Actually, I was thinking it would be sort of like a pet. You know, we could...we could name her Trixie, or Miss Kitty Fantastico, or something.

Tara ,'Empty Places'


Firefly 4: Also, we can kill you with our brains  

Discussion of the Mutant Enemy series, Firefly, the ensuing movie Serenity, and other projects in that universe. Like the other show threads, anything broadcast in the US is fine; spoilers are verboten and will be deleted if found.


Polter-Cow - Jul 28, 2005 4:06:46 pm PDT #3839 of 10001
What else besides ramen can you scoop? YOU CAN SCOOP THIS WORLD FROM DARKNESS!

Another way to challenge the audience visually will be our extensive use of the multi-split screen format. By combining multiple angles during dogfights, for example, we will be able to present an entirely new take on what has become a tired and familiar sequence that has not changed materially since George Lucas established it in the mid 1970s.

Hey! He totally didn't do that! I want my multi-split screen dogfights, dammit!


JenP - Jul 28, 2005 4:10:05 pm PDT #3840 of 10001

I can't make the link work, and it's ticking me off (that I can't link, not that there's anything wrong with it. Just to be clear). Making me twitch, even. I want to see the article. It's working for others?


tommyrot - Jul 28, 2005 4:25:43 pm PDT #3841 of 10001
Sir, it's not an offence to let your cat eat your bacon. Okay? And we don't arrest cats, I'm very sorry.

the fact that he claims "this has never been done before in Sci-Fi" and most of his points are things Firefly was doing/had just done makes him sound like a pompous ass, regardless of whether he decided to do this before Firefly aired or not.

I believe that this was an internal memo, not intended for outside release. It's the memo mentioned in that NYT piece.

eta:

It's working for others?

It works for me.


dcp - Jul 28, 2005 4:27:40 pm PDT #3842 of 10001
The more I learn, the more I realize how little I know.

Worked for me.

::checks::

Still works, using Firefox 1.0.6


JenP - Jul 28, 2005 4:31:58 pm PDT #3843 of 10001

Damn. I'm usually the queen of links working for me when they don't for others. Knocked me off my high linking horse. I'll make it work. I swear I will...


Kalshane - Jul 28, 2005 5:17:50 pm PDT #3844 of 10001
GS: If you had to choose between kicking evil in the head or the behind, which would you choose, and why? Minsc: I'm not sure I understand the question. I have two feet, do I not? You do not take a small plate when the feast of evil welcomes seconds.

Here's the text for those the link might not be working for:

Battlestar Galactica: Naturalistic Science Fiction
or Taking the Opera out of Space Opera

Our goal is nothing less than the reinvention of the science fiction television series. We take as a given the idea that the traditional space opera, with its stock characters, techno-double-talk, bumpy-headed aliens, thespian histrionics, and empty heroics has run its course and a new approach is required. That approach is to introduce realism into what has heretofore been an aggressively unrealistic genre.

Call it " Naturalistic Science Fiction."

This idea, the presentation of a fantastical situation in naturalistic terms, will permeate every aspect of our series:

Visual. The first thing that will leap out at viewers is the dynamic use of the documentary or cinema verite style. Through the extensive use of hand-held cameras, practical lighting, and functional set design, the battlestar Galactica will feel on every level like a real place.

This shift in tone and look cannot be overemphasized. It is our intention to deliver a show that does not look like any other science fiction series ever produced. A casual viewer should for a moment feel like he or she has accidentally surfed onto a "60 Minutes" documentary piece about life aboard an aircraft carrier until someone starts talking about Cylons and battlestars.

That is not to say we're shooting on videotape under fluorescent lights, but we will be striving for a verisimilitude that is sorely lacking in virtually every other science fiction series ever attempted. We're looking for filmic truth, not manufactured " pretty pictures" or the "way cool" factor.

Perhaps nowhere will this be more surprising than in our visual effects shots. Our ships will be treated like real ships that someone had to go out and film with a real camera. That means no 3-D "hero" shots panning and zooming wildly with the touch of a mousepad. The questions we will ask before every VFX shot are things like: "How did we get this shot? Where is the camera? Who's holding it? Is the cameraman in another spacecraft? Is the camera mounted on the wing?" This philosophy will generate images that will present an audience jaded and bored with the same old "Wow -- it's a CGI shot!" with a different texture and a different cinematic language that will force them to re-evaluate their notions of science fiction.

Another way to challenge the audience visually will be our extensive use of the multi-split screen format. By combining multiple angles during dogfights, for example, we will be able to present an entirely new take on what has become a tired and familiar sequence that has not changed materially since George Lucas established it in the mid 1970s.

Finally, our visual style will also capitalize on the possibilities inherent in the series concept itself to deliver unusual imagery not typically seen in this genre. That is, the inclusion of a variety of civilian ships each of which will have unique properties and visual references that can be in stark contrast to the military life aboard Galactica. For example, we have a vessel in our rag-tag fleet which was designed to be a space-going marketplace or "City Walk" environment. The juxtaposition of this high-gloss, sexy atmosphere against the gritty reality of a story for survival will give us more textures and levels to play than in typical genre fare.

Editorial. Our style will avoid the now clichéd MTV fast-cutting while at the same time foregoing Star Trek's somewhat ponderous and lugubrious "master, two-shot, close-up, close-up, two-shot, back to master" pattern. If there is a model here, it would be vaguely Hitchcockian -- that is, a sense of building suspense and dramatic tension through the use of extending takes and long masters which pull the audience into the reality of the action rather than the distract through the use of ostentatious cutting patterns.

Story. We will eschew the usual stories about parallel (continued...)


Kalshane - Jul 28, 2005 5:17:54 pm PDT #3845 of 10001
GS: If you had to choose between kicking evil in the head or the behind, which would you choose, and why? Minsc: I'm not sure I understand the question. I have two feet, do I not? You do not take a small plate when the feast of evil welcomes seconds.

( continues...)

universes, time-travel, mind-control, evil twins, God-like powers and all the other clichés of the genre. Our show is first and foremost a drama. It is about people. Real people that the audience can identify with and become engaged in. It is not a show about hardware or bizarre alien cultures. It is a show about us. It is an allegory for our own society, our own people and it should be immediately recognizable to any member of the audience.

Science. Our spaceships don't make noise because there is no noise in space. Sound will be provided from sources inside the ships -- the whine of an engine audible to the pilot for instance. Our fighters are not airplanes and they will not be shackled by the conventions of WWII dogfights. The speed of light is a law and there will be no moving violations.

And finally, Character. This is perhaps, the biggest departure from the science fiction norm. We do not have "the cocky guy" "the fast-talker" "the brain" "the wacky alien sidekick" or any of the other usual characters who populate a space series. Our characters are living, breathing people with all the emotional complexity and contradictions present in quality dramas like "The West Wing" or "The Sopranos." In this way, we hope to challenge our audience in ways that other genre pieces do not. We want the audience to connect with the characters of Galactica as people. Our characters are not super-heroes. They are not an elite. They are everyday people caught up in a enormous cataclysm and trying to survive it as best they can.

They are you and me.


Kalshane - Jul 28, 2005 5:20:11 pm PDT #3846 of 10001
GS: If you had to choose between kicking evil in the head or the behind, which would you choose, and why? Minsc: I'm not sure I understand the question. I have two feet, do I not? You do not take a small plate when the feast of evil welcomes seconds.

I believe that this was an internal memo, not intended for outside release. It's the memo mentioned in that NYT piece.

Internal memo or not, when it was written, or at least distributed, Firefly was airing doing most of the things he talks about.


Strega - Jul 28, 2005 5:22:30 pm PDT #3847 of 10001

Right. That's the mission statement from early 2002, or part of it. It was included with the original pitch to the network. Not a press release, not intended as promotional material.

most of his points are things Firefly was doing/had just done makes him sound like a pompous ass, regardless of whether he decided to do this before Firefly aired or not.

Except as noted, Firefly was just a gleam in Whedon's eye at that point. If you really don't think it matters when it was written, I take it that you'd find it pompous if that was part of the Firefly pitch instead?


KernelM - Jul 28, 2005 5:29:05 pm PDT #3848 of 10001
Ankh-Morpork Watchman, Dreamer, Scooby, Minister of Grace, Still Flyin' in a Zoo2 World

So was it leaked without authorization? Otherwise, it was distributed somehow through official channels at a time when it was no longer valid.