# No sequel for Serenity



## Flexor the Mighty! (Oct 4, 2006)

No Sequel according to Wheadon 




> To those 2-3 fans holding out hope, I'm afraid they've been dashed. Writer/director Joss Whedon has finally confirmed that there will never be a "Serenity" sequel writes Slashfilm.
> 
> "There's no sequel, no secret project regarding Serenity or somesuch and I'm not even sure how anyone thought there was talk there. So let's put that to bed and smother it with a pillow" says Whedon.
> 
> Serenity was a 2005 science fiction western film set in the universe of the cancelled Fox television series "Firefly". Including it's home video release, "Serenity" has still yet to come close to earning back it's $39 million budget.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Oct 4, 2006)

> Including it's home video release, "Serenity" has still yet to come close to earning back it's $39 million budget.



Sigh. I tried. Saw it twice in the theater, dragged some friends along, and bought the DVD. Oh, well.


----------



## Mark Hope (Oct 4, 2006)

>_weeps uncontrollably_<


----------



## Tetsubo (Oct 4, 2006)

I own the TV series, I'll have to pick up the movie.

I loved both. It is a sad day in SF fandom...


----------



## Alaric_Prympax (Oct 4, 2006)

Extremely sad news.


----------



## Klaus (Oct 4, 2006)

Aw, crap.


----------



## Ghostwind (Oct 4, 2006)

Well, at least I have the series and movie on DVD plus the RPG. Everything I need to keep it going for me.


----------



## Arnwyn (Oct 4, 2006)

Excellent news (and not surprising, either).

After the movie, I was never interested in seeing anything more with Firefly/Serenity. They ended as well as they could have with the movie.


----------



## danzig138 (Oct 4, 2006)

First, I don't trust Whedon to tell the truth. I think he likes yanking chains. 

Second, oh well. Even if there is no more, it ended well. 

Third, it seems like the numbers I saw indicated that worldwide total broke even with the budget, so dvd/video would be over that.


----------



## johnsemlak (Oct 4, 2006)

> Serenity was a 2005 science fiction western film set in the universe of the cancelled Fox television series "Firefly". Including it's home video release, "Serenity" has still yet to come close to earning back it's $39 million budget.




I know the fanbase ain't large, but had thought that it's die-hard fans would have given decent support.  How big in the movie industry is $39 million, btw?


----------



## Truth Seeker (Oct 4, 2006)

Look...one last time, folks....  
[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





[/sblock]


----------



## trancejeremy (Oct 4, 2006)

danzig138 said:
			
		

> First, I don't trust Whedon to tell the truth. I think he likes yanking chains.
> 
> Second, oh well. Even if there is no more, it ended well.
> 
> Third, it seems like the numbers I saw indicated that worldwide total broke even with the budget, so dvd/video would be over that.




Yeah, the worldwide gross was $38.85 million

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=serenity.htm

But that was gross.  Studios have different ways of accounting.  IIRC, Forest Gump supposedly never broke even, despite making 100s of millions in the theaters.


----------



## DwelleroftheDeep (Oct 4, 2006)

> How big in the movie industry is $39 million, btw?




It's not very big at all from what I've gathered.  I think a lot of movies (At least Superhero movies) are made for double that or even more.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 4, 2006)

For comparison, Jackass II cost $11.5 M to make, and made $54.5M in less than two weeks in the theatres.  If you were a studio, which would you think is a more profitable road to follow?


----------



## Berandor (Oct 4, 2006)

Serenity. I'd make Serenity sequels until the public finally got a taste for quality.


----------



## Meloncov (Oct 4, 2006)

Danm.

At least there's still hope of more printed material in the Firefly verse.


----------



## Ranger REG (Oct 4, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> For comparison, Jackass II cost $11.5 M to make, and made $54.5M in less than two weeks in the theatres.  If you were a studio, which would you think is a more profitable road to follow?



The movie that would cater to the turd spectrum of humaniti ... (including *Arnwyn**)   

Honestly, what do you expect from the majority of Earth's population who like iPods and pay-2-play MMORPGs? Stop hoping.     

*Just kidding ... no, really, I'm being sincere ... honest ....


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Oct 5, 2006)

Somehow, I had a feeling.


----------



## Richards (Oct 5, 2006)

Damn.  And I was one of those 2 or 3 fans that had been holding out hope.  Oh well....

Johnathan


----------



## Brakkart (Oct 5, 2006)

Well that sucks. Not exactly a great surprise I guess, but I was hoping there'd be another film. I've got the DVD's though, so at least I have that much greatness on my shelves.


----------



## Meloncov (Oct 5, 2006)

Huh. I looked up the original quote. That article takes things out of context to appear somewhat more decisive than anything Whedon actually said. He makes it very clear that no project is currently underway, but he does not actually imply that there will never be a Serenity sequal.


----------



## Agamon (Oct 5, 2006)

I'm still holding out the slightest shread of hope that the show can come back, maybe on Sci-Fi.  It won't happen, but it would be nice.


----------



## Glyfair (Oct 5, 2006)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> Studios have different ways of accounting.




Indeed.  One trick I remember hearing about had the movie production company (say Warner Brothers) license the movie to the video division (say Warner Home Video) for $1.  For certain accounting procedures this would only count as the video bringing in $1 (IIRC, certain actors contracts would end up using the $1 total).


----------



## Frostmarrow (Oct 5, 2006)

As long as Whedon makes another movie of the same quality as Serenity I don't care if there ever is a sequel. I don't quite understand this need for rehashing good stuff. It must be the need for safety and comfort that makes people long for movies they have already seen. I simply trust Joss to make something new and exciting instead.

_I really love Serenity though and have rented it several times in support of Whedon's efforts._


----------



## Jeremy (Oct 5, 2006)

He said no sequel, but would a movie set between Firefly and Serenity really be a sequel?    Just kidding.


----------



## Felon (Oct 5, 2006)

Berandor said:
			
		

> Serenity. I'd make Serenity sequels until the public finally got a taste for quality.




Let me get you off on the right foot: if you're going for a wild blend of space-opera and two-fisted western, don't call your movie "Serenity". Laymen won't get the irony, and likely as not will dismiss it as an Ingmar Bergman film featuring naked old people.

Seriously, I don't know how Whedon didn't grasp what a big mistake the title was...


----------



## DonTadow (Oct 6, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> Let me get you off on the right foot: if you're going for a wild blend of space-opera and two-fisted western, don't call your movie "Serenity". Laymen won't get the irony, and likely as not will dismiss it as an Ingmar Bergman film featuring naked old people.
> 
> Seriously, I don't know how Whedon didn't grasp what a big mistake the title was...



Dangit, they should have named it star wars episode sub 1


----------



## Klaus (Oct 6, 2006)

Nah.

Space Cowboys.

With Jamiroquai as the trailer soundtrack!


----------



## Dioltach (Oct 6, 2006)

Speaking of prequels, I assume that everyone has read the Serenity graphic novel?


----------



## Rackhir (Oct 6, 2006)

From http://www.arcanetimes.com


----------



## Plane Sailing (Oct 6, 2006)

I'm not surprised; the film was basically used to close the book on Serenity, killing several major characters and undermining the alliance (although with their military might who knows what difference that would make?).

In the process I felt it changed the reavers and made them less frightning (since it was less mysterious than the original hints).

Like the characters in the cartoon Rackhir linked to, I would have LOVED to see a Firefly series 2, an opportunity to develop relationships, and slowly learn more about the secrets of Book and River; sadly that was never going to be.


----------



## Klaus (Oct 6, 2006)

Reavers = Orcs. REEEEALLY Chaotic Evil Orcs.

Were I to run a d20 Future version of Serenity, I'd give 'em Orc stats.


----------



## Allura (Oct 10, 2006)

[This was posted to a mailing list I'm on; as soon as I get a link to reference the original quote, I'll edit this.]

To quote from the Whedonesque site:

"Here's a thing: when "Firefly" was cancelled, my heart got broke.
Sounds a bit much, but it changed me. Not even "Serenity" could
patch that wound. I'm wearier, warier -- after all those years as a
movie writer, you'd think I'd be prepared for another lesson on my
unimportance in the scheme of things, but I wasn't. There are two
very separate worlds: the marketplace, and the bustling bazaar that
is my brain. The brain place is crowded with goods, ideas, sequels,
spinoffs, animated versions, miniseries, radio dramas -- this is
just the used goods. All the new wares are in there as well and it's
deafening. Once I create a verse I never let go of it. And figuring
out how much of my energy should be devoted to reawakening the
projects you all love with the actors and characters I all love, and
how much should be forging ahead and creating entirely new works
(which you are contractually obligated to love) is exhausting. More
than you know. You know the horse caught bwtween two pools of water?
Add seven pools, and make the horse wicked A.D.D. The other world,
the marketplace, I don't even begin to understand or predict. All
these rumor of projects or the death of projects... When the two
worlds align and something actually happens, whatever it is, you
guys know I'll be on this site as soon as I'm allowed to be. And
I'll be very very clear. There is no news. Not never, just now. I'm
off to lunch with Lonelygirl."

Your Scribe, -j."


So, basically, the "Serenity is dead!" stuff was taking him out of context. No, there's nothing planned now, but that doesn't mean Joss doesn't want to work on something else Serenity related in the future. Personally, my first choice of media format is tv, maybe on Sci-fi. Next choice is actually novels; after reading the novelization of the movie, I think a novel actually fits the style the right way. I want that episodic feel; this isn't a concept suited to a movie, I think.


----------



## Felon (Oct 10, 2006)

Out of context...?

Look, I loved Firefly too, but let's have a reality check here: as a live action series goes, it's over. Books and comics are doable, but that's about it.


----------



## Ranger REG (Oct 10, 2006)

Allura said:
			
		

> So, basically, the "Serenity is dead!" stuff was taking him out of context. No, there's nothing planned now, but that doesn't mean Joss doesn't want to work on something else Serenity related in the future. Personally, my first choice of media format is tv, maybe on Sci-fi. Next choice is actually novels; after reading the novelization of the movie, I think a novel actually fits the style the right way. I want that episodic feel; this isn't a concept suited to a movie, I think.



You'd get all that from his post?   

I mean fine, I get the "my heart is broken" part. Boo-hoo, wipe your tears.

When it comes to the media, choose your words carefully, Joss. They LOVE to spin your words for sensationalism (i.e., get us genre fans riled up). So when you feel like starting up the franchise in motion picture, we'll be there waiting, okay?

One more thing. Kick Universal's arses for having no interest in pursuing _Serenity/Firefly_ licensing, especially for RPGs. A bunch of gorram monkey suits.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 10, 2006)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> One more thing. Kick Universal's arses for having no interest in pursuing _Serenity/Firefly_ licensing, especially for RPGs. A bunch of gorram monkey suits.



You are aware that there is a Firefly/Serenity Roleplaying Game out there?

Addendum: http://www.serenityrpg.com/


----------



## Thanee (Oct 10, 2006)

It even won an ENnie. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Umbran (Oct 10, 2006)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> In the process I felt it changed the reavers and made them less frightning (since it was less mysterious than the original hints).




Well, Joss is on record as saying that the Reavers you see in the movie are not the ones from the series - he did change them for the movie, along with a number of other things.


----------



## TwistedBishop (Oct 10, 2006)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Well, Joss is on record as saying that the Reavers you see in the movie are not the ones from the series - he did change them for the movie, along with a number of other things.




Did he elaborate on what he changed about them?  I thought the movie explained their genesis nicely.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 10, 2006)

TwistedBishop said:
			
		

> Did he elaborate on what he changed about them?  I thought the movie explained their genesis nicely.




He very specifically did not.  And I'm pretty sure the omission was intentional.


----------



## Meloncov (Oct 11, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> Look, I loved Firefly too, but let's have a reality check here: as a live action series goes, it's over. Books and comics are doable, but that's about it.




Yeah, I can't really see all the actors getting together again for another TV show. What I am hoping for is a completion of the movies (the actors contracts go out to three films) and/or a TV show with different charecters in the same universe.


----------



## Ranger REG (Oct 11, 2006)

Meloncov said:
			
		

> Yeah, I can't really see all the actors getting together again for another TV show. What I am hoping for is a completion of the movies (the actors contracts go out to three films) and/or a TV show with different charecters in the same universe.



Well, not all. Ron Glass ("Book") and Alan Tudyk ("Wash") can't come back after their characters are killed.


----------



## Richards (Oct 11, 2006)

Well, that depends on if the next movies are sequels or prequels.

Johnathan


----------



## Ranger REG (Oct 11, 2006)

Richards said:
			
		

> Well, that depends on if the next movies are sequels or prequels.



Riiight, like Tudyk have a major film deal lined up for him, billing himself as the "next Michael Douglas."


----------



## Richards (Oct 11, 2006)

I'm afraid your reference went right over my head.     Did Michael Douglas make a lot of prequels?

Anyway, I remember hearing that prequels were one possibility.  Joss made Serenity, and if it made enough money and he got the go-ahead to make further movies in the same universe, he could go back and fill in some of the time between the end of Firefly and the start of Serenity.

Not that that's necessarily what he's planning now or anything; just something that he had considered when making Serenity.

Johnathan


----------



## Klaus (Oct 11, 2006)

Richards said:
			
		

> I'm afraid your reference went right over my head.     Did Michael Douglas make a lot of prequels?
> 
> Anyway, I remember hearing that prequels were one possibility.  Joss made Serenity, and if it made enough money and he got the go-ahead to make further movies in the same universe, he could go back and fill in some of the time between the end of Firefly and the start of Serenity.
> 
> ...



 Joss already filled out the time between Firefly and Serenity, in the Serenity comic book miniseries, titled "Those Left Behing". In it we see Inara and Book leaving the ship, and Mal becoming the hardass he was at the start of Serenity.


----------



## Ranger REG (Oct 11, 2006)

Richards said:
			
		

> I'm afraid your reference went right over my head.     Did Michael Douglas make a lot of prequels?



No, I mean Tudyk is too busy to be bothered with the next _Serenity_ film.   

But since Brent Spiner is not going to be on the JJ Abrams _Trek_ film, maybe Joss should call him to play (an albeit older) Wash.


----------



## frankthedm (Oct 12, 2006)

> I'm not surprised; the film was basically used to close the book on Serenity, killing several major characters...
> 
> I would have LOVED to see a Firefly series 2, an opportunity to develop relationships, and slowly learn more about the secrets of Book and River; sadly that was never going to be.



I agree with you on these points. The movie came to be because it was Joss's last chance to tell the Firefly story.







			
				Klaus said:
			
		

> Reavers = Orcs. REEEEALLY Chaotic Evil Orcs.



Best Orcs since Tolkien!

_"They’ll rape us to death, eat our flesh and sew our skins into their clothing — and if we’re very, very, lucky, they’ll do it in that order."_​

I honestly think the way the situation played out was for the best. Maybe one more season could have worked, but like most TV series, if it was a success it would have kept going on and on until it became crap.

Joss set his story up in the TV series and had to hurry up and finish it in the movie. I would have liked 10 minutes more info on the preacher, but the operative character was really cool in my book. The biggest disappointment with the movie, besides River going Buffy, was we did not get to see the operative commit seppuku at the end.


----------



## Thurbane (Oct 15, 2006)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> No Sequel according to Wheadon



Very sad news. I was hoping against hope that the movie might herald some sort of re-launch of the TV series.   

The Firefly universe is one of the most original and engaging sci-fi settings I have come accross in a long, long time.

I think the TV execs who got the series cancelled due to their incredibly bad and nearsighted programming choices should be forced to buy and eat copies of the movie until in becomes profitable...


----------



## Ranger REG (Oct 17, 2006)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> Very sad news. I was hoping against hope that the movie might herald some sort of re-launch of the TV series.



Um, yeah. Your should have read the rest of the thread.


----------



## Thurbane (Oct 17, 2006)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Um, yeah. Your should have read the rest of the thread.


----------



## Aurora (Oct 17, 2006)

{cry}
How could people NOT like that show........


----------



## KaosDevice (Oct 20, 2006)

I was really hoping he would devolpe some graphic novel style continuation of the story. I really like the three issue mini-series comic and Joss has proven that he is no slouch at writing for that medium. It seems to me like it would have been a match made in heaven.


----------



## Ranger REG (Oct 20, 2006)

KaosDevice said:
			
		

> I was really hoping he would devolpe some graphic novel style continuation of the story. I really like the three issue mini-series comic and Joss has proven that he is no slouch at writing for that medium. It seems to me like it would have been a match made in heaven.



Wouldn't going from a TV/Film writer to a comic-book writer a downward (or demoting) path?

(No offense toward dedicated comic-book writers intended.)


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Oct 20, 2006)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Wouldn't going from a TV/Film writer to a comic-book writer a downward (or demoting) path?




Well, it's certainly not as financially lucrative, but there is definitely more creative leeway (even the heavily editorially-driven X-Books aren't likely as stentorian as tv and film, I'd argue).

The three mediums (because honestly, tv and film are quite different beasts, though they share similarities) are so widely different. Different pacing, formatting, etc. It's tough to compare them, and to say that it is a downward/demoting path is really pretty erroneous, IMO.

Again, financially, sure it's taking a hit, and if that is your sole criterion, then I suppose it would seem that way. Prestige wise, well, it's true that you can be potentially more famous as a film writer than a comic writer, but unless you are really, really well known, most people don't pay attention to writer credits in movies or tv anyway (especially given that there are so many writers, that credited writers aren't even the sole input). 

Aside from which, to say that he might be writing comic books isn't to say he's not doing other things- writers on Joss' level really don't lock themselves into one thing. He's the head of his own production company, and that isn't likely to change. He can write books, comics, screenplays, whatever, if he wants.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Oct 20, 2006)

KaosDevice said:
			
		

> I was really hoping he would devolpe some graphic novel style continuation of the story.




They have talked about doing more Serenity comics- IIRC they are supposed to be working on it for next year, but I haven't heard anything lately. Just google for Serenity comic news and you'll probably get some hits on their discussions.


----------



## KaosDevice (Oct 20, 2006)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Wouldn't going from a TV/Film writer to a comic-book writer a downward (or demoting) path?
> 
> (No offense toward dedicated comic-book writers intended.)





Joss actually *has* written comics before. The 'Frey' series among others. He's as good at it as you would expect.


----------



## KaosDevice (Oct 20, 2006)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> They have talked about doing more Serenity comics- IIRC they are supposed to be working on it for next year, but I haven't heard anything lately. Just google for Serenity comic news and you'll probably get some hits on their discussions.





Well that is cool news, thanks for the heads up. I will put my google-fu in action.


Kiii-yah!


----------



## Sir Brennen (Oct 20, 2006)

KaosDevice said:
			
		

> Joss actually *has* written comics before. The 'Frey' series among others. He's as good at it as you would expect.



I think that was 'Fray' (as in "a noisy fight".) He's also done the aforementioned Serenity mini-series, and is currently the writer for Astonishing X-men.

He's good, but some of his "Whedonisms" fall a little flat in print without a good, live actor to deliver the lines.


----------



## Ranger REG (Oct 20, 2006)

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> He's good, but some of his "Whedonisms" fall *a little flat* in print without a good, live actor to deliver the lines.



No pun intended, right?


----------



## Priest_Sidran (Oct 25, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> Out of context...?
> 
> Look, I loved Firefly too, but let's have a reality check here: as a live action series goes, it's over. Books and comics are doable, but that's about it.




While I am not saying your wrong or anything their are more news hits out their on the web that say that Firefly, and Serenity are not dead and that Universal holds the rights to a second movie treatment...

That said Universal was unhappy with the amount of money that was made from the box office, but with the steady growth of the boxed set of firefly episodes on the DVD there is some talk of another movie and perhaps even a second go on sci-fi channel or another NBC run channel. 

So reality checks in the corner for those in favor of another movie.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 25, 2006)

Priest_Sidran said:
			
		

> So reality checks in the corner for those in favor of another movie.




I don't think any of that counts as "reality checks" though.

That rights exist (and are held by someone) means _nothing_.  The rights were probably set up before the first frame of Serenity was shot, as standard Hollywood operating procedure.  

Neither Universal, nor any other big film company, is in the habit of finding long wait times for profit acceptable.  It has been over a year since the movie's release - it grossed only $25 million or so at the US box office, and the total world box office didn't even cover the $39 million dollar production cost for the movie.  

That means the only real profit coming to the company is from the DVD sales.  You have to sell a whole lot of DVDs in order to satisfy a major motion picture company.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 25, 2006)

Domestic plus International box office for Serenity reached $38,851,952, which is actually a bitmore than the budget (they rounded up to $39M for the budget).

Now I know that some folks have said that box office /= money the studio gets.  So, I agree the box office didn't likely cover the costs.


----------



## Tewligan (Oct 30, 2006)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Honestly, what do you expect from the majority of Earth's population who like iPods



If I may just TOTALLY derail this thread for just one post, I don't get this jab at all. What's dumb about being able to carry your music with you in an easily portable format? I much prefer that to hauling my Victrola and records around, let me tell you! 

Okay, sorry - just had to get that off my chest. Now, back to Serenity!


----------



## Tewligan (Oct 30, 2006)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> In the process I felt it changed the reavers and made them less frightning (since it was less mysterious than the original hints).



That was my beef with the movie too, actually. In the series, they're this unseen bogeyman. Then, in the movie, you can't walk ten feet without tripping over a screamin' reaver or one of their crazy-ass ships.

Maybe that's one of the reasons I couldn't get into the movie enough to finish it. I LOOOVED the series when I finally borrowed the DVD from a friend, but for some reason I wasn't digging Serenity enough to finish it. Maybe I'll put it to the top of my queue and give it another try...


----------



## Priest_Sidran (Oct 30, 2006)

Umbran said:
			
		

> I don't think any of that counts as "reality checks" though.
> 
> That rights exist (and are held by someone) means _nothing_.  The rights were probably set up before the first frame of Serenity was shot, as standard Hollywood operating procedure.
> 
> ...




Actually from what I read it made it sound as if they re-upped the licenses they held after they were elapsed (due to the time constraint of the contract) due to those sells of the DVD's


----------



## Klaus (Oct 30, 2006)

Tewligan said:
			
		

> That was my beef with the movie too, actually. In the series, they're this unseen bogeyman. Then, in the movie, you can't walk ten feet without tripping over a screamin' reaver or one of their crazy-ass ships.
> 
> Maybe that's one of the reasons I couldn't get into the movie enough to finish it. I LOOOVED the series when I finally borrowed the DVD from a friend, but for some reason I wasn't digging Serenity enough to finish it. Maybe I'll put it to the top of my queue and give it another try...



 I actually liked the movie reavers, and found them very effective. They're now the orcs of the 'verse!

I just wonder how they get around to pilot those ships... Do they jump up and down on the pilot seats, foaming and raging and eating human snacks and still manage to push all the right buttons?


----------



## Ranger REG (Oct 31, 2006)

Tewligan said:
			
		

> If I may just TOTALLY derail this thread for just one post, I don't get this jab at all. What's dumb about being able to carry your music with you in an easily portable format? I much prefer that to hauling my Victrola and records around, let me tell you!



I didn't say that having an MP3 player is dumb. I just don't get the _*GULLIBLE*_ portion of the Earth's population and their fascination with the Apple iPod.

    

[ Yes, I'm anti-Apple since 1983. ]


----------



## Ranger REG (Oct 31, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> I actually liked the movie reavers, and found them very effective. They're now the orcs of the 'verse!
> 
> I just wonder how they get around to pilot those ships... Do they jump up and down on the pilot seats, foaming and raging and eating human snacks and still manage to push all the right buttons?



Funny, I always compare the Reavers to scro, not orcs.


----------



## Klaus (Oct 31, 2006)

So they're backward orcs? What, are they Lawful Good with -2 Str and +2 to Int and Cha?


----------



## DonTadow (Oct 31, 2006)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> I didn't say that having an MP3 player is dumb. I just don't get the _*GULLIBLE*_ portion of the Earth's population and their fascination with the Apple iPod.
> 
> 
> 
> [ Yes, I'm anti-Apple since 1983. ]



I feel you on this. You pay 300 to 400 bucks for a small device that you have little control over. YOu play whatever music the company owns hte rights too, no sharing, no downloading from other sources. 

Wheras there are much better machines out there at a quarter of the price or lower that do the same thing and give you more flexibility.But people buy the I-pod because of the name. I have a coworker whom just bought her 8 year old a 350 buck i-pod because of the name, despite the fact of attempting to explain how there are other mp3 players that are much more affordable.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 31, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> I feel you on this. You pay 300 to 400 bucks for a small device that you have little control over. YOu play whatever music the company owns hte rights too, no sharing, no downloading from other sources.
> 
> Wheras there are much better machines out there at a quarter of the price or lower that do the same thing and give you more flexibility.But people buy the I-pod because of the name. I have a coworker whom just bought her 8 year old a 350 buck i-pod because of the name, despite the fact of attempting to explain how there are other mp3 players that are much more affordable.




Boy are YOU laboring under a misconception here. You can put all sorts of music on that iPod whether Apple sells it through their store or not. I know someone else who uses it to transport large files as well as his music since it works quite well as a portable and fast storage device.


----------



## DonTadow (Oct 31, 2006)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Boy are YOU laboring under a misconception here. You can put all sorts of music on that iPod whether Apple sells it through their store or not. I know someone else who uses it to transport large files as well as his music since it works quite well as a portable and fast storage device.



I'm thinking legally though without cracks or hacks. Still fact of the matter is there are items a quarter of the cost that do more.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 31, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> I'm thinking legally though without cracks or hacks. Still fact of the matter is there are items a quarter of the cost that do more.




No cracks or hacks involved. Most of the music on my wife's iPod is from non-Apple sources and completely legal. Same with carrying large files. A friend with an iPod does a lot of digital photography and web-based media programming. He totes files around on his iPod.


----------



## Klaus (Oct 31, 2006)

billd91 said:
			
		

> No cracks or hacks involved. Most of the music on my wife's iPod is from non-Apple sources and completely legal. Same with carrying large files. A friend with an iPod does a lot of digital photography and web-based media programming. He totes files around on his iPod.



 Ditto.


----------



## DonTadow (Oct 31, 2006)

billd91 said:
			
		

> No cracks or hacks involved. Most of the music on my wife's iPod is from non-Apple sources and completely legal. Same with carrying large files. A friend with an iPod does a lot of digital photography and web-based media programming. He totes files around on his iPod.



From what I understand, apple still engineers its IPod so that it can only take music from the Ipod store. Not all musical downloads will play on it. My thing is, that I'd rather have cheaper device that will with confidence play anything I download and not have the engineers of the device working against me. .


----------



## Arnwyn (Oct 31, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> From what I understand, apple still engineers its IPod so that it can only take music from the Ipod store.



Incorrect.



> Not all musical downloads will play on it.



That much is correct - AFAIK, it plays iTunes files (not sure of the extension - "aac", I think), mp3, AIFF, and WAV files. It doesn't play .wma files (among others), for example.



> My thing is, that I'd rather have cheaper device that will with confidence play anything I download and not have the engineers of the device working against me. .



Good luck with that - I'm not aware of anything that will play all audio file types.



/hijack


----------



## Allura (Oct 31, 2006)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Well, not all. Ron Glass ("Book") and Alan Tudyk ("Wash") can't come back after their characters are killed.




Per Ron Glass at his Q&A at ICON this past spring, if more movies are made, he and Alan ARE optioned to be in them, and Joss has assured him the characters will be in it (since I suppose you can option but not use an actor).


----------



## Dioltach (Nov 1, 2006)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> That much is correct - AFAIK, it plays iTunes files (not sure of the extension - "aac", I think), mp3, AIFF, and WAV files. It doesn't play .wma files (among others), for example.




It doesn't play .wma files, but iTunes converts them to its own format and then plays them.

I now have around 80% of my CD collection on my iPod -- perfectly legal, I just imported the files from CD. It's like recording your LPs onto cassette in the 80s.


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 1, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> I feel you on this. You pay 300 to 400 bucks for a small device that you have little control over. YOu play whatever music the company owns hte rights too, no sharing, no downloading from other sources.
> 
> Wheras there are much better machines out there at a quarter of the price or lower that do the same thing and give you more flexibility.But people buy the I-pod because of the name. I have a coworker whom just bought her 8 year old a 350 buck i-pod because of the name, despite the fact of attempting to explain how there are other mp3 players that are much more affordable.



Dude, iPod is the new Borg, and they're assimilating Humaniti rapidly.


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 1, 2006)

Allura said:
			
		

> Per Ron Glass at his Q&A at ICON this past spring, if more movies are made, he and Alan ARE optioned to be in them, and Joss has assured him the characters will be in it (since I suppose you can option but not use an actor).



That assume we like prequels in general, because like videogame-based movies, it's a concept that isn't impressing me (yes, I've been ruined by _Star Wars PT_ and _Star Trek: Enterprise_).


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Nov 1, 2006)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Dude, iPod is the new Borg, and they're assimilating Humaniti rapidly.




They're in vending machines now. That's like, one of the signs of the Apocalypse I think, after "raining frogs."


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 1, 2006)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Dude, iPod is the new Borg, and they're assimilating Humaniti rapidly.



Judging from Doctor Who, they are most likely not the new Borg, but the (new) Cybermen!

That said, maybe the Borg/Cybermen are actually a good thing. So far, Apple machines and design made a good impression on me...


----------



## Umbran (Nov 1, 2006)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> That assume we like prequels in general...




No.  Without going to more exotic structures - they could easily be parat of flashback sequences.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 1, 2006)

Umbran said:
			
		

> ... they could easily be parat of flashback sequences.




"Anybody remember her comin' at me with a butcher's knife?"
"Braaark!  Wacky fun!  Wacky fun!   Braaark!"

-Hyp.


----------



## Alaric_Prympax (Nov 2, 2006)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> They're in vending machines now. That's like, one of the signs of the Apocalypse I think, after "raining frogs."





Locusts!  Don't forget the locusts!   You *always* have to have locusts. 

Then the iPods.


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 2, 2006)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> So far, Apple machines and design made a good impression on me...



So far, they haven't impressed me.


----------



## frankthedm (Nov 5, 2006)

Aurora said:
			
		

> {cry}
> How could people NOT like that show........



It ain't about not liking the show, it is about letting the dead stay buied, not reanimated as a necrotic cash cow for hollywood to suckle on, draining it of every drop of green. The story lived it's life and has passed on. The dead are mourned, not dug up to be reused after they are gone.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Nov 5, 2006)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> The story lived it's life and has passed on. The dead are mourned, not dug up to be reused after they are gone.



Dude, I play D&D.  That is SO not true...


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 5, 2006)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> So far, they haven't impressed me.



Ever used one of them?


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 6, 2006)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Ever used one of them?



Back in the 80's, I touched an Apple.


----------



## mattcolville (Nov 6, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> Let me get you off on the right foot: if you're going for a wild blend of space-opera and two-fisted western, don't call your movie "Serenity". Laymen won't get the irony, and likely as not will dismiss it as an Ingmar Bergman film featuring naked old people.
> 
> Seriously, I don't know how Whedon didn't grasp what a big mistake the title was...




Also, don't cast TV actors in what you want to be a big budget blockbuster.


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 6, 2006)

mattcolville said:
			
		

> Also, don't cast TV actors in what you want to be a big budget blockbuster.



TV actors are not all bad. Patrick Stewart managed to do well after three _X-Men_ films. Tom Hank as well.

Besides, I would have a fit if they recast the characters, if you're transitioning from TV to film. That's like recasting Kirk while Shatner is still able in the 80's.

However, I will agree that they should not have spent that much money in production. _Serenity_ is a decent film, but not meant to be a major blockbuster.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 6, 2006)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Back in the 80's, I touched an Apple.



And that hand hurts on a rainy day ever since? 



> Also, don't cast TV actors in what you want to be a big budget blockbuster.



Because of the name value or because TV actors are bad? The latter is certainly not true, but the former might indeed be a problem.


----------



## Klaus (Nov 6, 2006)

mattcolville said:
			
		

> Also, don't cast TV actors in what you want to be a big budget blockbuster.



 I'll be sure to tell Michael J. Fox that he shouldn't have been cast on Back to the Future.


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 6, 2006)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> And that hand hurts on a rainy day ever since?



I can't wash the filth since.   




			
				Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Because of the name value or because TV actors are bad? The latter is certainly not true, but the former might indeed be a problem.



Okay, I know you're not responding to me because that is not my statement.


----------



## Meloncov (Nov 7, 2006)

mattcolville said:
			
		

> Also, don't cast TV actors in what you want to be a big budget blockbuster.




Are you complaining about the quality of there actors (which I wouldn't consider a valid complaint) or just the publicity of the names?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 7, 2006)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> I can't wash the filth since.







> Okay, I know you're not responding to me because that is not my statement.



Yes, that was a post by _mattcolville_. I forgot (read: Was to lazy) to add his name to the quote tags.


----------



## Ampolitor (Nov 8, 2006)

*hmm*

Well I thought it was a pretty cool movie and I never saw the TV series. For all of you that are making fun of it or saying it sucks well all I have to say is
Dungeons and Dragons Movie,,,,nuff said.


----------



## minitrue (Nov 8, 2006)

*No Serenity, but check this out.*

Well the real shame is no sequel for Serenity, but we will have to endure yet another Bloodrayne movie.

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news06/061107b.php


----------



## Firebeetle (Nov 12, 2006)

*Just watched the whole thing*

Over the last month, god knows when I found the time, I watched the whole season and finally Serenity. It was awesome. Not only is it good science-fiction, it's science fiction married with my other favorite genre, the Western. Not only that, but it has an excellent ensemble cast, cleverly written stories with unexpected twists, excellent dialogue, an incredible set, believeable characters, sex, chinese cursing, a complete universe, unusual camera work, special effects that are believeable and done from new angles, excellent villains, and a great mystery too.

The whole thing was a terrific ride from beginning to end (except for the "Heart of Gold" episode.)  And now it's over. I never got to be a part of the fan movement to keep it alive. I'm not sure if that is a good or bad thing. I don't feel the crushing disappointment some of you must feel, but I never had those moments of amazing hope or connection either. 

I'm really surprised that SciFi didn't pick this one up, given their success with the similar treatment on Battlestar Galactica. Anyone know why they didn't?

What a great show. I will miss it. For the first time since reading Doctor Who books when I was 14, I might actually pick up any novels they make.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 12, 2006)

Firebeetle said:
			
		

> I'm really surprised that SciFi didn't pick this one up, given their success with the similar treatment on Battlestar Galactica. Anyone know why they didn't?




Well, two things...

BSG started with the concept that it'd be on Sci Fi.  So there was no issues with getting some people to let go of it and hand it over to someone else.  No switching there.

At the time it endedits run, _Firefly_ had really lousy ratings, to be honest.  No matter how good it was, few people were watching it, and you can't fault SciFi for not picking up a show with really bad ratings.  

Many of the current fans didn't watch the show while it was on the air.  They got tolove it based on teh DVDs.  I know darned tootin' my wife and I were trying to get our friends to watch it, and they all went, "Well, I dunno.  Western in space?  Sounds corny..."  Now, of course, they act like they knew all along how great it was...


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Nov 12, 2006)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Many of the current fans didn't watch the show while it was on the air.  They got tolove it based on teh DVDs.  I know darned tootin' my wife and I were trying to get our friends to watch it, and they all went, "Well, I dunno.  Western in space?  Sounds corny..."  Now, of course, they act like they knew all along how great it was...



Frankly, I was utterly unaware that the show EXISTED until near the end of its run - and that was only because I saw posts about it here.  I did not happen to learn what it was ABOUT until it was over and the concerted movement to keep it on/return it to the air had been in place.  I then never managed to SEE a moment of the show until the DVD's were released.  I then only knew of the EXISTENCE of a movie because I had finally, after all that time, FOUND the show.

Even though I went to see the movie with friends, and they enjoyed it, I'm STILL trying to get them to WATCH THE SHOW.  My brother has almost exactly the same tastes in SF as me.  I KNOW he would love this show to death.  I've told him more than once that he should be able to find it being shown in HD (I tivo it and watch it every week even though I have the DVD's), and have also told him to just go ahead and buy the DVD's.  He remains largely unaware of what he's missing.  I have another friend that I played D&D with for about 15 years (in addition to Traveller, Space Opera, etc.).  I recently discovered that he, too, was UTTERLY UNAWARE of the series or the movie.  These are only a few examples that I am convinced are repeated endlessly with only minor variations.

I can only conclude that Firefly and Serenity too were never properly promoted.  I, and others like me, LIVE for this kind of stuff and if you can't find US with your advertising before your show ever begins then you're just not doing something right.


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 13, 2006)

Ampolitor said:
			
		

> Well I thought it was a pretty cool movie and I never saw the TV series. For all of you that are making fun of it or saying it sucks well all I have to say is
> Dungeons and Dragons Movie,,,,nuff said.



I swear ... there is one guy here -- whose name escapes me -- that hate _Serenty/Firefly_ but loves _D&D: The Movie._


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Nov 13, 2006)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> I swear ... there is one guy here -- whose name escapes me -- that hate _Serenty/Firefly_ but loves _D&D: The Movie._



Well, there's always one nut-job in every batch.

I never watched the show while it was on the air, due to my playing in a Star Wars campaign on those nights.  Been debating on picking up the box set, but it's also a manner of money allocation.  I did like the movie, and if nothing else thought it was a good note to go out on, even if it didn't perform as well as hoped at the box office.


----------

