Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Firefly Premieres Tonight

CmdrTaco posted more than 12 years ago | from the stuff-to-lust-after dept.

Television 688

fm6 writes "Firefly, Joss Whedon's 'anti-Trek drama' premieres tonight, on Fox, 8 E/P. I normally despise hypespeak, but this time it's the only language that fits: this is groundbreaking, mind-boggling, totally original. I've seen a bootleg of the pilot (which, unfortunately, the network is holding back) and I promise you this is the most geek-friendly SF you've seen in a long time. Yes, more so than Star Trek and B5, and way past Star Wars. I've never seen the future so skillfully, realistically, and lovingly portrayed. Here is the Official Site and a leading fan site." This is the single new show this season I have added a season pass for to the old Tivo. But I'll probably watch it live. This looks like it could be as good as we hope.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

firefly? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4299601)

is it true, am i fp?

Re:firefly? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4299611)

You most certainly are, you hot piece of man you...

Capturing it... (-1)

Drunken Coward (574991) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299604)

I'm capturing it at 15Mbit MPEG2, so whoever wants it w/commercials cut out can offer me a favor or two...

Malcolm's Seven? (5, Informative)

CommieLib (468883) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299610)

This show's premise sounds like Blake's 7, a fantastic 70's Brit sci-fi show. Not quite as much under the gun as those characters were, but pretty similar.

Not that this is a bad thing; you can only churn out so many episodes with shiny happy future people like Trek has.

Re:Malcolm's Seven? (2)

Angry White Guy (521337) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299635)

Was that anything like the other Brit Sci-fi's? Y'know Dr. Who and Red Dwarf?

Re:Malcolm's Seven? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4299650)

Very like Blake's 7.

But a heavily Americanized version.

I wonder how many people here even remember Blake's 7.

Hey, the fx will be better ;-)

Re:Malcolm's Seven? (2)

Triv (181010) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299734)

I do! They had armbands to trigger beaming back to their ship - lose an armband, you're screwed. And their ship looked like...well...it looked like three inflated condoms stuck to another inflated condom with toothpicks. Bright yellow. Ugh. :)

The only episode I remember involved a shuttle with two people aboard that needed to be 80 kilos lighter to survive some disaster, and the computer calmly reminding one of the guys that the other one weighs just over the weight necessary. So he tries to shove him out an airlock. The other guys hides. But then the first guy finds an amazingly dense cube that's keeping them there and is trying to convince the hiding guy to help him push the damn thing to the airlock. It was really cool.

I'd LOVE this one on DVD. :)

Re:Malcolm's Seven? (2)

Triv (181010) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299750)

yeah yeah, replying to my own post. Just wanted to add that my childhood memory apparently ain't so great [hermit.org] . The pic's in the upper right corner. :P

Triv

Re:Avon's Seven? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4299819)

It looks like a microphone and two dildoes!

Seriously, B7 was pretty good back in the day! I remember that they weren't afraid to kill off the title character, leaving the sleazy weasel (Avon) in charge.

How could you miss Andromeda? (1)

cliffjumper222 (229876) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299614)

Andromeda rules!

Re:How could you miss Andromeda? (1)

mocm (141920) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299706)

You mean Hercules in Space. Poor Gene.

Re:How could you miss Andromeda? (2)

teamhasnoi (554944) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299753)

I think you mean Hercules Moralizes in Space/Your Face, To The Horror of Someone Who Was Hoping For A Good Show. Poor Gene, indeed.

Any show... (0, Flamebait)

Bakobull (301976) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299627)

with a girl in box has to be a winner.

Re:Any show... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4299657)

Boxing Helena was an excellent movie.

Re:Any show... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4299744)

Rip-off of Outlaw Star

And perfectly scheduled (5, Funny)

neildogg (119502) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299630)

The prime audience has nothing to do on a Friday night ;)

Which is probably why I won't be watching it tonight, but maybe I'll download it later.

Re:And perfectly scheduled (3, Funny)

unicron (20286) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299691)

Yeah, but tonight is the night you play scrabble with your folks, so it's not like your reason for missing it is all that noble.

Re:And perfectly scheduled (1)

captaincucumber (450913) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299736)

yes, I'm sure you'll probably be shagging cheerleaders tonight while the rest of us dorks watch the show.

Go get 'em killer.

Re:And perfectly scheduled (1)

neildogg (119502) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299752)

I was simply implying that I'd be doing something OUTSIDE

Re:And perfectly scheduled (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4299770)

Shagging cheerleaders outside? =D

Re:And perfectly scheduled (1)

neildogg (119502) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299802)

Unless you have an auduitorium I could rent

Re:And perfectly scheduled (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4299836)

Real men don't need rhohypnol!

Re:And perfectly scheduled (1)

Cpt_Kirks (37296) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299832)

OUTSIDE

That would be the Big Blue Room, right? The one with the really bright light?

for anyone who is interested... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4299632)

Here is an interview The Onion did with Joss Whedon:

By Tasha Robinson

Joss Whedon is a third-generation television scriptwriter, possibly the first one. As he tells the story, he never intended to follow in his father's footsteps: He started his career as a snobby film student who never watched television and intended to write movies, until he found out how much TV writing paid. Ultimately, he did both, working as a scriptwriter on Roseanne and the TV series Parenthood before selling his script to the 1992 Buffy The Vampire Slayer movie. For several years, he was a film writer and a script doctor, doing uncredited touch-ups on Twister, Speed, and Waterworld, and writing drafts of projects such as X-Men, Toy Story, Titan A.E., Disney's Atlantis, and Alien: Resurrection. But Whedon came into his own with the television incarnation of Buffy, which has, over the past few years, grown from a cult classic into a cottage industry. As the original creator of the Buffy character, Whedon--now a writer, director, and executive producer of the Buffy The Vampire Slayer TV show--has a hand in virtually all of its spinoffs, including the WB series Angel, a line of comic-book tie-ins distributed by Dark Horse, and an upcoming animated series and BBC TV show. Whedon recently spoke to The Onion A.V. Club about the Buffy phenomenon, his bitterness over his movie career, and the fans who share in his worship of his creations.

The Onion: So, how are you bringing Buffy back? [The character died at the end of this past season. --ed.]

Joss Whedon: Aw, I'm not supposed to tell.

O: I'm teasing. I know you get that a lot.

JW: Yeah, it's the first thing everybody asks, including my developers. And the answer is, I can't say, because that's why you watch the show. The one thing I can say is, I think we earn it. There's no Patrick Duffy in the shower, there's no alternate-universe Buffy. It's not going to be neat. Bringing her back is difficult, and the consequences are fairly intense. It's not like we don't take these death-things seriously. But exactly how she comes back, I can't reveal.

O: When your actors get questions like that in interviews, they always seem to answer with horrific threats: "I can't tell, Joss will rip out my tongue and feed it to wolves," and so forth. Do they actually get these threats from you?

JW: I'm a very gentle man, not unlike Gandhi. I don't ever threaten them. There is, sort of hanging over their head, the thing that I could kill them at any moment. But that's really just if they annoy me. They know that I'm very secretive about plot twists and whatnot, because I think it's better for the show. But anybody with a computer can find out what's going to happen, apparently even before I know. So my wish for secrecy is sort of pathetic. But they're all on board. They don't want to give it away, and a lot of times, they just don't know.

O: How closely were you involved with the making of the Buffy movie?

JW: I had major involvement. I was there almost all the way through shooting. I pretty much eventually threw up my hands because I could not be around Donald Sutherland any longer. It didn't turn out to be the movie that I had written. They never do, but that was my first lesson in that. Not that the movie is without merit, but I just watched a lot of stupid wannabe-star behavior and a director with a different vision than mine--which was her right, it was her movie--but it was still frustrating. Eventually, I was like, "I need to be away from here."

O: Was it a personality conflict between you and Sutherland, or was he just not what you'd envisioned in that role?

JW: No, no, he was just a prick. The thing is, people always make fun of Rutger Hauer [for his Buffy role]. Even though he was big and silly and looked kind of goofy in the movie, I have to give him credit, because he was there. He was into it. Whereas Donald was just... He would rewrite all his dialogue, and the director would let him. He can't write--he's not a writer--so the dialogue would not make sense. And he had a very bad attitude. He was incredibly rude to the director, he was rude to everyone around him, he was just a real pain. And to see him destroying my stuff... Some people didn't notice. Some people liked him in the movie. Because he's Donald Sutherland. He's a great actor. He can read the phone book, and I'm interested. But the thing is, he acts well enough that you didn't notice, with his little rewrites, and his little ideas about what his character should do, that he was actually destroying the movie more than Rutger was. So I got out of there. I had to run away.

O: What was Paul Reubens like? He seems to be the actor people remember most from the movie.

JW: [Adopts weepy, awed voice.] He is a god that walks among us. He is one of the sweetest, most professional and delightful people I've ever worked with. [Normal voice.] He was my beacon of hope in that whole experience, that he was such a good guy, and so got it. I mean, most of the people were sweet. Most of them were actively out there trying... They were good people. Paul was a delight to be around, trying to make it better. He actually said to me, "I'm a little worried about this line, and I want to change it. I realize that it'll change this other thing, so if that's a problem..." I'm like, "Did I just hear an actor say that?"

O: How early on did it occur to you to re-do Buffy the way you'd originally intended?

JW: You know, it wasn't really my idea. After the première of the movie, my wife said, "You know, honey, maybe a few years from now, you'll get to make it again, the way you want to make it!" [Broad, condescending voice.] "Ha ha ha, you little naïve fool. It doesn't work that way. That'll never happen." And then it was three years later, and Gail Berman actually had the idea. Sandollar [Television] had the property, and Gail thought it would make a good TV series. They called me up out of contractual obligation: "Call the writer, have him pass." And I was like, "Well, that sounds cool." So, to my agent's surprise and chagrin, I said, "Yeah, I could do that. I think I get it. It could be a high-school horror movie. It'd be a metaphor for how lousy my high-school years were." So I hadn't had the original idea, I just developed it.

O: You joke a lot in interviews about how you wanted to write horror because you experienced so much of it in high school. Did you have an unusually bad high-school experience, or was it just the usual teen traumas?

JW: I think it's not inaccurate to say that I had a perfectly happy childhood during which I was very unhappy. It was nothing worse than anybody else. I could not get a date to save my life, but my last three years of high school were at a boys' school, so I wasn't actually looking that hard. I was not popular in school, and I was definitely not a ladies' man. And I had a very painful adolescence, because it was all very strange to me. It wasn't like I got beat up, but the humiliation and isolation, and the existential "God, I exist, and nobody cares" of being a teenager were extremely pronounced for me. I don't have horror stories. I mean, I have a few horror stories about attempting to court a girl, which would make people laugh, but it's not like I think I had it worse than other people. But that's sort of the point of Buffy, that I'm talking about the stuff everybody goes through. Nobody gets out of here without some trauma.

O: How much of your writing made it into the final versions of Twister and Speed?

JW: Most of the dialogue in Speed is mine, and a bunch of the characters. That was actually pretty much a good experience. I have quibbles. I also have the only poster left with my name still on it. Getting arbitrated off the credits was un-fun. But Speed has a bunch. And Twister, less. In Twister, there are things that worked and things that weren't the way I'd intended them. Whereas Speed came out closer to what I'd been trying to do. I think of Speed as one of the few movies I've made that I actually like.

O: What about Waterworld?

JW: [Laughs.] Waterworld. I refer to myself as the world's highest-paid stenographer. This is a situation I've been in a bunch of times. By the way, I'm very bitter, is that okay? I mean, people ask me, "What's the worst job you ever had?" "I once was a writer in Hollywood..." Talk about taking the glow off of movies. I've had almost nothing but bad experiences. Waterworld was a good idea, and the script was the classic, "They have a good idea, then they write a generic script and don't really care about the idea." When I was brought in, there was no water in the last 40 pages of the script. It all took place on land, or on a ship, or whatever. I'm like, "Isn't the cool thing about this guy that he has gills?" And no one was listening. I was there basically taking notes from Costner, who was very nice, fine to work with, but he was not a writer. And he had written a bunch of stuff that they wouldn't let their staff touch. So I was supposed to be there for a week, and I was there for seven weeks, and I accomplished nothing. I wrote a few puns, and a few scenes that I can't even sit through because they came out so bad. It was the same situation with X-Men. They said, "Come in and punch up the big climax, the third act, and if you can, make it cheaper." That was the mandate on both movies, and my response to both movies was, "The problem with the third act is the first two acts." But, again, no one was paying attention. X-Men was very interesting in that, by that time, I actually had a reputation in television. I was actually somebody. People stopped thinking I was John Sweden on the phone. And then, in X-Men, not only did they throw out my script and never tell me about it; they actually invited me to the read-through, having thrown out my entire draft without telling me. I was like, "Oh, that's right! This is the movies! The writer is shit in the movies!" I'll never understand that. I have one line left in that movie. Actually, there are a couple of lines left in that are out of context and make no sense, or are delivered so badly, so terribly... There's one line that's left the way I wrote it.

O: Which is?

JW: "'It's me.' 'Prove it.' 'You're a dick.'" Hey, it got a laugh.

O: It's funny that the only lines I really remember from that movie are that one and Storm's toad comment.

JW: Okay, which was also mine, and that's the interesting thing. Everybody remembers that as the worst line ever written, but the thing about that is, it was supposed to be delivered as completely offhand. [Adopts casual, bored tone.] "You know what happens when a toad gets hit by lightning?" Then, after he gets electrocuted, "Ahhh, pretty much the same thing that happens to anything else." But Halle Berry said it like she was Desdemona. [Strident, ringing voice.] "The same thing that happens to everything eeelse!" That's the thing that makes you go crazy. At least "You're a dick" got delivered right. The worst thing about these things is that, when the actors say it wrong, it makes the writer look stupid. People assume that the line... I listened to half the dialogue in Alien 4, and I'm like, "That's idiotic," because of the way it was said. And nobody knows that. Nobody ever gets that. They say, "That was a stupid script," which is the worst pain in the world. I have a great long boring story about that, but I can tell you the very short version. In Alien 4, the director changed something so that it didn't make any sense. He wanted someone to go and get a gun and get killed by the alien, so I wrote that in and tried to make it work, but he directed it in a way that it made no sense whatsoever. And I was sitting there in the editing room, trying to come up with looplines to explain what's going on, to make the scene make sense, and I asked the director, "Can you just explain to me why he's doing this? Why is he going for this gun?" And the editor, who was French, turned to me and said, with a little leer on his face, [adopts gravelly, smarmy, French-accented voice] "Because eet's een the screept." And I actually went and dented the bathroom stall with my puddly little fist. I have never been angrier. But it's the classic, "When something goes wrong, you assume the writer's a dork." And that's painful.

O: Have you done any other uncredited script work?

JW: Actually, my first gig ever was writing looplines for a movie that had already been made. You know, writing lines over somebody's back to explain something, to help make a connection, to add a joke, or to just add babble because the people are in frame and should be saying something. We're constantly saving something that doesn't work, or trying to, with lines behind people's backs. It's almost like adding narration, but cheaper. I did looplines for The Getaway, the Alec Baldwin/Kim Basinger version. If you look carefully at The Getaway, you'll see that when people's backs are turned, or their heads are slightly out of frame, the whole movie has a certain edge to it. I also did a couple of days of looplines and punch-ups for The Quick And The Dead, just to meet Sam Raimi.

O: I attended your Q&A session at a comics convention last year, and many of the people who got up to ask questions were nearly in tears over the chance to get to talk to you. Some of them could barely speak, and others couldn't stop gushing about you, and about Buffy. How do you deal with that kind of emotional intensity?

JW: It's about the show, and I feel the same way about it. I get the same way. It's not like being a rock star. It doesn't feel like they're reacting to me. It's really sweet when people react like that, and I love the praise, but to me, what they're getting emotional about is the show. And that's the best feeling in the world. There's nothing creepy about it. I feel like there's a religion in narrative, and I feel the same way they do. I feel like we're both paying homage to something else; they're not paying homage to me.

O: Does knowing that you have fans who are that dedicated put extra pressure on you, or does seeing the show as something outside yourself make it easier to deal with?

JW: You don't want to let them down. The people who feel the most strongly about something will turn on you the most vociferously if they feel you've let them down. Sometimes you roll your eyes and you want to say, "Back off," but you don't get the big praise without getting the big criticism. Because people care. So. Much. And you always know that's lurking there. It does make a difference. If nobody was paying attention, I might very well say, "You know what, guys? Let's churn 'em out, churn 'em out, make some money." I like to think I wouldn't, but I don't know. I don't know me, I might be a dick. Once the critics, after the first season, really got the show, we all sort of looked at each other and said, "Ohhh-kay..." We thought we were going to fly under the radar, and nobody was going to notice the show. And then we had this responsibility, and we got kind of nervous. You don't want to let them down. But ultimately, the narrative feeds you so much. It's so exciting to find out what's going to happen next, to find the next important thing in the narrative, to step down and say, "That's so cool."

O: Are you ever surprised by your fans' passion for the show?

JW: No. I designed the show to create that strong reaction. I designed Buffy to be an icon, to be an emotional experience, to be loved in a way that other shows can't be loved. Because it's about adolescence, which is the most important thing people go through in their development, becoming an adult. And it mythologizes it in such a way, such a romantic way--it basically says, "Everybody who made it through adolescence is a hero." And I think that's very personal, that people get something from that that's very real. And I don't think I could be more pompous. But I mean every word of it. I wanted her to be a cultural phenomenon. I wanted there to be dolls, Barbie with kung-fu grip. I wanted people to embrace it in a way that exists beyond, "Oh, that was a wonderful show about lawyers, let's have dinner." I wanted people to internalize it, and make up fantasies where they were in the story, to take it home with them, for it to exist beyond the TV show. And we've done exactly that. Now I'm writing comics, and I'm getting all excited about the mythology. We're doing a book of stories about other slayers, and I'm all excited about that, and it's all growing in my mind, as well. I think she has become an icon, and that's what I wanted. What more could anybody ask?

O: Do you ever feel a responsibility to society, to use your massive power for good?

JW: Yes and no. I mean, I've always been, and long before anybody was paying any attention, very careful about my responsibility in narrative. How much do I put what I want to put, and how much do I put what I feel is correct? People say, "After Columbine, do you feel a responsibility about the way you portray violence?" And I'm like, "No, I felt a responsibility about the way I portrayed violence the first time I picked up a pen." I mean, everybody felt... It's a ridiculous thing to ask a writer. But you feel it, and at the same time--and I've said this before--a writer has a responsibility to tell stories that are dark and sexy and violent, where characters that you love do stupid, wrong things and get away with it, that we explore these parts of people's lives, because that's what makes stories into fairy tales instead of polemics. That's what makes stories resonate, that thing, that dark place that we all want to go to on some level or another. It's very important. People are like, [whining] "Well, your characters have sex, and those costumes, and blah blah..." And I'm like, "You're in adolescence, and you're thinking about what besides sex?" I feel that we're showing something that is true, that people can relate to and say, "Oh, I made that bad choice," or "Oh, there's a better way to do that." But as long as it's real, then however politically correct, or incorrect, or whatever, bizarre, or dark, or funny, or stupid--anything you can get, as long as it's real, I don't mind.

O: Speaking of sex and reality, the Tara-and-Willow relationship has been controversial from several angles, with one side of the spectrum accusing you of promoting a homosexual agenda while the other side accuses you of exploiting lesbian chic.

JW: You just have to ignore that. I actually went online and said, "I realize that this has shocked a lot of people, and I've made a mistake by trying to shove this lifestyle--which is embraced by, maybe, at most, 10 percent of Americans--down people's throats. So I'm going to take it back, and from now on, Willow will no longer be a Jew." And somebody was actually like, [adopts agitated whine] "What do you mean she's not going to be a Jew anymore?" I was like, "Can we get a 'sarcasm' font?" But, you know, the first criticism we got was, "She's not gay enough. They're not gay enough." We were playing it as a metaphor, and it was like, "Why don't they come out? They're not gay enough!" And eventually we did start to say, "Well, maybe we're being a little coy. They've got good chemistry, this is working out, why don't we just go ahead and make them go for it?" And, of course, once you bring it out in the open, it's no longer a metaphor. Then it's just an Issue. But we never played it that way. Ultimately, some people say "lesbian chic," I say, "Okay, whatever." Those criticisms don't really bug me. You look at shows like Ally McBeal and Party Of Five, which both did lesbian kisses that were promoted and hyped for months and months, and afterwards the characters were like, "Well, I seem to be very heterosexual! Thank you for that steamy lesbian kiss!" Our whole mission statement was that we would bury their first kiss inside an episode that had nothing to do with it, and never promote it, which I guess caught people off-guard at The WB. The reason we had them kiss was because if they didn't, it would start to get coy and, quite frankly, a little offensive, for two people that much in love to not have any physicality. But the whole mission statement was, "We'll put it where nobody expects it, and we'll never talk about it." I mean, there are people who are genuinely concerned--are we falling into a pattern that other shows are falling into? It's very possible. The WB was like, "We have gay characters on all our shows. Why didn't you tell us you were making characters gay?" "Well, I don't watch your other shows. I didn't know." I'm sort of not really aware of what's going on out there. So the accusations of, "You shouldn't have a gay character on your show," those people are just--they should just be tied to a rock. "Whatever, you dumb people." Not that I feel strongly. But the other ones, "Oh, you just do that because it's sexy"... Well, the writers, and the men and women on the set, are like, "Yeah, it is pretty sexy!" I mean, so were Buffy and Angel. If it's not sexy, then it's not worth it. Like those two guys in thirtysomething sitting in bed together, looking like they were individually wrapped in plastic. They did a scene with two guys in bed, and it was a big deal, on thirtysomething, and it was the most antiseptic thing I've ever seen in my life. They were sitting ramrod-straight, far away from each other, and not even looking at each other. I was like, "Ahhh, sexy!"

O: One aspect of your fans' dedication is that they become very threatened by perceived changes in the show, like Giles becoming a lesser character as Anthony Stewart Head moves to Britain, or the show itself moving to UPN.

JW: Change is a mandate on the show. And people always complain. [Agitated voice.] "Who is this new guy, Oz?" "Where'd that guy Oz go?" They have trouble with change, but it's about change. It's about growing up. If we didn't change, you would be bored. The change as far as Tony Head is concerned, the man has two daughters growing up in England, and he'd like to live there. The kids [on Buffy] are old enough now that they don't really need a mentor figure, and this is a period in your life when you don't really have one. So it made sense for him to go back, and he chose to be on the show as a recurring character. But change is part of the show, and people always have a problem with it. But I think it's why they keep coming back.

O: How do you think the move to UPN will affect the series?

JW: I don't think it'll affect it one iota. Any change that happens in the show will happen naturally because the show evolves. UPN has never said, "Skew it this way, do this thing," and they never will, because I'm not going to do it. I've had an unprecedented amount of control over the show, even for television, considering the show is a cult show. From the very start, The WB left me alone. You know, they collaborated, they didn't disappear, but they really let me do what I wanted. They trusted me. And UPN is on board for letting me do the show the way that works. I don't think anything will change. I mean, there'll be wrestling. But tasteful wrestling. Wrestling with a message behind it.

O: I've got a quote here from a recent interview with James Marsters [who plays Spike on Buffy]: "Joss likes to stir it up. He likes a little chaos. He likes to piss people off. He likes to deny them what they want. He loves making people feel afraid." Do you agree with that?

JW: First of all, if you don't feel afraid, horror show not good. We learned early on, the scariest thing on that show was people behaving badly, or in peril, morally speaking, or just people getting weird on you--which, by the way, is the scariest thing in life. In terms of not giving people what they want, I think it's a mandate: Don't give people what they want, give them what they need. What they want is for Sam and Diane to get together. [Whispers.] Don't give it to them. Trust me. [Normal voice.] You know? People want the easy path, a happy resolution, but in the end, they're more interested in... No one's going to go see the story of Othello going to get a peaceful divorce. People want the tragedy. They need things to go wrong, they need the tension. In my characters, there's a core of trust and love that I'm very committed to. These guys would die for each other, and it's very beautiful. But at the same time, you can't keep that safety. Things have to go wrong, bad things have to happen.

O: What's your method for balancing humor and drama when you're writing the show?

JW: We get bored of one, and then switch to the other. I thought we got very dramatic last year, and I was like, "We need more jokes this year!" Every year the balance falls one way or another. You've just got to keep your eye on it. All of my writers are extremely funny, so it's easy to make [Buffy] funnier. The hard part is getting the stuff that matters more. Our hardest work is to figure out the story. Getting the jokes in isn't a problem. We wanted to make that sort of short-attention-span, The Simpsons, cull-from-every-genre-all-the-time thing. "You know, if we take this moment from Nosferatu, and this moment from Pretty In Pink, that'll make this possible. A little Jane Eyre in there, and then a little Lethal Weapon 4. Not 3, but 4. And I think this'll work."

O: Does the writing itself come naturally to you, or do you have to set hours and force yourself to sit down and get it done?

JW: It's like breathing. I'm not un-lazy, and I do procrastinate, but... Some of my writers sweat. The agony, they hate doing it, it's like pulling teeth. But for me, it comes easy. I love it. I don't rewrite, almost ever. I basically just sit down and write. Now my wife is making gestures about what a pompous ass I am. [Laughs.] And she's not wrong. But that's how it is. I love it. And I know these characters well enough that it comes maybe a little more naturally to me.

O: Have you gotten good at delegating, or do you really want to be doing all the writing yourself?

JW: No, I have, and that was really hard for me. It was hard because I had such a specific vision, and nobody was seeing it. And so you have to do everything--props, costumes. Gradually, you surround yourself with people who do see it your way. I've worked for producers, and I know producers, who are true megalomaniacs, and need to write everything, and be responsible for everything, and get all the credit. And, although I am something of a control freak, if somebody does something right, I will not change a word. If the script works, if a costume is right, if an actor gets it, I'm not going to get in there just so I can have gotten in there. I've spent five years culling the most extraordinary staff, which I trust to share my vision and my experience. So if somebody gets it right, I leave it alone.

O: Do you think you'd ever be able to completely let go of a Buffy spin-off, leave it totally in someone else's hands?

JW: It's possible. It's possible that I could. A while ago, I would have said, "No." But now I'm working on what will be four Buffy shows and three Buffy comics, and eventually you sort of go, "Uh, maybe somebody else could do that other thing." Would I be able to not have any hand in it at all? I think I just said "yes" and meant "no." I don't want it to have my name on it if it doesn't reflect what I want to say. Because once you get to the position of actually getting to say something, which is a level most writers never even get to, and is a great blessing, you then have to worry about what it is you're actually saying. I don't want some crappy reactionary show under the Buffy name. If my name's going to be on it, it should be mine. Now, the books I have nothing to do with, and I've never read them. They could be, "Buffy realized that abortion was wrong!" and I would have no idea. So, after my big, heartfelt, teary speech, I realize that I was once again lying. But I sort of drew the line. I was like, "I can't possibly read these books!" But my name just goes on them as the person who created Buffy.

O: Now that you've actually appeared in an episode of Angel, do you have the acting bug? Are you going to write yourself into more scripts?

JW: I do and I don't. I've always had it, and I think it's part of being a writer and a director. It's knowing how you want things to be played. But I don't have the face--that's the problem--and I don't want the giant ego. I don't want to become Kevin Costner, singing on the soundtrack to The Postman.

O: If you had Buffy to do over from the start, this time knowing how popular it would get, would you do anything differently?

JW: Not in terms of popularity. I mean, there were certain things on the show that I learned the hard way, but not really. I love the show, and I love the people. I love the stories we told. I mean, I'm angry about every single edit, and line, and costume change, and rewrite, but that's part of the business. So ultimately, I wouldn't change anything.

_
Click here for cool 3D Animated Windows Cursors [paware.com]

Re:for anyone who is interested... (5, Insightful)

Wraithlyn (133796) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299816)

People say, "After Columbine, do you feel a responsibility about the way you portray violence?" And I'm like, "No, I felt a responsibility about the way I portrayed violence the first time I picked up a pen."

Wow, I think that's just about the most intelligent and responsible thing I've ever read about the influence of culture on behaviour.

who gives a fuck (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4299636)

a boy a fucking tv show!

that's exciting and important.

Looks good.. have to check it out (3, Interesting)

Wraithlyn (133796) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299637)

I'm really looking forward to this.. Whedon is brimming with talent, and he's really hitting his stride recently. If anyone can breathe new life into sci-fi TV, I believe it's him. He said he used Buffy as a sort of "film school" for himself, and you can really see his art and technique flourish from season 1 to season 4.. then he started putting more energy into Angel. It'll be interesting to see what he can accomplish now with a fresh start.

New type of slashvertisment? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4299638)

I know this is ot, but ive noticed that Slashdot has recently been occassonlly putting banner ads where the slashdot logo is supposed to be.

Re:New type of slashvertisment? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4299663)

try using a browser that doesnt fuckin suck aiight.

Buffy in space? (0, Flamebait)

macdaddy357 (582412) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299641)

Firefly will probably be stupid. After all, everyone knows that Star Trek is the real future. Captain Kirk forever, knock-offs never! Beam me up, Scotty.

Beam me up, Scotty. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4299667)

I didn't know they had internet access in prison, Mr. Traficant.

Did they at least let you keep your hair hat?

Re:Buffy in space? (1)

ch-chuck (9622) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299747)

everyone knows that Star Trek is the real future.

Last time I watched STOS on DVD, obviously from the original film (not vidtape), there was TOO MUCH detail! You could actually see that the 'display panel' behind the transporter was somebody moving a painted piece of cardboard back and forth, and not too smoothly at that. That never showed up on NTSC tv from across the room ;))

rip-off Cowboy bebop (1)

ajaygautam (554694) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299644)

This looks like a rip off of Cowboy bebop!

Re:rip-off Cowboy bebop (2)

Neon Spiral Injector (21234) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299669)

Either that, or Lexx.

Re:rip-off Cowboy bebop (3, Insightful)

Angry White Guy (521337) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299709)

Everything is a rip off of anything anymore.
Honeymooners->Flintstones->Jetsons
At least they picked good shows to rip off, instead of the absolute shite out there.

Incidentally, anyone see Star Hunter on TV?

Re:rip-off Cowboy bebop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4299768)

Girl in the box = Outlaw Star

Re:rip-off Cowboy bebop (3, Insightful)

xenocide2 (231786) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299793)

What about Outlaw Star? There's even a naked chick in a suitcase!

Re:rip-off Cowboy bebop (2)

Angry White Guy (521337) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299839)

That's no big deal, I have one of those in the trunk of my car!

The Anti-Cliche Man (-1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4299645)

There's a big market for SF on TV, but the genre's in a real rut. Most shows are invented by some semi-literate hack with one Big Idea that runs dry after a few episodes. On the rare instances where somebody has done something really creative and interesting, the project is soon taken over by media suits who judge story quality by the number of explosions, shootouts, and chase scenes.

Joss Whedon is the antithesis of all this. Not that he's any great literary genius. He just makes up ordinary, low-brow stories. But he hates hackwork, and he hates repeating himself. Most of all, he hates cliches.

You can see this in his biggest success, Buffy. The premise makes no sense at all, except as a kind of anti-cliche. It takes the biggest horror cliche of all, the helpless, clueless, personality-deficient teenage bimbo, and turns it on its head. Critics love to talk about how Buffy keeps "raising the bar", with ever stranger and more suprising stories and chracters. But really all that's happening is Whedon telling his writers, over and over, "No, we did that already."

So is good news, not just for TV SF, but for the whole genre. As bad as the idea-deficient Hollywood SF writers are, they're easier to take than all those bloated-epic writers who think that a clever idea is all you need. Somebody needs to teach all these people the basics of good storytelling, and Whedon is just the person to do it.

Neat Trick... (5, Funny)

Myriad (89793) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299648)

I've never seen the future so skillfully, realistically, and lovingly portrayed.

Ermm, I don't mean to nitpick, but how exactly have you arrived at the "realistically" portrayed part? Got a magic 8 ball and a lot of questions? :)

Re:Neat Trick... (1)

swv3752 (187722) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299759)

Maybe he was abducted by Little Green Men?

Re:Neat Trick... (1, Troll)

Angry White Guy (521337) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299804)

Yeah, him and the goatese.cx guy. Those anal probes are a killer!

the acid test... (1)

pohl (872) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299780)

...do we hear the roar of engines in the vaccuum of space?

_That_ original? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4299652)

Admittedly, I've only seen the 30sec trailers, but to me the series looks an awful lot like
Outlaw Star (with maybe a dash of the `Scape thrown in for good measure.)

Still looks damn promising...

Not To Sound Trollish.... (2, Insightful)

Tsali (594389) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299653)

... but the trailers for this thing have made it look more like Baywatch in spaceships with retread lines.

It just doesn't seem believable to me... but I'll have to watch it and see.

What's wrong with Star Trek, anyways? :-)

Re:Not To Sound Trollish.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4299818)

What's wrong with Baywatch?

Original my ass (3, Flamebait)

zpengo (99887) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299654)

This is the same old stuff, though perhaps rehashed with a "hip, new attitude". Take a look at the characters page [fox.com] , which simplifies them to their dull roles: "The Fugitive", "The Mercenary", "The Pilot", "The Doctor", etc. They're two dimensional. Cardboard. Those aren't characters, they're placeholders around which some jokes and special effects can be wrapped.

I'm not saying that Star Trek/Wars is much better, but at least they *tried* to have characters. Firefly is looking like an old war movie with "The Black Guy", "The Loose Cannon", and of course, "The Pointexter."

And what's the gripping premise?

Set 500 years in the future in the wake of a universal civil war, FIREFLY tells the tale of Serenity, a small transport spaceship without a homeport. Captain Malcolm ("Mal") Reynolds commands Serenity for legitimate transport and salvage runs, as well as, more "entrepreneurial" endeavors.
Oooh, groundbreaking stuff there.

So give me a break already. Yeah there's a new sci-fi show. If we're lucky, there'll be some new hot chicks every week. But don't make the mistake of thinking this is groundbreaking, original material. Enjoy it for what it is.

Re:Original my ass (1)

the Man in Black (102634) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299715)

That is the best signature I have ever seen. I bow before you, O Wise One.

Interesting (0, Offtopic)

Hrothgar The Great (36761) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299813)

Someone's decided that your post was flamebait. I found it interesting, though. Sadly, I am without my mod hammer this week.

ja wa?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4299656)

fp suckas!!

ok, im lame.

Will be worth it just for the one-liners (5, Funny)

cp4 (250029) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299666)

Keep in mind the best line from X-Men was Whedon's...

"How do I know it's you?"

"You're a dick."

"Okay."

Or something like that....

Re:Will be worth it just for the one-liners (2, Funny)

Heywood Yabuzof (255017) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299735)

Well, that was good, but I liked the yellow spandex uniform joke even better. ;-)

Slashvertisements (0, Offtopic)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299672)

So... When is code going to be added to Slash to allow users to block Slashvertisements? I know OSDN is getting desperate, but really!

I kinda like them (2)

Wee (17189) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299833)

I like the thinly-velied advertisements, mostly. I saw an ad for this show (and something in one of my wife's entertainment mags) that mentioned the show, but only had it in the back of my mind that I had to find out when it aired so I could watch it. This reminded me and I'm gonna carve out some time to veg in front of the tube tonight.

But really, who cares if it is is an advertisement or not? It's information that some people here in this site's demographic wanted/could use/would like to have. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't mind advertisements when they're targeted properly and aren't obnoxious.

-B

Imagine... (-1, Offtopic)

Bobb Sledd (307434) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299678)


Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these...

Only on Slashdot (2, Informative)

Wind_Walker (83965) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299684)

Only on Slashdot would they hype up a great-sounding new series premier and NOT TELL YOU WHEN AND WHERE YOU CAN SEE IT!!!

Ahem.

It's on FOX at 8:00 PM EST, 7:00 Central. Or check your local listings [tvguide.com] .

Re:Only on Slashdot (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4299825)

Only on Slashdot would they hype up a great-sounding new series premier and NOT TELL YOU WHEN AND WHERE YOU CAN SEE IT!!!

Looks like somebody didn't read the post. It says right in the first sentence, "Firefly... premieres tonight, on Fox, 8 E/P."

Re:Only on Slashdot (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4299831)

Read the posting again... From Line 1: "Firefly, Joss Whedon's 'anti-Trek drama' premieres tonight, on Fox, 8 E/P." That looks like a pretty standard time listing to me...

Fan Site? (5, Informative)

N8F8 (4562) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299689)

Is there doubt in anybody's mind that Fox is paying for the "Firefly Fan Site". Way too slick for a show that hasn't even premiered yet......


Registrant:
AdvanceMania.com
555 Oluwalu lane
Odwana, Michigan 00918
US

Re:Fan Site? (1)

rendermouse (462757) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299858)


They used FrontPage [google.com] , they can't be THAT web savvy.

;)

meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 5.0"

Wha'ts amatta with you people? (0, Flamebait)

Jonny Ringo (444580) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299693)

Its Friday night and its Oktoberfest!!! Go out and drink beer!

annoying voice: but I want to stay home and watch "fire fly" its the season priemier.
me: Shut up!

Re:Wha'ts amatta with you people? (2)

motardo (74082) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299731)

isn't Oktoberfest in OCTOBER?

Re:Wha'ts amatta with you people? (1, Offtopic)

Jonny Ringo (444580) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299748)

No its not in October.

Here is a bit of history for your mind:

http://www.fremontoktoberfest.org/about.html

Original? Watch Outlaw Star sometime. (5, Insightful)

Arcturax (454188) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299694)

Really, is any sci-fi original anymore? I can think of little in sci-fi that hasn't been done already. Not to say this will be a bad series, but I've already seen a lot of what's in it in other places.

In fact, for some reason this show reminds me a lot of Outlaw star, just less cartoonish. Must be the girl in the box thing that makes me think of that particular Anime series. And the fact they are tooling around in a ship doing odd jobs for a living. And the fact that they have no real home port anymore after they have to blast their way off of the one place they called home.

You could also say they play the Hon Solo angle a bit as well other than the fact they have more to their crew than just a wookie.

I'll give it a watch regardless, it could be fun and maybe it will be surprisingly original, but I'll withold any hype or wild statements until I've actually seen the first few episodes.

Exactly! (2)

Bodrius (191265) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299851)

All the images I have seen so far scream "Outlaw Star". I'd bet there's a "Galatic Layline" equivalent in the main plot...

Of course, I also thought there were eerie similarities between "Titan A.E" and "Mysterious Cities of Gold", so I might be the one seeing things.

Portrayal of future? (1, Funny)

teamhasnoi (554944) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299712)

Is it a cool future of gadgets and super powerful, helpful AIs, antigravity, alien societies, incredibly advanced technology from mysterious lost races, see-thru tank tops, holographic projection and bionic augmentation, or a dark future where a relative of GW's is still running the rights of the consumer^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H citizens into the ground?

Will there be curfews and indeterminate detention, rampant search and seizure, investigation of private activities, invasion of thought and conviction of free-speech?

Sweet! Count me IN! I want to see what the U.S. is in for!

Re:Portrayal of future? (3, Interesting)

Rastor0 (591883) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299838)

Is it a cool future of gadgets and super powerful, helpful AIs, antigravity, alien societies, incredibly advanced technology from mysterious lost races, see-thru tank tops, holographic projection and bionic augmentation,

No. No aliens, no latex in 'Firefly,' [nwsource.com]

or a dark future where a relative of GW's is still running the rights of the consumer^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H citizens into the ground?

No, if it fits into any existing category, it's "Western", actually.

Groundbreaking? (2, Offtopic)

LordYUK (552359) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299717)

I think that Star Trek was ground breaking, for lots of reasons, not the least of which is the first inter-racial kiss on television. I also think that it gave the other sci fi writers lots of ideas on why/how things work in the future and space. This sounds more like a badly written DnD adventure. "the pilot"? "the doctor"? what are they, character templates? I'll take one level of pilot and two levels of captain, please... of course, its Fox, and they did bring us LOTS of good Sci Fi shows, so I'm not saying its going to be bad, just not "groundbreaking".

Let's get a head start this time (5, Funny)

Longinus (601448) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299722)

Excellent, another Sci Fi series we get to see canceled prematurely. I say we get a heard start on the "save our show campaign" this time. I'll go start a petition to not cancel it at Petition Online (because those always work, ya know) and someone else go register www.savefirefly.com.

I figure our chances are much better if we start before it actually canceled this time ;).

Re: Let's get a head start this time (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299845)


> Excellent, another Sci Fi series we get to see canceled prematurely. I say we get a heard start on the "save our show campaign" this time. I'll go start a petition to not cancel it at Petition Online ... I figure our chances are much better if we start before it actually canceled this time ;).

LMAO. Surely a signature is worth triple if you sign the petition before the first episode airs!

Out with the old (Enterprise), in with the New! (2, Interesting)

Primordiax (605118) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299729)

If this show turns out to be even half as good as the hype, it may very well be bumping Enterprise off the TiVO Season Pass list.

Whedon's Buffy has become a whine fest, relationship soap opera and I fear that Angel will soon devolving in the same manner. Whedon has talent when he harnesses it properly, and perhaps this vehicle will allow him to put it back on display.

I am particularly excited to read here that it will be very "geeky". I am so sick of watered down sci-fi where they don't make use of ANY scientific mumbo jumbo. Sure, the tech-speak should never rule (and thereby ruin) the show, but good sci-fi should have SOME technobabble! =)

What do you mean?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4299732)

They killed the Lone Gunmen?!?

Another show.. (2)

unicron (20286) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299733)

You know what other show I'm pretty sure started with new episodes..here's a hint.."Woah..I am Metaluna!"

oh boy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4299738)

wow a show about a bunch of people in a ship who fly around getting into "Situations"!

That's just so fucking original!

TV rocks my world!

YEAH BABY!

TV RuLz0rz J0r s0x0rz!

ok now that i'm done reading slashdot time to "Stick it to the man" by sitting on my ass eating putrid foodstuff from TriConGlobal and watching ads for SUVs in between hacknied sci fi rehash.

NOT.

Farscape (3, Offtopic)

Fourier (60719) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299739)

I'm definitely looking forward to Firefly, but that doesn't mean I want to lose Farscape.

Currently, Farscape is still cancelled but is being considered by other networks. Help save the show! [farscapeworld.com]
The original "save Farscape" headquarters has been unavailable for a few days: Save Farscape [savefarscape.com]

Re:Farscape (2)

Doppleganger (66109) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299840)

Oddly enough, my first thought seeing the Firefly advertisements was, "gee, if you just listen to the announcer without watching the images, this show sounds a lot like how I would describe Farscape."

It really looks like an attempt to copy the format of Farscape into a different universe and storyline. wierd..

Review on AICN (5, Interesting)

ajs (35943) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299740)

Ain't it Cool News [aintitcool.com] has a review of the first episode [aintitcool.com] (not to be confused with the pilot, which will air in December, but bootlegs of which are floating around).

I don't like the review, but I guess it covers some important ground, and everything that I've seen about this show so far is glowingly positive (good spin or real-fact, we find out at 8PM).

There's also an interesting swell of people who've been trying to figure out what this is a rip-off of (because, obviously it can't be original... that just doesn't happen :)

The current consensus is Farscape, but I don't see how. Afer all farscape is a show about a bunch of convicts, most of whom are aliens. I guess the fact that it's a sci-fi comedy is somewhat comparable, but by that token Farscape was a "rip-off" of Red Dwarf. If anything, I think this show will come across as more a TV version of some SF books I've read, but it's no more than "influenced" by anything that I can think of.

Enjoy!

Hardly Original (0, Flamebait)

supernaut (35513) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299749)

The show takes direct material from Cowboy Bebop, and Outlaw star. Those are the first two things I thought of when I saw the teasers.

Hell, even the girl in the box, along with the box, looked almost identical to the scene from outlaw star.

The only thing they are missing is a grappler ship. I guess that would have been too obvious. I remember when Fox was the "cutting edge" network....now, they have relegated themselves into MTV territory. MTV seems to keep and hash to death, the shows which are consistantly devoid of any kind of creativity or value whatsoever, while meanwhile cancelling the shows that are four star quality. (Fox: futurama, in living color, two examples of great shows, killed, in the case of MTV, Liquid Television, The State, and on and on.....)

How sad. Now it seems, TV has nothing left, so they gnaw off the flesh of real creativity, to make a show of stupid moronic soundbytes.

I for one, wont be tuning in...

Re:Hardly Original (1)

eatenn (572604) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299842)

Wow, it's truly amazing how you can compare Firefly to all these shows BEFORE IT HAS EVEN PREMIERED.

Ahh... but you are missing their target audience.. (1)

cnelzie (451984) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299856)


MTV and now FOX are not looking to interest the Geek Intelligentsia. They are looking to draw only the attention of the drooling masses...

Their main interest is simply in attracting those that are incapable of thinking for themselves and able to come up with original ideas of their own. By pointing those shows that are wholly lacking creative design and thought, they assure themselves that their target audience will be ripe for the picking of their corporate masters.

Their target audience consists of those that will throw away everything that they own, if there is some new version of cool suddenly available. They want the type of people that are barely able to dress themselves. Those that most of us call "The Drooling Masses".

Such marketing is everywhere that you look, the things that you see commercials for that make you think, "My GOD! How stupid is that? What an effin waste!!!" You may also get those thoughts when you see such shows as "Survivor", "American Idol" and all other "Reality" shows. If so, then you must know that you are from being known as a "Drooling Mass".

Had me sold... (3, Troll)

jonfromspace (179394) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299754)

... untill I saw a Baldwin in the cast. Jesus H Christ! Why do those damn Baldwins keep showing up and wrecking perfectly good entertainment...

Dark Angel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4299760)

Isn't this the program that was to take Dark Angels slot (and thus the next series of Dark Angel was cancelled)?

Sorry but anything that takes Jessica Alba off the screen deserves nothing but contempt.

Great.... (3)

Yo Grark (465041) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299762)

Another US Sci-Fi show I really want to watch that will get to Canada in it's 5th season only to be cancelled.

Wait, Kazaa lite just grabbed farscape 3x06 "eat me"

Pretty much sums up what I think of canadian carriers that don't keep up with the US or UK. (can you believe it took 7 years to get only the first season of RedDwarf?)

Funny thing is, they call grabbing shows like these from P2P networks illegal. What's illegal is keeping people 3 years behind in programming.

{Rant off}{Apologize}

-Yo Grark

Re:Great.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4299859)

Um, what part of Canada do you live in??

Its on Fox and Global. If you have cable you should get both. Or you can watch Lexx tonite on City TV or Farscape on VR (in Toronto anyway).

Idiot. Go whine about something real.

on FOX? oh no (1)

TroZ (160902) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299781)

This better be worth losing Futurama and Family Guy.
If it is THAT good, it won't last long on FOX.

Re:on FOX? oh no (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4299829)

Family Guy has ended???? Oh no, Ive just been downloading a load of episodes cos they're funny as fuck and its not shown much here in the UK. I knew futurama had ended but family guy as well!? *sob*

Can't be better than Lexx (3, Funny)

boogershoots (599540) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299783)

Unless US TV has gotten alot more liberal in the past week this show is gonna be a poor man's Lexx.

Naked space chicks = good sci-fi.

Why go into space otherwise?

Of course the greatest sci-fi show of all time is Red Dwarf, hands down.

Rimmer: Need I remind you of Space Corps Directive 914?
Kryten: 914? "No crewmember with false teeth should attempt oral sex in a zero-gravity environment"?

It would be a killer new show (2)

garoush (111257) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299786)

It would be a killer show if T'Pol and/or Seven-of-Nine end up on Firefly with yet another time-travel story.

Imagine T'Pol and Seven-of-Nine teaching those early immature earthen how to handle space the right way.

One Word (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4299789)

Lexx

"Realistic" future, huh? (4, Interesting)

kcbrown (7426) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299797)

So in the show, the entire world is a police state (something we're definitely headed towards), access to space is strictly controlled and monitored (an earthbound government would never jeapordize its power by allowing a group of people to form independent colonies in space when those same people could then lob huge rocks at the earth at will), huge corporations control the world government (it's because of them that we're headed towards a police state right now), technological development is essentially at a standstill because of worldwide enforcement of patents that last hundreds of years and because the government is the only allowed consumer of cutting-edge goodies, and the vast majority of people are members of the corporate slave class (we have that more or less right now, though it's not called that), right?

No? Well, then, I guess this show doesn't "realistically" portray the future.

Might be a good show anyway, though. :-)

So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4299801)

...do we like Firefly today?

Sorry, couldn't resist as this question almost always gets modded up as 5, insightful... ;)

Is Star Wars really that bad? (4, Interesting)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299803)

es, more so than Star Trek and B5, and way past Star Wars.

Not to geek out here but:

I always thought of Star Trek being much more fantastical and silly than the Star Wars movies. Star Wars had interesting politics (revolutionaries vs an empire), no teleportation beams, gravity/flight dynamics, death, drama, etc.

Star Trek always came off, at least to me, as more Joe Sixpack friendly with its sexy aliens, Kirk's unstoppable libido, uninspired sets, and lackluster storylines. Even TNG has a lot of this plus they made the set look more like a corporate office than a military ship.

Perhaps the poster take issue with the religious and paranormal aspects of the force. I'm as non-religious (some would call me anti-religious) as they come, but as an element in the film the force works perfectly and the films would be worse off without it. ST could write off the vulcan mind-meld thing and no one really care or probably even notice.

Nice fan site. (2)

uncoveror (570620) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299809)

Nice fan site. How long will it be before Fox's copyright cops shut it down for infringement?

Wait a sec... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4299811)

This looks like it could be as good as we hope.

I didn't know you were qualified to use the royal pronoun, Taco. When did you get promoted from Cmdr?

Dialog is always Whedon's strong point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4299820)

From what I understand most of the catchy slang on Buffy are original Whedonisms. I can hardly wait to see how he approaches the traditional hurdle of technobabble in a sci-fi setting.

For those complaining about this being derivative, art happens when archetypal themes are translated in a way that allows us to see how they play out in our lives. Successfully interpretting traditional themes into new forms or genres that speak to a particular audience requires both artistic vision and a knack for the craft of writing. I have found Whedon to have a stong ability to create internally consistent and interesting worlds. Moreover, he's a masterful wordsmith.

I have high hopes for this series.

Fan Site? (1)

greenskyx (609089) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299822)

How can there be a fan site if this show premiers later tonight??????

Baldwin brother (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4299824)

Dammit. They have a Baldwin brother in the cast. I hate the Baldwins. Weren't they all supposed to move to Canada if Bush got elected?

A day late, a pilot short? (2)

Raptor CK (10482) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299826)

Funny, from miles away from my Tivo, I seem to have the distinct problem of not being able to add a Season Pass at the moment.

So, Taco, is this just an attempt to mock everyone who won't be able to watch it, and are now far too late to record it?

Looks like I'll be hammering the P2P networks this weekend...

Animerica (2, Insightful)

yojimbo311 (610298) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299850)

From the previews I've seen Firefly seems to take a LOT from Outlaw Star and Cowboy Bebop. I mean a girl curled up in some sort of stasis box? Complete governmental restructure where outlaws are the norm? It even has the same feel as the anime.

All that's missing is a bunch of star ships with arms waving around doing some sort of mechanical kung fu.

Honeslty though, the story is great and I'm personally looking forward to see where they take it.

Geek Friendly? Is That, Like, A Good Thing? (2, Insightful)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 12 years ago | (#4299857)

Me, I'll take good writing and characters I care about, thanks.

Is it Geek-Friendly 'cause it's Science Fiction? Most of the good SF I have read does not translate well into the Geek ouevre of Wookies and Mind-Melds and big-boobied Borg babies in catsuits. The best SF, in my experience usually does not translate easily into episodic TV at all.

Are you calling Firefly "good geek TV" because it is both SF and intelligent? Someone mentioned someplace (maybe on this board) how wonderful FireFly would be because there would be no sound heard when things exploded in space. Well, Oh boy, Roy! Sounds like a best-Drama Emmy candidate to me! Let me race upstairs to set my Tivo...! Hopefully, the writing will extend beyond the use, or non-use, of special effects.

Which is not to say that I don't have high hopes for the show as well. I'm a huge fan of Buffy -- another show Whedon created -- but not because someone "finally got vampires right." I just find it extraordinarily well written, with believeable characters well acted.

Is Buffy "geeky?" Whom do I ask to find out? You?

>as good as we hope.

"We?" Who's "we?" Linux SysAdmins? SlashDot Editors? Buffy Fans? You and your room-mates? Surely you don't expect all SlashDot readers to ever be on the same page on any single topic, do you?

I hope, for Mr. Whedon's sakes, Firefly catches a buzz which extends far, far beyond the parameters of "geek-itude."
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?