First Serenity Trailer.... Uhhhh, hell yeah.

[Viin]

Is it true that River is in fact made entirely out of chocolate?

No.


She has caramel in the middle.

[eldaec]

Does anyone remember what episode Sheppard Book stops showing up in? Anyways, he's in the movie but doesn't travel with them.

He joins the show on the first eipsode, still in there for the last.

That's no shepard

I seem to remember he wasn't in the hospital raid episode to any great extent.

[gimpyone]

According to imdb:

 Takes place six months after the episode "Objects in Space" of "Firefly"

[Hanzii]

Lately I've found myself to agree more and more with Schild (it's scary).
So I bought the Firefly box. Great show... and I'm in love with the mechanic.
I'm looking forward to the movie... but unless it does really really well in the US, it probably won't get a cinema release here.




(also, cross fingers for me. The countrys bigges television station need a buyers assistant with the exact responsibility of buying US television shows - basically it would mean watching pilots and travelling to Cannes and the US a lot. Watch television for a living!)

[Shockeye]

Lately I've found myself to agree more and more with Schild (it's scary).
So I bought the Firefly box. Great show... and I'm in love with the mechanic.

I'm pretty sure schild despises all things Whedon.

[Hanzii]

I'm pretty sure schild despises all things Whedon.

I thought he loved Firefly?
Maybe he was just being sarcastic or I'm remembering wrong and it's back to just disagreeing about everything.
It's still a good show... not BSG good, but to good to axe after a season.

[schild]

I didn't like firefly for very different reasons than I didn't like the rest of his stuff.

Firefly could have (should have) been great. Thing is, I agree with the people who canceled the show. He takes way too fucking long between major plot points. It would have taken him 2 full seasons at the rate he was going to resolve a single part of the actual story. I don't like my TV spread out that far - it's one of the reasons I like box sets (of things like 24) - I can get the whole story in 2-3 sittings. Firefly, in the handful of released episodes simply didn't resolve enough for me to give a flying fuck. I'm sure it could have been great if he'd progressed in double/triple time. And it would probably (still) be on the air. The masses (in america) don't like slow drawn out bullshit anymore, it's why things like West Wing, Alias, CSI and other shows are so well received. Every episode ties up a loose end, tells a complete story, reveals something about the characters and leaves you with a cliffhanger for the next episode. THAT'S efficient television.

[Pococurante]

Long story arcs are exactly what made B5 so excellent for me.  I don't expect we'll see many serial TV shows that are free to explore that sort of depth for exactly the reasons you outlined.  Shame really but such is the medium.

[schild]

Had Firefly been on Sci-Fi I'm sure it would have lasted through it's run even with the slow storylines. And who knows, maybe they'll pick it up.

Though, I think I'd rather them pick up Veritas: The Quest as the cliffhanger was a kick to the goddamn balls.

[Johny Cee]

Long story arcs are exactly what made B5 so excellent for me.  I don't expect we'll see many serial TV shows that are free to explore that sort of depth for exactly the reasons you outlined.  Shame really but such is the medium.

The general complaint about all things Whedon isn't that it's a serial,  it's that there isn't an depth.  Basically,  sum up the plot to any one season of a Whedon show.....   honestly, once you boil it down, there isn't anything going on.  With the box set, you're 2/3 of the way through the season and about 5 sentences of appreciable story arc have gone on. 

Usually Whedon shits out 2 or 3 episodes near the end of a season that solidifies and sets up the finale.  And this is coming from a guy who generally LIKES his shows.  But then it really kills rewatching any of it,  since now you know most of the episodes are mostly pointless.  I can see why casual viewers are turned off.

It's like that guy we all know that takes 15 minutes to tell a 2 minute story.

Of course,  Firefly had the brillance of Adam Baldwin as Jayne.

[Pococurante]

The general complaint about all things Whedon isn't that it's a serial,  it's that there isn't an depth.  Basically,  sum up the plot to any one season of a Whedon show.....   honestly, once you boil it down, there isn't anything going on.

Heh well I have to agree - he's no JMS.

[Ironwood]

My only comment, having bought the Box Set and watching it, is that there's a special level of hell reserved for those who cancelled it.  One reserved for Child Molesters and people who talk at the theatre.


Seriously, Schild, your complaint is that it's not 'efficient' television ?  Fuck me.

[schild]

Seriously, Schild, your complaint is that it's not 'efficient' television ?  Fuck me.

When I watch an hour of modern TV I expect something to happen. I don't see where I lost you there.

[eldaec]

Seriously, Schild, your complaint is that it's not 'efficient' television ?  Fuck me.

When I watch an hour of modern TV I expect something to happen. I don't see where I lost you there.

Compared to what you can find in an average hour of modern television I didn't think firefly was *that* slow. Doesn't run at 24 speed certainly, but still.

I have to admit that, as is the case with most decent television, I only it watched on DVD, so was watching several episodes at a time.

Adverts suck.


In other Firefly/Serenity news....

From Sci Fi Wire...

Dark Horse Comics will release a three-issue miniseries that bridges the Firefly TV show with its upcoming feature-film version, Serenity, to be written by director Joss Whedon.

http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=comics&Number=2795314&bodyprev=#Post2795314

I have no idea why CoH devs are posting such announcements; I guess they just really really like Firefly.

[Ironwood]

Seriously, Schild, your complaint is that it's not 'efficient' television ?  Fuck me.

When I watch an hour of modern TV I expect something to happen. I don't see where I lost you there.

Ah, sorry, I'll explain :  You lost me right about the part where you turned into a raging douche.  And folks keep telling me it ain't that week yet.

The purpose of television is not to be efficient, but to entertain.  I got my money's worth.  If you didn't, I suggest you say 'I didn't like it' and then shut your mouth.

Cheers.

[schild]

The purpose is to entertain in 45 minutes with 15 minutes of commercials. Perhaps you don't know what efficient means, but I don't watch TV to kill 45 minutes. I want TV to be more exciting than whatever else I could be doing. If that wasn't clear - well, that's not my fault.

Edit: As for watching TV on DVD - sure, I watched Firefly in I think 2 sittings or so, but I didn't leave it caring about the rest of the story, mostly because as far as cliffhangers go, it was chock full of meh.

[Margalis]

The general complaint about all things Whedon isn't that it's a serial,  it's that there isn't an depth.  Basically,  sum up the plot to any one season of a Whedon show.....   honestly, once you boil it down, there isn't anything going on. 

You mean "Buffy hearts Angel" isn't a full season of plot right there? Or "Buffy hearts super-solider Riley"?

Everything about Whedon's stuff to me is superficial. It's a lot like Tarantino stuff, actually. A lot of "clever" characters spouting "clever" dialog but not a lot of real character development or a whole lot actually happening. I don't think shows need to be plot-heavy, but fiction in general needs to have either strong plot or strong characterization. A show like The Shield is a good bit of both, B5 was probably more on the plot-heavy side, and a good sitcom is strong on the characterization side. But you have to have at least one.

Clever people making clever puns and pop culture references can only entertain for so long. I kind of liked Buffy for a season or two because it was sort of new and different, but once the new and different wore off there wasn't a whole lot left over.

[Velorath]

You mean "Buffy hearts Angel" isn't a full season of plot right there? Or "Buffy hearts super-solider Riley"?

Everything about Whedon's stuff to me is superficial. It's a lot like Tarantino stuff, actually. A lot of "clever" characters spouting "clever" dialog but not a lot of real character development or a whole lot actually happening. I don't think shows need to be plot-heavy, but fiction in general needs to have either strong plot or strong characterization. A show like The Shield is a good bit of both, B5 was probably more on the plot-heavy side, and a good sitcom is strong on the characterization side. But you have to have at least one.

Funny then that Shawn Ryan, creator of the Shield, used to be a writer for Angel.  Also funny that Angel was a Whedon show that wasn't really about "clever" characters spouting "clever" dialog.  I won't say Whedon is the world's greatest writer.  Fuck, he helped write Alien: Resurrection.  It's just that you seem to be judging the guys work as a whole based largely on the fact that you didn't like Buffy after the first couple of seasons (about the time he had to start dividing his attention between two shows).

[schild]

I didn't like Buffy, what I saw of Angel, the whole of Firefly and I think his Alien was the weakest link in the series, but then, no one ever asked me if I liked all of his work so I pointed out when I started disliking him and why I disliked Firefly.

[Margalis]

Funny then that Shawn Ryan, creator of the Shield, used to be a writer for Angel.  Also funny that Angel was a Whedon show that wasn't really about "clever" characters spouting "clever" dialog. 

No, it was about angsty characters spouting angsty dialog.

I suppose it's supposed to be "ironic" that I like The Shield and don't like Angel, yet the creator of one was a writer on the other! Wow, you caught me there!

I like ST:TNG and some of DS9, but I don't like Voyager at all, even though it has some of the same people on it. Big whoop. Ryan may have been a writer on Angel but Angel is nothing like The Shield. I like Christopher Walken but I have no desire to see Sleepy Hollow...see the pattern? If Ryan was a writer for Angel it's good to see that he moved on to much better things, because Angel sucked. I have no idea how much he did on the show, maybe he contributed to the suckage. So what?

I won't say Whedon is the world's greatest writer.  Fuck, he helped write Alien: Resurrection.  It's just that you seem to be judging the guys work as a whole based largely on the fact that you didn't like Buffy after the first couple of seasons (about the time he had to start dividing his attention between two shows).

I don't like a single thing he's worked on that I've seen. Is that a good enough reason? And as I said about Buffy, it's not so much that it changed as much as it got stale. Apart from the newness it wasn't an interesting show. I totally agree with the people pointing out that it isn't a show you want to go back and watch - and entertaining time-waster at best.

[Johny Cee]

The general complaint about all things Whedon isn't that it's a serial,  it's that there isn't an depth.  Basically,  sum up the plot to any one season of a Whedon show.....   honestly, once you boil it down, there isn't anything going on. 

You mean "Buffy hearts Angel" isn't a full season of plot right there? Or "Buffy hearts super-solider Riley"?

Everything about Whedon's stuff to me is superficial. It's a lot like Tarantino stuff, actually. A lot of "clever" characters spouting "clever" dialog but not a lot of real character development or a whole lot actually happening. I don't think shows need to be plot-heavy, but fiction in general needs to have either strong plot or strong characterization. A show like The Shield is a good bit of both, B5 was probably more on the plot-heavy side, and a good sitcom is strong on the characterization side. But you have to have at least one.

Clever people making clever puns and pop culture references can only entertain for so long. I kind of liked Buffy for a season or two because it was sort of new and different, but once the new and different wore off there wasn't a whole lot left over.

Whedon is a guy that can churn out some great moments,  and the occasional great episode,  but he seems to coast most of the time.  "Hush" (the episode where no one could talk) and "The Body" (Buffy finds her mother dead in the living room) are amazing.  The rest is watchable a first time, generally not after.

I also picked up the first season of Angel on DVD for some remarkably small price,  and found that after an episode or two I couldn't watch it.  I did see the first season on TV.  There....  just isn't a compelling reason to rewatch it.

Firefly had the problem of too many characters pushing out the good ones from screen time.  Mal was mediocre, but passable.  River coud have been good but her character development was stuck in limbo with the slow plot advancement.  The doctor, the pilot, and the second-in-command were meh.  The ambassador was completely unrealistic,  and really didn't do much for the ensemble (okay.....  hypereducated prositute with heart of gold, yah....).  The mechanic was either good, or completely irrelavent.

The shepard and Jayne were great.  And in the background waaaaay too much.  I chuckle a couple of extra times now when Full Metal Jacket is on,  for no other reason than Adam Baldwin shows up on screen.

The other problem with Firefly when it aired was it kept getting paired against the fourth (and final) season of Farscape.  Yah, great.  Why don't we schedule the only two character based sci-fi shows in the last 10 or 20 years AGAINST each other.....  Whedon took a hit from sci-fi fans for what alot of people saw as a rip-off of Farscape. (Which until the end of the third and fourth seasons had been garnering alot of cable awards and good ratings figures for the ripped-from-straight-to-video network)

[Velorath]

I suppose it's supposed to be "ironic" that I like The Shield and don't like Angel, yet the creator of one was a writer on the other! Wow, you caught me there!

I like ST:TNG and some of DS9, but I don't like Voyager at all, even though it has some of the same people on it. Big whoop. Ryan may have been a writer on Angel but Angel is nothing like The Shield. I like Christopher Walken but I have no desire to see Sleepy Hollow...see the pattern? If Ryan was a writer for Angel it's good to see that he moved on to much better things, because Angel sucked. I have no idea how much he did on the show, maybe he contributed to the suckage. So what?

So you missed the point (which is most likely because I'd rather make quick smart-ass comments than go through more trouble to illustrate it better).  Buffy, Angel, and Firefly involve more writing than just Whedon's, but for some reason whenever it comes to one of Whedon's shows he seems to take credit or blame for all of the writing.  A TV series is written by multiple people, some better writers than others.  And yeah, sometimes seasons get padded out with filler material where not much happens, because there's a pretty much standard amount of episodes in a TV season.  So even if you've got a good idea that you only need 12 episodes to tell, you're pretty much getting stuck doing 20+ anyway because the Networks don't like taking chances on doing things differently.  This happens for all shows be it Buffy, the Shield, Highlander, or any of the Star Trek shows (and for the record I thought seasons 1-5 of DS9 were crap, and ST:TNG was hit or miss from episode to episode).  So my issue is that people judge Whedon's writing abilities off a lot of stuff that wasn't actually written by him.

If you don't like Buffy, Angel, Firefly, or whatever it just makes more sense to me to say that, rather than to go off making broad generalizations about Whedon's work.  As far Buffy as not being a show people want to go back and watch... there are very few shows I'd ever want to watch again, with the exception of Best Of collections like I mentioned in another thread with Highlander.  TV seasons in the U.S. anyway are just too fucking long.

[eldaec]

The purpose is to entertain in 45 minutes with 15 minutes of commercials.

Only 15 minutes in an 'hour' of US television? You should be so lucky.

[schild]

The purpose is to entertain in 45 minutes with 15 minutes of commercials.

Only 15 minutes in an 'hour' of US television? You should be so lucky.

Your average hour long tv show is 43min45s. That's roughly 16min15sec of commercials.

I don't know what you mean by US television. I thought the shit broadcast here was broadcast around the world. Wasn't Baywatch the most popular tv show ever because of other countries (as in countries besides the US)? I'd say everyone else has shittier taste than us in TV.

[HaemishM]

So you missed the point (which is most likely because I'd rather make quick smart-ass comments than go through more trouble to illustrate it better).  Buffy, Angel, and Firefly involve more writing than just Whedon's, but for some reason whenever it comes to one of Whedon's shows he seems to take credit or blame for all of the writing.  A TV series is written by multiple people, some better writers than others.  And yeah, sometimes seasons get padded out with filler material where not much happens, because there's a pretty much standard amount of episodes in a TV season.  So even if you've got a good idea that you only need 12 episodes to tell, you're pretty much getting stuck doing 20+ anyway because the Networks don't like taking chances on doing things differently.  This happens for all shows be it Buffy, the Shield, Highlander, or any of the Star Trek shows (and for the record I thought seasons 1-5 of DS9 were crap, and ST:TNG was hit or miss from episode to episode).  So my issue is that people judge Whedon's writing abilities off a lot of stuff that wasn't actually written by him.

To add to that, there is only one show on TV that I know of that has a full season written by one guy, Babylon 5. JMS made a point of talking about how he had written every single one of the 22 episodes of season 3, and that it was something he'd never do again. At best, the series creator or story shepherd gets to oversee and tweak all the scripts, but does not actually write all of them.

[Margalis]

So you missed the point (which is most likely because I'd rather make quick smart-ass comments than go through more trouble to illustrate it better).  Buffy, Angel, and Firefly involve more writing than just Whedon's, but for some reason whenever it comes to one of Whedon's shows he seems to take credit or blame for all of the writing.  

It's his project. He gets the praise when it does well, he gets the blame when it goes poorly. That's how it works in my universe. He may not be writing everything but he chooses the writers, sets the tone, etc. If he hated the writing it's in his power to change it.

ST:TNG was hit and miss but it hit far more than missed. I also like the fact that it was episode based but there was some continuity. (Recurring characters and such) DS9 was all over the place, far more miss than hit - by the time it got good I'd lost interest. DS9 had some very poorly conceived characters and some awful acting. Both the main women were terrible characters, and Terry Farrel is a god-awful actress. (Go watch Hellraiser 3 sometime to see her at her worst) Odo was an OK idea who was wasted, and waht they did with the Doctor was kind of retarded.

[eldaec]

The purpose is to entertain in 45 minutes with 15 minutes of commercials.

Only 15 minutes in an 'hour' of US television? You should be so lucky.

Your average hour long tv show is 43min45s. That's roughly 16min15sec of commercials.

I don't know what you mean by US television. I thought the shit broadcast here was broadcast around the world. Wasn't Baywatch the most popular tv show ever because of other countries (as in countries besides the US)? I'd say everyone else has shittier taste than us in TV.

Broadcasts elsewhere often reduce US hour long shows to around 50 minutes and stick a news broadcast or something similar at the end, and they typically have more adverts between shows, allowing for shorter breaks within shows. In the most extreme example, the BBC used to show Buffy in 40 minute slots, but obviously as they don't do adverts at all that's a little different.

I'd agree that most places have shittier taste in TV than the US, but it's much easier to watch US television in other countries.

[schild]

I'd agree that most places have shittier taste in TV than the US, but it's much easier to watch US television in other countries.

See, that's more reasonable then your first response.

[Velorath]

It's his project. He gets the praise when it does well, he gets the blame when it goes poorly. That's how it works in my universe. He may not be writing everything but he chooses the writers, sets the tone, etc. If he hated the writing it's in his power to change it.

ST:TNG was hit and miss but it hit far more than missed. I also like the fact that it was episode based but there was some continuity. (Recurring characters and such) DS9 was all over the place, far more miss than hit - by the time it got good I'd lost interest. DS9 had some very poorly conceived characters and some awful acting. Both the main women were terrible characters, and Terry Farrel is a god-awful actress. (Go watch Hellraiser 3 sometime to see her at her worst) Odo was an OK idea who was wasted, and waht they did with the Doctor was kind of retarded.

It's his project, but without watching the DVD commentaries and reading interviews, I'm not sure exactly how much he micro-managed things on any of his series.   I think he did a pretty good job with casting on his shows.  Some of the writers wrote some great episodes some wrote crap.  Like I said, it's television.  Regardless of how long a story he's got in mind to tell, they've got to do about 22 episodes or so a season (aside from mid-season replacements like Buffy which have just half a season worth of episodes to start with).  That's why I bring up British shows, because their seasons tend to be much shorter.  My sister picked up the boxed set of Spaced for my Dad since he really loved Sean of the Dead and not only is it a great show, but it's two seasons long, 14 episodes total.  It doesn't drag out too long to the point where you're sick of the characters and the show like most US shows tend to do.

Getting back to the topic at hand though, I find it kind of odd sometimes that people even know Whedon's name in the first place, but maybe it's because he puts himself out there more doing interviews and conventions and that kind of thing.  I had to look up The Shield on IMDB to find out who created it.  Likewise I couldn't tell you the names of who created Friends, Smallville, Deadwood, or 99.9% of the other shows out there.  I just think for the people who want to focus on Whedon himself, focus on the episodes he's written.  Based on those I think he's a very talented writer a lot of the time, although by no means perfect.  You may disagree, but I'd just find it easier to discuss than just a broad notion that you don't like Whedon's stuff.

[Margalis]

Joss Whedon is like David E. Kelly or JJ. Abrams. (or whatever the name of the guy is that does Alias and Lost) All of them have multiple shows that get pretty good critical acclaim (at least in some circles) and have devoted followings. I would also say that all three of the guys I mentioned have a pretty similar tone. The reason people know Kelly or Whedon is that when their shows are announced it's "here's the latest show from Joss Whedon!" or something to that effect. (David E. Kelly was a great example of this a few years ago where he had like 4 shows on the air at once)

Nerds know JMS but he only did one show. (That I know of anyway) People might know the Law and Order guy but I don't think Law and Order appeals to the same crowd and doesn't have the same sort of cult following. I imagine whoever does 24 could gain similar status if it is one person and they come out with something else that does reasonably well.

As far as The Shield goes, considering it's on FX it's a wonder anyone has heard of it. Quick, name a show that has EVER been on FX that isn't The Shield, Rescue Me or Nip/Tuck...no, Fear Factor reruns don't count!

[Velorath]

Joss Whedon is like David E. Kelly or JJ. Abrams. (or whatever the name of the guy is that does Alias and Lost) All of them have multiple shows that get pretty good critical acclaim (at least in some circles) and have devoted followings. I would also say that all three of the guys I mentioned have a pretty similar tone. The reason people know Kelly or Whedon is that when their shows are announced it's "here's the latest show from Joss Whedon!" or something to that effect. (David E. Kelly was a great example of this a few years ago where he had like 4 shows on the air at once)

Nerds know JMS but he only did one show. (That I know of anyway) People might know the Law and Order guy but I don't think Law and Order appeals to the same crowd and doesn't have the same sort of cult following. I imagine whoever does 24 could gain similar status if it is one person and they come out with something else that does reasonably well.

As far as The Shield goes, considering it's on FX it's a wonder anyone has heard of it. Quick, name a show that has EVER been on FX that isn't The Shield, Rescue Me or Nip/Tuck...no, Fear Factor reruns don't count!

Shit, I watch The Shield every now and again and until I was checking out the website earlier I couldn't have even told you what channel it was on.  And JMS has actually done two shows.  He did Jeremiah for Showtime and like Whedon he also writes comic books these days.

And if Firefly was proof of anything, it's that Whedon's name alone can't sell the public on a TV show.

[schild]

And if Firefly was proof of anything, it's that Whedon's name alone can't sell the public on a TV show.

No, he can't. But JJ Abrams and Aaron Sorkin can. Luv++ for those two.

[Rasix]

Lets give the JJ. Abrams thing a little more time.  Alias was crap after season one (yes, Rimbali, her sister, etc etc = CRAP) and Lost has been losing steam.  I hope they can close this first season of Lost out strong but the premise and cast are just too good for it to ever suck.

Well, I thought this about 24, then they brough in a bunch of chumps and it too began to suck.  Cloe the permanently constipated intel analyst was just the death blow for that show.   

[HaemishM]

The death blow for 24 was when it became required that about 5-6 shows in (or at some point in the season), Jack HAD to go "off the radar" and act like he was betraying CTU. AGAIN. I finally gave up on it in Season 3 when this happened. Season 2 had already stretched believability to the point of breaking, as well as having the asstardic (yet hAWT) Kim getting in trouble YET A-FUCKING-GAIN.

I think 24's biggest failing is that it wouldn't remove cast members. I mean, Kim should have been gone after season 1, because her season 2 arc was just fucking retarded and detracted from the main story. Making her work at CTU AND sleep with Jack's new partner was even more retarded. The show doesn't need more hawtness, it needs ass-kicking, believable stories. The emphasis on sticking with the same characters, despite the fact that the same characters shouldn't be around (the president's ex-wife, his former manager, Kim) just hurt the show a lot.

Even the Shield, with its 13-show seasons, is starting to stretch believability. I am not quite sure it's been a good idea to bring back all the Strike Team members. But actors want steady paychecks.

[MrHat]

The death blow for 24 was when it became required that about 5-6 shows in (or at some point in the season), Jack HAD to go "off the radar" and act like he was betraying CTU. AGAIN. I finally gave up on it in Season 3 when this happened. Season 2 had already stretched believability to the point of breaking, as well as having the asstardic (yet hAWT) Kim getting in trouble YET A-FUCKING-GAIN.

I think 24's biggest failing is that it wouldn't remove cast members. I mean, Kim should have been gone after season 1, because her season 2 arc was just fucking retarded and detracted from the main story. Making her work at CTU AND sleep with Jack's new partner was even more retarded. The show doesn't need more hawtness, it needs ass-kicking, believable stories. The emphasis on sticking with the same characters, despite the fact that the same characters shouldn't be around (the president's ex-wife, his former manager, Kim) just hurt the show a lot.

Even the Shield, with its 13-show seasons, is starting to stretch believability. I am not quite sure it's been a good idea to bring back all the Strike Team members. But actors want steady paychecks.

That's why I felt that this season is better than season 2 and 3.  But I agree on the 'off-the-radar' stuff.