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!

Another New Serenity Trailer

Zonk posted about 9 years ago | from the take-me-out-to-the-black dept.

Sci-Fi 175

CABridges writes "Brand new U.S. trailer for Serenity debuted on the SciFi channel tonight, and went online immediately afterwards. A combination of the first trailer and the international trailer, with more new stuff lines. Spoiler virgins beware: some plot is revealed."

cancel ×


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

Can't wait (5, Insightful)

TheShadowHawk (789754) | about 9 years ago | (#13201523)

Can't wait for this film.

I still put a weekly curse on the executives who cancelled the TV series before it could find it's feet.

Serenity NOW!

Re:Can't wait (5, Funny)

bigman2003 (671309) | about 9 years ago | (#13201547)

I was in some stupid 'team building' meeting at work the other day. It was one of those things where they hired a motivational speaker to come in and tell us all how to be good people.

At one point, the speaker was talking about the 'Serenity Poem' and asked if anyone knew it.

So, I raised my hand, and I was sitting there thinking, "Oh yeah, I know that one!"

The instructor called on someone else, and she recited the "God give me the serenity to accept things I cannot change...blah blah blah..."

Whoops, I'm glad she didn't call on me...because I really thought she was looking for the, "Serenity Now, Serenity Now, Serenity Now" mantra from George's dad on Seinfeld.

That probably would have looked stupid...

Re:Can't wait (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13201571)

> That probably would have looked stupid...

You were in a rah-rah meeting, and worrying about looking stupid? Words escape me, I can't even think of a bod metaphore....

Re:Can't wait (1)

aliens (90441) | about 9 years ago | (#13201591)

You could've taken it a step further even, after making the joke you could have gotten up and left. Just like George started doing after his one good joke.

"Thank you and goodnight!"

Re:Can't wait (3, Informative)

Pedrito (94783) | about 9 years ago | (#13201708)

That's the Serenity "Prayer", not "Poem." The Serenity Prayer originated in an obituary in 1942 and was later adopted by Alcoholics Anonymous (and later, other twelve-step programs) as a part of the program.

Re:Can't wait (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13201687)

I saw an unfinished version of the movie last week at a film festival and it was excellent. The girl I took was an Angel fan but had no knowledge of Firefly. She liked the movie more than I did.
I hope they bring back the series.

Re:Can't wait (1)

Eternauta3k (680157) | about 9 years ago | (#13201694)

I personally think it's just one of those series with GREAT trailers and ads, but once they come out they're crap or just can't interest me.

This show was CANCELLED?!?! (2, Insightful)

kaellinn18 (707759) | about 9 years ago | (#13201695)

I just recently started watching Firefly from the beginning on the Sci-fi channel (I missed it the first time around). I cannot believe that this show was cancelled! The writing is phenomenal, and the acting is great! Then again, Fox is the network of idiots that cancelled Family Guy. One can only hope that Sci-fi will pick it up if it does well in the Friday time slot. (And also that Fox lets them; isn't there some kind of legal crap there?)

Regarding the trailer, the best line by far has to be (from memory, so bear with), "Ladies and gentlemen, we could may experience some slight turbulence... and then explode." Perfect delivery. I can't wait for this movie!

Re:This show was CANCELLED?!?! (2, Interesting)

jacen_sunstrider (797955) | about 9 years ago | (#13201807)

I rather preferred..."Define interesting." "Oh god, oh god, we're all going to die?"

As for sci-fi picking it up...from what I read, which is based entirely off comments I've read in other threads, Fox has some kind of insane contract which makes picking ip Firefly impossible; it stipulates there being no new episodes. However, it didn't say anything about a movie, so, here's a movie!

Someone more informed should correct me about the contract if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure it's not that far off the mark.

Re:This show was CANCELLED?!?! (1)

The Barking Dog (599515) | about 9 years ago | (#13201881)

I think the bargain was that if the show was to return, it would have to be produced/aired by Fox, and Joss Whedon refuses to ever work with them again (don't know if he meant the Fox network, or 20th Century Fox).

Re:This show was CANCELLED?!?! (1)

SilentShriek (903213) | about 9 years ago | (#13201957)

If a movie can be made, maybe SciFi could run a miniseries or two, as was initially done with Battlestar. Technically a long movie, not a TV show... ah, pipe dreams.

Re:This show was CANCELLED?!?! (2, Informative)

Kesh (65890) | about 9 years ago | (#13202223)

One can only hope that Sci-fi will pick it up if it does well in the Friday time slot. (And also that Fox lets them; isn't there some kind of legal crap there?)

Yep. Fox owns all the rights to Firefly on television, and likely won't give any other channel the rights to pick it up again without paying hordes of cash. Same thing happened with TNT and Babylon 5: Crusade: Sci-Fi wanted to pick it up, TNT demanded way too much money, so it didn't happen.

Re:Can't wait (1)

filekutter (617285) | about 9 years ago | (#13201868)

I agree wholeheartedly, I CAN"T WAIT !!! And, may I also point out that because it was at the end of another episode of Battlestar Galactica I am sorely pressed to find another hour of TV that was so richly stocked with EVERYTHING I wanted. Thank you Battlestar, thank you Joss. Yes, i'm a Browncoat... I admit it.

lol internets (1)

evilmeow (839786) | about 9 years ago | (#13201528)

lol internets

Download link? (1)

Omicron32 (646469) | about 9 years ago | (#13201529)

Anyone got a downloadable link?

Re:Download link? (5, Informative)

mboverload (657893) | about 9 years ago | (#13201551) railer_2/large.html []

Not downloadable, but it actually works, unlike the one on the site. At least for me.

Re:Download link? (3, Informative)

mboverload (657893) | about 9 years ago | (#13201666)

Also, if you would like the play the trailer outside of the webpage and fullscreen use this Firefox extension. yerconnectivity [] Although VLC will play it outside I suggest Quicktime because it looks like it is the only player that buffers the stream. You can stretch the video to as big as your screen, which is really cool.

Re:Download link? (1)

ArmorFiend (151674) | about 9 years ago | (#13202152)

Interesting extension.

I have a somewhat related mozilla question.

It often happens that web pages hosting PDFs and whatnot rig the links to open in a new window. With firefox this is a pain, because you click the link, an empty browser window comes up, then download manager comes up, then xpdf comes up. 4 windows for one damn document! I found the pref to cause download manager to not pop up, but I was wondering if you know of any way to get the empty browser window to not come up?

Re:Download link? (1)

LetterJ (3524) | about 9 years ago | (#13202197)

You do know you can have VLC buffer pretty much anything right? It's one of the settings when you open a file, filestream, etc. I use it all the time to stream DVD ISO files across my wireless network. Due to phones, microwaves, etc. you occasionally need 20 seconds or so of buffering for a DVD.

VLC really takes the idea of "everything's a file" to a neat level with media. Everything can be an input and everything can be an output. Transcode, stream, buffer, etc. If you can open it with VLC, you can also save it into whatever else you want or stream it to wherever you want.

Re:Download link? (1)

bryan986 (833912) | about 9 years ago | (#13202007)

Direct Link []

Re:Download link? (3, Informative)

NetNifty (796376) | about 9 years ago | (#13201565)

Here. []

Re:Download link? (1)

cerebis (560975) | about 9 years ago | (#13201610)

Does anyone else hug the utility of wget and strings when attempting to overcome streaming links? :)

Re:Download link? (1)

3vi1 (544505) | about 9 years ago | (#13202057)

Follow the source, it always knows! And... uh, peak in the fake .mov redirector they throw in.

Large Version Here []

Requires DRM - fsck YOU JOSS!!! (1)

mosel-saar-ruwer (732341) | about 9 years ago | (#13202346)

As I type, this is what is installed on the computer:
Windows XP 5.1.2600 SP2 Build 2600

Windows Media Player
This is the error message that I get when I try to run the file "serenityT1_720p_8mbit_LTRT_NR.wmv":
The owner of the protected content you are trying to access requires you to first upgrade some of the Microsoft digital rights management (DRM) components on your computer.

Click OK to upgrade your DRM components.


When you click OK, a unique identifier and a DRM security file are sent to a Microsoft service on the Internet. The file is replaced with a customized version that contains your unique identifier.

This increases the level of protection provided by DRM.

I guess we were wrong about Joss.

Shiny! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13201530)

Shiny! :D

Why so many? (-1, Troll)

CypherXero (798440) | about 9 years ago | (#13201537)

What is with posting the trailer every week on Slashdot? This makes like the third time a Serenity trailer has been posted. Enough already!

Slashdot Declaration of Independence (-1, Offtopic)

guriri (903842) | about 9 years ago | (#13201541)

Slashdot Declaration of Independence (Quick summary: use [] When other tech companies severely take advantage of their customers, dismissing any notion of customer service or satisfaction, they are no doubt subject to criticism by the ever vigilant masses of Slashdot. Why should Slashdot itself be any different? We must remember that slashdot makes money off subscriptions and ad revenues. There is no altruistic motivation behind their actions, and as such, the Slashdot editors are not so much editors as they are salesman. In addition, we must remember that Slashdot is NOT a legitimate journalistic endeavor. These so-called editors did not attend journalism school, nor is there a centralized forum to air grievances done on the site. To the slashdot editors, their words are final, and cannot be criticized. We put forth three major grievances we have with Slashdot and its editors. 1. Complete lack of dupe checking and article checking: Imagine a newspaper that routinely prints stories from months, weeks and even days before. Image the same newspaper placing all import on the headline, rather than the content. Surely this newspaper would not last long. If the readers would write in to the editor to complain, surely they wouldn't have chastised by the editor. Yet, as we are all aware of, this is the biggest problem facing slashdot. Although there is no editorial section in which we may submit letters, we have the option to directly emailing the editors. What happens when we do? We are scolded and our opinions are labeled as hate mail. _dupe_lash_out/ [] 2. Increased commercialization behind articles: Many recent articles seem to be advertisement for products, and not really newsworthy. Other articles (including the recent "discovery" of month old google products) try to get Slashdot in good graces with particular organizations. Here are more examples of such "Slash-vertisement" tech_slashvertisement/ [] 3. Blatant editor errors: The role of an editor is to oversee the final content of text before it goes into publication. That, believe it or not, includes checking minor errors in HTML and spelling, in addition to larger errors. There are several instances of items just not being checked: id=13170467 [] 209&cid=13177798 [] &cid=13172520 [] id=13159282 [] Where as grievance one details the question of "newsworthiness" of an article, grievance three points out instances where article and summary do not agree, in addition to the smaller problems of spell checking etc. Resolution: We do not have to stand for this lack of respect toward the customer. There are alternatives to slashdot. [] has had good reviews from the slashdot crowd. If leaving slashdot all together seems too extremist you can start demanding better treatment from the editors. Demand a public forum where we can discuss our issues with slashdot, and see that they are resolved. Demand more from this money-making machine! You are all its customers. You have the power! (Links taken from []

Out of sync (1)

Robotech_Master (14247) | about 9 years ago | (#13201544)

Am I the only one for whom the video runs about double-speed while the audio plays normally? Any suggestions on how to watch the trailer with sync?

Re:Out of sync (1)

Robotech_Master (14247) | about 9 years ago | (#13201560)

never's apparently something with my computer.

For those who cannot 'view source' on teh intarweb (2, Informative)

tod_miller (792541) | about 9 years ago | (#13201549)

Downloadable link

Right click 'Save Link As...' []

To confirm you're not a script,
please type the word in this image: arrack

Re:For those who cannot 'view source' on teh intar (1, Informative)

Robotech_Master (14247) | about 9 years ago | (#13201568)

Nice gesture, wrong trailer.

That file is trailer 1.

The one this story is about is trailer 2.

Trailer 2 Download link (1)

tod_miller (792541) | about 9 years ago | (#13201578)

Trailer 2 here, right click and save file as... []

They had trailer 2 above trailer 1, a bit counter intuitive... (or not for bloggites).

(WORKING):Trailer 2 Download link (4, Informative)

tod_miller (792541) | about 9 years ago | (#13201586)

Without typo link - fsk it!!! []

Yeah, I typo'd it seeing if I could get a higher res version...

no download there i'm afraid (1)

bani (467531) | about 9 years ago | (#13201589)

thats not the trailer download link. thats the mov metafile.

Quote (2)

superid (46543) | about 9 years ago | (#13201553)

"This is going to get interesting"
"define 'interesting'"
"oh god, oh god we're all going to die?"

Loved the delivery, can't wait to see this :)

Re:Quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13202140)

You know what I hate about Firefly?

The intro.

Its a hackneyed western homage that really makes the series sound ... bad.

Lets see whats wrong with it.

1. Lyrics in a scifi series. strike one.
2. Horrible lyrics at that. strike two.
3. Country music lyrics. good freaking god.

I'd pay good money to have them change that so where I didn't cringe every time I hear "You can't take the sky from me!"

No wonder nobody watched it..

Re:Quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13202318)

You know what I hate about Firefly?

It wasn't the Bachelor, So you think you can Dance, or Real World? People like you didn't watch it because they like shitty TV.

My word was dilute.

Re:Quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13202410)

You're a fucking idiot.

I watched firefly. I loved it.

Its not perfect, and the one thing that stands out the fucking most was that god awful intro.

My complaints were not a pot-shot at Firefly, and it wasn't a troll.

However, your reply was.

It wasn't the Bachelor, So you think you can Dance, or Real World? People like you didn't watch it because they like shitty TV.

Keep making excuses for why people don't watch it. "They must suck! Yeah, thats it!"

Enterprise suffered a similar fate. And I'm sure they said the same thing "People must be watching crap instead! This shit is perfect, P E R F E C T!"

The real question is... (4, Insightful)

WebHostingGuy (825421) | about 9 years ago | (#13201554)

How much money does the film have to make before they bring back the series?

Re:The real question is... (1)

coop0030 (263345) | about 9 years ago | (#13201627)

I'm not sure, but I'll do my part and watch it in theaters 3 times or more.

I really, really want this series to make a comeback (ala Family Guy).

This was one of the first Sci-Fi series I truly enjoyed on TV. The characters were simply engaging, and always left me wanting more.

It is truly an amazing show.

Re:The real question is... (3, Interesting)

Adrilla (830520) | about 9 years ago | (#13201638)

From what I remember from previous stories, there's contracts with the tv show producers that wont let it comeback on tv for something like 10 years. But there is a 3 picture deal, so the question is "How much money does it have to make to get a sequel?"

Re:The real question is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13202083)

I don't think that's accurate. IIRC, Fox owns the TV rights for 10 years. So, either Fox is convinced to bring back the TV series, or some other network negotiates to buy the rights from Fox.

Re:The real question is... (1)

maxume (22995) | about 9 years ago | (#13201651)

Not enough. In order for there to be a television series again, the film company has to pass on thier option for a second film...

Re:The real question is... (1)

WickedClean (230550) | about 9 years ago | (#13202133)

I think I'd rather have a trilogy of great movies first, then maybe do a mini-series out of it. The series would be pretty expensive to keep going for a while, plus it would be a step down to go from a big movie back to a series.

Re:The real question is... (1)

thiophene (216836) | about 9 years ago | (#13202403)

Actually, in the special features on the DVD, they comment about how cheap this series was to produce. And I have to admit, I would have guessed otherwise, because it is done so well.

Having downloaded it (see link post) (1)

tod_miller (792541) | about 9 years ago | (#13201559)

I would say it looks ok, the 'science' part seems (on the surface, pun intended) a little shallow - and the effects look like starwars episode 4 (the dodging of shots on the moving hover vehicles).

But, that aside, I hope the acting and story can push this into a mainstream audience, and perhaps even entertain!

Aside from this, the 'unique future' seems a little cliche actually, and tired formula, are there any new concepts in this?

Re:Having downloaded it (see link post) (1)

Beowulfto (169354) | about 9 years ago | (#13201702)

The literal "Old West" motif intrigues me. Everything from characterization, to actions, and even the costumes. I watched the end of the series pilot on SciFi last-night and enjoyed it. Whedon's writing is still great ("You want to run this ship?"..."Yeah!"...."Well, can't") and the casting/acting are very good. I have high hopes, both for the movie, and that success will lead SciFi to add it to their catalog of great original shows.

Rent it, rent it, rent it. (2, Insightful)

malex23 (645752) | about 9 years ago | (#13202148)

Rent the DVDs. I cannot stress this enough. Even out of people who saw a couple out-of-sequence airings on Fox and were underwhelmed, I don't know anyone who wasn't blown away by watching the series on DVD. I mean, I'm sure it's not for _everyone_, but if you're reading Slashdot, it's probably for you.

Re:Having downloaded it (see link post) (1)

SamSim (630795) | about 9 years ago | (#13202545)

The science part IS shallow and this is intentional. How the ship actually moves from star system to star system is not just totally unknown but utterly irrelevant to the story. All that matters is that it does - or sometimes, it breaks down, and they need spare parts. The emphasis of the story of Firefly is on the people and how they interact, not on scientific babble.

In this respect it is, indeed, very much like Star Wars. There's been a lot written about "the science of Star Wars", but in the movies themselves, there's very little attempt to explain how e.g. the Death Star or lightsabers actually work. In fact the one time Lucas tried to actually provide some sort of explanation for the Force (the midichlorians thing), it proved to be a bad move and was almost universally panned. Sometimes it's better to leave things to fantasy. The technology you use in a story is completely secondary to the story itself. This is true of all science fiction.

Google (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13201561)

Google is doing evil. [] Why wont Slashdot report it? Would it interefere with their business relationship, or would it ruin the childish myth they are perpetuation of "good megacorporation" vs. "evil megacorporation" that has been so good for page views and ad exposure?

Gotta say it... (3, Funny)

The I Shing (700142) | about 9 years ago | (#13201567)


Looks average to me? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13201605)

I never watched the show, but just from the trailer it looks like a buncha eye candy covering up a Trendy Teenie SCI-FI movie. Im expecting shoddy acting from what ive seen so far. Ima sci-fi junkie so ill check it out either way, but so far it looks forgettable. DOnt understand the hype....maybe it was cancelled for good reason.

Re:Looks average to me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13202404)

You're a scifi junkie but you never watched the show? That's like saying your a muslim but you never read the Koran.

superheros (1)

Nick Mitchell (1011) | about 9 years ago | (#13201606)

i guess it looks kinda fun

it reminds me that one of the neat things about the movie Aliens was
how the hero didn't overcome by some inherent, over even trained,
super skills. in fact, it is the inherently skilled (the android
bishop) or trained ones who all die. it's so rare to have superheros
these days that overcome through perseverance and wisdom and intuition
(not knowing fancy fighting skills like they show in the Serenity
trailer, or how to build things or hotwire --- just knowing what makes
sense to do at any one time)

i also liked the whole inverted parenting themes (super corporations
and military as caretakers; the aliens breeding by growing inside of
foreign hosts, ripley being a good mother to someone she doesn't even

but serenity looks like it might be fun

Above not as OT as it appears (1)

runlvl0 (198575) | about 9 years ago | (#13201889)

The above comment might look completely off-topic until you realize that he's
  1. actually talking about Alien Resurrection (also known as Alien 4),
  2. which was written (in part) by Joss Whedon, the creator of Firefly (and Serenity, the movie under discussion).
And yes, Serenity is a lot of fun, right up until the last reel (6/23 preview), which I'm still kind of hoping was a Whedon/Universal fake-out, anyway.

"Do you know what your sin is?"
"No, but I'm leaning towards wrath."

Re:superheros (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13202286) of the neat things about the movie Aliens was how the hero didn't overcome by some inherent, over even trained, super skills... it's so rare to have superheros these days that overcome through perseverance and wisdom and intuition...

But doesn't that "overcome through perseverance and wisdom and intuition" - rather than through talent or skill - describe Captain Reynolds perfectly?

Cool Sci Fi shows and cancellations (4, Interesting)

Ohmster (843198) | about 9 years ago | (#13201643)

Serenity definitely looks cool. With a broadband internet, we may be entering a time when cool, emerging shows dont get cancelled because they cannot find a big enough audience on TV or cable. Remember Star Trek was cancelled in the sixties for that reason and brought back via movies because of a core, but economically small audience. With the internet, audiences can be smaller and still allow the producers and distributors to make a profit. The day of broadband doing an end run around cable and TV are near. More here: l []

No audio? (1)

Lord Byron II (671689) | about 9 years ago | (#13201662)

I'm trying to play this on SuSE9.3 with mplayer and the codecs package. The video is perfect, but the audio is absent. Anyone have any suggestions?

Re:No audio? (1)

keesh (202812) | about 9 years ago | (#13201680)

Compile your own mplayer, or switch to a distribution that ships a non-crippled build. It's fine in mplayer 1.0_pre7 on Gentoo.

Re:No audio? (1)

nutshell42 (557890) | about 9 years ago | (#13202079)

You need the correct codecs. In this case you need the windows codec pack from the mplayer homepage [] (there is an open source decoder for the video which is why you only lack sound). If SuSE's compiled mplayer with support for win32 codecs you only need to install the codec pack and it will play. If they didn't you'll also have to recompile mplayer.

If you don't have a PC but something else you're out of luck afaik.

Huh? (3, Interesting)

healy (234314) | about 9 years ago | (#13201671)

Maybe it's time to turn in my Geek card, but I fail to see the appeal of this. I'm a sci-fi nut & tried to watch the show when it was on but I thought it was some of the lamest acting and plot I'd ever seen. It was like a really bad western in space. I can't see why people are drooling over this movie coming out. I liked Buffy as much as the next person, but this seemed really weak to me.

People on slashdot have an orgasm every time this movie is mentioned...I just don't get it.

Re:Huh? (5, Insightful)

PenguinOpus (556138) | about 9 years ago | (#13201683)

Watch the DVD set in its intended order and the show is much easier to appreciate. The apparently really botched it when they aired it originally. Another reason to pray for the (corporate) deaths of the executives at Fox who managed this.

(I watched 7 seasons of Buffy on DVD and the found Firefly on DVD and really enjoyed it)

Re:Huh? (1)

dentar (6540) | about 9 years ago | (#13201962)

Other than The X-Files, Fox couldn't sci-fi its way out of a paper bag! They've tried many times to sustain a sci-fi show and almost had it with "Millennium" and in the end screwed that one up too. Time slot is everything!!

Re:Huh? (1)

rikkards (98006) | about 9 years ago | (#13202171)

I think the problem with Millenium was that it was based around Y2K . Once that passed it was doomed.

Just started watching Firefly and am truly enjoying it. I suspect that we will see the movie as well.

Re:Huh? (-1, Flamebait)

realmolo (574068) | about 9 years ago | (#13201728)

I don't get it either. I forced myself to watch the DVDs, because I thought that it would "get good any minute now". But it never did.

"Firefly" tried too hard to be clever and cute and funny, and failed. Much like the majority of post-Season 3 "Buffy" episodes.

Face it, Joss Whedon blew his whole wad on the first few seasons of "Buffy". Everything since then, including "Angel", has been a weak re-tread.

Re:Huh? (5, Insightful)

Rayston (454282) | about 9 years ago | (#13201969)

I have learned to just agree to disagree with opinions like this. You think the first 3 seasons of buffy were the best? I liked them the least. I thought the plot really got good and interesting after that, I think fireflys plot was the absoloute best series joss ever did, and possibly the best series on TV.

Neither of us are "wrong". Its just a difference in taste, I like the exact kinds of plots that you apparently dislike.

Ever heard of the Series "A song of Ice and Fire" by George R.R Martin? Its a plot intrigue fantasy book. I LOVE this series. I recommended it to a friend, not really thinking about his normal taste in books. He hated all the plot intrigue and deception stuff, I couldnt relate, the whole reason I liked the books in the first place was the intrigue and deception angle, which is exactly what he hated about it.

Difference of opinion, I think stuff like that is good, he didnt.

You think the "monster of the week" and dramatic love story of angel buffy that were the focus in seasons 1-3 were good. I think they were overdone and some of joss's most "just okay" work.

I like the plots and characters presented after season 3 for various reasons, you apparently think they were weak.

Thats ok.

we simply dont like the same things.

I hate when the "geek" community gets in a silly argument about which scifi show is better, sometimes theres truly atrocious shows that noone with any taste should consider, but far more often theres just different scifi for different people. Me? Ill take my western in space and have fun thank you very much.



Re:Huh? (0, Flamebait)

healy (234314) | about 9 years ago | (#13201760)

I love the mods...ANY criticism MUST equal Flaimbait. Sheesh.

Re:Huh? (1)

SilentShriek (903213) | about 9 years ago | (#13201981)

It was like a really bad western in space.

I think the cross-genre campiness is part of the appeal.

Re:Huh? (1)

Zurion (2775) | about 9 years ago | (#13202192)

I have to agree with PenguinOpus. I had the same opinion until I borrowed the DVD's from a friend. After watching them all in order I was hooked.

The character development in this series was much more involved and enjoyable than some of the storylines. In fact, I can't think of any other television show that's had as many characters with as detailed (or mysterious) backgrounds. However, I think the network cut the series before anyone had a chance to get a feel for anything.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13202195)

I fail to see the appeal of this. I'm a sci-fi nut & tried to watch... I can't see why people are drooling... I liked Buffy...

Well, people do say that this is different from Whedon's other stuff. I hate hate hate Buffy, but I like Firefly.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13202328)

Fine, you don't get it. Just means one less person I have to worry about being ahead of me in line on opening day.

Now go away.

De gustibus non est disputandum (1)

jfengel (409917) | about 9 years ago | (#13202434)

I thought the actors gave lovely downplayed performances. I thought the visuals were stylish and captivating. I thought the writing was sharp and incisive and funny.

But hey, apparently there's no accounting for taste. Just skip all of the future Serenity threads.

One thing I can say is that I felt that the earliest episodes were not the strongest. You could try Shindig, which was one of the funniest episodes, but whether it would work if you weren't already into the characters, I just can't say.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13202485)

I'll get flamed for this, but you don't have to like it. And that's OK. I didn't like Buffy the brain-cell slayer series.

Re:Huh? (2, Insightful)

mkv (174769) | about 9 years ago | (#13202582)

Maybe it's time to turn in my Geek card, but I fail to see the appeal of this. I'm a sci-fi nut & tried to watch the show when it was on but I thought it was some of the lamest acting and plot I'd ever seen. It was like a really bad western in space. I can't see why people are drooling over this movie coming out. I liked Buffy as much as the next person, but this seemed really weak to me.

    Some wise guy once said "opinions are like assholes, everybody's got one" and I have to agree with the smarta*s.. To me, Firefly was a great show that combined all my favourite elements from SciFi, comedy and westerns with a funny plot and a couple foxy chicks into what turned out to be one of my all-time favourite tv shows. I really wanted to murder somebody when I found out there were no more of it coming.
    Talking about Buffy, I fail to see it's appeal tho'.. never liked that kind of generic blondes.

it's the script... (1)

tyroneking (258793) | about 9 years ago | (#13201722)

never mind the effects and the acting, they're a minor distraction. If Joss didn't need actors and a set then you'd still get the best bits - the plot and the script. Joss really should try going to radio (whoops! I meant podcasts ;)
The last bit of the first (?) trailer has a clue to the brilliance of his work. That's why we're all so excited about it.
Wouldn't it be cool if the production team from the new Battlestar Galactica got together with Joss ...

Re:it's the script... (1)

malex23 (645752) | about 9 years ago | (#13202160)

"never mind the effects and the acting, they're a minor distraction. If Joss didn't need actors and a set then you'd still get the best bits - the plot and the script."

So read the X-Men comics he's writing.

hm (0)

yathosho (648804) | about 9 years ago | (#13201771)

whats all this hype about? this somehow looks like tv-series niveau. can anyone explain?

Re:hm (1)

op51n (544058) | about 9 years ago | (#13202329)

As mentioned in the post displaying above this one, what is looking so incredibly fantastic about this (a month to go, woop) is the fact that Joss Whedon is possibly the best screen writer around. The guy is just phenomenal. And I have to say, he probably became my favourite comic book writer with Fray too.

If you go back and watch Buffy, and the Joss episodes particularly, you can see just how good he is, but Firefly is something special. I guess I'm also biased in that the setting just felt so right for me.

Thanks for the spoiler warning (1)

Dr. Spork (142693) | about 9 years ago | (#13201825)

I think I was one of the whiners who complained last time that the first trailer gave away too much. I appreciate the warning this time around. Luckily I now forgot a lot of what happened in the first trailer. Good. I can't wait for the movie!

8 weeks (1)

deafff (604798) | about 9 years ago | (#13201886)

8 weeks to go. Aargh.

Book? (1)

newswilson (622844) | about 9 years ago | (#13201948)

Is Shepherd Book in the movie?

I had heard he wasn't coming back, but IMBD has him on the cast page.

He also isn't in the trailers.

Re:Book? (1)

fetta (141344) | about 9 years ago | (#13201976)

Yes, he's definitely in the new movie. Saw a sneak preview a few weeks ago. To say anything more on the subject would be a spoiler.

BTW, I liked it, and was a big fan of the series, but it still was a bit of a letdown. One of the joys of the series was the way that Whedon was able to let some of the plot lines develop slowly. In the movie, it ends up feeling rushed by comparison.

Re:Book? (1)

marcsherman (300604) | about 9 years ago | (#13202138)

I haven't seen the trailers or a preview yet, so this isn't a spoiler, just a guess. In fact, I'm only 3/4 through the DVDs.

I'm betting we'll find out what was up with that ident card Book had in Safe. And it won't be good.

Re:Book? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13202224)

IMDB knows all!!!!!
All hail the mighty IMDB!!!

Where is Book? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13202157)

Is the shepard not in the movie? I've not seen even a glimpse of him in any trailer, or in any of the publicity materials.

What's bugging me... (1)

SvnLyrBrto (62138) | about 9 years ago | (#13202179)

... is that by the end of then DVD set; it was fairly obvious that the alliance was modding River into some sort of super assassin/warrior chick. This being something so overdone that it's cliche. That made Shepherd Book, to me, a much more enigmatic, and therefore more interesting, character.

But he's, again, conspicuously absent from a trailer. Yeah, I remember a few trailers ago when someone claimed that you can frame-by-frame it, and see a shot or two of him. I didn't actually bother, because even if he's THERE, it's still obvious that his role is very much reduced. And that's a shame. I think it'd have been more interesting to see what Books past was, and have it catch up to him; than it will be to see River turn into a standard-issue warrior-babe.


Re:What's bugging me... (1)

Lagged2Death (31596) | about 9 years ago | (#13202340) was fairly obvious that the alliance was modding River into some sort of super assassin/warrior chick. This being something so overdone that it's cliche.

Agree completely. I just watched this trailer with the SO, and I said something like "It's not enough that she's a Super-Genius with psychic powers? She has to know kung-fu too? Cripes, she's Superman! What does she even need the rest of the gang for?"

Suddenly it the movie starts to look like Fists Of Buffy In Spaaaaaace!

But that's what's selling at the box office today, I guess.

I'd just like to say... (1)

Dixie_Flatline (5077) | about 9 years ago | (#13202341)



What is so good about this movie? (0, Troll)

mnemonic_ (164550) | about 9 years ago | (#13202450)

I guess I'm a troll because I dissent with the party line, but why does this movie look good? The "bad boy" characters are completely Hollywood cliche by now, as is most of the humor in the trailer (airline pilot imitations are no longer funny). Some of the fight scenes are cool I admit, but big fucking deal; it's a little flash to distract the viewer from:
  1. Lack of story
  2. Flat characters
  3. Script worthy of a thousand groans
Now, none of us have actually seen the movie in full. But I don't see why everyone is getting excited over these lame trailers. I only hope the real movie is better than what's been flauted about so far.

Mod me down because you disagree with me.

Re:What is so good about this movie? (1)

jokell82 (536447) | about 9 years ago | (#13202494)

No one needs to mod you down for disagreeing, although you could be modded down because you're wrong.
Now, none of us have actually seen the movie in full
There have been two runs of preview screenings so far, and my bet is many /.ers have seen it.

Also, if you have ever seen Firefly, you'd know that there *is* a story, the characters are anything but flat, and Joss Whedon is a terrific writer.

Re:What is so good about this movie? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13202610)

Also, if you have ever seen Firefly, you'd know that there *is* a story, the characters are anything but flat, and Joss Whedon is a terrific writer.

And if you disagree, may you catch dysentery and die.

Re:What is so good about this movie? (1)

QAPete (717838) | about 9 years ago | (#13202607)

I thought the TV series was smartly written and had pretty cool stories to tell (hey, what's original anymore anyway?), but what didn't work for me was the Western+Space Adventure aspect of the series. You might as well cast Britney Spears as Xena, Warrior Princess, or Andy Dick as The Thing. Westerns turn most people off, and everything western about Firefly/Serenity is going to be a turnoff as well, including the theme music.

So, to summarize (0, Flamebait)

isecore (132059) | about 9 years ago | (#13202558)

twenty million fanboys drool all over their pants. News at eleven.

Seriously, am I the only scifinerd that found the series to be a complete yawn? Totally boring, and yes I did watch it on DVD in "proper" order. Didn't help with the wooden acting and the tons of scifi-clichés that was dumped upon my head.

(Yes, go ahead and mod me "flamebait" now)

The Big news here (1)

tenchiken (22661) | about 9 years ago | (#13202616)

is that MPAA seems to have re-rated Serenity. The fan showings were all rated R, this is Rated PG-13. One of the things I love about the movie is how intense it is. Hopefully, it doesn't loose that intensity.

Re: Another New Serenity Trailer (NOT) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13202646)

This trailer has been available for MONTHS on the Apple Quicktime movie trailers page. The HD version, if you've got the hardware to run it, is pretty awesome.

Wow. Who did the music for this trailer? (1)

fahrvergnugen (228539) | about 9 years ago | (#13202658)

Is... is that Gravity Kills I heard in the background at the end of the trailer?

Holy 1997, Batman.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>