The Firefly Thread: Still Flying [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

View Full Version : The Firefly Thread: Still Flying

The Succubus

2011-09-09, 04:20 PM

I am currently very upset as I type this.

After flicking through some of the xkcd archives, I found a series of strips centred around a race featuring the cast of Firefly. I decided to get the boxset on DVD (which took a little doing, as it turns out the DVD has been discontinued).

What I found was a glittering little gem of a sci-fi series, with deliciously meaty plot hooks, some very original character designs and above all a really good vibe to it. I now wish I hadn't seen it because I want to know how all the different stories end, something which sadly is never going to happen.

Damn you FOX!

Mauve Shirt

2011-09-09, 04:46 PM

Kobold-Bard

2011-09-09, 05:02 PM

Axolotl

2011-09-09, 05:19 PM

Personally I'm not sure how sad I am that it was cancelled. Don't get me wrong it's one of my favorite shows of all time but I it becoming an long running show would be better. I have a prefrence for short shows in general but it's not that hard to see how so many TV shows decay over time and how the longer it lasts the greater the chances of it utterly ruining itself increase. We only have 14 episodes yes but they're 14 great episodes, and while I'd prefer it to have 10 more or so just to wrap up all the plot threads I'd take just 14 over watching the show collapse into mediocrity.

CarpeGuitarrem

2011-09-09, 06:14 PM

Congratulations. You are one of many nerds still enraged about Firefly. :smalltongue: Have you seen the movie Serenity yet? It's pretty good. It's the definite end of the series. If Joss ever makes more (and he won't), they will come before Serenity in the timeline.
Not 100% true in my opinion. In fact, the age of the cast members (especially Fillion and Glau) makes it more likely that any followup to Firefly would be after Serenity.

Yes, the crew is missing two people who were with it for practically forever. Yet, and this is the point which I continually bring up to people, the entire point of the ending was that the crew was still flying. They've suffered, they've lost, they've been through Hell, but at the end of the day, they've decided that they're going to keep flying, gorramit.

It's still Firefly, even if Wash and Book aren't there. It's changed, but it's still Firefly. That was the entire point of the ending. Well, one of them, anyhow.

Welcome to the fold! Firefly is truly a gem...and there is, besides, Serenity, some more material based around it.

There's a series of three graphic novels set between the series and Serenity, I believe, although I'd recommend that you watch the movie first.

Serenity: Those Left Behind (http://www.amazon.com/Serenity-Vol-Those-Left-Behind/dp/1593074492)
Serenity: Better Days (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1595821627)
Serenity: The Shepherd's Tale (http://www.amazon.com/Serenity-Shepherds-Tale-Zack-Whedon/dp/1595825614/)

Still Flying: (http://stillflying.net/) imaginary "continuation" episodes of Firefly, many in the second season based around the plot of Serenity. Unfortunately, they never managed to get a third season up and running.

There's a group of developers working to bring a Firefly-based MMO (http://fireflyuniverseonline.com/) into being, using legal means to gain the permission to use the property.

Eakin

2011-09-09, 06:55 PM

Look guys,

I loved Firefly too, even if not to the same extent that all of you may have.

Good shows are cut down before they reach their potential all the time. And it's been like 10 years.

MIGHT be time to let this one go.

I heard that rumor about Fillion buying the rights but I think it was an off-the-cuff "wouldn't it be cool if" type comment he made in an interview that got jumped on but I don't think he's got any real interest in actually trying to produce new episodes. I suspect he enjoys the giant piles of money he makes working on Castle

Tengu_temp

2011-09-09, 07:05 PM

It might be a shame to see that Firefly has ended so abruptly, but it'd be an even bigger shame if it went on and on for several more seasons than it should and became a pale shade of its old self. And that would have happened if it became popular, if Buffy is any indication.

So yeah. Pity there's only one season with spinoffs, but that's better than 3 good seasons and 6 terrible ones.

Mauve Shirt

2011-09-09, 10:16 PM

Not 100% true in my opinion. In fact, the age of the cast members (especially Fillion and Glau) makes it more likely that any followup to Firefly would be after Serenity.

Joss actually said that if he made more they'd come before Serenity in the timeline. I can't find my source for that, of course, but I'm looking.
I'd prefer more in the show's continuity anyway.
Wash was one of my favorites, and River's not crazy anymore. Besides that, in the movie all of the characters are harder and less fun.

factotum

2011-09-10, 01:28 AM

Not 100% true in my opinion. In fact, the age of the cast members (especially Fillion and Glau) makes it more likely that any followup to Firefly would be after Serenity.

Nathan Fillion is 40. Summer Glau is 30. I don't see that either of them is yet so old that they couldn't go back to play those characters prior to Serenity--it was only 6 years ago! Give it another 5-10 years and yes, then I would agree with you.

Anderlith

2011-09-10, 06:39 PM

We call ourselves the Browncoats by the way. & just like the browncoats in the show, we've been screwed over. (It's why we lost you know? Superior numbers!)

BlasTech

2011-09-10, 08:37 PM

Go read the fan fic "Forward (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/FanFic/Forward)" if you need more Firefly after serenity :smallwink:

tomandtish

2011-09-15, 05:39 PM

Did Nathan Fillion ever succeed in buying the rights to Firefly? He was planning to make new online episodes or something.

But yeah, we welcome our newest member to one of the rage-iest nerd rage organisations on the whole interwebz.

It was actually a half joke comment made by him. Fans took him a little too seriously and started a website to solicit donations to help. Fortunately, they only asked for pledges, because he quickly came back asked them not to send money.

It was more of an "it would be nice" comment than a serious "I want to do this" thing.

5 years ago I would have wanted to see more Firefly as well, but I think the time has passed.

Lord Seth

2011-09-15, 05:55 PM

Damn you FOX!Although Fox certainly could have treated the show better, I should point out that ultimately the reason it was canceled was because people didn't watch it. While this is partially to blame on Fox, we'll ultimately never know to what extent it is their fault; that is, for all we know, even if it were treated better, it would have not been watched by many and been canceled.

cleric_of_BANJO

2011-09-15, 08:41 PM

Although Fox certainly could have treated the show better, I should point out that ultimately the reason it was canceled was because people didn't watch it. While this is partially to blame on Fox, we'll ultimately never know to what extent it is their fault; that is, for all we know, even if it were treated better, it would have not been watched by many and been canceled.

Yes, but it is also true that Seinfeld had terrible viewership for the first few years. Their third season, when they were already hitting their stride, was ranked 42nd among the most watched seasons of tv shows that year. Yet NBC stuck with them, and it is now an iconic american show. The first season of The Sopranos had an average of 3.46 million viewers, which is less viewers than Firefly had - yet The Sopranos ran for 5 more years. Buffy never had more than 5.3 million viewers, yet it stayed on the air for 5 years on the WB. And when they were cancelled, another network picked them up.

King of the Hill ran for 13 seasons, and half of them had ratings just as bad as Firefly's. In fact, since Firefly was cancelled, King of the Hill never had a season rated higher than 6 million. That's only 1 million viewers more than Firefly had, yet they get 13 full seasons, and Firefly gets 14 poorly aired (or un-aired) episodes. You know what's worse? King of the Hill was ON FOX.

So, yes, Firefly did not have incredible ratings. But that still doesn't excuse Fox for cutting it's life so shortly after it was born, especially since both theirs and their competitor's track records show much more compassion for new shows.

Tirian

2011-09-15, 09:37 PM

Although Fox certainly could have treated the show better, I should point out that ultimately the reason it was canceled was because people didn't watch it.

The question that we'll never know the answer to is whether people would have watched it if the episodes had been aired in the correct order and not constantly pre-empted by baseball playoff games instead of ignoring that the episodes had a running narrative. The relative success of the DVD sales makes a good case for the fact that Fox could have had a hit on their hands.

At the same time, looking at everything else that Joss Whedon has ever done, I've got to guess that if it had gone seven seasons only two of them would have been truly enjoyable.

Lord Seth

2011-09-15, 09:46 PM

Yes, but it is also true that Seinfeld had terrible viewership for the first few years.I'm having difficulty finding data for Seinfeld's early years. Can you provide some specific information to show it did in fact have "terrible" viewership?

Their third season, when they were already hitting their stride, was ranked 42nd among the most watched seasons of tv shows that year. Yet NBC stuck with them, and it is now an iconic american show.You seem to say this as if a show being ranked #42 is a bad thing and NBC stuck with it despite that. #42 actually seems fairly decent. It's not amazing, but it's not a case of a show doing terribly but getting renewed anyway.

Also, the old "stay with it! Maybe it'll get more popular!" argument seems fairly poor. Yes, there are a few shows that started out weak but became big hits later. But keeping a show going (a costly enterprise) in the *hopes* that it might get reasonable numbers does not seem a particularly smart decision. People often throw out names of shows that started small but became big, but none of those shows that I can think of were actual abject failures early on. Sure, The Big Bang Theory didn't become a real hit until its third season, but its first and second seasons still did respectable numbers.

The first season of The Sopranos had an average of 3.46 million viewers, which is less viewers than Firefly had - yet The Sopranos ran for 5 more years.The Sopranos was on HBO, a premium channel. Firefly was on Fox, a broadcast channel. The viewership expectations for a broadcast channel and a premium channel are completely different.
Buffy never had more than 5.3 million viewers, yet it stayed on the air for 5 years on the WB.The WB had poor ratings overall compared to the other networks, so they had lower standards for renewal. Ditto for the UPN, the network that picked it up afterwards.
King of the Hill ran for 13 seasons, and half of them had ratings just as bad as Firefly's. In fact, since Firefly was cancelled, King of the Hill never had a season rated higher than 6 million. That's only 1 million viewers more than Firefly had, yet they get 13 full seasons, and Firefly gets 14 poorly aired (or un-aired) episodes. You know what's worse? King of the Hill was ON FOX.One issue when comparing shows is the issue of demographics; total viewers can only tell you so much. American Idol and Dancing With The Stars get around the same number of total viewers, but advertising space on American Idol is much more expensive because it hits the demographics the advertisers want (see here (http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2010/04/08/total-viewers-dont-matter-to-primetime-advertising-rates-part-642000/47727/)). So it is very possible that King of the Hill was hitting that demographic much better than Firefly.

But that's speculation on my part, so let's deal with concretes instead. Here's the thing: At the time Firefly was canceled, King of the Hill was in its 6th season and had over 100 episodes. Now, 100 is often considered to be around the "magic number" for syndication (though nowadays 88 seems to be the syndication number). And here's the thing: There's considerable money to be made in syndication. Once a series enters syndication, it instantly becomes worth a lot more, and each new episode produced means more money from syndication. King of the Hill was in syndication and was getting extra money from it for each new episode, whereas Firefly wasn't even close to syndication numbers. This is an enormous difference.

Kobold-Bard

2011-09-16, 01:13 AM

It was actually a half joke comment made by him. Fans took him a little too seriously and started a website to solicit donations to help. Fortunately, they only asked for pledges, because he quickly came back asked them not to send money.

...

That's quite funny.

Joran

2011-09-16, 11:47 AM

So yeah. Pity there's only one season with spinoffs, but that's better than 3 good seasons and 6 terrible ones.

I'd disagree, I'd have 8 more years of pleasure. I also watched Buffy all the way through and while there was a noticeable decline in quality towards the end, I enjoyed watching it. Same with Angel, same with any other series.

Sure, one sublime year feels awesome, but then we're stuck rewatching the same 14 episodes over and over, wanting more and thinking about what might have been.

Also, a Firefly reference made it over to Castle (Nathan Fillion/Captain Malcolm Reynolds new show): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Q3pdj9p6yI

"I like it" :(

The_JJ

2011-09-19, 12:44 AM

Just popping out of my forum semi-retirement to say that I just successfully wooed a lady by plying her with Firefly episodes.

Sorry, just had to say that to some people who would appreciate this, and my bromantic life partner is too busy to Skype.

Edit: Also, Zac Efron is Young!Simon? ... what.

Daftendirekt

2011-09-19, 01:34 AM

Trust me, MasamuneSSX, you'll get over it. When I first got into Firefly I nerdraged over it too. But now I've realized that while yes, it was a good show, it wasn't the best by any means, nor would it have been with additional seasons. IMO, Battlestar Galactica is a much stronger sci-fi, regardless of the fact that it was allowed its full run. And, man, it's been a long time since I've done a watch-through of Firefly and Serenity.

But, yeah, anybody who still has any hope at all of Firefly being resurrected needs to frakking move on. It's been 10 years. Joss himself has said it's not happening, and all the cast have pretty much backed him up on that. Serenity gave them the closure they needed, and that's that.

What I'm still irked about, though, is that Dollhouse got the same treatment, especially when its 2nd season was so much stronger than its 1st.

The Succubus

2011-09-19, 04:28 AM

Tibbaerrohwen

2011-09-19, 06:19 AM

Nathan Fillion is 40. Summer Glau is 30. I don't see that either of them is yet so old that they couldn't go back to play those characters prior to Serenity--it was only 6 years ago! Give it another 5-10 years and yes, then I would agree with you.

Maybe Nathan Fillion could pull it off, but Summer Glau looks completely different than she did when they filmed Firefly.

I would rather not see them try and reboot the show. As much as I loved it, and because I loved it so much, I couldn't bare to see it crumble or get cancelled a second time.

I wouldn't mind seeing something in the same Universe though. I think there was a lot of untapped potential with the world the series took place in.

KingofMadCows

2011-09-19, 06:25 AM

But, yeah, anybody who still has any hope at all of Firefly being resurrected needs to frakking move on. It's been 10 years. Joss himself has said it's not happening, and all the cast have pretty much backed him up on that. Serenity gave them the closure they needed, and that's that.

No. No! That's not true! That's impossible!

It's pointless to argue with the Browncoats. They'll never give up hope. With the Avengers coming out next year, I'm sure they're all thinking that once Joss becomes a big time director, he'll have enough influence in Hollywood to get another chance to revive Firefly.

Akiosama

2011-09-19, 12:06 PM

Also, a Firefly reference made it over to Castle (Nathan Fillion/Captain Malcolm Reynolds new show): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Q3pdj9p6yI

I believe there's another reference to Rick Castle "having learned Chinese for a previous job" that's for Nathan Fillion's Firefly gig.

But yeah, I'm in agreement. The lack of "what could have been" is far overshadowed by "what might go wrong" if they do reboot it.

A spin-off, similar to the way the Star Trek franchise was handled, might be a better way to go.

I mean, it's not like I can get any satisfaction, anyhow, regarding Firefly itself. I don't think we'll ever find out who Shepard Book really was, for example. And Wash is... oh never mind.

Ah well... "You can't take the sky from me..." (But Fox did.)

My 2 yen,

Akiosama

Edit: But put Jewel Staite on TV more, somebody, please! :smallamused:

Anderlith

2011-09-19, 12:28 PM

But, yeah, anybody who still has any hope at all of Firefly being resurrected needs to frakking move on. It's been 10 years. Joss himself has said it's not happening, and all the cast have pretty much backed him up on that. Serenity gave them the closure they needed, and that's that.

What I'm still irked about, though, is that Dollhouse got the same treatment, especially when its 2nd season was so much stronger than its 1st.

Don't bring those gorram made up swears to this thread, Shiny? :smallbiggrin:

& Annulus, I'ma gonna let you finish but Firefly was the best Sci-fi show of all time!

mangosta71

2011-09-21, 04:07 PM

A spin-off, similar to the way the Star Trek franchise was handled, might be a better way to go.
Are you referring to the train wreck otherwise known as Enterprise?

I don't think we'll ever find out who Shepard Book really was, for example.
I thought it was pretty obvious that he was a former operative.

Akiosama

2011-09-21, 04:17 PM

Are you referring to the train wreck otherwise known as Enterprise?

I thought it was pretty obvious that he was a former operative.

I dunno - Enterprise isn't that bad, IMO. I like it more than Voyager.

And sure, Book was some sort of operative, but whose, and why did he end up traveling around as a Shepard? That's more what I wanted to know about.

And the men in blue, too.

My 2 yen,

Akiosama

Dienekes

2011-09-21, 04:23 PM

Wasn't Book explained in his tie in comic A Shepherd's Tale released almost a year ago?

Tirian

2011-09-21, 04:25 PM

Yep. Spoiled out on his Wikipedia page too, if I recall. Quick preview: not an Operative.

Dienekes

2011-09-21, 04:28 PM

Yeah, in honesty I think guessing Book's story was more interesting than the actual story that was given.

Lord Seth

2011-09-21, 05:45 PM

I dunno - Enterprise isn't that bad, IMO. I like it more than Voyager.It depends on what season we're talking about. Voyager was fairly unremarkable and average throughout its run...it improved a little when Seven of Nine joined, but still stayed fairly unremarkable. Enterprise's first two seasons were plain bad, not just unremarkable. There's disagreement as to whether season three was better or worse (I thought it was an improvement), but it wasn't until season four that it got decent, and I'd say it was better than Voyager at that point.

But in terms of viewership, though, Enterprise did worse. In the words of SF Debris: "[It] managed to have ratings so bad not even UPN would keep it on the air."

Akiosama

2011-09-22, 11:13 AM

I guess it's all about what you compare it to, as well. As far as I've seen, which admittedly is about half of first season Enterprise and about a season of Voyager, the episodes weren't horrible - especially when comparing to some of the early TNG stuff, really. (My God, how many times can Wussley Crusher save the day and Starfleet personnel not lose their jobs?!?) It's just that at the time that TNG came out, it was the be all end all for Star Trek.

Now there's so much Star Trek out there, between syndication and different series that it's tougher to compare series based on viewers simply because expectations for what the writers will bring vary so significantly. What you could get away with for TNG Season One or Two won't fly for Enterprise, for example, because our expectations changed because of TNG and every other Star Trek series - and even the other SF series that came before it. Is that bad or unreasonable? No, but it does change our views to what's good and what's not good, even when comparing shows side by side, IMO.

Going back and watching old stuff is quite the experience. I know there's stuff that I used to love that I can barely stand now. (Speed Racer comes to mind.) And there's stuff I used to not like that I think is pretty good now, too.

My 2 yen,

Akiosama

CarpeGuitarrem

2011-09-23, 09:34 AM

And the men in blue, too.

Serenity: Those Left Behind wraps up that plot thread, and it somewhat hints at who they're working for. Fan Theory is that Blue Sun is a gigantic corporate conspiracy that's one of the true powers behind the Alliance, and the HoB are working for them.

Akiosama

2011-09-23, 11:07 AM

Ahh. I see. I've only seen Firefly and Serenity. Haven't read any of the other fiction for the universe.

Interesting.

My 2 yen,

Akiosama

CarpeGuitarrem

2011-09-23, 01:47 PM

Here's something rather intriguing (http://www.ology.com/technology/alan-tudyks-got-idea-serenity-sequel) that I could totally get behind. Far from official, of course, but there's some incredibly cool ideas there. I think that a drastic timeline shift is the best way to revisit Firefly itself, and this leaves room for new characters and a drastically changed world.