Luigi, if you get a chance to see this movie before it's shceduled release, could you possibly sneak ina video camera? My grandmotehr took a blow to the head as the result of a motorcycyle accident in the 70s, and one of the unfortuante side-effetcs is, she can't watch any kind of movie on the big screen without getting seizures (Matrix Reloaded would've killed her!), so even moives like Bowling For Columbine are out of the question. I myself will be seing it on the big screen. maybe the same day as the 'Hitchhikers' movie, but I know fellow Firefly fan (Serenity, for those that don't know, is the continuation of a story started on a brilliant and therefore doomed Fox show created by Joss Whedon called Firefly) Judy won't wnat to wait for the DVD.

Brian, you are asking Luigi to commit what (at least under CA law) is a felony.

I should've included a smiley face. Of course I don't want that! My grandmother does. ;) Kidding again. I really just wanted to get the topic going.

Sure, I can sneak in a camera. With all the security checks they've now had since April of last year, including the metal detector wands, a search table where they go through your bags, and having to check in cell phones and stuff before you go in, sure I can sneak in a camera, even though I don't own one, and even though it'd mean my job.

No problem, Brian.

I went through all that at last night's Stepford Wives screening. Lots of fun. At least I didn't have a cell phone.

Wow, it would stink to go to your screenings.

Has anyone noticed the glaring error in the commercial's narration? It starts off with the narrator saying, "The crew of Serenity's newest passenger..."

Huh? What do you mean "the crew of a passenger"? Shouldn't he be saying, "Serenity's newest passenger..."? How can a passenger have a crew? Isn't the passenger one of the crew?

I think they mean the passenger of the crew. She's their passenger.

That still wouldn't make sense. It would make sense if the narrator said, "The newest member of Serenity's crew..."

And even that wouldn't be accurate, since River came aboard at the same time as Simon and Book.

Luigi, surely you're aware that promos for movies are always a little bit deceptive. Of course if you want extreme deception (at least I hope it is), take a gander at the eyesore known as the Serenity International Movie Poster. First off, there's nothing about the poster to indicate that it's a science fiction movie. The bold print proclaiming "From the creator of Buffy and Angel" would suggest to someone not familiar with Firefly that it's an angsty vampire flick. The fact that River is in the forefront wielding a blade in each hand and looking like a Goth slut wouldn't discourage that line of thought.

Yeah, but we're not talking about deceptive here; we're talking about grammatically incorrect. The sentence just makes no sense.

Gordon, the poster may be deceptive but River looks smoking in it.

Oh does anyone else hope that if this film does well at the box office it could help get the Babylon 5 theatrical movie off the ground. They were close to making it last winter (they even sent out casting calls) but JMS pulled the plug when WB wanted to recast characters from the TV series and change the story. If Serenity does well it could show that TV shows continued faithfully on the big screen with the origional cast members can be bankable. As if they should have to after the Star Trek, South Park & X-Files films.

Me, I'm just hoping that it leads to a renewed Firefly series.

Sorry Luigi, but I believe that Mr. Whedon has stated that a renewed TV series is not in the cards.

Something that has me worried came from the mostly positive review at comingsoon.net. In it, the reviewer stated that the Reavers were "disappointing". I'm hoping he was just talking about the Ten Foot Cockroach Conundrum, since that's unavoidable. I fear Mr. Whedon may change the origin story of the Reavers presented in the TV series into something horribly lame.

For those who don't get it in their paper, the comic strip Foxtrot gave a plug for Serenity yesterday.

http://www.ucomics.com/foxtrot/2005/09/29/

Maybe Jerry Stiller could have reprised his Seinfeld role of Frank Costanza, and pop in and out of the film screaming "Serenity Now!"

I saw it. I liked it, but I think I'll have to see it again to really know how I felt about it. I'd say it's second to Batman as the best popcorn flick of the year.

I thought I read somewhere that Whedon would not be opposed to doing the TV series again, but would not do so with FOX again. I could be wrong.

I saw it last night and really hated the explanation for the origin of the Reavers. In the series, it was derived from the fact that there would be psychological effects from long term space travel (something that's never touched upon in TV/movie science fiction). To see that simply tossed to the wayside for the sake of having a Blake's 7 homage was just too much.

And why did Wash have to die, and in that particular manner too? I know it's a tradition for ignominious things to happen to Comical Sidekicks, but it's generally more along the lines of Smiley Burnette getting dumped off his horse into a water trough.

Other than those two flaws (and the fact that the Ten Foot Cockroach Conundrum was in full effect with the Reavers), I really did enjoy the movie.

A nit though. It seems Jayne recovers rather quickly from having a harpoon skewered through his leg. You'd think he'd at least be limping for a while.

SPOILER WARNINGS, GORDON!!!!!

Arrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggghhhhhhh!!!!


Moderator, can you please put a spoiler warning bracket around Gordon's revelation above?

Well, there was that Gene Autry film where Pat Buttram is scalped and eaten, so there is precedent, I suppose.

But seriously, spoiler warnings would be nice for films currently in release (There was a discussion about this in Twilight Zone; I think it's generally okay to follow a sort of "couple year" statue of limitations).

Unless there's a pre- and a post-movie board, you should probably assume that spoilers are going to be contained in the posts. The site is to nitpick the presentation, after all.

Still, spoilers should be confined to at least a second paragraph to avoid having them show in the Last Day view.

Well, for a while there, we were just talking about the notion of a renewed series. You do have a point, though.

Another nit. I'm terribly disappointed with the fighting abilities of the Reavers. What did they do when fighting River? Line up in single file so they could be sliced up individually? I don't care what sort of precognitive abilities River might have. A simple gang-up would have made such powers effectively useless. All in all, the Reavers were a sad joke.

Oh, before anyone points out how Jedi take on a zillion at a time, please note that they have a wider range of powers. Not to mention the lightsaber is a superior weapon. Also, the times we see Jedi slicing through a horde of extras the spaces are wide open. If it looks like a gang-up is in the making, a simple superleap to safety will do the trick. River was in a very confined space where a gang-up would have been quite easy.

It did seem like they were holding back for some reason. You'd think Reavers would just bum rush her. Just engulf her. Oh well.

This may sound ignorant, but what exactly is the "Ten Foot Cockroach Conundrum"?

Gordon Lawyer: In the series, it was derived from the fact that there would be psychological effects from long term space travel (something that's never touched upon in TV/movie science fiction). To see that simply tossed to the wayside for the sake of having a Blake's 7 homage was just too much.
It wasn't the definitive explanation, even in the series. It was just a guess, a hypothesis on where the Reavers came from. They even mentioned it at the beginning of the movie.

Gordon, I apologize for my all-caps snap at you earlier. In thinking it over, it's clear that my position was not reasonable. The beginning of your post indicated that you saw the film, so logically, I should not have continued reading after that. I'm sorry for my outburst.

Awesome movie. It hit all the right notes. I'll probably list some more detailed nits and notes tomorrow.

That's okay Luigi. No big deal.

I first read about the Ten Foot Cockroach Conundrum in Stephen King's Danse Macabre. It concerns the point in a horror story when (I'm paraphrasing here) you fling open the door, have the monster jump out going booga-booga, and hope to God no one sees the zipper on the monster costume. Anyway, the result is rarely as frightening as the reader/viewer imagined. Say the monster is a ten foot cockroach. The reader/viewer will be relieved that it wasn't a twenty foot cockroach. If you had made it a twenty foot cockroach, they would have been relieved that it hadn't been a fifty foot cockroach, and so on.

It may not have been definitive, but it was infinitely more interesting than drugs in the water. As I said previously, the psychological effects of long term space travel routinely gets ignored in TV/movie SF. This was a chance to break new ground. So I hope you understand my disappointment in the Reavers being the result of an experiment with horrific results on humans by a sinister corporation/government agency which got covered up. This is a concept which has appeared in both literary and TV/movie SF ad nauseam.

You forgot to do a SPOILER WARNING again!

I liked it but it had a few problems.

There were many points where I wondered, where are they?

If Firefly is the name of the ship, what does "Serenity" refer to?

At the beginning, Earth's excess population is going to another solar system. The narrator says one solar system has been discovered. What about all those exoplanets astronomers have been discovering lately??

We get the idea humans are colonizing only one solar system.

But then somebody mentions the galaxy, which implies thousands or millions of star systems. How many star systems have been colonized? How long does it take to go between star systems?

Reducing the overpopulation is the same rationale used in "Lost in Space", and the problem is you'd have to be launching thousands of starships every day to make a dent in the population problem.

I think they did show the Reivers trying to rush River but there were a lot of dead bodies on the floor blocking their way, and she was very quick, and could anticipate their every move.

How much of that did the actress do herself?

Okay, another SPOILER WARNING--highlight to read:


They didn't show the part where they conveniently persuaded the Reivers to follow them into a battle with the Alliance. How did it happen? And I'm glad River survived.

roger: If Firefly is the name of the ship, what does "Serenity" refer to?
Serenity is the name of the ship. It's a Firefly-Class transport.

roger:
Reducing the overpopulation is the same rationale used in "Lost in Space", and the problem is you'd have to be launching thousands of starships every day to make a dent in the population problem.
Who says they didn't? There probably was a mass exodus of thousands of ships.

roger: How much of that did the actress do herself?
I read that she did most of it.

Answer to you SPOILER


SPOILER WARNING:


They didn't persuade the Reavers to follow them. They ran from the Reavers, and when you try to run from Reavers, Reavers chase you. They just stayed ahead of them until they reached the Alliance fleet.

roger: I think they did show the Reivers trying to rush River but there were a lot of dead bodies on the floor blocking their way, and she was very quick, and could anticipate their every move.

Yeah, but shouldn't all those dead bodies on the floor hinder her as well?

At the beginning, Earth's excess population is going to another solar system. The narrator says one solar system has been discovered. What about all those exoplanets astronomers have been discovering lately??

This particular system allegedly has multiple stars and hundreds of planets and moons suitable for terraforming. According to the official Serenity RPG, there are about fifty odd planets and moons currently terraformed. It just goes to show that when you try to create a science fiction setting devoid of a particular piece of bolognium (such as FTL travel), another piece will spring in its place hydra-like (such as fifty odd planets and moons which can be lived on without any special life support equipment being within reasonable slow sublight distance). Or you might end up taking another piece of bolognium (such as artificial gravity) and make it fried bolognium (moons too small to hold their own atmosphere have artificial gravity generators placed at strategic points as part of the terraforming process).

It just goes to show that when you try to create a science fiction setting devoid of a particular piece of bolognium (such as FTL travel), another piece will spring in its place hydra-like (such as fifty odd planets and moons which can be lived on without any special life support equipment being within reasonable slow sublight distance).

They can be lived on without special equipment because they were all terraformed.

There has been discussion of having ecosystems *inside* hollowed-out moons and asteroids.

I was going to suggest the series and movies take place in a multiple star system. It sounds at least as plausible as FTL and gravity generators. And I'm glad we didn't have to worry about Universal Translators and holodecks!

I'd like to go look for the RPG info online as soon as I finish this here.

But if it's all in one star system what's the point of mentioning a "galactic" war and dominating the "galaxy"?

I'd like to look up the RPG info.

I was going to suggest the series and movie take place in the Alpha Centauri star system, which is very close, all 3 stars could have plenty of suitable planets and moons. It would be interesting.

The Eta Hydrae system has seven stars, I think, but it's a lot further away. I don't know how easy it would be to terraform those planets and moons, but there could be plenty of them there.

It seems a bit much to swallow that the Reivers are so insane, but sane enough to learn how to operate a starship and navigate through space. Are they sane when there are no non-Reivers around?


roger: I think they did show the Reivers trying to rush River but there were a lot of dead bodies on the floor blocking their way, and she was very quick, and could anticipate their every move.

Yeah, but shouldn't all those dead bodies on the floor hinder her as well?

The disadvantage of the dead bodies on the floor are just outweighed by the advantage of her precognition, telepathy and dexterity.

roger: They can be lived on without special equipment because they were all terraformed.

Yes but there's still the problem of distance from the sun. All these planets and moons have to be within a relatively narrow orbit band to keep from being too hot or too cold.

There has been discussion of having ecosystems *inside* hollowed-out moons and asteroids.

Nothing in the movie or the original TV series suggests anything of the sort.

In its first week, Serenity pulled in a little over ten megs. Since Universal will only do a sequel if it grosses eighty megs, this does not bode particularly well.

************SPOILERS*****************

In Mal's final fight with The Operative why in the world does he just run and grab the chain when the guy goes down after ebing shot at? He knows that the guy wears body armor and that he's in big trouble if The Operative gets behind him while he's hanging from the chain. Why not take the 3 extra seconds it would take the shoot The Operative in the head and make sure he's dead?

Personally I liked the Reavers origen story. To me the whole "they were men who just went mad at the edge of space" sounded more like "the Black Pearl is captianed by a man so evil hell itself spat him out". It's the legend people tell of, it's not what really happened. Espically since the madness would have to have struck by the thousands on people who convieantly have ships while our characters and God knows who else spend so long in deep space without having the desire to cut themselvs and become murderous rapists.

Personally I also think that the reason Joss killed 2 regulars is

A: Because he likes to keep viewers on their toes so that they understand that anyone can die at any moment. To keep people from just watching and knowing that none of the regulars are in any real danger because they are regulars. He also did kill several regulard on Buffy and Angel for the same reason.

I also think he may have been trying to thin the cast a little bit. When he created the show with 9 regulars it was to be in a show that would have 25 episodes each 45 minutes long (not counting commercials) per season. That's around 19 hours per year. Plenty of time to tell the stories of 9 people. When he signed the deal for Serenity it was for 3 movies (if thise one does good) that's like 6 hours over several years. Not nearly as much time to tell 9 stories. Perhaps he didn't want characters to be like some of the Star Trek regulars who went through 6 movies with little more to say than "shields up, fireing phasers and hailing frequencys opened"

I've already listed my grievances over the Reavers in my October 3 post, so I won't repeat them here. I'll just add that, in the way they were presented, they weren't even ten foot cockroaches. Just ordinary sized ones, frightening only to those already afraid of cockroaches. Metaphorically speaking of course.

I'm not sure why I didn't think of this before. What makes anyone think that broadcasting the recording about Miranda will actually do anything to upset the status quo? Is it remotely believable that the Alliance is just going to sit on its hands? More likely, they'd cook up some weaselly propaganda stating to the effect that the broadcast is the work of a bunch of delusional malcontents. And let's face it, the whole thing is quite incredible sounding. Add the fact that the existence of Reavers is generally not accepted. Assuming there's a sequel (and considering its current box office take, that's not a given), I kind of hope this is what will happen. It would fit in with the Free Trader aspects of the series, something which has been virtually ignored in this movie.

Just saw the movie. Never saw the tv show, so I had no preconceptions.

I loved the movie! I was completely drawn into it (rare for me) and the thing that really did it for me were the characters. Kudos to the actors for bringing their characters to life! But also, it had a great balance of action, suspense, humor, romance, and even a little horror thrown in!

But... this isn't the place for praise. It's a place for nitpicking. So...

1. Reavers -- how can such incredibly violent creatures survive and cooperate enough to operate complex vehicles and coordinate attacks and raids? Why haven't they cannibalized themselves?

2. (SPOILER ALERT) Shouldn't a serious sword wound to the gut cause considerable loss of blood? Enough loss of blood to render a person unconcious at the least, dead at the most?

3. (SPOILER ALERT) Without connective tissue, wouldn't the skeletons have come apart rather under the stress of unprotected space travel? Or did they take the time to both disintegrate the flesh AND weld the bones together?

Gelzyme: Reavers -- how can such incredibly violent creatures survive and cooperate enough to operate complex vehicles and coordinate attacks and raids? Why haven't they cannibalized themselves?

Now I don't mean to disrespect Mr. Whedon (ah who am I kidding, of course I mean to disrespect him ), but this is another area where he screwed up with the Reavers. Since the original series had strong Western elements, he was probably going for something along the lines of the Hostile Indian archtype. The problem is that he apparently hasn't put much thought in how they would work. Quite frankly, the fanfic writers have come up with better ideas concerning Reavers.

Also we haven't seen much of the Reavers at all in the series or the movies. Over the course of the series we saw that they set booby traps, fly in ships that belch black smoke and are very destructive when they attack. In the movie we saw them attack a settlement, chase an intruder down and fight in a big battle, which showed us that they are tattooed, dirty and pierced. Just because they are aggressive does not mean that they are animals, heck just because they are cannibalistic doesn't mean they are animals. I think that they are aggressive in the same way that pirates of old are aggressive or that soldiers can be aggressive and use fear as a weapon against others.

Put yourself in the place of say a Vietnamese villager back in the 1960s/70s. You have lived in a little farming village for your whole life and never and been any further into the world. American soldiers fly overhead in choppers, some of which have sharks teeth or skull and cross bones painted on them. These machines reign down death and destruction for no apparent reason that you can see. When they come into the village they are covered in mud (from weeks in the jungle) yell and scream in a language you don't understand, point guns at people. Sometimes they may even shoot someone for no reason, or one of them may rape a local woman. From the point of view of someone who has only seen you from the business end of a gun Americans might look pretty savage.

Perhaps a lot of what they do is strictly for shock. I've heard stories about things that Vietnamesse soldiers did to captured americans, mostly because they hated the americans and were playing psycological games to scare them.

Psyops can be a glorious thing when done right.

You make some good points there Brian. However, the recording the crew of Serenity found seems to suggest otherwise. Plus I don't think any culture has ever used canniballism as a terror tool in the way you suggest.

---
Shouldn't a serious sword wound to the gut cause considerable loss of blood? Enough loss of blood to render a person unconcious at the least, dead at the most?
---
Depends on where it is, I think we can assume the operative is good enough to stab someone where it won't cause significant blood loss if he wants to.

Yesterday I came across a review which made an interesting statement. It was, "If Star Wars is the Wagner of space opera, then Serenity is the Gilbert and Sullivan." Since the reviewer liked the film, I'm sure it was meant as a compliment. As I rather like the works of Gilbert and Sullivan, I'm willing to accept it as one.

Went to see it again last night. Watching the brief scene with River fighting the Reavers, they were indeed effectively lining up single file to get clobbered. There wasn't even a hint of a gang-up attempt.

And watching the scene with Mal and the Operative after Serenity has been patched up, you get the impression that the Alliance did indeed just sat on their hands regarding the broadcast. You'd think something like that would warrant a massive propaganda effort. It just stretches credibility past the breaking point.

One final comment (unless something else comes up). Earlier, someone noted that the explanation about the Reaver origins was like the truth behind the Black Pearl in Pirates of the Caribbean. While there is superficial resemblance, I disagree with that sentiment. The cursed Aztec gold was also an interesting idea. But IMNSHO Prozac addicted orcs are a lame idea.

No what I meant was "they were men who went mad at the edge of space" was like "it is captianed by a man so evil that hell itself spat him out". It's a legend.

Sorry about the mix-up. Still, my point stands. It just rubs me the wrong way that the psychological aspects of space travel are so indifferently tossed aside. Such are a big concern for a manned trip to Mars (assuming that ever happens).

Personally I don't see why such psychological aspects would be that much diferent than those of people who have spend long times (6 months or more) under water or antarctic explorers of yesterday.

I'm guessing you're referring to the fact that in such situations you're stuck with the same few people for a long period of time. With space, there's also the fact that you're surrounded by an infinite amount of nothing.

It's official. Serenity failed to break even at the box office. As a reminder, the budget was forty megs. It's pulled in twenty-five megs domestically and ten overseas. Of course the DVD sales will make up the difference, but the agreement for having a sequel was eighty megs at the box office. Add in the fact that Mr. Whedon is busy with Wonder Woman and Goners, the chances for a sequel are virtually nonexistent. Can't say that I'm terribly choked up over that prospect though.

Some might find a silver lining in the poor box office showing from the fact that the DVD is being released December 20. Too bad the cover art is an eyesore (enough that I'll buy it online so I don't have to be seen carrying it in public) and the blurb leaves me wondering if its writer saw the same movie I did.

Ok Somehow my wife managed to get a copy of this for me for christmas. (I love her so much!!!!!)

Now I just managed to watch this tonight and so havent gone into analytical mode. I just wanted to make a few commetns about the DVD.

We have the fullscreen version so it may not be as cool as the widescreen but it does make it feel sort of like watching the series again. (though without the commercials)

I loved the bonus materials. Outtakes, deleted scenes and some behind the scenes stuff which was cool. Somethign I noticed during the outtakes is how the cast (especially mal) is able to improve when they goof up and actually (sometimes) make it make sense. Also how hot the ladies are out of character as well.

About the packaging. The cover art isnt the greatest in my opinion but it isnt the absolute worst either. What did seem skimpy was that the only thing in the package other than the DVD was a single page with an ad for Battlestar Galactica on one side and the olympics on the other. Rather disappointing somehow. But oh well.

I hope you'll pardon another burst of cynicism. I've noticed recently that some of the hard core fans are trying to delude themselves into thinking that there's a chance of a sequel. Their biggest point is that movies such as Austin Powers and Transporter fared poorly at the box office yet had theater release sequels made. However I doubt that those films had the same level of hype that Serenity got when they were released (not to mention all those early screenings).

Well to be honest while I would love to see a sequel or a return to the tv series I am not goign to hold my breathe or get too excited about it. That way if it should happen I'll be much happier than I wouldnt. We'll have to wait and see what happens.

I don't think this film had as much hype as you seem to be saying. I remember a bunch of TV ads from about 2 weeks before the film was to come out. The early screenings were a big thing but the hard core fans snatched up all of the tickets as soon as they found out where they were avalable so it didn't do anything to build hype for anyone who wasn't already going to see the movie anyway.

If anyone ever visits the site, Television Without Pity has a recap for the movie up. If you're wondering why it's 35 pages long besides being a 2 hour movie it's recapped by Jacob, who not only recaps but breaks down every possible minute detail and psychoanalyzes each and every character throughout his caps.

Over at the Pinnacle Forum, a guy with the user name Solabusca came up with an idea explaining the Reavers as presented in the movie which I think is really good (and when you consider how much I despise the movie Reavers, that's saying something). If it weren't for the fact that the movie Reavers were derived from a tired cliche which should be retired, I'd accept it. Here it is more or less verbatim.

"Given that they're supposed to be boogeymen, the Firefly version of Old West Comanches without the race element, it falls to reason that the Miranda effect doesn't reduce them to Rage zombies a la 28 Days Later, but to cunning, cruel and efficient predators - ones that revel in their cruelty, even to the point of making a very few watch their depredations. I considered it a form of 'poetic justice' in the eyes of Reavers. They're showing the victim what they themselves saw - their fellows being completely pacified. Whatever it is, it's not animalistic - animals tend not to kill for pleasure.

"Note that none of the Miranda corpses we saw were gnawed upon or defiled in anyway.

"Think of the Miranda experiment this way - It's a broadband Jekyll/Hyde formula - for most, it excises the aggresiveness that makes humans go out and do things. For the remaining few it radically alters the brain's chemistry, removing certain... inhibitions. While not radically changing the intellect, it removes certain elements of the passivity."

Wow, what a movie. I had wanted to post some thoughts on it when I first saw it in theaters, but never got around to, and after seeing it again yesterday after the DVD I won on ebay had arrived, it was even better than the first time. The structure of the script and characterization was so good.

My god, Chiwetel Ejiofor was INCREDILE! What was great about seeing this film when I did is that I had just seen Dirty Pretty Thing not too long prior, in which he played a somewhat ineffectual, milquetoast character. Seeing him here as a full-blown bad guy, and a scarily effective one, showed me what a good actor he is. He was also okay in Slow Burn, which we screened in January in Harlem, but that was a small part for him, and not very challenging. But Tuesday night, I caught the last ten or fifteen minutes of Kinky Boots, which we screened in New York, in which he plays a transvestite shoe designer. This guy really is versatile. With the right vehicle, he could be poised for superstardom.

Simon indicated in the pilot episode of the show that the he hired people from an underground movement to sneak her to Persephone, where he would then flee with her, but the opening scenes of the movie show him rescuing her personally.

I really liked that Scorcese-esque tracking shot which follows Mal from the cockpit through the corridors, the infirmary, the engine room, and the cargo bay, establishing the interior of the ship for the newcomer, and letting you know that they actually built all that! Well done!

Correct me if I’m wrong, but Serenity didn’t have those landing legs in the series, but would just be set down on her “abdomen”, right?

What I also found interesting was how my perception of the story and setting were influenced by the fact that I saw the first trailer for the film before I viewed the entire series’ run on DVD, and then saw the film. In seeing the trailer, I thought that River was the established “martial arts character”, given the shots shown from the barroom brawl. But then I saw the series, and she never fights in it. In seeing the movie, I realized that this was the first time this ability of hers was established, which made me wonder, when they cast Summer Glau, did they purposefully cast someone who had martial arts ability and flexibility? Because otherwise it sure is convenient that she could do some of those high kicks, and even do that split when hanging onto the ceiling of the hospital when Simon was rescuing her. And btw, those fight scenes were great.

Wow, they sure showed a lot more of Inara’s cleavage in this story. Hell, even River showed some in that shot of her lying down in the dark corridor on Serenity.

Something I didn’t notice when I first saw the movie in theaters: They use sound effects during the space battle in the last Act, instead of keeping it silent as in the tv show.

One thing that was clarified for me when seeing this movie again was seeing Mal elbow the Operative in the throat, which ended their second duel at Mr. Universe’s place. When I first saw it, I thought Mal cut his throat (I don’t know why; maybe I just didn’t follow that show closely enough), and didn’t understand why the Operative didn’t die right there.

I far prefer the origin given in the movie for the Reavers than the “went crazy at the edge of space” nonsense that was offered in the series. It was far more plausible, and tied together the Reavers with the evil of the Alliance.

Why did Mal and Jayne remove the cannon from on top of Serenity at the end of the movie? Why not keep it?

Simon indicated in the pilot episode of the show that the he hired people from an underground movement to sneak her to Persephone, where he would then flee with her, but the opening scenes of the movie show him rescuing her personally.

Joss Wheadon was origionally going to open the movie with her rescue and delivery to Simon, but decided that having Simon do it personally was more exciting and personal even if it broke continuity.


In seeing the movie, I realized that this was the first time this ability of hers was established, which made me wonder, when they cast Summer Glau, did they purposefully cast someone who had martial arts ability and flexibility? Because otherwise it sure is convenient that she could do some of those high kicks, and even do that split when hanging onto the ceiling of the hospital when Simon was rescuing her. And btw, those fight scenes were great.

Summer Glau's background is as a dancer and Joss knew this when casting her as the first time he met her was when he cast her as a Prima Ballerina, in Angel. Wheadon was known on his Buffy and Angel shows for planning out some plot twists entire seasons in advance. He also has been quoted as saying that he hates it when shows where things stay static character wise, he said that's why he stopped watching the X-Files around season 5, Mulder and Scully were still believer skeptic, dispite everything Scully's seen in the pervious 5 years. In "War Stories" he had River pick up a gun and shoot 3 people dead on without looking, and than no one even mentions it to the others until "Objects in Space", which is also where we see her easdropping on the others by standing in the hall with her legs spread appart so much she's got on foot on each wall of the hallway.

Luigi Novi: Something I didn’t notice when I first saw the movie in theaters: They use sound effects during the space battle in the last Act, instead of keeping it silent as in the tv show.

Yeah, they asked Joss about that in an interview. He says that the battle is supposed to take place in the upper atmosphere of the planet. Maybe it was in the exosphere. I really have no idea how high you can go and still have enough matter for sound.

We consider outer space to begin 50 miles up, IIUC. And astronauts are not considered astronauts unless they breach that limit.

We consider outer space to begin 50 miles up, IIUC. And astronauts are not considered astronauts unless they breach that limit.

62 miles. Or, more precisely 100km.

In addition to the Nasa Mercury/Gemini/Apollo/Skylab/Shuttle Astronauts, a few X-15 pilots received astronaut wings, as did Mike Melville and Brian Binney(?); the latter two being the worlds first "private" astronauts.

It's Brian Binnie.

I remember an old ep of Sci-Fi Buzz where Harlan Edison defended the use of some sound in space because even the vacuum of space does have some hydrogen atoms in it that could conduct, for example, the sound of a ship traveling at a significant fraction of the speed of light. Also weapons firing could make a sound on the ship firing them and on the ship they hit. For example when the O2 tank on Apollo 13 blew the crew said it sounded like a bomb going off.

Regarding the cannon, it was originally part of the defenses at that colony on Haven. Likely it wasn't designed to be mounted on a ship. Notice that Mal had to actually go outside the ship to fire it. This would be very inconvenient for regular use. Plus it would be an additional expense keeping it maintained and ammoed, not to mention the cargo space which would get hogged up by extra ammo.

Regarding when Mal fires the cannon. Almost immediately afterward, Serenity does a Firefly Fart and zooms off into the Wild Black Yonder. There wasn't enough time for him to get back inside before then. I have this image in my head of Mal clinging to the cannon for dear life screaming like a little girl. All for naught, since in space, no one is listening anyway. :P

Just because you have to go outside to use doesn't mean it wouldn't be convenient to have it there in the even that you'd need it. How much maintainence would one canon require. Of course it takes ammo and maintenance (and if they store it, space). But the advantages and options it gives would easily justify that investment.

And also mal's personal feelings towards violence. The fact that if the ship is armed that might be considered provacative, especially by the alliance and if he is wanting to have a low profile having a big cannon honking off anyone who gets honked by that sort of thing not to mention the effect it would have on the aerodynamics of the ship. (such as they are already) Also having to suit up and go outside in the event of nay combat could be considered a bit problematic at best.

I don't see why they can't outfit to retract into the ship, and program it to be fired from the cockpit.

Well for one thing according to the schematics I've seen there isnt anywhere to retract it into. Those ships are not built with a lot of wasted room.

Plus it also probably does go back a lot into the armed vessal causes a lot of problems that could be avoided by staying an unarmed civilian tramp freighter. Especially with the alliance. I imagine that they would see the arming of a freighter as a rather unecessarily provocative action of pirate. something mal would probably like to avoid.

---

Quote:

62 miles. Or, more precisely 100km.

---

Re:Serenity DVD
I wonder exactly how long before a "Special Edition" Region 1 DVD comes out with the "Filmmaker's Journey" documentary that's on the U.K/Paneuropean Region 2/5 edition...?

Probably never. The fact that Universal released the DVD relatively early indicates that they regard it as a flop. And big studios generally do not put more money into such films. And yes I realize I'm being a cynic here.

Well, at least it finally broke even.

Another indication on how low key the DVD release was. I was recently going through the Thumbs Up Video audio files over at the Ebert and Roeper web site. As well as picking their favorite releases of the week, they will make note of what other films are coming out. Serenity did not get any mention. This is really bad considering they had given it two thumbs up.

Did anyone else have trouble swallowing how easily the Operative was swayed in the end? Consider that the guy is a fanatic who believes the Alliance will bring about a perfect society. In his view, no evil is too horrific if they support this effort. Very much a the ends justify the means sort of guy. This man had the people of every settlement which had ever offered the crew of Serenity sanctuary slaughtered down to the children. Does anyone honestly think that how the Reavers were created will bother him that much? Now, he might (and this is a big might) start entertaining doubts about the Alliance. But as a rule, fanatics generally don't experience sudden about faces in their convictions like that. More likely he'd regard the whole Pax incident as another pothole in the road to Utopia.

Actually I thought it was more like he said. It is his job to keep secrets not care what those secrets are. He failed to keep the secret so it was irrelevant to kill mal and all at this point.

Not that he had changed his mind about the alliance or his beliefs, just that he failed his job and by his honor he no longer had a need to kill the tams.

What has bothered me is how much of the reaver's forces where destroyed in orbit etc.. Since reaver's probably dont surrender or retreat does this mean all the reavers or at least a large percentage of them are now space dust? (considering how allince forces finally showed up at the end of the battle they must have won.)

I didn't se any about-face in his conviction. He failed to stop Mal from making the broadcast, and his superiors were upset, and since they had other things now to worry about it, probably put River back on the back-burner.

Who said Reavers don't retreat?

I would think he's experiencing doubts about the Alliance since he effectively quits them at the end.

It wouldn't surprise me if the Alliance wiped the Reavers out. Their ships didn't even look armed.

And while we don't know whether Reavers ever retreat, I don't think we've ever had any indication that they do.

While we havent seen any signs to definately say one way or the other all the behavior and attitudes we have seen do lend credence to the idea that no surrender no retreat would be the reaver attitude. Look at the battle against river in the bunker. 1 little girl takes out what looks like 2 dozen reavers (even if they do do the traditional karate movie circle and let one on one battles happen method)and they kept coming until apparently they ran out of reavers to attack her with. Also according to the movie their aggression behavior mode is ramped up above anythign seen before.

Sometimes when a person gets their blood up high enough it can be difficult for them to realize that they need to back off or calm down. Take it to the level of the reavers and you have a person that may not realize they are loosing and it would be better off to run away or give up.

I am betting that at those reaver ships where destroyed given the reaver behavior. But as for the reaver's ships being unarmed they had weapons on them. The untraditional harpoons and such but also remember the EMP pulse the reaver ship hit serenity with when they where tryign to land.

Actually I get the impression that after the Operative's final chat with Mal he wouldn't be doing much more thinking at all.

Remember the whole fall on your sword for failure, honorable death thing he had going on all through the movie?

Just because the truth gets out doesn't mean anyone will believe it. Remember that the people watching the broadcast aren't seeing it in the same context as the crew of Serenity did. They had walked through the streets seeing all the dead bodies before they watched the recording. Meanwhile, all Joe Shmoe will get is that he turns on his Cortex when suddenly he gets this recording of an anonymous woman blithering about something called Pax. A propaganda effort by the Alliance stating that it was the work of delusional malcontents should have dealt with it easily. You'd think the Operative, being so gung-ho about the better world the Alliance would being, would have thought of that.

A final thought about what ultimately ruined Serenity for me. It was simply too epic. Now, I don't have anything against epicness per se. But previous to Serenity, Mr. Whedon would frequently go on about how Firefly was nonepic working class science fiction. While the protagonists could occasionally be a minor nuisance to the Establishment, ultimately they wouldn't affect the status quo an iota. That was a big part of its charm, and it was a disappointment to see it tossed to the wayside. Now I'm sure some of you might say he had to make it epic so that it wouldn't come across as a two-parter put on the big screen. I would point you out to Knockin' on Heaven's Door, which is also a feature length film based on a nonepic science fiction TV series. The stakes were a lot bigger than anything from the TV series. But while the protagonists foiled the fiendish plan of the antagonist, there was no status quo upsetting involved. They didn't even get paid for their efforts. So it managed to retain its nonepic flavor and was still a good film.

I didn't see it as epic. I though the story flowed logically. Just because it had farther-reaching ramifications than episodes of the series didn't make it a problem for me. To each their own.

Hold on a minute. Do we have the same definition for epic here? While quite a few epic movies can strain story logic, epicness and weak story logic don't necessarily go hand in hand. My dictionary defines an epic as an extended narrative poem describing extraordinary achievements and events. Therefore, we get the adjective epic meaning (among other things) something that is imposingly great and of extraordinary scope.

And? My point was merely that whatever one's problem with the scope of the events, that they flowed logically from premises set up in the series, so there was nothing about the story that I saw that I had a problem with. Yeah, Mal and crew's exploits were typicaly less "extraordinary" on the show, but that's to be expected on a series of that type. But strictly speaking all fictional characters are "extraordinary" in some way. That's the very nature of writing fictional characters. They have to be set apart from the typical real-life people you see on the street. Keep in mind that Mal is a former soldier who fought the good fight against a tyrannical oppressor, point that was established in the pilot. That in itself makes him a less than ordinary person.

Here, through a course of the plot, he discovered something that pushed him to a course of action beyond the scope of what he normally did in the series, but it was consistent with his character, and one could argue that this is the direction his arc was ultimately headed: A chance for a rematch of sorts with the Alliance; to give them one last bloody nose, but for a good cause. He had no choice but to what he did, so epic or no, it was consistent with what came before. Me, I could much more easily understand someone having a problem with Jayne going along with the plan than with any other aspect of the story or the extraordinary scope it took on.

But again, to each their own.

Sorry about that. It's just that your wording made it come across as if you were saying that epic stories by their nature don't flow logically.

No, of course not. Sorry if I was unclear.

Here's Serenity... with Muppets. Some of the casting calls were obvious (Kermit as Mal, Fozzie as Wash). However, there were a couple of others which were a bit unexpected (particularly River).

Part 1: http://www.deviantart.com/view/28564479/
Part 2: http://www.deviantart.com/view/28564511/
Part 3: http://www.deviantart.com/view/28564540/
Part 4: http://www.deviantart.com/view/28564563/
Part 5: http://www.deviantart.com/view/28564585/
Part 6: http://www.deviantart.com/view/28564601/
Part 7: http://www.deviantart.com/view/28564622/
Part 8: http://www.deviantart.com/view/28564640/

How is Fozzie an obvious choice for Wash?

They're both Blonde and have a smart-alec attitude?

In the (paraphrased) words of Wash:

"Come on, [Luigi]. We all know I'm the funny one."

So, is the giant chicken thing in Seremuppety a reference to the "Giant Cockroach Conundrum"?

Seems slightly inconsistent that a man who would shoot someone rather than let Reavers take him would later set an entire fleet of them on a colony. He must have been pretty confident that the Alliance would take care of them...

(Or was the colony basically just an Alliance military institute? I can't remember...)

The planet was only Mr. Universe's listening station. He (and his lovebot) was the only one there.

Yep. Saw it again today and realised that. For some reason I remembered it as being some core planet. Guess it was the Alliance ships which made me remember it that way.

Although Mr Universe's planet does raise a couple questions. Such as if its a listening post/major telecomm relay why is it run/owned by just Mr Universe and his love bot?

And if its private property how does Mr Universe afford to have his own planet? As well as why does the Alliance let him have his own world with all that comm equipment where he can basically listen in on any transmission anywhere.

Is the Ion cloud artificial or natural? If its artificial then that would take a bit of high tech manipulation and be a bit of overkill for a private residence and more like a military govt thing, if its natural then thats wierd because it has a class M planet beneath it and you wouldnt think that would be possible. The whole place smacks to me of some kind of military/government installation that Mr Universe either runs for the govt or has taken it over and it was supposed to be automated.

My apologies to captain obvious for getting in his shoes for a moment, but this movie was a helluva lot more understandable after (finally) watching the television series.

"And why did Wash have to die, and in that particular manner too?" Gordon Lawyer

I agree. There was no reason for that after Shepard died. I actually thought Mal would die so somebody else could carry the torch.

"Quite frankly, the fanfic writers have come up with better ideas concerning Reavers." GL

Like what? Were they mentioned in one of your posts?

"...the Alliance did indeed just sat on their hands regarding the broadcast." GL

Actually I think the operative mentioned the Alliance doing some damage control on the situation, but his role was over. The operative didn't retaliate because he is an honorable man who was bested by another honorable man. There was no reason to kill anybody, his part was over.

"With space, there's also the fact that you're surrounded by an infinite amount of nothing." GL

I'm not an astronaught but I am a submariner. I doubt there is much psychological difference between spending long periods of time in space and under water. Although 'going mad at the edge of space' is an interesting concept, the Reaver origin in the movie is much more plausible than some strange psychosis.

I'm a bit confused by the opening sequence. Was this the original rescue of River or was she captured again between the series and movie? Luigi already pointed out the difference in rescue methods but Simon also knew nothing of her condition in the series, while here we learn a great deal of it. Were those dreams River had of her in school real memories or just dreams? Also, was the Alliance randomly showing that Blue Sun advertisement so one day River would go nuts and they'd find her? The Operative seemed very good at his job, I doubt it would take him three years to track her down.

Was this the original rescue of River or was she captured again between the series and movie?

I believe that it was since it's supposed to be a recording that the Operative is viewing.

Also, was the Alliance randomly showing that Blue Sun advertisement so one day River would go nuts and they'd find her?

The SPOILER WARNING comic series suggests that the Operative was recently given the assignment after the Hands of Blue guys failed to get her. I assumed that the message was one of his ideas for exposing her and helping the Alliance track her down.

Me: And why did Wash have to die, and in that particular manner too?

inblackestnight: I agree. There was no reason for that after Shepard died. I actually thought Mal would die so somebody else could carry the torch.

It would have been nicer if they had killed Simon instead. It would have given the hard care fans something to angst over and made me very happy. Did I mention that Simon is my least favorite character? :P

Me: Quite frankly, the fanfic writers have come up with better ideas concerning Reavers.

inblackestnight: Like what? Were they mentioned in one of your posts?

I might have. Couldn't say anymore though. At the time I originally posted that, I was still actively reading Firefly fanfics. But I got burned out on them some time back and have forgotten most of them.

Thank you Josh, that makes sense. I'm with you Gordon, I didn't care for Simon either, but I knew Kaylee was going to finally get some. However, she said "I'm gonna live" with no mention of anybody else so since the spiritual person was killed, why not the analytical person?

There was your post on 02-23-06 that mentioned a different way to look at the "Miranda Effect" Gordon. Does that count as fanfic?

Not really. It was more of an analysis.

Wash had to die so that the viewers could understand that Whedon would be willing to let them all go out in a blaze of glory in the pursuit of a higher calling. It also gave Zoe a motive for losin' it, which led to her getting wounded, and Simon getting wounded all added to this. Whedon, I'm guessing, wanted the viewers to plausibly feel that more might die, so that when River and Mal managed to pull off a victory, the happy ending (well, happier compared to what it would've been if they all died) would've that much sweeter. It's one example, IMO, of Whedon's skill as a writer.

Also, was the Alliance randomly showing that Blue Sun advertisement so one day River would go nuts and they'd find her?

According to Mr. Universe they've been playing it allover the place recently. And yes the idea was for her to go nuts so they could find her, it's kind of hard to keep a 90lb girl, kicking the butts of several guys who are bigger than her quiet for long. If Simon had not known the safe word to knock her out Mal would have probably had to shoot her. If she was dead that would have not been perfect, but it would have kept the secret.

I'm more inclined to believe that Wash died because Alan Tudyk had been having the most sucessful post-Firefly career of all the cast, what with his roles in Dodgeball and I, Robot as well as appearing on Broadway in Spam-a-lot.

His roles in those two movies would not seem to me to comprise that great a career. Were the other cast members not appearing in onscreen and offscreen roles of that caliber?

Josh M: It wouldn't surprise me if the Alliance wiped the Reavers out. Their ships didn't even look armed.
They're armed. What do you think that EMP beam they shot at Serenity was? Speaking of the Reavers' ships, on at least three occasions we see them use a sort of tether to either pull a ship apart or lasso one and swing it around. While pulling a ship apart that way makes a little sense, there are better ways to do so, the other does not, and I don't see how that could possibly work. The reaver engines cannot be that good or whatever those wire are made from.

When we first see our crew they're getting ready to rob a bank, or something like it, and Jayne wants to bring some grenades. Later, when they're being chased by the reavers Jayne mentioned how nice it would be to have them, but unless they're magnectic or he was able to throw them into an opening they really wouldn't do much good.

I recently learned that the Weyland-Yutani Corporation logo in the Alien series can be seen on some eps and this movie, but I have yet to spot it. I also discovered that Joss directed the fourth movie.

It was directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet. Whedon wrote it.

---

quote:

inblackestnight: They're armed. What do you think that EMP beam they shot at Serenity was?

---

---

quote:

inblackestnight: When we first see our crew they're getting ready to rob a bank, or something like it, and Jayne wants to bring some grenades. Later, when they're being chased by the reavers Jayne mentioned how nice it would be to have them, but unless they're magnectic or he was able to throw them into an opening they really wouldn't do much good.

---

Throwing one in an air intake would actually be perfect or trying to time them so it can blow up right in front of the cockpit. Even though "cooking" a grenade (holding them for a few seconds to time when they go off) is incredibly dangerous as the fuse was made by the lowest bidder and doesn't always take the same time.

Thanks Luigi! I knew director didn't sound right for Joss in that movie.

I know it's the future, so I would assume there are more advanced grenades then we have now, but I don't really know. Magnetic, timed, directional... It would be a hell-of-a throw for somebody to get one in an intake but yeah that would be an ideal place to put one. If my EMP comment sounded mean I apologize Josh. In fact, that blue beam was actually the only one I recall as far as weapons on reaver vessils. They don't seem to have offensive weapons, like the Alliance ships, just things to capture or aide in capture of other ships.