Firefly Revival Confirmed

[Umbran]

The only major ones left unresolved were Shepherd Book's mysterious past...

This was addressed in comic form in, "The Shepherd's Tale", published by Dark Horse.

 

[Willie the Duck]

But I don't find "The Verse" all that compelling. The Serenity and her crew intrigued me

Certain aspects had 'potential', like the Reavers and certain other things that came to light during the series and movie. Also the cowboys in space had a nice ring to it. But they can polish it to a diamond or a turd, let's see what happens...

This is the big problem, in my mind. Firefly was a moment in time, lightning in a bottle. There wasn't something ridiculously engaging about the world in which it was set, nor were the ship and crew fascinating new character archetypes. It was the chemistry of the actors, combined with engaging dialogue and situations. This is why I'm always hesitant when people talk about a Babylon 5 reboot -- it wasn't the universe or the story that made it magical, it was the actors, their chemistry, and the specific script (we still have JM Straczynski, but that's 1 of 3 and who knows if he can mentally un-move-on). Same reason why the Friends cast resisted any revivals and only ended up with a cast reunion.

With Firefly, we have the cast (minus Ron Glass), and presumably their chemistry. We don't (and realistically can't) have Whedon -- although we could have his writing room (unless Marti Noxon, or the actual Firefly regulars like Ben Edlund, Jane Espenson, Drew Z. Greenberg, Tim Minear, and Jose Molina have equal issues). There supposedly is a script, undoubtedly on brand, but who knows how good.

We are definitely constrained in story based on it having to take place in the nebulous time between show and movie, and with things ending up as they were at the start of the movie (particularly with regards to how many more secrets of the universe the crew can become privy to).

Perhaps, for me, the biggest (and most relevant to my lightning in a bottle comment) issue is that the continuing adventures of the Serenity crew might not be that interesting. The thematic trope of a gang of good-hearted ne'er-do-wells always one step ahead of the law and one step behind a real payout is a wonderful framing device for a story, but it can rapidly run out of steam if used in an ongoing series. I remember many op-eds over the past 2 decades saying that Firefly might ultimately have been saved (in the hearts and minds of fans) by it's abrupt cancellation before it had time to have a bunch of filler episodes or the like. I don't necessarily agree (because the writers would have done something to address the issue, and we don't know what it would have been), but I don't necessarily disagree either. Firefly is the great unknown -- the what-could-it-have-been -- it's entirely possible that the answer would have been 'forgettable after the first half-season.'

 

[Umbran]

I remember many op-eds over the past 2 decades saying that Firefly might ultimately have been saved (in the hearts and minds of fans) by it's abrupt cancellation before it had time to have a bunch of filler episodes or the like.

You say "filler episode" like they are a bad thing.

Today's TV seasons of 10 episodes have enlightened us on the real purpose of so-called "filler episodes" - they are episodes in your series less devoted to any arc plot, where you have time to focus on character development.

 

[Cergorach]

This is the big problem, in my mind. Firefly was a moment in time, lightning in a bottle. There wasn't something ridiculously engaging about the world in which it was set, nor were the ship and crew fascinating new character archetypes. It was the chemistry of the actors, combined with engaging dialogue and situations. This is why I'm always hesitant when people talk about a Babylon 5 reboot -- it wasn't the universe or the story that made it magical, it was the actors, their chemistry, and the specific script (we still have JM Straczynski, but that's 1 of 3 and who knows if he can mentally un-move-on).

The B5 world was more interesting then the Firefly world. But overall I agree with your 'lightning in a bottle' statement. The thing is, 'lightning in a bottle' might be rare, but it isn't unique. Thus it can be repeated, might not be the same kind of lightning, but it could be good anyway.

Terminator 2 was seven years after the original 'better' then the original. It's rare, but it happens. Just like many folks found Mass Effect 2 better then the original. So the opposite could be, the animated Firefly series could be 'plasma in a bottle'...

I'm currently looking positive at the development of an animated Firefly series, fully realizing that it can be crap. Also realizing, that even if I like it, many others will not (or vice versa). It's something that does not impact the original negatively and we can just ignore the animated series if we want. Just like a lot of us ignore Star Wars 7/8/9...

 

[Willie the Duck]

You say "filler episode" like they are a bad thing.

Today's TV seasons of 10 episodes have enlightened us on the real purpose of so-called "filler episodes" - they are episodes in your series less devoted to any arc plot, where you have time to focus on character development.

Aside: I saw that OSP vid, too. Good stuff.

Then it is probably the wrong word for my purposes. "Fluff," "repetitive," heck, how 'bout just "bad?" Or not even bad, just not the amazing thing the first half-season felt like. The premise is a constrained version of the general Wagon Train formula, and although that formula is very popular (comprising most Star Trek shows, most The Fugitive/The Prisoner/Incredible Hulk-style shows, and such), it has a relatively moderate success rate. We hope that the Firefly-we-never-got would have been one of the good ones, but we don't really know. With this new development, we are getting a continuation, but by nature of it being a prequel to the movie, it has more limits than an actual season 2 would have. I am always hopeful, but have my trepidations.

The B5 world was more interesting then the Firefly world. But overall I agree with your 'lightning in a bottle' statement. The thing is, 'lightning in a bottle' might be rare, but it isn't unique. Thus it can be repeated, might not be the same kind of lightning, but it could be good anyway.

More than Firefly? Yes. What we got for Firefly was minimal. B5 worldbuilding ranged (and we could debate it extensively, but please not in this thread). The point was, it wasn't what brought people to the show in the first place, nor what made it the masterpiece it was.

Lightning in a bottle can indeed strike twice (whoo boy, that metaphor got caught in the reel spindles along with the cassette tape). We shall see how it goes.

Also realizing, that even if I like it, many others will not (or vice versa). It's something that does not impact the original negatively and we can just ignore the animated series if we want. Just like a lot of us ignore Star Wars 7/8/9...

Oh gawds yes, this! A bad thing in an existing franchise does not retroactively 'ruin' something you love unless you actively choose to. That cannot be stated enough.

 

[Umbran]

Aside: I saw that OSP vid, too. Good stuff.

Then it is probably the wrong word for my purposes. "Fluff," "repetitive," heck, how 'bout just "bad?"

Bad is fine. There's at least one episode Joss planned to make that was really, offensively and misogynistically bad in concept, that it is unlikely any amount of good writing would have saved it, for example.

With this new development, we are getting a continuation, but by nature of it being a prequel to the movie

I have seen the term "midquel" being used.

 

[ART!]

Feels like a desperate attempt to keep Wash in the cast.

Which I have mixed feelings about. He was critical to the mix, and Alan Tudyk is great. But this also drastically limits any development they can do to any characters or plotlines.

I'll give it a shot. Time will tell.

If the stories are well-told, I kind of don't care that I know how it winds up afterwards.

I can see how they ended up here--animated means the actors can return without looking ancient, the interim period means it can feel similar to the show. But I can't help feel like they're drawing water from a dead well. Good things come to end sometimes.

Yeah - "A thing isn't beautiful because it lasts."

 

[Belen]

You say "filler episode" like they are a bad thing.

Today's TV seasons of 10 episodes have enlightened us on the real purpose of so-called "filler episodes" - they are episodes in your series less devoted to any arc plot, where you have time to focus on character development.

Yes.

Bring back the filler where you have the time to get to know the universe and characters.

 

[Umbran]

So, having done a little reading and some thinking...

I, at least, have already come up with a couple of ways to get Wash back that I personally wouldn't hate, doesn't violate any current canon, doesn't involve time-travel hijinks, and might actually build story.

If I can do that in an evening, real writers can manage something. So, if the animated show takes off in popularity, I won't be surprised to see them move past the movie.

 

[Belen]

So, having done a little reading and some thinking...

I, at least, have already come up with a couple of ways to get Wash back that I personally wouldn't hate, doesn't violate any current canon, doesn't involve time-travel hijinks, and might actually build story.

If I can do that in an evening, real writers can manage something. So, if the animated show takes off in popularity, I won't be surprised to see them move past the movie.

It science fiction. I am sure that the hands of blue folks could find a way.