where the characters were in a small sailing ship trading up and down the west coast of the US in the 1800s. For a start, if they're never far from the coast, you lose the plot

    • Re:Why in Space? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by TVC15 ( 518429 )
      >"if Whedon wanted to do a Western, why did he set it in space"

      perhaps the same reason he set 2 vampire shows near/in LA? and cast them with Valley girls? because it's funny? unexpected? opens the situation to odd juxtapositions? makes a comment about how even in unusual situations, people still have the same odd concerns about the fit of their clothing and whether or not their hair's flat?

      i'm not a huge Joss fan but i do see the humor in checking for broken nails after killing a Vampire or hiding out

  • Two words: WOO HOO! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by LordJezo ( 596587 )
    WOO HOO!

    I have been going through the DVDs and at the end of each episode I think to myself "Damn you Fox! This is one of the best series I have seen in a long long time and ranks right up there with Band of Brothers in terms of TV quality. How could you have screwed this up?"

    By looking at the air dates of the episodes and seeing how everything was played on TV out of order (it's a linear series, it's not a good idea to play a series that was written in order all jumbled up) I can understand how a whole
  • The Firefly series was just too out there for the average TV viewer... it would have done great if it had the same positioning as Farscape... It will do really well in theaters as a movie because it has the look and feel that will work. Can't wait to see it.

  • No sound... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by SiChemist ( 575005 )
    I loved the series and I must say that any science fiction that respects the "no sound in space" rule gets additional kudos in my book.

    (That would be SiChemist's Big Book O' Kudos for the curious.)
    • The lack of sound in space as depicted in the series is a good thing, sho nuff. But am I the only one who was irritated by the assertion that Vera (that over-accessorized tart of a rifle) required air to function? They put the thing inside a space suit, fer cryin' out loud, in order to shoot it in a vacuum.

      Firearms work fine in a vacuum. In fact, if you think it through, they'd work far *better* in a vacuum. If you don't want to think it through, just look up the Glock "sub aqua" pistol variants to fin

  • What's the appeal? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Khelder ( 34398 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @07:11AM (#9778186)
    Ok, I may get flamed into oblivion for this, but I'm genuinely curious, so:

    What's the big draw of Firefly? I loved Buffy and Angel, but I just don't see why so many people seem so taken with Firefly. I saw all the eps that aired on TV and it just seems mediocre to me. Is it that I'm not a big western fan?
    • Isn't it funny that there is so little quality scifi on TV that most fans will watch every episode of a show they don't like, just to give it a chance? I've done this with a few shows including firefly. It wasn't until just before I found out the series was being canceled that I began to like it. After watching it all again on DVD I figured out that I was loosing a good deal of the character development because Fox wouldn't show the episodes in order.

      BTW, the solution I've found for my hunger for scifi
    • <shrug> As a fan of all of Whedon's shows to date, all I can say is that I got the same things out of Firefly that I did out of Buffy and Angel: great dialogue, interesting worldbuilding, neat twisty plots, and perhaps most important of all, a talented ensemble cast playing characters I genuinely liked. Likable characters is a big one for me -- I find the characters in many (most?) movies and TV shows so irritating that I quickly cease to care what happens to them. Whedon's characters are almost u
  • ...releasing the first clips of the movie so far in advance.

    I used to *hate* trailers that gave away a movie's storyline (back when I used to go to movie theaters), now I'm starting to get sick of 'driblets' and trailers and all the 'leaked production clips' that seem to end up sprinkled all over the net.

    Lacking any sort of self-control, I frequently download said clips, and by the time the movie comes out, I've seen 2/3rds of it. It sucks.

    Aside from that, there's the whole difficulty of keeping a fanba
    • Blockquoth the poster:

      Lacking any sort of self-control, I frequently download said clips, and by the time the movie comes out, I've seen 2/3rds of it. It sucks.

      Ah, yes, the great American hobby: Blaming others for the faults in yourself. It's not a "bad idea" just because you happen to (apparently regularly) ruin your own experiences.

      Personally, since I do have self-control and don't want to be spoiled (and so don't download trailers, etc.), I couldn't care less whether he does it or not.

  • in my precaffeinated state this morning, i was skimming the /. headlines, saw Joss Whedon's name and the phrase the pilot for his new show Firefly, and just about shat.

    new show? firefly reborn?

    then i woke up enough to read the first part of the post, "a few years back." sigh.

    when the show was on, i thought it was a trek-killer, a new (to prime-time american audiences, at least), less anaesthetic vision of the spacefaring future, sure to spawn movies and probably become a *gasp* franchise, like whedon's o
  • as a response to many of the salient points raised in the smashing of this show I'd like to offer some arguments. Some have probably been mentioned in other posts, but these are mine and my reasoning alone

    1. Western in space - anytime anyone sees the low slung pistol belt and horses, the comparison to a western will be made. Simply put, the same problems and attitudes with which the American frontier was settled, would translate into any "push in the bush". Tech level would drop to a point where it cou

  • Looking forward to the movie (Score:3, Informative)

    by jafiwam ( 310805 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @10:49AM (#9780052) Homepage Journal
    I for one will go see the movie.

    Recently a friend loaned me the DVD set, so I got to watch them all in a row in the correct order.

    Due to the time slot, I only saw one or two episodes on TV.

    Sure there are problems with the show (later episodes gathered more and more) but I was genuinely entertained by it.

    Plus, you gotta think that any show placed in the far distant future that shows Windows XP as the operating system running a dumpster is pretty cool.

    [The "steal the laser" episode where Sapharron makes her second appearance. The dumpster they highjack to get the loot has windows on it's screen.]

Slashdot Top Deals

Every nonzero finite dimensional inner product space has an orthonormal basis. It makes sense, when you don't think about it.

Close