Heh, nice hyperbole there. Completely wrong, I'm guessing. It better not be "inter-galactic", Firefly took place entirely within one system. Unless they're planning on featuring Earth-that-was. I imagine there'll be blasters though. Probably in the hands of Alliance soldiers mostly. Hopefully the "super-nova of a film" part turns out to be true.

I registered. Dunno if there'll end up being any benefit to doing so, seeing as I'm in Canada and already registered at the North American site...but maybe I'll at least get an early heads-up abou the international trailer. And maybe an excuse could be made to visit the UK if I somehow get premiere tickets for a show over there...

Kris | May 06, 06:14 CET

Okay - another newbie here! Been here nearly everyday for the last year, or so, lurking and wondering which dimension the mods had been on holiday (or sent) to ;). Glad you've opened up membership again so that I can take part in the wonderfulness that is Whedonesque.

Well, it's good to see a site for the UK, but it's pretty sparse at the moment. I was hopeful for a little more; maybe if they get enough interest they'll make it more involved? I've registered though...nothing ventured and all that.

bubblecat | May 06, 13:34 CET

Kris said:



last i heard there was no official word on whether or not firefly was based around a single solar system or multiple stars. the series was always very vague on that point, purposefully so. obviously the marketting blurb is not authorative either, but if joss decided to make it clear in serenity that it is on a galactic scale then that's fine by me.

eviltobz | May 06, 14:31 CET

Firefly was all in one galaxy for sure and it makes sense - it's mentioned or hinted to a few times. It even could be one large solar system, especially since there is no faster-than-light drive mentioned or demonstrated. "core planets" means close to the sun, earth-like. In a big enough solar system there can be dozens of moons, not just planets to visit.

Just curious, is "at cinemas" proper queen's English for "in theaters"?
Seriously 'cause it would be very rough American English and you wouldn't see that on any site aimed at USA visitors. That kinda stuff facinates me for some weird reason... go figure...

[ edited by TaraLivesOn on 2005-05-06 13:19 ]

TaraLivesOn | May 06, 15:17 CET

Yep, in the UK "theater" translates to "cinema". If you say "theater" or "theatre" in the UK we it means the one with the stage where you go to see plays.

Didn't one version of the introduction where either Book or Mal described the backstory say that after the Earth was used up they found a new galaxy, and that's where the show is set.

Ghost Spike | May 06, 15:52 CET

I was nerdy and sad and looked up supernova in the Wikipedia because a) like TaraLivesOn I hate it when I don’t know things for sure and b) I though a supernova is when a star explodes, shines brightly for a moment and then disappears forever, which is decidedly not what we want to happen with Serenity.

Turns out I was mostly right, but the last sentence is the thing that saves me from having to write a ‘Disgusted from Suburbia’ letter to Universal :
“Nova" is Latin or "new", referring to what appears to be a very bright new star shining in the celestial sphere; the prefix"super" distinguishes this from an ordinary nova, which also involves a star increasing in brightness, though to a lesser extent and through a different mechanism. However, it is misleading to consider a supernova as a new star, because it really represents the death of a star or at least its radical transformation into something else .

Funny incidentally how that bit about the ‘ordinary nova’ made me think of Star Wars.

miranda | May 06, 17:29 CET

Another newbie from the UK here. I now have to pimp out this link to everyone I know to try and get them hyped up about Serenity, want to do my bit for the cause.

Any idea what benefits there could be from registering?

KittyN | May 06, 18:58 CET

TaraLivesOn said:

as Ghost Spike already mentioned, the inverse is also true, that there were hints alluding to a galactic scale. and whilst a solar system may have many planetary bodies, there is only a narrow (you know, that kinda millions of miles type of narrow. we're talking relatively here) band where the heat and light from a star would be sufficient to sustain life on a planet's surface as seen in the show. i have seen a few arguments about which is the correct version spring up on different forums from time to time, so there's a few strong feelings on both sides. personally i just stick to the middle, neither has been confirmed in what i've seen, so i'm happy to accept whatever happens in the films :)

eviltobz | May 06, 20:39 CET