kumquatq3 Posted October 27, 2005 Author Share Posted October 27, 2005 Is the prologue of the film (the rescue) meant to be a prologue to the whole Firefly/Serenity story? Or did river get taken again by the alliance in the interim between series and movie? If its the former then it conflicts with Simon's version of events in the pilot. If its the latter then it seems a pretty big thing not mention throughout the film. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think the only big difference between Simon's version, and what we see in the film, is that Simon knows they're screwing with her brain. The guy just told him what they've been doing to her. Yet in the series, he has no idea what they did to her. Well, in the series, Simon doesn't go in himself to get her and he has a hunch that they messed with her head. He later confirms that. Hence why he knows in the movie. They also kinda forgot about the two guys from Blue Sun that were chasing her. That was pathetically handled in the 3 part comic series. So, how is the movie doing? Any chance of a sequel? Or, even better, any chances for the show to be resurrected? Not so hot, it will likely see a profit via dvds, but doubtful it's sequel worthy. It's hard to say till we see the dvd sales. Which is, surprisingly, estimated to start in Dec. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oerwinde Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 It's hard to say till we see the dvd sales. Which is, surprisingly, estimated to start in Dec. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Not so surprising. After the low box office take, and the reason for the movie in the first place was DVD sales, they figured getting the DVD out by christmas would be the best way to get some money out of it. The area between the balls and the butt is a hotbed of terrorist activity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metadigital Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 It's supposed to sum up the series. Obviously things that happend in the series were forgotten, thats why suddenly Simon is a outsider again, but what I heard as the explanation to why Simons story from the series was different from the video in the movie is that Simon lied to the crew about some details due to lack of trust. It's obviously BS, but thats what has been said apparently. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Happens all the time in fiction. It's analogous to graphic novels re-inventing stories in cycles, or the Batman Begins film, for example. I think it is a lot healthier for people to think of truth in absolutes, especially in a narrative format, like film, and more in subjective terms. For example, to celebrate its two hundredth anniversary, and in order to build a closer approximation to the objective truth of the Battle of Trafalgar using comprehensive accounts of historical documents from the British, French and Spanish naval archives, the narrative is more complex and richer. But as to what actually is the objective fact, no-one can really be certain. OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surreptishus Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 Yeah ok, but like which version of events is canon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metadigital Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 It's hard to say till we see the dvd sales. Which is, surprisingly, estimated to start in Dec. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Not so surprising. After the low box office take, and the reason for the movie in the first place was DVD sales, they figured getting the DVD out by christmas would be the best way to get some money out of it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The Star Trek films settled on about a $50M gross; the total take only has a bearing if it is a loss on the total film production costs, otherwise it will simply set the budget for the next film in the series. After all, they made a (very, very bad) sequel to Starship Troopers. OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurlshort Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 Yeah ok, but like which version of events is canon? Canon? This isn't bloody D&D I'd say the movie is the new primary source. They seemed to really just be trying to toughen Simon up with the whole rescue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalimeeri Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 They seemed to really just be trying to toughen Simon up with the whole rescue. Well, it was more difficult to understand where Simon was coming from in the movie; it comes across as a bit arrogant to try to dictate the terms of a 'free ride' that saved his (and his sister's) skin. I didn't care awfully much for him in the series, but I understood him. If I had started by just watching the movie, I'd have wondered why he hadn't been thrown off the ship long ago. The answer develops more slowly, that it's because the captain really does like--and believe in--River. I'm sure the added toughness was a device to get backstory out in a hurry, and I think it was a commendable effort; it's never easy. But Simon came out a not-so-likable character, who I wouldn't have minded seeing killed off in the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surreptishus Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 What about Haven and Book leaving the crew? Where can i find that explanation? For the firefly fans its a weak conclusion of his story - hintng that he was an operative and then killing him. The little montage where they look like they are meeting up with old friends... who the hell were they? I watched the film first and it seemed clear that the film was a reboot so as not to alienate non firefly fans but even so there were little eggs for the fans to enjoy. There is also stuff which raises questions either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumquatq3 Posted October 28, 2005 Author Share Posted October 28, 2005 What about Haven and Book leaving the crew? Where can i find that explanation? For the firefly fans its a weak conclusion of his story - hintng that he was an operative and then killing him. About Books past or Why he left Serenity? Serenity - Comic books Left - Whedon said that if there is sequels that Books past would be explored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surreptishus Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 comic books!!!!??? gah!! What would they do in sequels that would explain Book? Time travel? Or would Mal wake up to find him in the shower and realise his death was just a dream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oerwinde Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 comic books!!!!??? gah!! What would they do in sequels that would explain Book? Time travel? Or would Mal wake up to find him in the shower and realise his death was just a dream. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> They'd probably be put in some sort of situation where Book comes up, and through investigation and flashbacks they'd find out. The area between the balls and the butt is a hotbed of terrorist activity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumquatq3 Posted October 28, 2005 Author Share Posted October 28, 2005 comic books!!!!??? gah!! What would they do in sequels that would explain Book? Time travel? Or would Mal wake up to find him in the shower and realise his death was just a dream. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> They'd probably be put in some sort of situation where Book comes up, and through investigation and flashbacks they'd find out. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yea, they run into someone who knew Book or the like, I assume I mean, they are short a few crew members Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumquatq3 Posted October 28, 2005 Author Share Posted October 28, 2005 comic books!!!!??? gah!! There are ways to read those comics or you can wait for the trade paper back of them in Feb. See Amazon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surreptishus Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 I know of the ways... who published the comics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumquatq3 Posted October 28, 2005 Author Share Posted October 28, 2005 I know of the ways... who published the comics? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think these guys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metadigital Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 They seemed to really just be trying to toughen Simon up with the whole rescue. Well, it was more difficult to understand where Simon was coming from in the movie; it comes across as a bit arrogant to try to dictate the terms of a 'free ride' that saved his (and his sister's) skin. I didn't care awfully much for him in the series, but I understood him. If I had started by just watching the movie, I'd have wondered why he hadn't been thrown off the ship long ago. The answer develops more slowly, that it's because the captain really does like--and believe in--River. I'm sure the added toughness was a device to get backstory out in a hurry, and I think it was a commendable effort; it's never easy. But Simon came out a not-so-likable character, who I wouldn't have minded seeing killed off in the end. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I thought Simon was a great character; he was truly a lawful man and he held filial piety above all else (so refreshing to see, even if it is only fiction). I didn't think he was that arrogant, I felt he was more assertive: River was only a young adult, remember, and had had a sheltered (if not completely warped) upbringing. After all, Simon didn't try to impose on the other crew, and he did his chores (medical aid), he was just trying to ensure that River wasn't put in a dangerous situation. He did offer to leave when the captain and his differences crystalised. OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walsingham Posted October 29, 2005 Share Posted October 29, 2005 Agreed, the original rescue was a little silly in the film. Far more believable in the series. Plus his honesty in the film illustrated how much he knew about the privilegde of his upbringing. The fact that he was aware of it then sacrificed it for loyalty. That's good bakin'. "It wasn't lies. It was just... bull****"." -Elwood Blues tarna's dead; processing... complete. Disappointed by Universe. RIP Hades/Sand/etc. Here's hoping your next alt has a harp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalimeeri Posted October 29, 2005 Share Posted October 29, 2005 I thought Simon was a great character; he was truly a lawful man and he held filial piety above all else (so refreshing to see, even if it is only fiction). <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Oh, I agree. River was only a young adult, remember, and had had a sheltered (if not completely warped) upbringing. After all, Simon didn't try to impose on the other crew, and he did his chores (medical aid), he was just trying to ensure that River wasn't put in a dangerous situation. That's it, though. She's a young adult--not a child. Sheltered and warped maybe, but emotionally she now has a need to be treated as her own person, to make some decisions on her own. To be accepted and fit in. That's what the captain offers; and I see that as the real battleground between the two. It's natural for an older sibling (or a parent), I suppose, but Simon's still trying to control her and her environment completely. It's as much for him as for her--loss of that control makes his whole life empty. He does think to ask her, but only after the dice has been rolled. Good stuff, those layers. BTW, my daughter loves Simon; and I'm firmly in Mal's camp. Makes for some interesting discussions, considering the role reversal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metadigital Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 I can identify with both Mal and Simon. OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumquatq3 Posted October 30, 2005 Author Share Posted October 30, 2005 I can identify with both Mal and Simon. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Your a doctor who likes to steal things from the "Alliance"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metadigital Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 Trust me. And don't trust the Alliance. OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumquatq3 Posted October 31, 2005 Author Share Posted October 31, 2005 Looks like the domestic total will end up at about 25 million. About 34 million worldwide so far Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surreptishus Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Let it go man, let it go. Just keep the dream alive in our hearts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumquatq3 Posted October 31, 2005 Author Share Posted October 31, 2005 Let it go man, let it go. Just keep the dream alive in our hearts. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hey, I'm the cynical one here! I was just updating our futility Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surreptishus Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 When enterprise got cancelled a bucnch of nerds managed to stump up a few mill to keep in an effort to keep it going - anything like that happening for serenity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now