Firefly

Who did the farming, the basic sanitation, the navigating, the refueling?

I prefer your space orcs, or rather Orks, suggestion.

Farming: They are cannibals, and probably keep some captives alive to serve as livestock and entertainment. Charming.

Basic Sanitation: They fly spaceships with unshielded reactor cores. Basic sanitation is probably not a high concern.

Navigating/Refueling: The small percentage maintaining some higher brain function, same as with the flying.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


I hate to make the obvious comparison, but what did BSG have and Firefly did not?
For one thing, ambition.

Don't get me wrong, I loved Firefly. It established some wonderful characters given only a handful of episodes. But Firefly's dramatic ambitions were much more modest (and perhaps, in the end, more successful for their modesty). The nBSG team bit off way more than they could chew, but I really enjoyed watching them try, even when they ended up choking...

Also, I not sure Firefly's odd mash-up of sci-fi and Western would ever have caught on well enough to justify it's production cost. I bet a lot of genre fans --well, sci-fi fans at least, fans of televised Westerns no longer exist-- found it off-putting.
 
Last edited:

Also, I not sure Firefly's odd mash-up of sci-fi and Western would ever have caught on well enough to justify it's production cost. I bet a lot of genre fans --well, sci-fi fans at least, fans of televised Westerns no longer exist-- found it off-putting.
I've never met anyone who found it off-putting. It didn't catch on enough to justify its production costs for two reasons, AFAICT.

1) The bizarre way they aired it. The big networks don't really nurture anything, and Fox is probably the worst of the lot in that regard.

2) The fact that they were not yet tracking Tivo and online viewership in any way, shape, or form at the time.

The latter was proven to me by the fact that Dollhouse got a second season, seemingly based largely on that. There are entire generations of upwardly mobile folks who don't watch TV on the network's schedule anymore. That's a big, fat chunk of Whedon's built-in audience.

The slow death of mass media means that the networks are NOT the place to grow up a show like that anymore. Reality shows and procedurals are the only kind of shows the networks understand how to evaluate within the very narrow quarterly profits window in which every decision seemingly must be made now.
 

Also, I not sure Firefly's odd mash-up of sci-fi and Western would ever have caught on well enough to justify it's production cost. I bet a lot of genre fans --well, sci-fi fans at least, fans of televised Westerns no longer exist-- found it off-putting.
Free association:

Star Trek was originally pitched by Roddenberry to Paramount as "Wagon Train in space." He lied, of course having little intention of that, but they bought it. And that was at a time when westerns were at a peak of popularity.

I have always thought that Firefly was a far better setting and in a sense a better utilization of the rules for the original Traveller rpg than Traveller's own setting. Of course, Firefly had nothing to do with Traveller (AFAIK) but it could have and should have.

The only reason televised westerns no longer exist is just because times change. Broadcast networks are currently too busy jerking off on the profit margins of cheap, soul-sucking, excremental "reality" shows. They don't really want to entertain us, they want to PROFIT from us. Or more accurately what they profit from is getting us to watch ANYTHING. Whether what they get us to watch actually IS entertaining or has any redeeming value is irrelevant - the cheaper it is to produce the better they like it, which is why we get so much "reality" tv and so little high-production cost shows of any kind. The latter are more and more likely to be found on cable channels rather than the Big 3 networks because their profits come from subscriptions - not selling advertising.

Was "John Adams" a miniseries on NBC? Was "Band of Brothers" a miniseries on CBS? Normal series: Sopranos? Battlestar Galactica? Deadwood? Etc. Broadcast networks do not have an interest in investing in quality content. They have an increasing interest in the CHEAPEST content possible. Quality for them is therefore a mere accidental benefit.
 

I have always thought that Firefly was a far better setting and in a sense a better utilization of the rules for the original Traveller rpg than Traveller's own setting. Of course, Firefly had nothing to do with Traveller (AFAIK) but it could have and should have.

I know that after watching the pilot and the first couple of episodes I was thinking "damn if that isn't *exactly* like our old games of Traveller from the late 70s!"
 

I hate to make the obvious comparison, but what did BSG have and Firefly did not?

BSG has SFC, and Firefly did not.

For all that I've questioned SFC, and don't watch the channel anymore, that was the advantage. If Firefly aired on SFC, it may have had a lower budget (though BSG did alright), but I've little doubt it would have aired longer.

To be a little controversial, I think Whedon was a little overconfident if he thought the numbers Buffy/Angel were bringing in (~4m viewers) would float on any major network. Shows pulling in those numbers are routinely canceled. I suppose he was hoping for a big hit on a major network, and felt Firefly was it.

Now, going back to Fox for Dollhouse was flat out crazy, IMO.
 

I think you guys are right about BSG; Sci Fi (now SyFy) Channel was a secret to its success. I find that odd to write because usually I can't stand any show on Sci Fi; too many lame horror movies.

Firefly was due to Fox problems.

So, since BSG has been gone for awhile, why didn't SyFy try to reboot Firefly?
 

For one, the lead is on another successful show (Castle). Several other cast members have roles (permanent or recurring) on other shows (including the actors that played Wash and Inara). Also, I believe Kaylee's actress got a role on SG:A.
 


Remove ads

Top