Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Movies Media Sci-Fi

Serenity Trailer Finally Released 437

Posted by timothy
from the now-you-can-die-quietly dept.
ShinyHat writes "Browncoats Rejoice! The trailer for Joss Whedon's Serenity, based on his unjustly cancelled Firefly television series, was released on the QuickTime Movie Trailers page. Thanks to its new September 30th release date it won't be completely overshadowed by Star Wars. Talk is, if the movie does well enough, Universal will pick it up for a second and third installment." (As promised.)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Serenity Trailer Finally Released

Comments Filter:
  • by Spytap (143526) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @08:28PM (#12353758)
    My girlfriend has been "geeking out" (her words, not mine) over the new website all day. She's even more excited about this than I am.

    Note to self: she's a keeper ;)
    • Mine too: http://lunarflight.europic.net/index.html Now if I could only get her into programming.
    • by phritz (623753)
      I know what you mean, man ... the gf called me, breathless, to tell me to download the trailer. I have to give Joss big props - If you need a way to get your non-geek girlfriend to be excited about spaceships and hot girls in tight outfits doing acrobatics, you can't go wrong with Firefly and Buffy.
  • by Gossi (731861) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @08:30PM (#12353778)
    ...is here! [whoisriver.com]
  • by gotgenes (785704) <chris.lasher@gma ... inus threevowels> on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @08:31PM (#12353783) Homepage
    Serenity now!!!
  • by computerme (655703)
    I watched the show when it was on the air but was not that into it. But hey it was scifi on TV and the only other scifi worthy of watching was Farscape/.

    I recently rented the whole series via netflix and enjoyed it even more the 2nd time around...

    Looks good. I'll definately buy a ticket.
  • Direct Link (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @08:34PM (#12353809)
  • Holy Crap (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Golias (176380) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @08:34PM (#12353811)
    That trailer makes the Star Wars III trailer look like a stupid cartoon.

    I'm so jacked up to see this, I'll probably skip "Revenge of the Sith" entirely and see "Serenity" one extra time with the eight bucks I save!
    • by GersonK (541726) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @09:17PM (#12354084) Homepage
      That trailer makes the Star Wars III trailer look like a stupid cartoon.

      But then, an episode of Clutch Cargo would also have that effect.
    • I'm going to see both, but after seeing that trailer, I have a feeling which one I'll buy on DVD first ;-); sorry George...

      !! & !

      SB
    • Re:Holy Crap (Score:3, Interesting)

      That trailer makes the Star Wars III trailer look like a stupid cartoon

      I noticed that. The sets and backgrounds in Serenity have striking contrasts and colors that make then visually interesting, yet they also seem believable in a way that few science fiction movies manage. Too often, things stand out as being different in order to look "futurey". Star Wars is full of this, especially the latest episodes.

    • No it doesn't, that's just a silly thing to say. Go ahead and skip SW:ROTS if you want, that's probably not a bad idea actually, just don't make like the trailer for it wasn't every bit as badass looking as this. That's what trailers do. Star Wars trailers are particularly good at it too.

      The only real difference here is that you know, without a doubt that the SW:ROTS trailer has a pretty good chance of being ten times cooler than the entire film (it's probably a huge lie) while the Serenity trailer cou
    • Re:Holy Crap (Score:3, Interesting)

      by NanoGator (522640)
      "I'm so jacked up to see this, I'll probably skip "Revenge of the Sith" entirely and see "Serenity" one extra time with the eight bucks I save!"

      Question: Is this trailer like a LOT more interesting if you watched the show?

      I ask because I never caught it, and I'm not seeing the big whoop-de-fuck that everybody else is. As the trailer stands, it actually looks like mediochre sci-fi, to me.

      I'm not posting this to troll. I'm just trying to understand what it is I'm missing that's preventing me from getti
    • Sound Effects? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by nahdude812 (88157)
      Am I the only one who noticed that there were sound effects in space? I really hope this is only in the trailer, and that the actual movie stays true to the series by removing the sound effects from the space scenes.

      It was the first space scene sans engine noises, that first completely hooked me on Firefly. I couldn't believe someone writing sci-fi actually obeyed the laws of physics in this sense. And the soundlessness of it, filled instead with that guitar drawl, really lent a feeling of surrealness,
  • by Bananatree3 (872975) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @08:34PM (#12353812)
    Haaaalleeeeeluujah! Haaaalleeeeeluujah! hallelujah! hallelujah! halleluuuuuujah!

    ohhh finally, Serenity has come, Serenity has come. Ohhhhhh finally, Serenity has come, and a kingdom come!

  • Fullscreen Version (Score:5, Informative)

    by CloudsSpaz (824168) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @08:35PM (#12353816)
  • "Unjust" is a subjective term. I'm a fan of a just society as most folks are, and so interested to understand the depth of injustice suffered by the group putting on the show.

    But a botched delivery by the powers that be of a new series, leading to low ratings is not unjust. It is just a screwup it would seem.

    When the new McFish Griddle Whopper flops because of poor marketing, is that also unjust to the McFish Griddle Whopper researcher? Seems like a stretch.

    Just my 2 cents.
    • I'll grant that "unjust" isn't really the right word, but I'm having trouble coming up with a single adjective to "canceled" that explains to the uninformed that Firefly was canceled after being shown out of order (the pilot wasnt even first) and having its timeslot changed several times.
      I do think it was "unjust" to treat Joss Whedon's work the way they did after he proved himself capable of producing a 7 season show (that there was a magazine devoted to) and a 5 season spinoff.
    • "Unjust" is a subjective term. I'm a fan of a just society as most folks are, and so interested to understand the depth of injustice suffered by the group putting on the show.
      But a botched delivery by the powers that be of a new series, leading to low ratings is not unjust. It is just a screwup it would seem.


      How about airing it, say, 3 times in a row at the time advertised, would that have been "just"?

      Because I think airing it at ungodly hours such as "12:07am" and "12:14am" or "not at all" when they ad
  • uuuuuu...huh? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @08:40PM (#12353852)
    Why is there suddenly sounds in space?!?
    • Re:uuuuuu...huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Spad (470073) <slashdot AT spad DOT co DOT uk> on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @08:50PM (#12353919) Homepage
      Good question - one of the things I liked about Firefly was the fact that space was silent and you didn't have the sound of laser blasts and explosions for "effect", which is no doubt why they've been added to the film (and to help those who don't get the whole "no sound in space" thing).
    • Re:uuuuuu...huh? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by -Harlequin- (169395) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @09:30PM (#12354178)
      I think there is a fair chance that the sounds are just in the trailer. Trailers have to be flashy and exciting, and appeal to people who have never seen the show, and that means sound fx.

      Once they're in the cinema watching the movie, THEN you have the time to introduce them to a world where space is silent and six-shooters go hand in hand with spaceships. Trying to do that in a trailer is risky. This is more of a USA thing, trailers elsewhere are a bit less action-focused. (The "Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon DVD has the US trailer in addition to the normal trailer, watch them one after the other and you might think they're different movies :-)
      • Re:uuuuuu...huh? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Lahiru (839803)
        I think there's a fair chance the sounds WILL be in the final film. I see your point about making the trailer more flashy than the film itself, but I can't think of any films where the trailer added sounds from outside the film's sound mix just for the trailer.

        They probably had to make some concessions to the studio in order to bring Firefly to the big screen. I doubt that the suits would have been eager to try something as experimental as taking out sound from space battles. And let's face it, most peop
        • Re:uuuuuu...huh? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Scrameustache (459504) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @12:26PM (#12360443) Homepage Journal
          I can't think of any films where the trailer added sounds from outside the film's sound mix just for the trailer.

          How often do you pay attention to sounds in trailers and cross-reference them with the actual movie afterwards?

          I've never done that before, but I remember that the Inspector Gadget trailers had scenes that weren't actually in the movie itself.
          Man, that was a bad movie!

          I doubt that the suits would have been eager to try something as experimental as taking out sound from space battles.

          Experimental?
          Been done in Firefly, been done in SW:epII! AND in 2001: A Space Odyssy (yes, I count a waldo bashing a guy in a suit as a space battle, shaddap ;-).

          And as someone else has pointed out, most of the "space" battles in the trailer appear to be in high atmo.
          Plus, another poster said something wishfull about a combat system that includes sounds:

          I'd like to point out that if you listen to AM radio while watching a distant thunderstorm, you'll hear the lightning's electromagnetic interference through your speakers at the same time as you see the flash. Space battles would make a "sound" if there is something to take the huge EM noise and transform it into air vibration, like, say, a metal box that could resonnate... I dunno, like, a spaceship... possibly one with a comm system...

          : )
    • Re:uuuuuu...huh? (Score:4, Informative)

      by voisine (153062) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @10:52PM (#12354749)
      Actually, if you watch closely I think all the sound effects happened when you could clearly see atmospheric effects around the edges of the ship. There is a *lot* of sound durring re-entry. :)
    • Why is there suddenly sounds in space?!?

      Have you never seen a movie trailer?
      Other questions you might have asked: Why are things not happening in the same chronological sequence as they will in the movie? Why is it so short? Why is there catchy music tht won't end up in the movie?

      Because: It's an advertisement, not the movie itself.

      You think that silent shots of spacecrafts make Joe Sixpack want to shell out good money for movie tickets? They don't.
  • huh huh huh huh huh - hyperventilates.
    Good thing I have the series on DVD to hold me until the movie. I didn't see Shepard Book in the preview. I hope we learn more of his back story.
    • by Johnny Mnemonic (176043) <mdinsmore.gmail@com> on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @08:52PM (#12353929) Homepage Journal

      Rumor is, that Book has only a very small role in the movie. Not all of the orginal cast could be gathered together; frankly, we're lucky we got as many as we did.

      Although there was some doubt precisely which character wasn't back for much, there was little doubt that one of the actors couldn't be signed--Joss was just vague about which one. But the preview (and other speculation) sure makes it look like it's Book.

      Better him that Inara, I guess ;) Hopefully we get more of that backstory in Eps 2 and 3, for which apparently there is strong interest by Universal.
  • by Heisenbug (122836) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @08:45PM (#12353886)
    it sounds like I should poke around the site more, but I was actually disappointed with the trailer. It basically made it look like another space action movie, with none of the unique characters or plotting or effects or [embarrassing Joss Whedon lust here] that made Firefly stand out so much. I have my fingers crossed that it's just marketing (or that I'm just in a crotchety mood), and the actual movie will be consistent with the show.

    In the meantime, I for one would gladly buy a movie ticket just to see the original double-length episode of Firefly in a theater ... maybe if Serenity works out they should release that episode as "Serenity: Episode 1".
    • It wouldn't really serve much purpose pandering to the Firefly fans, although as a fan I found the trailer wholly satisfying. They need to bring in the general audience, so it has to can't afford to be too quirky, at least not in the first trailer. Perhaps the fans will get one of those internet exclusive trailers, everyone knows thats where we all live ;)
    • Well, the trailer's not aimed at Firefly fans who'll go and see it anyway, it's aimed at people who've never heard of it. You don't advertise at existing customers you advertise at new ones, this trailer is to get Americans with short attention-spans to be excited by the action. If you showed characters and plot they'd all be like: "Hey bubba, this moooovie's lame, let's go and drink some watery beer and lynch some niggers, and invade some third world country."
  • by The-Bus (138060) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @08:45PM (#12353888)
    The music at the beginning of the trailer is Kasabian's song "Club Foot" --- and yes, the movie looks hot. Although the young-girl-fighting-people-using-Buffy-techniques- thing was a bit odd. Another downside: I have no idea what the movie is about. Although that could be good too.
    • If you've watched the series completely, you'd have noticed that River does some pretty amazing things, and has really heightened senses and reflexes - there is even an episode where she shoots several men straight with amazing accuracy.

      So, that wasn't really a surprise.
      • by AJWM (19027) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @10:52PM (#12354753) Homepage
        where she shoots several men straight with amazing accuracy.

        Oh come on, that doesn't do it justice. River sees the three men (who are shooting in her direction), has the gun, but doesn't want to see them get shot. So she turns away and, not looking at them, takes the three of them out with three well-placed shots. Kaylee is there (she'd dropped the gun), and that's the event that makes Kaylee a little afraid of River in the subsequent shows.

    • young-girl-fighting-people-using-Buffy-techniques

      Buffy techniques were: being superhumanly strong and fast.

      What River does is superhumanly precise, using normal human muscles.

      BTW, the girl playing River has a background in dance, the character River has a background in dance, and that choregraphy looks to me like the moves of a dancer hurting people, not a preternatural demon-like vampire slayer laying the smackdown.
  • by rk (6314) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @08:47PM (#12353903) Journal

    I'll be in my bunk...

  • by gellenburg (61212) <george@ellenburg.org> on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @08:55PM (#12353950) Homepage Journal
    WHERE THE HELL IS BOOK?!

    God.....

    Damnit!

    I want to know what the hell is up with BOOK! Who the hell is he?!

    Son of a BITCH!

    I mean... River is cute and all... you'd think they'd at least continue on with Book's character and give us fans some insight into his past.

    I mean... please. The character "River" is so cliché. Book is a real enigma.

    Fuck.
  • I've never watched the TV show (although I've read a synopsis of the backstory), and the first thought I had when hearing that the rebels were called "browncoats" was that it was curious that they'd chosen a term with such loaded historical connotations (the "brownshirts" were the Sturmabteilung, i.e., the Storm troops, i.e., the private army of the Nazi party). My goal here isn't to be PC, but rather to ask those more steeped in the lore of the show whether there's been a discussion on why the show's crea
    • I imagine Browncoats == bluecoats, not brownshirts, or something like that - the background theme is a kind of "the US civil war, but in the future, except the other side won" thing.
      • Actually, I get much more of an American Revolution feeling from the whole thing, which would make Browncoats=Redcoats (just dirtier); this seems to fit more. I.e., freedom-mongers versus "Civilized" Tyrants (the bits where you see civilization in the film seem to reinforce this).. But maybe that's just me.
        • No, the Redcoats were the civilized British tyrants. The Browncoats are analogous to the Confederacy (the South) in the American Civil War. (a.k.a. "The War of Northern Aggression.")
    • by redbeard_ak (542964) <[ten.puesir] [ta] [draebder]> on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @10:21PM (#12354505) Homepage
      The conflict before the movie is akin to the US Civil War. The colony planets (in a "state's rights" fashion) resist domination by the Alliance. (No slavery in the story though so no idealogical high ground for the Alliance).

      The frontier is much like the American West after the Civil War. The Alliance is powerful but remote authority. Some of the main characters were rebels and wore brown (thus brown coats) much like some western characters (ie, the Outlaw Josey Wales) were former confederates.
  • by DaHat (247651) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @09:01PM (#12353994) Homepage
    I for one welcome our new blue handed overlords!
  • by rvr (15565)
    I had not heard of the series Firefly and a friend highly recommended it so I obliged and borrowed the DVD. I plugged it in and it became a hit with me and my three kids. It is now a favorite, we all became hooked.

    We loved the surprises and twists of the series and the trailer had some hints of it. We loved the gritty nature and the "western" feel. Can't afford fancy kick ass laser guns? Use regular 19th century handguns. Works for me. Do I use a scientific magnifying glass to look for blunders? No. I just
  • by MourningBlade (182180) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @09:04PM (#12354016) Homepage

    With a big rubber dick. I'll wait until it comes out on DVD and I can rent it.

    THIS, however, is something I want to see on opening night.

  • Sound in Space?! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Shky (703024)
    One of the coolest things about Firefly was the lack of sound in space. I certainly hope that they've only put the sounds in for the trailer, but somehow I doubt that. Here's hoping they haven't made too many more stylistic changes (because the show was already dripping with amazing style).
    • Re:Sound in Space?! (Score:3, Interesting)

      by larkost (79011)
      Sadly I did not see any evidence of the classic look from FireFly specifically:
      • the color scheme is very "cool" (color temprature... more blue), verses the much warmer scheme used in the series (more like the pallet from a western)
      • the series was famous for making special effect shots look like they were done with a hand-help camera: out of focus objects coming into focus, wild panning across the frame as if someone was trying to track with a moving object (rather than the perfect framing that is common), t
      • Sadly I did not see any evidence of the classic look from FireFly specifically:
        the color scheme is very "cool" (color temprature... more blue), verses(sic) the much warmer scheme used in the series (more like the pallet from a western)


        The outer planets have a warm colour tone.
        The alliance planet have a cool, bluish hue: Rewatch "Ariel".

        Same applies to the trailer, pay attention when a Reaver ship is chasing Mal and Jayne, and a Reaver shoots a circular saw at Mal, the colour tones are those of the outer
  • by weslocke (240386) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @09:24PM (#12354131)
    Was anyone else bothered by the 'turning away' from the western aspect of the series? I kept an eye out when I heard the techno/industrial song, but all I caught was a glimpse or two of revolvers. I fully imagine that the movie will be true to the series, but I still feel a bit let down that I didn't hear "Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me" in the preview...

    It's been running through my head ever since Joss said the trailer was coming...

    Sigh...

    (Still looks cool as heck though)
  • So, since I have not seen the series, should I rent them, or see the movie first?

    • Re:Interesting.... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by kannibal_klown (531544) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @09:46PM (#12354277)
      Definately see the series in some form or another before going to see the movie. The movie appears to deal with the whole back-story that was floating around since the first episode.

      It's really a good series, but I know some that didn't like it. Personally I wasn't a big fan of it when it was first on TV, but I downloaded the first ep and got hooked. Bought the DVD boxed set the very next day.
    • In case you aren't convinced, see the series. If nothing else, it will help tide you over until September. :)
    • Rent the series. They will probably give a bit of the back story to get people going (especially since they seem to be expanding on River's... the fighting girl... backstory). The serie's creator said this this movie will take place about 6 months after the series left off.

      The series is really worth watching, and I would recommend it even if the stories overlapped. I say that as a person who never saw an episode on TV, but watched it first through NetFlix, and then bought the DVDs.

      And I wonder if in the r
  • I promised myself that I wouldn't go see the movie after the way Fox yanked me around and then cancelled the series. But damn, this might be the only movie that gets me into a theater this year. I can't believe I'm actually looking forward to a movie again. It's been so long, I thought they had forgotten how to make them interesting and exciting.
  • One of the big selling points of Firefly was that sound doesn't travel in space, so the space scenes have no sound. It was soooo cool, I couldn't not watch it. I really hope someone in the know can tell me whether that crap is in the movie or if it's just in the trailer.

    Firefly was far too good to remain on the air, sadly.
  • by Scooter (8281) <owen.annicnova@force9@net> on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @09:39PM (#12354229)
    Don't get me wrong, I liked the series, and this is one film that will persuade me to drag my ass to the cinema to endure the neck creaking, rustling, coughing and sweating, not to mention the washed out scratchy picture and unsatisfactory sound rendering; in order to see it before it premiers for real - on a disc I can play at home - on something a bit less agricultural, while I have a drink, but enough of my cinema pet hates rant :P

    I have to take issue with this statement though - this vision of the future is hardly unique. In fact, it's a fairly standard issue vision of the future as proposed by Poul Anderson (Trader Team, The long night, Mirkheim etc), Marc Miller (Traveller et al), Bell & Braben (Elite) George Lucas (Star Wars), Harry Harrison (Rat series):-

    Take sea going activities and extrapolate into space. Merchant ships, pirates, busy ports, adventure on the high, er.. volumes of near vacuum... and so on.

    That said, it happens to be a vision I like - a working, slightly dirty and worn around the edges future filled with real looking objects - a vision that could be said to have been pioneered by Lucas, at least on screen.

    I hope the soundtrack on that trailer isn't indicative though - cheap music will really feck this movie up. Using current pop output to score a film like this will date it in months.

    • "Take sea going activities and extrapolate into space."

      I believe by "unique" they were referring to the blend of Sci-Fi and Western that Whedon went with... unfortunately, that isn't unique either. :)
    • i feel your pain. i hate the moviegoing experience enough to have found the best time to go to a movie is just before it gets pulled from the theaters. on a weekday. in the afternoon.

      i'm often the only one in the audience. good thing my office has a "flex time" policy.

      all that aside, i think a lot of people missed what made the series an original - characters.

      look at most any sci fi show on tv, and you'll see the same cardboard cutouts propped up by inane reliance on technology and the same four plots to
      • "...i'm often surprised by what the characters do - like real people. they have motivations and emotions and aren't always perfectly rational "

        Plus the times they are completely rational, but in a totally unexpected direction or manner.
        Firefly's CG, special effects, and production were good, but you're right -- it was the character development that addicted us.
        So many arresting personal quirks and offbeat futuretalk sayings.
        We need Firefly restored to continue the story.
    • Marc Miller (Traveller et al)

      Don't get me wrong, I'm thankful to Marc Miller for creating Traveller, but he did get many of his ideas from the SF of the time; in particular, E. C. Tubb's "Earl Dumarest" series. (Including low, middle, and high passage, air rafts, and much else, although not specific characters or organizations (eg Cyclan)).

      I wouldn't worry at all about the music on the trailer -- that is frequently radically different from anything in the movie (sometimes, the movie score isn't yet fin
  • Fuck the second and third installments of the movie. I want the bloody tv series back!

    It is by far the best sci-fi tv show ever. Joss had really got the hang of comedy one minute and grittyness the next and it makes for great tv.

    It's a travesty that something this good gets canned while other rubbish gets endless seasons (everytime I see Mutent-X on late night tv there is a deep desire to strangle a tv exec).

    • It is by far the best sci-fi tv show ever.

      Before Battlestar Galactica I would agree, now it's too close to call. But yeah, Firefly should absolutely be back on TV. Fox finally found the sense to bring Family Guy back, hopefully they can do the same here.
  • Sounds in Space... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Funksaw (636954) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @10:00PM (#12354375)
    Okay, yes, the trailer implies that there are sounds in space in this version. 1) This is a trailer, not the final cut. There may be no sounds in space in the final version. 2) "No sounds in space" was more of a gimmick than anything else. Anyone who sees the reaver ship and Serenity passing each other extremely slowly - even though both ships would be moving extremely fast in order to get to a destination millions of miles away - knows that Firefly wasn't hard SF - I don't even think they established whether they had FTL tech or not. Ditching "no sounds in space" isn't a storybreaker. I mean, honestly, did you go and watch the original because it was silent? 3) Who is to say that the "space" scenes don't take place in some sort of atmosphere?
  • "I'm unarmed"
    "Good!" [bang]

    That was just for the fans, weren't it. :-)
  • I also thought about this when seeing the trailer. Then I remembered The Two Towers trailer using a remix of the theme song from Requiem for a Dream, which was a bitttt more techno than the LOTR soundtrack. Honestly, right now I'm not worried. Trailer makes it look rather good.

    Kind of dissapointed to not have seen Book in the trailer, and only a few frames with Kayle (sp?), but you have to remember that 2 hours will not provide the same amount of room to develop 6-7 characters effectively. And Josh usually
  • He chu sheng za jiao de zang huo!
  • I'm a huge SF fan, although I tend to stick to books rather than TV. (I haven't been gripped by a SF TV series since B5.) I tried, really TRIED, to get into Firefly while it was on TV. I like Whedon a lot, and I was excited about Firefly. I set my VCR to record it every Friday.

    Truth is, you know... It wasn't that good. I watched 4-5 episodes, and although the dialog was snappy, the characters felt flat, and the setting was give-and-take. The idea of a Western in space is good as a CONCEPT, if you transpose
    • Unfortunately, your assertion that science fiction must depict a technological utopia is disheartening. You are definitely a core-worlder/first-worlder. You've never seen the technological inadequacies in the fringes of the third-world, and so you think that high technology must suffuse the world.

      As for the characters, we were really being given a small glimpse into their nature. Had the series continued, Joss would have fleshed out their character quite readily. It's a much more realistic method for depic
      • Your assertion of my assertion is all the more disheartening, because it is false. Like I said, I'm all for Western-style fringe-world low-tech, and that's a great basis. At that level, the parallel between SF and Western is great.

        What's not great is when said low-tech is ripped off of Westerns. That is destroying a cool analogy, and replacing it with a lame 'Western... in SPACE!' setting.

        Watching Firefly, I always felt Josh Whedon understood perfectly the line between 'inspired by Western setting' and 'g

It is better to give than to lend, and it costs about the same.

Working...