Firefly/Serenity creator Joss Whedon told USA Today that he still hopes to tell more stories set in the futuristic universe, but added that there's no chance he'll do another Firefly TV show. "We'll never make Firefly again, because that was a thing that existed and is now gone," Whedon told the newspaper before Christmas. "And Serenity isn't Firefly, and whatever comes next won't be, either. But I would love to tell more stories of this universe and to hang out with these people on and off for the rest of my career."

Serenity, based on the canceled Fox TV show Firefly, hit theaters last September and has pulled in a disappointing $25.4 million domestically since opening Sept. 30, 2005. The movie is now available on DVD. "The best-case scenario is that the DVD is such a spectacular, monster hit that we get to make another movie," Whedon said. "Then we get to make another movie. After three movies, we're all very tired. After Serenity: Revolutions, we feel like we've played it out. And then we make another series."

Whedon is currently writing the script for Wonder Woman, which he is slated to direct once Warner Brothers signs off.

Read it here: http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=0&id=33982&type=0

He says virutally word-for-word the same thing in the Serenity DVD extras. Too bad.

John O.

Serenity movies would be great. It's kinda like what happened to Star Trek "Phase II". It got turned into a movie instead that launched many more films.

This whole thing with Firefly fans being the main "reason" for its theatrical release and for "Serenitymovie.com" aka "Cantstopthesignal.com" sounds alot like what happened with the Original Star Trek. Hmmm, this is sorta eerie don'tcha think? Next thing you know Firefly spinoffs will air out of nowhere. Could it be the next Star Trek?

AAAhhh :freak: Maybe I'm just jumping the gun! :tongue:

But seriously, who knows? ;) :hat:

So, he's saying that they're not going to ever pick up the TV series where they left off. He is saying that he has more stories to tell about Mal and the Serenity crew. Time (and DVD sales) shall tell. That is all, nothing to see here. :wave:

FIREFLY
The Next Generation?

FIREFLY
Deep Space Nine?

FIREFLY
Voyager?


Do you think there will be:

FIREFLY
Nemesis?

Dont Forget Firefly,Insurrection

So, he's saying that they're not going to ever pick up the TV series where they left off. He is saying that he has more stories to tell about Mal and the Serenity crew. Time (and DVD sales) shall tell. That is all, nothing to see here. :wave:

Sure, That's what they said about Star Trek...And then 4 movies and Star Trek TNG sprung out of nowhere. I mean, I know I'm jumping the gun but hey y'never know. ;)

FIREFLY
The Next Generation?

FIREFLY
Deep Space Nine?

FIREFLY
Voyager?


Do you think there will be:

FIREFLY
Nemesis?

FIREFLY
Serenerprise?

Serenity V: The Undiscovered Reaver

Or, Serenity 2 "The Search for Wash and Book"

"Beneath the Planet of the Serenity"...

I wouldn't look for a chain of events similar to ST, "Firefly" has nowhere near the following or impact on the audience that Trek had. Not even close. But I like it.

And oddly enough, FireFly was vastly superior to Trek.

And oddly enough, FireFly was vastly superior to Trek.

Agreed!

And oddly enough, FireFly was vastly superior to Trek.

Rubbish.

Not looking to start a fight (creatively speaking the two are apples and oranges) but TOS sparked one of the greatest pop-cultural phenomena of the 20th century. Suffice it to say "Serenity" will not have as big an impact on the 21st century.

Never say never. The fans are what brough back Trek to the movies and TV. We know Fiefly/Serenity fans are just as loyal. The fan base may grow large enough for someone t take notice.

Not trying to start a fight, either...

Are there as many "FIREFLY" fans as there was
for "STAR TREK" when it was first cancelled?

Not trying to start a fight, either...

Are there as many "FIREFLY" fans as there was
for "STAR TREK" when it was first cancelled?

Dunno, but I imagine that there are many. I can't imagine Firefly/Serenity reaching the same hights Star Trek reached, but I think anything can happen.

If the fans truely want Firefly back or Serenity sequals, (no matter what Whedon says now) they *WILL* happen.

Personally I like Firefly alot, and I like Star Trek alot, but I did enjoy Firefly better.

Suffice it to say "Serenity" will not have as big an impact on the 21st century.

Doesn't have to actually, since in my opinion it is vastly superior to Trek. I don't enjoy Trek, can't sit thru more then a couple of episodes. Shatner sucked more then just about any actor I can think of.
So rubbish doesn't apply here since your opinion would mean no more to me then mine does to you.

It could happen, after all the Serenity fanbase was large enough to ressurrect the show as a failed movie. :)

[QUOTE=iamweaselShatner sucked more then just about any actor I can think of.[/QUOTE]

Guess that's why his career went into the toilet so quickly.

Shatner sucked more then just about any actor I can think of.

Well I wouldnt say ANY actor, because Keanu Reeves has got to be the worst of the worst. Shatner is a bad actor but I wouldnt say that "The Shat" is the worst. I think it's the toupee more than anything else! :drunk:

Leo DeCraprio has them both beat.

As for Firefly, I don't think there's anything in the film where the ship is referred to as a Firefly (could be wrong). Seems Fox own the name Firefly, Universal own Serenity. The DVD is still number 3 on Amazon nearly 3 weeks in, and Firefly is number 5. If the numbers are really good for the DVD I'd be surprised if Universal drops the franchise.

Even though it wasn't a highly rated show, you can bet a much larger percentage of the American public was exposed to Star Trek than to Serenity or Firefly by the mere fact that it was on one of only three available television networks when it originally ran - not to mention it's saturation in syndication over the next two decades. I find Shatner's career to have quite an interesting arc. Early work like "The Brothers Karamozov", "The Intruder", or "The Twilight Zone" show relatively restrained, focused performances. As the years passed, he became a bigger and bigger ham sandwich. And ultimately, people seem to like that ham. Maybe he had a plan all along.

Leo DeCraprio has them both beat.

As for Firefly, I don't think there's anything in the film where the ship is referred to as a Firefly (could be wrong). Seems Fox own the name Firefly, Universal own Serenity. The DVD is still number 3 on Amazon nearly 3 weeks in, and Firefly is number 5. If the numbers are really good for the DVD I'd be surprised if Universal drops the franchise.

LEO :freak: :freak: :drunk:

Regarding the movie, I saw the movie 6 times with wifey (so far) ;) and you are correct there is no mention of Serenity being a Firefly class ship anywhere during the movie. I guess it's one of things that the people are expected to know from the show.

Regarding the Franchise, That is very satisfying news, Thanks big-dog! :thumbsup:

In other news, I hear New Coke is poised to make a comeback.

:rolleyes:

TOS succeeded in syndication because it "tipped," crossing over into the mainstream and attracting viewers who otherwise wouldn't go anywhere near a sci-fi show. This is something FIREFLY/ SERENITY has been unable to do, and if it hasn't happened by now it's not going to. This doesn't mean it's not any good; it just means it's not as culturally relevant as TREK -- not by a long, long, shot.

Boston Legal is the only thing I have liked from Shatner, mainly because the character is fun....Denny Crane.
Trek may be a very culturally relevant show, but that doesnt make it a really good show to everyone, or the majority. It had a few good episodes but to me thats about it, I did enjoy the movies more. The 60's did produce a lot worse shows but this wasn't the highlight.

My own experience is that with FIREFLY/SERENITY, it isn't a case of people either loving it or hating it. People either love it or don't know it exists. I have yet to meet a non-fan of the show who has even heard of the movie.

On the other hand, a local theater here in the Twin Cities has been showing SERENITY as a midnight show on Fridays for the last couple of months. It seems that it's going to have a small but very loyal fan base.

As for Shatner, on the WRATH OF KAHN commentary, Nicholas Meyers remarks how it would take multiple takes to get rid of Shatner's "movie star" attitude (read hamminess). I think he's an actor who really needs a strong director to reign him in.

I supposed Serenity "failed" because they didn't refit the Serenity (it worked for Trek... :D )

I hadn't thought of that Refit thing...start with a Refit Serenity-A. Then at the end of the movie it would be Serenity-B. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Well I wouldnt say ANY actor, because Keanu Reeves has got to be the worst of the worst. Shatner is a bad actor but I wouldnt say that "The Shat" is the worst. I think it's the toupee more than anything else! :drunk:

You both are forgetting someone who I belive is worse than both of them.
David Hasselhoff. (or however it is spelled)

Yeah, but at least Dave knows it and can take the mickey out of himself.

Much as I love Firefly, I don't see how you can compare it to Star Trek. Waaay too apple and oranges.

It'd be like comparing the films of Quintin Tarantino and John Huston. Yeah, the new kid's got some snappy patter, cool camera moves, a master of current film technology, and relates much better to younger audiences. But you can't just disregard the work of the older grizzled veteren that led the way.
YMMV

LEO :freak: :freak: :drunk:






Yeah I know, I was too tired to write Leonardo. You're right, I can hear all the nubile 20-odd year old girls saying 'Leo' now. You know I knew someone in College (and a few of her friends) that got dressed up every time she went out-just in case (it could happen-evidently) she did, in fact, run into DiCraprio, at the mall, the grocery store etc. She was in her 20's BTW.

I'm not going to get picky about this, but I've been trying to figure out why it took so long for me to get with Firefly. As much as I like it, it has some problems that I think more than just me, who already digs sci-fi, makes it tough for "the normals" to get grabbed right away.

The two easiest problems I've identified.

Character names:

Maybe it’s just me, but after seeing the first two episodes, I could only remember the name of two characters - Kaylee and Shepherd Book. That's a problem. Even after getting into it, the names of the lead characters don't come easily to mind, only the secondary. I'm pretty sure that after viewing the first couple episodes of DS9, B5, BSG, etc., I pretty much had the names of all the characters squared away.


Adolescent male fantasy characters/relationships:

The characters themselves aren’t unbelievable, to the contrary their believable interactions and their relationships are what makes the show go. But when you "Reader’s Digest" a description of the characters and their relationships, there are some underlying adolescent male sc-fi geek fantasies that "the normals" will intuit as things completely implausible from their daily experiences …that us male sc-fi geeks will readily embrace.

Try these: The captain of the ship is a melancholy thoughtful pirate and his love interest is an untouchably beautiful prostitute with the heart of gold. The first mate is a super-hot gun slinging black chick who, at the end of each "mission", can't wait to hit the sack with her wimpy geeky white pilot husband. The muscular macho shoot-or-throw-a punch first guy on board is saddled with a blatantly familiar girl’s name, Jayne (that can give us wimps a laugh). The engineer/mechanic is a spacey sexy attainable girl-nextdoor type (who doesn’t know how hot she is) like you’d love to see under the hood of your family car.

Those are the big ones.

John O.

Yeah I know, I was too tired to write Leonardo. You're right, I can hear all the nubile 20-odd year old girls saying 'Leo' now. You know I knew someone in College (and a few of her friends) that got dressed up every time she went out-just in case (it could happen-evidently) she did, in fact, run into DiCraprio, at the mall, the grocery store etc. She was in her 20's BTW.

lol, NO NO, you misunderstood, I was agreeing with you regarding LEO DiCaprio, The guy is a bad actor. I actually do call him "Leo". :wave:

Adolescent male fantasy characters/relationships:

The characters themselves aren’t unbelievable, to the contrary their believable interactions and their relationships are what makes the show go. But when you "Reader’s Digest" a description of the characters and their relationships, there are some underlying adolescent male sc-fi geek fantasies that "the normals" will intuit as things completely implausible from their daily experiences …that us male sc-fi geeks will readily embrace.

Try these: The captain of the ship is a melancholy thoughtful pirate and his love interest is an untouchably beautiful prostitute with the heart of gold. The first mate is a super-hot gun slinging black chick who, at the end of each "mission", can't wait to hit the sack with her wimpy geeky white pilot husband. The muscular macho shoot-or-throw-a punch first guy on board is saddled with a blatantly familiar girl’s name, Jayne (that can give us wimps a laugh). The engineer/mechanic is a spacey sexy attainable girl-nextdoor type (who doesn’t know how hot she is) like you’d love to see under the hood of your family car.

BIG ones :confused: , This is one of the aspects of the premise that *makes* me enjoy Firefly/Serenity so much. Its just different, that's what makes it good. The characters are much more loosened up than that of the Trek characters and they also have better interaction with one another. Great discription BTW! ;) :wave:

BIG ones :confused: , This is one of the aspects of the premise that *makes* me enjoy Firefly/Serenity so much.And you and I would be? What? Sci-fi geeks?:thumbsup:

John O.

I see exactly what John O is talking about.
The problem is that it is really hard to describe to someone who doesn't know it. It is so good at being comfortable, fun, and beliveable, that it defies description. And being character driven, it is hard to even explain the plot.
They aren't out exploring new life and new civaliztions.
Buffy had the same problem. When you described it to someone who never saw it, they would get that look in their eye that said "you must be crazy to watch something like that", or "that just sounds really stupid"
What Buffy had going for it, that Firefly didn't, was a network that let it go on long enough to find a following.

Firefly never will be the next Star Trek.
It could have been, but not anymore.
There aren't enough episodes to get it into rotation anywhere except Sci-Fi.
If it had gotten even 2 seasons, then maybe we could have seen it in syndication. Which could have grabbed a whole lot more people to the cause.
The only way to convert people now is to keep sharing the series box set with others. Maybe, just maybe, if enough people do that with enough of their friends, there will be enough demand for another movie.

You both are forgetting someone who I belive is worse than both of them.
David Hasselhoff. (or however it is spelled)

Ben Affleck. The worst. Period ("full stop" for you Brits).

José

Well, I'm gonna have to disagree with John O on his first point. I got all the names and relationships right off the bat. I knew who everybody was by the 2nd episode.

I don't disagree that the charcater discriptions can sound funky to a non-genre person, but, screw 'em, they're not the target audience.

Y'all should see some of the assinine Firefly discussions we have over at www.wordforge.net. thetere are a couple of guys who seem to have a pathological hatred of not just the show, but the fans. These guys start more Firefly threads than anyone else, and it's only to bash and make fun. Can't quite figger 'em out.

These guys start more Firefly threads than anyone else, and it's only to bash and make fun. Can't quite figger 'em out.

They are called trolls.
They just love the attention.

I've never seen anything good with Hasselhoff. DiCaprio and Reaves each have at least one or two good performances to their name - DiCaprio with Romeo+Juliet (and from what I've heard, The Aviator), Reaves with the Bill & Ted movies (dumb but fun, and he was perfect for the role), and Devil's Advocate.

The only thing I liked Leo in was the one where he was passing all the bad checks. (can't remember the movie title off hand though)

Reeves, I like in Point Break.

thetere are a couple of guys who seem to have a pathological hatred of not just the show, but the fans. These guys start more Firefly threads than anyone else, and it's only to bash and make fun. Can't quite figger 'em out.

I'll preface this by saying I've never started nor participated in a FIREFLY-bashing thread. Furthermore, the comment I'm about to make is not directed at ANYONE on this thread.

Some of the more hardcore Joss Whedon fans can be extremely obnoxious. A few of them are downright scary. And while it's generally my policy to Live and Let Live with regard to the likes and dislikes of genre fans it comes as no surprise that some folks enjoy bashing Whedonites. I'm not saying I endorse it, but I do understand it.

The "Browncoats" can be their own worst enemies.

This could apply to almost any show. Trek, B5, FireFly, Galactica the Original bore...err series etc. etc. etc. Sadly, there used to be lots of Trek fans who honestly thought the future would be a lot like Trek was....yeah right. Each show has it's share of whack jobs.

I've never seen anything good with Hasselhoff. DiCaprio and Reaves each have at least one or two good performances to their name - DiCaprio with Romeo+Juliet (and from what I've heard, The Aviator), Reaves with the Bill & Ted movies (dumb but fun, and he was perfect for the role), and Devil's Advocate.
DeCaprio was also in WHAT'S EATING GILBERT GRAPE. In fact, I really don't understand this hostility toward him. Frankly, I can't think of a movie where he gave a bad performance. He's occasionally been miscast, but I'd like someone to cite a bad performance of his and why you thought it was bad.

I think the problem some people have is that he made two movies in a row that were very popular with teenage girls. But to his credit, he had not been exploiting that but if anything trying to break that image.

DeCaprio was also in WHAT'S EATING GILBERT GRAPE. In fact, I really don't understand this hostility toward him. Frankly, I can't think of a movie where he gave a bad performance. He's occasionally been miscast, but I'd like someone to cite a bad performance of his and why you thought it was bad.

I think the problem some people have is that he made two movies in a row that were very popular with teenage girls. But to his credit, he had not been exploiting that but if anything trying to break that image.

Agreed. He's absolutely amazing in "What's Eating Gilbert Grape". Damned good in "This Boy's Life". Probably miscast in "Gangs of New York" and "The Aviator" but I'm guessing that's the only way Scorsese could get them made. He is in no way a "bad actor". He may have become a little too much of a "star" for his own good but there's no denying his native talent.

that is too bad one of the best scfi stories :dude:

Well I wouldnt say ANY actor, because Keanu Reeves has got to be the worst of the worst. Shatner is a bad actor but I wouldnt say that "The Shat" is the worst. I think it's the toupee more than anything else! :drunk:

Watch him in Corman's THE INTRUDER and then say that. The guy really DID have acting chops, but by the mid-60s, he had settled into persona acting, but without the charm (such as it is) that other more successful persona actors have, like, say Heston. If you see his OUTER LIMITS, he has his hero/Kirk thing down pat already.

Having said that, and having defended Shat on occasion (I really do think he is very good on trek when he goes low, like CHARLIE X and BALANCE OF TERROR), I think he is awful in ANDERSONVILLE TRIAL, where he is completely overshadowed by Jack Cassidy. Even Ellison liked him in ANDERSONVILLE (the quote "staggeringly brilliant' is what he used when referencing it in his TMP review), but to me he is just channelling his stock Kirk, but escalated.

The fact he wins emmies now for doing the same thing that he has been laughed at for in the past just floors me.