Chances for more Firefly as compared to Star Trek by Sirvec

Thanks UNREGISTEREDCOMPANION I glad someone else feels the same way. Plus this is the first thread I've ever wrote and I'm just glad someone wrote a reply.

And you're right how great would it be to see my future kids playing in a cardboard box with Serenity written across the side

"Ta ma duh!"-Mal

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

Monday, January 9, 2006 9:23 AM

Shameless bump. I just really want to get other browncoats views on this and maybe spread a little joy and hope to other die hard fans. Sorry for the cheat just don't want this thread to get buried to soon.

"Ta ma duh!"-Mal

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

Monday, January 9, 2006 9:45 AM

JAYRO

Yeah, I think the comparison is relevant.

Though we are living in a different time from when Star Trek: TOS first aired. Perhaps there is too much sci-fi around now? (Oh-oh, I'm going to get flamed!

)

It could be argued that Star Trek: The Motion Picture was partly greenlit by the sudden wave of enthusiasm for sci-fi generated by the huge success of Star Wars. Studios saw the potential, and the chance to coin it at the box office, and jumped on the band-rocket.

Whereas now, in a world where every other film has a $stupid FX budget (I'm talking to you, George), genuine quality finds itself drowning in the morass of the average (I'm talking to you, Fantastic Four).

Good post, Sirvec. Let's see what everyone else thinks!

--------------------------

"Wheel never stops turnin', Badger."
"That only matters to the people on the rim."

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

Monday, January 9, 2006 10:09 AM

PACKINHEAT

I agree, they are a good comparison.
I myself didn't get too see firefly on TV due to A. i worked on the night that it was on and B. i never heard anything about it till after it was taken off the air. But i am 23 and can't tell you how many times i have been through the StarTrek TOS and most of its later versions. But Firefly has something i cant get away from and i dont want too for that matter :) I can say Firefly is in my blood now and i'm in for the long haul. and if we got to wait another 10 years for a bit more from the Master Joss then that is how it is, and i will be waiting. but fingers crossed; it will be less time than it took for star trek to come again.

"I would kill a man for 14 more Episodes, Kill a man." - Firefly Fan

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

Monday, January 9, 2006 10:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jayro:
Yeah, I think the comparison is relevant.

Though we are living in a different time from when Star Trek: TOS first aired. Perhaps there is too much sci-fi around now? (Oh-oh, I'm going to get flamed! )

It could be argued that Star Trek: The Motion Picture was partly greenlit by the sudden wave of enthusiasm for sci-fi generated by the huge success of Star Wars. Studios saw the potential, and the chance to coin it at the box office, and jumped on the band-rocket.

Whereas now, in a world where every other film has a $stupid FX budget (I'm talking to you, George), genuine quality finds itself drowning in the morass of the average (I'm talking to you, Fantastic Four).

Good post, Sirvec. Let's see what everyone else thinks!

--------------------------

You make a great point JAYRO Star Trek the Motion Picture was riding the coattails of Close Encounters and Star Wars ( back when that franchise was worth two damns ). Before those movies and others like Alien and 2001 there was no mainstream quality ( see the word quality gets rid off movies like Battle Beyond the Stars, yikes that was bad! ) Sci-Fi so the public was starved for new blood.

Now like westerns in the 50s, 60s, and 70s Sci-Fi has flooded the market however unlike westerns (which are making a come back) I don't think the market is fed up with Sci-Fi just yet or in the mind set of Hollywood there still blood to be drawn from that turnip!! The real saving grace Serenity has is it something new. Unlike so much of Hollywood it's a new verse to explore not one that been exploited, strip mined, and raped into oblivion. ( Sorry mini rant and rave took over there.)

Fortunately for us instead of aliening fans by giving them crap Joss has given us quality (there's that word again). Because of that we want more and new fans who are just getting stared want more. And with the number of fans still growing daily it fills my heart with joy and hope the same way it did with early trekies as they marched on.

"Ta ma duh!"-Mal

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

Monday, January 9, 2006 11:23 AM

No offence, but have you guys concidered the current state of the Star Trek franchise?

°°°°°°°°°°°°
http://www.byond-trax.com - my selfmade ambient/lounge/chillout music

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

Monday, January 9, 2006 12:11 PM

DHARMAGAL

First, the Star Trek franchise is older than at least half the people on this board. Of course, it's getting a bit decrepit.

I can only hope that our 'verse is around long enough for me to get tired of it.

The Firefly fanbase is only growing. People are not becoming non-Firefly fans. People, like me, are becomimg addicted Firefly fans who want more. And have money. We are just now finding out about it.

Lets face it. Firefly is good. It's art. It's beyond SciFi.

Dharmagal, a new fan who wrote a shiney intro on another thread, but nobody saw it

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

Monday, January 9, 2006 12:30 PM

ANDRE83

Could you point me in the direction of that intro? :)

Thats the bad thing about this type of board. Its burried after one day.

Jayne: All those years of preacher training, getting knocked out by one bounty hunter
Book: Oh, dont get me wrong. I gave him a hell of a fight
Jayne: Epic i'm guessing

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

Monday, January 9, 2006 1:22 PM

PANIC

Chance of another Star Trek series in the next five years: 100%.

Chance of another Firefly series in the next five years: ???

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

Monday, January 9, 2006 1:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Panic:
Chance of another Star Trek series in the next five years: 100%.

I seriously doubt it.

°°°°°°°°°°°°
http://www.byond-trax.com - my selfmade ambient/lounge/chillout music

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

Monday, January 9, 2006 2:07 PM

DHARMAGAL

Quote:
Originally posted by Andre83:
Could you point me in the direction of that intro? :)

Thanks for asking Andre. It's in the middle of this thread: (only 30-something posts)

http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=16178

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

Monday, January 9, 2006 4:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by CBY:
No offence, but have you guys concidered the current state of the Star Trek franchise?

°°°°°°°°°°°°
http://www.byond-trax.com - my selfmade ambient/lounge/chillout music

I think you may be missing my point. I'm not saying that I or anyone of us wants Firefly to become Star trek. Let's face it that franchise craped out way before it was put out to pasture. What I am saying is that like early Star Trek who's fans kept it going inspite of it's limited mainstream acceptance and the poor box office numbers for first movie the fans where able to keep it going. And if they could do it I don't see why we can't and that should give us hope

Plus as a bonus as long as Joss is keeping control of the franchise it shouldn't spire down the crap hole of corporate Hollywood.

"Ta ma duh!"-Mal

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

Monday, January 9, 2006 5:17 PM

GUNRUNNER

Quote:
Originally posted by Sirvec:
Star Trek TOS was canceled early because of poor rating and studio mismanagement same as Firefly except for the episode count. (Side note: How crazy shiny would it have been to get 79 episodes of Firefly )

Yea but odds are we would have had episodes like "Jayne's Brain" "That Reaver Survives" or "The (exploding) Apple" in those 79...

Quote:
It Had a cast of unknowns much like Firefly.

Deforest Kelly and George Takai weren't really unknowns. Heck George Takai was doing movies while he was a cast member of Star Trek, ever wonder why he wasn't in "The Trouble with Tribbles"? He was staring in a movie with ‘The Duke’ (The Green Berets to be specific).

EV Nova Firefly mod Message Board:
http://s4.invisionfree.com/GunRunner/index.php?act=idx

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

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 1:19 AM

ANDRE83

Quote:
Originally posted by dharmagal:
Quote:
Originally posted by Andre83:
Could you point me in the direction of that intro? :)

Thanks for asking Andre. It's in the middle of this thread: (only 30-something posts)

http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=16178

Haha, that really was a shiny intro! :)

Space monkeys :)

Jayne: All those years of preacher training, getting knocked out by one bounty hunter
Book: Oh, dont get me wrong. I gave him a hell of a fight
Jayne: Epic i'm guessing

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

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 4:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Sirvec:
What I am saying is that like early Star Trek who's fans kept it going inspite of it's limited mainstream acceptance and the poor box office numbers for first movie the fans where able to keep it going.

Still, in my opinion you can't just pick the good aspects out of the Star Trek history without looking at the current situation. The movie and tv business changed a lot since then.

°°°°°°°°°°°°
http://www.byond-trax.com - my selfmade ambient/lounge/chillout music

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

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 1:03 PM

BARD

I'm glad this discussion lives on.

Threads, I agree, are hard - they are born, and die, and are repeated, and die . . .

Several interesting articles and threads re. the issue of Firefly Rebirth:

Subscription-based Firefly? 1 12.10.2005 20:05

ITS TIME! Post How much you would personally give to Joss Whedon & Co. to get our Ship in the air AGAIN! 268 12.8.2005 14:46

New York Magazine article that talks about a new revolution in TV... discusses the posibility of resurrecting Firefly 11.14.2005 11:15

$2.00 could have saved Firefly? 11.1.2005 15:14

Lets take it into our own hands 42 10.23.2005 04:51

Hi Firefly. Hello pain. 40 10.21.2005 20:26

-----------------

Live long and prosper - I mean, shiny.

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

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 6:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by GunRunner:
Quote:
Originally posted by Sirvec:
Star Trek TOS was canceled early because of poor rating and studio mismanagement same as Firefly except for the episode count. (Side note: How crazy shiny would it have been to get 79 episodes of Firefly )
Yea but odds are we would have had episodes like "Jayne's Brain" "That Reaver Survives" or "The (exploding) Apple" in those 79...

Quote:
It Had a cast of unknowns much like Firefly.
Deforest Kelly and George Takai weren't really unknowns. Heck George Takai was doing movies while he was a cast member of Star Trek, ever wonder why he wasn't in "The Trouble with Tribbles"? He was staring in a movie with ‘The Duke’ (The Green Berets to be specific).

EV Nova Firefly mod Message Board:
http://s4.invisionfree.com/GunRunner/index.php?act=idx

Maybe I've lost my gorram mind but I was just thinking about your purposed episode of "Jayne's Brain" and thinking about what that episode would be like just cracks me up and I got to say I would have loved to see it.

"Ta ma duh!"-Mal

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

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 6:53 AM

FLYWITHMECAPTN

Quote:
Originally posted by Sirvec:
These days we have it better than them because we have the internet with forums like this were fans can gather, conventions are common and well funded, we have creator in Joss who's not willing to give up, and examples of those shows and there fans that have already accomplished what were still fighting for. So don't give up we have new fans coming in every day. Best of all It has happened before and IT WILL HAPPEN AGAIN!!!

Thanks, I needed that!!!!

Don't forget to call him "Sir." He likes that.

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

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 7:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by CBY:
Quote:
Originally posted by Sirvec:
What I am saying is that like early Star Trek who's fans kept it going inspite of it's limited mainstream acceptance and the poor box office numbers for first movie the fans where able to keep it going.

Still, in my opinion you can't just pick the good aspects out of the Star Trek history without looking at the current situation. The movie and tv business changed a lot since then.

°°°°°°°°°°°°
http://www.byond-trax.com - my selfmade ambient/lounge/chillout music

You speak truth. Star Trek is in the pooper and it's steady decline and it's loss of profitability has turned some studios and audiences off to Sci fi. Furthermore as I posted earlier science fiction isn't the new unexplored arena it once was. However it's not out the door either and the BDM getting made is still proof that fans can get things done in Hollywood.

The common thread I try to incorporate into all of my posts is that if we want more we can't give up. If throw in the towel and say "this thing can not be done, it's over", guess what we'll be right. We have a bad trend of only seeing the bad. What I want point out is we got it pretty good right now. We got the BDM out of a failed series, shouldn't have happened. DVD sales are up and should keep going strong, maybe not as strongly as in the beginning but it's the slow and steady that will win the day.

As regards the state of the entertainment industry's view toward Sci-Fi, it hasn't changed so much that a Firefly to early Star Trek comparison is to far of the mark. We have something going against us that they didn't, sure, but we have things going for us that they didn't. Such as the time it took for our series to get a movie, the fact that we know this has been done before, and the greatest tool of all fans with impossible goals the internet. I think it balances out pretty well.

"Ta ma duh!"-Mal

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

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 7:35 AM

You have a good point there: The role of the internet. Honestly, I didn't think about that.

°°°°°°°°°°°°
http://www.byond-trax.com - my selfmade ambient/lounge/chillout music

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

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 7:42 AM

One thing that needs to be mentioned - Star Trek survived only when Gene Rodenberry loosened his grip on the creative process in the series. Said this in another thread, but the singular event that ultimately launched Star Trek from has-been (if ever was) status into cultural history was the second film The Wrath of Kahn. Kahn opened the door for Star Trek to transcend it's core group of Trekkies and brought millions into the fold. It launced a third film and set in motion a snowball effect that resulted in a canon of films, tv shows, and books that are really unprecedented in any genre. Nicholas Myer's re-imagining of the series tapped into the frenzy surrounding the Star Wars phenom (it was released a year after The Empire Strikes Back) and converted a ton of Star Wars fans (me for one).

That said, TWOK was the right director in the right place at the right time with the right material. I've no doubt that Whedon is the right director and he's got the right material. But what he lacks is the real void in the SF/Action genre that Star Wars and Star Trek had. Sure it ranks as the best that's out there right now, but there is so much SciFi, some of good, some of it not, it's no wonder FF gets lost in the shuffle.

Curious - when Trek came back to TV it did so via syndicated TV and not network TV. Both The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine were syndicated series' (much like Stargate or Xena were/are). Since it's clear that Whedon's woes came from the hands of network execs why didn't he ever consider syndication? I know he pitched the show to WB and SciFi (both turned him down), but did he try to go outside the networks, through a production company (like Trek did with Paramount)?

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

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 7:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HighWiredSith:
Sure it ranks as the best that's out there right now, but there is so much SciFi, some of good, some of it not, it's no wonder FF gets lost in the shuffle.

So much Sci-Fi? Where? If you count out cancelled shows in re-runs there is just a couple of fresh sci-fi shows right now (If you go with the classical definition of this genre, that is).

°°°°°°°°°°°°
http://www.byond-trax.com - my selfmade ambient/lounge/chillout music

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

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 7:57 AM

Well, let's see:
You've got and entire network devoted to nothing but science fiction. One of the most watched television shows on netowork TV right now is loosely SciFi (LOST). You have a number of other SciFi series on other networks and in syndication (Surface, Smallville, Invasion, Stargate SG-1, Stargate Atlantis, etc.). In the film genre there where what, 20+ scifi films released last year? This is just new stuff, this doesn't include endless reruns of everything from Xena to the X-Files.

Compare this with 1981 - total SF TV Shows still on at that time (maybe Buck Rogers, but who the hell wants to count that?) - none. Total SF networks - none. Total SF films released that year - just a guess but I'd say less than 5 got any real run in the theaters. Face it, mankind was hungry for SciFi. Nowadays, we got the buffet, not necessarily the quality we want but we got the quantity for sure.

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

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 8:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HighWiredSith:
Lost, Surface, Smallville, Invasion

All not classical sci-fi in my eyes. The channels seem to call every dramatic show with minor scientific or futuristic elements "sci-fi" and many people actually believe that - this is the real problem these days. But this is a difficult and leisured discussion.

°°°°°°°°°°°°
http://www.byond-trax.com - my selfmade ambient/lounge/chillout music

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

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 8:24 AM

What do you mean by "classical" SciFi? If you want to go with some kind of strict interpretation of what is science fiction (hard SF vs. soft SF) then I think you could eliminate Firefly fairly easy. After all, it has some SF elements but it's not hard science fiction and is a much a Western as it is SF. You want hard SF I doubt you'll find it on television or even in most films. Sounds like you're putting Firefly into some kind of subjective niche.

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

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 8:28 AM

NUCLEARDAY

Nice thread, I hadn't thought of it that way earlier. Nice to see things in a more positive view.

As far as an analogy to Star Trek's movie releases reinvigorating the franchise: I can say that at least for me, renting the Serenity DVD the other day has made me a convert to the movement.

I was fairly irked when Firefly was cancelled, but I figured that sort of thing happens all the time, and I'd managed to live through Family Guy, Futurama, Bill Maher, and alot of my other favorite shows getting pulled. Seeing that movie though, really made me feel... cheated? There's alot of potential to this story that never had a chance to be realized.

Actually, come to think of it: as far as the power of the internet and DVD sales... Look at what happened to Family Guy. Betcha the network execs are still chewing their caps over deciding to originally pull the plug on that show. :)

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

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 8:35 AM

EYES

I was only introduced to firefly 2 weeks ago, i have watched the series twice already. We never had it broadcast in the UK. I consider myself lucky that I did not have a wait between the series and the film.
All of the posts are right about series becoming stale, although with the stories, cast and quality available here its hard to see this happening to the verse.
On the subject of resurection consider Dr Who. The BBC were embaressed by this franchise for 15 years then it was reinvented at the right time and is now one of there biggest products. There is still a need for sci-fi but the quality and inventivness is vital to longevity.

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

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 8:36 AM

Classical sci-fi as I see it:

- Plays in Space, on other planets or a futuristic earth, not on a normal earth or island
- Features interesting, spaceships, gimmicks, new technology
- creates a unique, believable universe with it's own rules and societies.

...and so forth. In other words: For me Sci-Fi is about the technological future and adventures in space, not about what could happen tomorrow in my neighbor's garden or about a bunch a poeple stranded on an island.

Stargate, Galactica, Babylon 5, Star Trek, Farscape - this is Sci-Fi for me, certainly not Smallville.

°°°°°°°°°°°°
http://www.byond-trax.com - my selfmade ambient/lounge/chillout music

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

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 9:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by CBY:
Classical sci-fi as I see it:

- Plays in Space, on other planets or a futuristic earth, not on a normal earth or island
- Features interesting, spaceships, gimmicks, new technology
- creates a unique, believable universe with it's own rules and societies.

...and so forth. In other words: For me Sci-Fi is about the technological future and adventures in space, not about what could happen tomorrow in my neighbor's garden or about a bunch a poeple stranded on an island.

Stargate, Galactica, Babylon 5, Star Trek, Farscape - this is Sci-Fi for me, certainly not Smallville.

°°°°°°°°°°°°
http://www.byond-trax.com - my selfmade ambient/lounge/chillout music

For the sake of debate

I've got to say Smallville counts. Don't get me wrong I don't like the show and I hate what the WB has done to the mythos of Superman, turning it into freak of the week but we are talking about an alien who came to our would after his planet went boom. Most people don't think of it that way but it's on par with Alien Nation only on a small scale (one alien as compared to as aforementioned a nation of them) and that show was defiantly classical sci-fi.

"Ta ma duh!"-Mal

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

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 9:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Sirvec:
Most people don't think of it that way but it's on par with Alien Nation only on a small scale (one alien as compared to as aforementioned a nation of them) and that show was defiantly classical sci-fi.

As I said earlier this is a bulky and difficult discussion and frankly I don't want to argue about it here. This thread is about the continuation of our beloved 'verse, let's keep it in that direction

°°°°°°°°°°°°
http://www.byond-trax.com - my selfmade ambient/lounge/chillout music

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

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 10:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by CBY:
Quote:
Originally posted by Sirvec:
Most people don't think of it that way but it's on par with Alien Nation only on a small scale (one alien as compared to as aforementioned a nation of them) and that show was defiantly classical sci-fi.

As I said earlier this is a bulky and difficult discussion and frankly I don't want to argue about it here. This thread is about the continuation of our beloved 'verse, let's keep it in that direction

°°°°°°°°°°°°
http://www.byond-trax.com - my selfmade ambient/lounge/chillout music

To True To True. Sorry. It's sad when this is my thread and I've taken it completely of subject

. Your right this thread is about reminding fans that were going strong and that there's no reason why our verse should end now as long as were willing to fight for. Thanks CBY for getting us back on track.

"Ta ma duh!"-Mal

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

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 11:16 AM