Reboot Rumors? by DREAMTROVE

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Reboot Rumors?

POSTED BY: DREAMTROVE
UPDATED: Sunday, February 26, 2017 22:42
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 6743
PAGE 1 of 1

Sunday, February 19, 2017 6:27 PM

So FOX is asking Joss to do a reboot. It seems unlikely that Marvelverse will let him go. Thoughts?

http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/10/14576156/fox-firefly-reboot-joss-whe
don-serenity

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2017 6:51 PM

MOOSE

Is he still involved with Marvel, besides whatever role he has with Agents of SHIELD?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2017 9:44 PM

DREAMTROVE

Not sure. I thought there was another upcoming project, but it doesn't seem that the show would take all of his time.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2017 9:55 PM

WISHIMAY

My problem with a reboot has always been "Where is more conflict?"

The main dangers in the Verse are: Reavers and the Alliance.

Mal dealt the Alliance the biggest blow that a civilian could possibly deal out. We get it, they get it...the Alliance is bad guys. There will always be bad guys as long as there are humans in the equation.

The only thing left would be journalistic pick-aparts of the failings of an insane and morally depraved government like we have now, where is the real interest in more of THAT? The reavers no longer carry the bogeyman status they had at the beginning, either.

What's left? More wars are bores. Finding aliens? I thought that wasn't the point here... Follow the Companions around? Hmmm. That could be fun to watch ...

but a show about the social undercurrents just wouldn't have much impact. At some point Joss would have to introduce fantasy magical elements just to keep the attention going, and that would make me sad.

I always liked that the show MEANT SOMETHING. And... SPACESHIPS, yay.

I fear the only story left to tell would not have much to do with space anymore. Not sure where he would more find meaning, either.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 20, 2017 12:29 AM

DREAMTROVE

I figure that giant Joss brain would think of something. And sometimes he misses, but then he tries again. Inner planets, living inside the police state, that might be a place we haven't been a lot. far out, living among the reavers, in an actual reaver colony, that might be a thing. Another idea would be a different time setting. Even a young or old mal, Battle of serenity story, or long after the revolution, maybe the alliance crumbles, but blue sun and its spin offs grow more powerful. Firefly: Civil War?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 20, 2017 10:44 AM

GWEK

The idea that the story is "over" or even that the Alliance are the villains is a misreading of the Firefly saga (although the simplified depiction that we get in the movie certainly reinforces the idea).

Joss has been quite clear in the past that the Alliance is NOT evil, is NOT the Big Bad, is NOT the Empire. They are a large organization with, ultimately, good intentions, but perhaps improper methods. Although the Alliance produced The Operative, let's not forget that it also produced Simon and Inara.

Whedon has said in interviews that he envisioned a seven-season arc for Firefly, and that the story that we got in the movie would have been Season Two or Season Three, with an evolution leading us to the understanding that Blue Sun is the true Big Bad.

Now, he has also admitted that the arc was very loose and did not have a lot of detail fleshed out yet, but Joss definitely had a much grander plan than what we've seen and neither the Reavers nor the Alliance are the "final boss."

Additionally, although Mal DOES get out the truth about Miranda - so what? Will people care? Many won't. Many will claim it's a fake, conspiracy theorist story. Honestly, the lack of substantial impact is pretty clearly hinted at in LEAVES ON THE WIND and NO POWER IN THE 'VERSE. Mal's main accomplishment: painting a target on his back. His trusted contacts are dead, his enemies know his name, and he is reduced to (literally) stealing toilet paper.

The 'Verse rolls on, and Mal himself is the worst for it. There is still potential for conflict aplenty in the 'Verse.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 20, 2017 5:14 PM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:
Originally posted by GWEK:

Whedon has said in interviews that he envisioned a seven-season arc for Firefly, and that the story that we got in the movie would have been Season Two or Season Three, with an evolution leading us to the understanding that Blue Sun is the true Big Bad.

I figured as much, and you're right about Miranda. The Alliance will just declare it a biohazard, so no one can go there, and declare it an accident, and disaster zone, and might ever do a fluff piece with reparations to surviving family members about which there are none.

Getting the word out has no effect. We've all seen it in real life. Orson Scott Card's Peter and Valentine with their message boards would have had no effect on the world of Ender's Game, and that's why they were omitted from the movie: It's clear to us now, as we watch stories unfold online and get buried and denied.

Also, whether the Alliance is evil or not probably has something to do with who is in charge. Blue Sun can't be the only corporation in a star system, it's just the Halliburton, I figure, and there will be others.

That aside, there are other stories not yet told. A reaver population probably can't survive without some other base than psycho raids. There's probably a whole rim culture that's inaccessible because of the reavers. And maybe said rim culture likes it that way. I can see some fringers tolerating or actually supporting the reavers because they were a barrier.

There's also no doubt an inner planet resistance. There are many stories to be told here.

To have the name firefly, you probably need a ship though.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 20, 2017 8:30 PM

WISHIMAY

Quote:
Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:

Also, whether the Alliance is evil or not probably has something to do with who is in charge. Blue Sun can't be the only corporation in a star system, it's just the Halliburton, I figure, and there will be others.

Sorry, Alliance is ABSOLUTELY malevolent. Wiping out an entire PLANET because of a few rebels? Evil. Mind control, evil. Unleashing a chemical apocalypse on an unknowing public, whether for good or bad....EVIL. Waging a WAR on people who just don't want your rule, EVIL. Screwing with young girls brains to create assassins, EVIL. I'm sure there others I'm missin' here...

You can rationalize that out all you want, but if you have a moral in you you know any of that is inhuman. Alliance has been pretty immoral for long time.

And before you ask, no, I'm not really patriotic, either...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 20, 2017 11:53 PM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:
Originally posted by Wishimay:
Quote:
Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:

Also, whether the Alliance is evil or not probably has something to do with who is in charge. Blue Sun can't be the only corporation in a star system, it's just the Halliburton, I figure, and there will be others.

Sorry, Alliance is ABSOLUTELY malevolent. Wiping out an entire PLANET because of a few rebels? Evil. Mind control, evil. Unleashing a chemical apocalypse on an unknowing public, whether for good or bad....EVIL. Waging a WAR on people who just don't want your rule, EVIL. Screwing with young girls brains to create assassins, EVIL. I'm sure there others I'm missin' here...

You can rationalize that out all you want, but if you have a moral in you you know any of that is inhuman. Alliance has been pretty immoral for long time.

And before you ask, no, I'm not really patriotic, either...

Weren't me that was saying it wasn't.

But ain't that America.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 21, 2017 9:57 AM

GWEK

Look, I'm not saying the Alliance is perfect, and that there aren't a few bad hombres and some serious mis-steps, but the organization is not, as a whole, evil, and per Joss himself, that interpretation is a mis-read of what Firefly and Serenity represent.

"There is the Alliance, the rule of the Alliance, the Parliament, the rebels, the Browncoats, the Independents, a lot of the Central Planets, the outer Planets. In a way, it should be simple, but I didn't want it to be black and white; I didn't want it to be 'Empire evil, rebels good.' The whole point of the show and the movie is to say that things are not simple, that there is a moral gray area that we all live in that's very clear when we live on the frontier."

In Whedon's eyes, the Alliance is, in fact, a positive force. From Joss' "History of the Universe":

"'Advanced' meant just that: there were enlightened cultures, with respect for all non-aggressive religions beliefs. Literacy levels were at 94%. Average lifespan was 120. Public Service was not the law - it was simply an ingrained part of people's ethos. A pot was totally legal... Such was life on the Central Planets."

But of course, nothing is perfect:

"Things were definitely more peaceful among the Central Planets, but that peace was bought with a price. Nothing resembling totalitarianism, but a certain regulation of existence that would not sit well with some... The Parliament ruled over the people with fairness and intelligence, but also with a strong army and a wary eye toward insurrection. The Military Council worked under the Parliament to deliver swift, effective control of any real unrest among them or their neighbors. And even beyond the knowledge of the Military Council were other bodies, secret bodies... human experimentation. Spies. Assassins. Schemes, secret up to the highest level, to get people to behave. To improve."

To judge the entire Alliance as evil, or even immoral, based on the actions of a few is unfair. Heck, there's even a very strong argument to be made that The Operative isn't evil. Although he does terrible things, he does them for a good cause, and with full understanding that what he's doing is wrong... but, in his mind, necessary.

Interestingly, if we look at Joss's broader plan for Firefly, we see the triangle of Independent-Government-Corporation, with Corporation being the true evil (for the record, I believe both the series and movie imply that it was actually Blue Sun, possibly acting as a government contractor, possibly not, that experiments on River Tam. The blue gloves on the security guards at Mathias's facility appear in the script, but were written out to avoid confusion).

The idea of Independent as Hero, Government as Well-Meaning but Misguided and Corruptible, and Corporation as Evil is a pretty prevalent theme in Whedon's work. Blue Sun is The Rossum Corporation is Wolfram and Hart. In BtVS/Angel, "the Government" is best represented by the Watchers' Council and The Initiative, two organizations who may share our heroes goals, but definitely not their approaches to achieving those goals.

Side note: I believe that if Joss may have used DOLLHOUSE as a bit of an intellectual clearinghouse for ideas he didn't get to use for Firefly. Many of the themes are definitely similar and if you look at the antics Rossum Corp gets up to, it's pretty easy to imagine Blue Sun doing more of the same.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 21, 2017 10:13 AM

DREAMTROVE

Hmm. I see your point, but I see WishIMay's as well.

I'm not sure.

An institution can be evil by design. There's more peace under President Snow, but that peace not only comes at a price, it leads to lasting decay. Snow may be an evil idealist. President Coin on the other hand is an evil opportunist.

Gwek, I get your point on the simplicity of a Star Wars universe. It justifies any means to say that the enemy is incurably evil.

In greater Whedonverse there is a theme of corporations being evil, but also government. Mayor Wilkins, for example.

Firefly specific, the Alliance is a tool for evil as it starts, can't see how it becomes a tool for good. Or if thinking that it could be is like wanting to use the one ring for good.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 21, 2017 2:56 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by GWEK:

. . . there is a moral gray area that we all live in that's very clear when we live on the frontier."

In Whedon's eyes, the Alliance is, in fact, a positive force.

There is a real philosophy that Whedon knows of, which is taking over this planet. If it were to be transferred to the 'Verse you'd get the Firefly Universe, with all the Alliance's achievements in longer and happier lives on the central planets and all the Alliance's shortcomings leading to shorter and unhappier lives on the frontier.

The founding philosopher of the Alliance was named Hayek. He begins his book by advancing the narrowest possible conception of liberty: an absence of coercion. He rejects such notions as political freedom, universal rights, human equality and the distribution of wealth, all of which, by restricting the behavior of the wealthy and powerful, intrude on the absolute freedom from coercion he demands.

Democracy, by contrast, “is not an ultimate or absolute value”. In fact, liberty depends on preventing the majority from exercising choice over the direction that politics and society might take.

He justifies this position by creating a heroic narrative of extreme wealth. He conflates the economic elite, spending their money in new ways, with philosophical and scientific pioneers. Just as the political philosopher should be free to think the unthinkable, so the very rich should be free to do the undoable, without constraint by public interest or public opinion.

The ultra rich are “scouts”, “experimenting with new styles of living”, who blaze the trails that the rest of society will follow. The progress of society depends on the liberty of these “independents” to gain as much money as they want and spend it how they wish. All that is good and useful, therefore, arises from inequality.

Inherited wealth is more socially useful than earned wealth: “the idle rich”, who don’t have to work for their money, can devote themselves to influencing “fields of thought and opinion, of tastes and beliefs”. Even when they seem to be spending money on nothing but “aimless display”, they are in fact acting as society’s vanguard.

http://evonomics.com/ruthless-network-super-rich-ideologues-killed-cho
ice-destroyed-peoples-faith-politics/

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 21, 2017 4:46 PM

WISHIMAY

Quote:
Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:

Weren't me that was saying it wasn't.

But ain't that America.

Yep.

I can't even fathom who really runs our government...

But ANY time a system gets bigger than any group of people's power, that system is generally not good at benevolence because it is too far removed from the consequences. The odds of more psychopaths running things goes up.

There will be oversights in a large system, but it's when they pay attention to something I worry

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 21, 2017 5:09 PM

WISHIMAY

Had a long conversation about possible reboot premises with hubby today.

We still like the idea RiverTam1 came up with which is about a Terraforming community. There would be whole new science aspects to explore and societal aspects and you could even have the original crew stop by...maybe the Terraformers could be closet Independents or something. Give the new people an air of character authentication. Maybe they could end up being a larger part of taking down the Alliance?

Otherwise, I thought maybe the Alliance leaders could come forward and "admit their horrible wrongs and vow to do better", but really they use it as an opportunity to do worse things and try to hide them better. Re-invigorate the Alliance as an Empire style baddie.

Or maybe 15 years down the line the Independents are the real asshole trash of the 'Verse and the Alliance is weak and useless.

Maybe Mal or Zoe are the leaders of a rebellion?

I also like the idea of them having a hard-hitting jerk journalist on the ship like something out of a Transmetropolitan comic. Except make it androgynous and slightly Sherlockian... Everyone loves a jerk character. I'm sick to death of the guys getting all the fun, too... House, Dr Cox from Scrubs, Elementary, Sherlock...

Ideas??
Plot devices?
Characters?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 22, 2017 6:24 AM

DREAMTROVE

Second,
I'm not going to drag the spirit of RWED into general, that would be a crime against the verse, but I'll just leave it at this: Have you read Hayek?

No doubt the Firefly universe is to some extent anarchocapitalism, but the libertarian ideal is much more strongly represented by Mal, Serenity and the outer planets. By contrast the alliance.

Whedon's ultimate social philosophy is hard to pin down. On the surface, he's a liberal like almost everyone in Hollywood. The underlying assumption of that idea that if only a liberal were in power, everything would be fine. They reinforce this by turning off their sensors whenever a liberal is in power, so they miss the horrible economic, environmental and human rights abuses of Clinton or Obama and focus on those of Bush and Trump, et al.

The conflation that is typically made here is a pretty simple chain: Reagan was a Thatcherite and Thatcher was a big supporter of Hayek. I see Monbiot is a Tory but decidedly anti-Thatcher, which is where is views on Hayek are coming from. That said, it's a pretty skewed perspective. Hayek is liberal more like Ron Paul, who, like Hayek, has an economic model is based on an overarching pacificism. I'd agree that this isn't Joss's position.

Whedon's surface politics are clear in the shows as well, but the story arcs of each Joss creation are pretty decidedly on the other side. Many people have commented on this, and it's what leads to that split fanbase that causes RWED fights. Searching on Joss and Hayek returned me nothing, but Joss Paul gave me this link, which is a pretty good analysis of Whedon's position.
http://istanbulfactsandideas.blogspot.com/2008/01/joss-whedon-and-libe
rtarianism.html
That said, I'm not sure Whedon himself has thoroughly thought it out, and what he writes, the world he creates are in stark contrast in many areas, to that of his consciously accepted political views (like feminism, liberalism, etc.)

I feel quite confident in saying that I don't think Joss picked up a copy of Hayek's Road to Serfdom, or The Constitution of Liberty and used it as a roadmap for the Alliance. Okay, nor did he thump it on the table and say "This is what we believe," but IIRC Thatcher (a Tory herself, like Monbiot,) was opposing another Tory's neoliberal proposal at the time.

Hayek is definitely a classic liberal like Paul, and not a neoliberal like Clinton. In fact, Hayek comments at some point that while at the University of Chicago, he was the only member of the economics department not invited to the Chicago School dinners. The posthumous connection of Hayek to neoliberalism is a distortion that would have appalled Hayek.

Neoliberal is more based on an evolution from Keynes, through the world bank, IMF and Federal Reserve models to the fiat derivative and international trade unions like the EU, NAFTA and TPP.

I didn't know I was going to end this post with a rap video, but here it is. Hayek vs Keynes.

I do not actually think that the Alliance represents either model. I think it's state corporatist, as Wishimay and Gwek suggest.

And that was enough on economics for me. Back to bed, really ill. I'll try to get back and address the reboot ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 22, 2017 6:27 AM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:
Originally posted by Wishimay:
Quote:
Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:

Weren't me that was saying it wasn't.

But ain't that America.

Yep.

I can't even fathom who really runs our government...

But ANY time a system gets bigger than any group of people's power, that system is generally not good at benevolence because it is too far removed from the consequences. The odds of more psychopaths running things goes up.

There will be oversights in a large system, but it's when they pay attention to something I worry

Agreed, just, completely.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 22, 2017 6:51 AM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:
Originally posted by Wishimay:

Terraforming community.

I'll get to the rest of this later. for now, just to first part. Structurally for a show, you need to move around. In space opera, if you're stuck in one place, you become a character interaction based show, which is what happened to DS9. Now this is something that Joss does very very well (Buffy et al) but it's not strictly speaking, Firefly.

I think I can reconcile this with a quick fix. If the colony were on the brink, maybe as a collection of asteroids, somewhere, outer rim but on the verge of colonization, something that would take us back and forth between an area of Alliance control and one of total chaos, but where there was a real culture. That would put us sometimes on a ship, a chance to land on planets while giving it a Titan A.E. kind of setting (or the story that was based on, I've now forgotten.)

Plus, a current sci-fi topic, asteroid mining. Perils, fortune, a gold rush, all fits very well into "space cowboys."

Quote:

Otherwise, I thought maybe the Alliance leaders could come forward and "admit their horrible wrongs and vow to do better", but really they use it as an opportunity to do worse things and try to hide them better.

lol. so true. Not full empire though. I agree with Gwek that the concept weakens the star wars universe, because if the opponent is an all encompassing evil, then anything is justifiable in opposition to it.

have you seen Blake's 7, the original series on this idea, or it's more direct derivative Farscape? Also, I assume everyone here has seen Cowboy Bebop. I have to admit that I have been meaning for years to watch Outlaw Star, the other show Firefly was based on, and I have the disks and haven't watched it.

Quote:

Or maybe 15 years down the line the Independents are the real asshole trash of the 'Verse and the Alliance is weak and useless.

I can see Blue Sun reavers as a tax-dodge in something like asteroid mining. You could have regular people, some trying to make a living, others a killing, and then Blue Sun coming in a sneaky kinda way where people were actually stealth corporate agents, tying to get the low down on where the real treasure was. The one corporation idea though, it definitely needs a competitor, at least one.

Quote:
I also like the idea of them having a hard-hitting jerk journalist on the ship like something out of a Transmetropolitan comic. Except make it androgynous and slightly Sherlockian... Everyone loves a jerk character. I'm sick to death of the guys getting all the fun, too... House, Dr Cox from Scrubs, Elementary, Sherlock...

Hmm. Again, Farscape comes to mind. But yeah, I hear ya. A new collection of characters. The big damn heroes are awesome but they didn't get chiselled enough to where they're outside of their archetypes. (Zoe is mostly amazon, and you can sort of mentally put almost anything amazon into her, as long as you maintain the sardonic crankiness. Willow otoh is not witch, she's distinctly "Just Willow" and if it doesn't fit, everyone will notice right away.) This was not true btw in Buffy season one, where the buffy characters were not as well defined. It takes a while. Some of buffy's most memorable characters (Anya, Spike, Faith, etc.) don't even show up until later seasons. I think he gets it faster with each try, but yeah, it would be good to mix it up.

Also, and I can't stress this enough. Joss should do this *with* someone. The cult of personality thing that surrounds a fandom almost always oversteps. Buffy, Angel, Firefly, Dollhouse, these are shows written by a team, and that team has Jane Espensen on it, and others (Marti Noxon, etc.) That's really quite important. Joss by himself is going to fall into personal cliches (and I don't just mean women fighting barefoot.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 22, 2017 11:13 AM

ZEEK

I don't want a straight up reboot. I don't want to see a new Firefly with a vaguely similar crew with a twist on their secret backstories. I also don't want a continuation at this point. Our crew is too old and frankly they'd be even more fractured and spread out by now than they were in Serenity. At this point I'd think only 2 or 3 of the original crew would even be left on Serenity.

I'd rather see a spinoff. My favorite has always been the idea of following a new alliance captain stationed in the outer rim coming to terms with what life is like outside of the core. Would have been nice to use the captain from Bushwacked but way too much time has passed. Still he's a good example. The first season can be all about him learning the reality of what he's dealing with and struggling with moral and ethical decisions. The second season I'd imagine him in almost all out revolt but trying to keep his position in order to help the people. By the third season I'd imagine the captain and some of the crew would be outlaws who had to escape on a new ship while some of the regular cast would have taken over command of the original alliance ship. The loyalists would be hunting the outlaws. So on and so forth.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 22, 2017 12:08 PM

SOCKPUPPET

Going to third or fifth the spinoff thing. Maybe no central character, game of thrones style, or at least, not a strong pivotal point "the story is about this person." Fanservice? I think that the groupies and fanbois will be happy enough if a known actor from whedonverse appears. Eliza could just show up in a random ep and they'd be ecstatic. Whenever Star Trek brings a refugee from another series in, it just hurts the storyline. So yeah, nothing against it unless it destroys the new storyline.

Another question: Forward in time or backward?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 22, 2017 3:13 PM

WISHIMAY

Quote:
Originally posted by SOCKPUPPET:
Whenever Star Trek brings a refugee from another series in, it just hurts the storyline.

Sorry, I absolutely LOVED the Scotty and Bones and Spock eps. in TNG. Data going "It is..hmm. It is... It is green." Bones "It's a new ship, but she's got the right name...You treat her like a lady, she'll always bring you home."

One last visit. Those were great!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 22, 2017 5:53 PM

SOCKPUPPET

Quote:
Originally posted by Wishimay:

Sorry, I absolutely LOVED the Scotty and Bones and Spock eps. in TNG.

Apology accepted :)

But for real I didn't mean cameos. It's the "install an old char to boost ratings" that jar the storyline. It tends to drag a show down. I'm sure we'd all love to see a BDH, but if there's to be a new firefly, I guess let it fly.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 22, 2017 10:24 PM

DREAMTROVE

I never looked, but was there ever any official aux content released, like there was with Buffy?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 23, 2017 9:59 AM

WISHIMAY

Quote:
Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:

I never looked, but was there ever any official aux content released, like there was with Buffy?

What is that?

BTW, I own Farscape DVDs but have never heard of Blake's 7 and neither has hubbs. Interesting.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 23, 2017 12:45 PM

ZEEK

Quote:
Originally posted by SOCKPUPPET:
Another question: Forward in time or backward?

I vote forward. Going backward is always so difficult to do. Like if they go back and do the war. We all know how it ends. Sure there are probably interesting characters and events in there, but it ultimately loses most suspense. What happened happened and that isn't going to change. Let's move forward where anything can happen.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 23, 2017 1:08 PM

VERASAMUELS

[
BTW, I own Farscape DVDs but have never heard of Blake's 7 and neither has hubbs. Interesting.

Blake's 7 is a British sci-fi series [4 seasons] with excellent acting and pulling off great storylines on a tiny budget. Give it a go. Some of the characters in it will be hauntingly familiar to Firefly fans.

Devout Keeper of Jayne's Lunchbox

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 23, 2017 3:45 PM

DREAMTROVE

WishIMay,
Blake's 7 was a british sci-fi show of the early 80s, very low budget, from a time when the BBC still hated sci-fi and always wanted it to die.

The premise is star trek, only the federation is evil, and our heroes are escaped criminals on a prison ship.

It's decidedly cheesy now by comparison, but it's where the idea was born.

I remember loving it as a kid. I tried watching some more recently. But this was the first time when you saw a group of characters who weren't entirely good and things didn't always go their way. Even when on the side of good, sometimes greater evil won.

It was a stark contrast to Star Trek, and Star Wars, a field of shades of grey, with the ever present potential of failure being real to the story, rather than a gimmicky plot device.

Aux content, like the Buffy comics, novels, etc. I see there are comics in the very next thread!
***crickets***

Zeek,

Agreed, Forward, easier to have cameo of older actors than younger ones.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 23, 2017 7:08 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Wishimay:

But ANY time a system gets bigger than any group of people's power, that system is generally not good at benevolence because it is too far removed from the consequences. The odds of more psychopaths running things goes up.

This would be off topic from the OP:
Starting about 12-14,000 years ago, following the "Great Flood" the "Cradle of Civilization" or "Center of Earth" (Medi-Terranean) was sufficiently isolated from the East (Orient) that single rulers could control all of the known world - Pharaohs, then some Romans and Macedonians.

Then in the last 2000 years, Man invented hay. And horses could survive winter away from Rome/Egypt. Thus the range of mankind stretched north of The Med, across Yurp and Britain, and beyond the effective control of one ruler. Some Emperors tried - French, British, Spanish, German. But nobody had things nailed down as well as the Pharaohs.

Then Henry VIII beheaded a slew of Queens, created the Anglican Church, pretended he was the New Pope, and essentially ticked off his grandson, James Stuart, Son of Mary Queen of Scots, King James VI of Scotland, and King James I of England. King James retaliated against all of the injustice and corruption derived from the intentional misinterpretation of the Bible by publishing one that any commoner could read without getting his head cut off - in English. Then anybody who could think for themselves fled Yurp to the New World, and yet again the known world was too vast for one ruler to reign over.

Pretty much all of the Surface of Earth is known now. There are no more vast New Worlds on Earth. Are we approaching the point when, with today's technology, communications, spying and recording, one person can control all of the world's population (at least the good parts)? Would a merger of Trump/Putin lead to this?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 26, 2017 10:42 PM

SOCKPUPPET

I'll have to check it out.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE