I'm somewhat disappointed so far... by millernate

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

I'm somewhat disappointed so far...

POSTED BY: MILLERNATE
UPDATED: Friday, October 4, 2002 15:46
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3150
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, October 2, 2002 5:26 PM

I realize this isn't the "cool" thing to do on this board but I thought I'd mention something (inbetween last minute research to prepare for a job interview) about Firefly so far. That being that, while the show isn't bad, it isn't really anything special. With Buffy, we had a show that right out of the box was "knock your socks off" awesome (Welcome to the Hellmouth/The Harvest still stands as one of the 20 best episodes ever, provided you consider it as a 2 hr. block) which you could instantly see was about something which is all to rare in today's fast food, disposable "culture".

Firefly? Well to quote one Usenet poster "there is no there there". It really doesn't seem to be about anything other than Joss Whedon saying "Gee, it would be really fun to cross the post-Civil War west with Spaceships". The end result, while not without its merits, is fundamentally disposable and forgettable. The show strains from having too much "Western" in the proceeding as well as the fact that things don't seem to be going anywhere. Yes this show is better than a lot of the science fiction programming that has come out in the last 15 years or so (Earth 2, Seaquest, Voyager, etc.) but it still lacks. Which is a bit of a shame as I had quite a bit of optimism about this show given the talent of the people involved (Joss WHedon, Tim Minear, Ben Edlund, Jane Espenson).

Nathan
"The golden rule of network television, post-cable migration, is that if you don't have your audience in the first 2 weeks then you won't have an audience period." - Random voice of historical analysis

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

Wednesday, October 2, 2002 5:45 PM

HAKEN

Likes to mess with stuffs.

Quote:
Originally posted by millernate:
I realize this isn't the "cool" thing to do on this board but I thought I'd mention something (inbetween last minute research to prepare for a job interview) about Firefly so far.

For what it's worth. It's cool. And to a certain extent, I agree with you. Yeah, it's ironic coming from me, but a series can't improve if no one speaks up and provide some sort of constructive criticism. As it stands now, Firefly, while good, hasn't made me go "wow," but I do like it because it's different.

Though, bare in mind that we've really only seen two episodes. Three, if you saw the original pilot. As previously announced, the seventh episode is the turning point where the series will begin to move somewhat away from the standalone episode format. Hopefully, we'll see Firefly going somewhere and meaning something.

Perhaps the current "What happend to River?" story arc will lead to just that and I'll go "wow!"

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

Wednesday, October 2, 2002 6:19 PM

JERRY

I thought the first episode showed some potential, but also had flaws caused by the descision to shelve Serenity. But I thought the second was terrific, and indicates that Firefly has a chance to really be good. If the show is able to last long enough, I fully expect big things from it.

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

Thursday, October 3, 2002 9:43 AM

ZICSOFT

Well, maybe Buffy knocked your socks off from the very first ep, but that's probably not true for most fans. Most people look at it and say, "It's got a silly title, and I've never liked horror, and I'm not a teenager, so why should I bother?" I watched the odd episode for three years before I "got it" and became a rabid fan. If I were a little more selective about my TV viewing, I'd probably have never watched Buffy at all. And I still have trouble explaining the appeal of the show to people who dismiss it as "stupid".

JOSS, WHERE'S MY CHECK???!!!

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

Thursday, October 3, 2002 10:45 AM

MALCOLM

I hear your frustraion, but as someone who has seen the full pilot, my opinion is that there is "there" there.

Unfortunately, Fox decided that it took too long to get "there" and that Firefly should start off midstream -- e.g. less exposition, less backstory. What seems to have resulted from that decision (& it's very hard to be objective once you've seen the pilot) is that there is alot of confusion in terms of the who and why of it all.

Instead of the first episode of the show laying the groundwork for the big picture, we've been thrown into the world and forced to piece together everything on the fly.

What's ironic is that Fox's effort to have people jump right into the middle of things to get them turned on to the show quickly (ala the two episode "golden rule"), is really making it harder for the viewers to get invested.

Given that Fox spent half the summer promoting the show to us Buffy/Angel/Joss fans ("From the creator of Buffy..., etc.), you'd think that they would have figured out that we're a little more patient than that, that we appreciate good characters, good storytelling and worlds that make us work/think a little...aaagggh... rant coming on... might as well watch a f

ing American Idol repeat... it'll be better if I know what happens in advance!! ....AAAAAAGGGGH! Whew... it passed... sorry...

To sum up, frustrating, yet somehow very FF - scrappy, figure it out as you go. Hopefully, Fox will be patient with FF and Fox/ME will give everybody more to sink their teeth into soon (like the pilot, please?).

-MBS

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

Thursday, October 3, 2002 1:48 PM

JASONZZZ

Quote:
Originally posted by Zicsoft:
Well, maybe Buffy knocked your socks off from the very first ep, but that's probably not true for most fans. ....

That's the crux of it. Shows that I liked ever rarely have the punch enough to get me to like them, in the first place. None of it make sense, but really what happens is, I already decided to like it regardless of the fact that its crappy for the first 8 shows (what the heck, pretty much the entire season); then the show gets some soaking in, it matures a little as far as charactes, sets, dialogs, lighting, look and feel, pretty much everything is generally softer, better worn and better fitting around all the edges. Then I take my socks off and relax and enjoy the show. Character development, back story, ... etc. All of that are sort of ancillary to how the show matures. It's not that "I have to know more about the show", It's more "they need to get their act together and make it a mature production enough to tell a good story"

So, I am not growing to like the show. I have already "decided" to like the show regardless. They and the show are just "growing up" into fitting my expectation before I actually enjoy it.

Quote:
originally posted by Zicsoft:
Most people look at it and say, "It's got a silly title, and I've never liked horror, and I'm not a teenager, so why should I bother?" I watched the odd episode for three years before I "got it" and became a rabid fan. If I were a little more selective about my TV viewing, I'd probably have never watched Buffy at all. And I still have trouble explaining the appeal of the show to people who dismiss it as "stupid".

That's the reverse side of it. Why should I bother if I had already deemed the show "stupid"? It doesn't matter how many episodes I watch, it will still be "stupid" and a complete waste of time for me. I already have the shows that I have "decided" to like and I am busy watching them "mature".

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

Thursday, October 3, 2002 2:19 PM

CHARLIEBLUE

Personally, I kind of agree, but I'm not sure two episodes is really enough to make a judgement. I wasn't crazy about "The Train Job," mainly due to it not going anywhere. I thought "Serenity" sounded a lot better. "Bushwhacked" impressed me, though. It's still not quite the "wow" that Buffy was, but I think that's probably due to the fact that Buffy started out going somewhere, while Firefly has to swear off most plot development for the first few episodes. That's basically the same problem that drove me and half the other viewers crazy during Buffy S6--it was mostly just a full season of Buffy whining, Spike whining, and Willow doing bad things. Hardly any movement until the last few episodes.

So hopefully Firefly will get the plot development spark like Buffy did this season and it'll be a "wow."

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

Thursday, October 3, 2002 8:04 PM

TECHBOY

First off, let's take a look at where BtVS started, and Angel is currently. They were/are on the WB. BAsically take a video camera and tape yourself signing in the shower and you have a show. On UPN, there are only two shows that are making the network not fall off the charts, and that's Buffy and (God knows why) Enterprise. Low ratings don't matter on these networks, they need to fill programming.

Now, take a look at Fox. Fox is no longer the upstart, and has defineditself as a network. Granted they did it the only way they could, and that was to pander to the lowest common denominator. "Married with Children" would have never have been shown on the Big 3 much less stayed on. The Simpsons is an fluke. The other cartoon skits on Tracy Ulman didn't make it. The point being that Fox has ben legitimized, and is starting to look at shows in the same way NBC, CBS, and ABC look at shows. They no long have to fill programming, and are less tolorent of low ratings.

Perhaps if Fox drops it, F/X will pick it up, or better yet, Sci-Fi.

This just came to mind - BtVS:TM was a box office wash, mainly because Fox interfered with the production so much, Joss wasn't able to get his ideas through. Maybe Fox should be doing a little less micromanaging with "FireFly"

Today, as I was having lunch, I was watching the birds in the trees and wondered what it would be like if birds knew that people didn't like being shat on. As I was thinking this, a bird shat on my sandwich. Perhaps I knew too much...

-Simon Travaglia
[url= http://bofh.ntk.net/]If you like that, check this out.[/url]

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

Friday, October 4, 2002 7:28 AM

ALTERNITY

I don't know where Whedon is going with this thing. It's supposed to be an anti-Trek show. Star Trek has an optimistic view of the future. Firefly is more cynical and is trying to show a future that isn't any different than the present. Nothing has changed. Trying to be realistic is good I suppose, but I watch TV as an escape from reality. My week is full of reality, cynicism, and pessimism. I don't need to watch it on TV. So where's the hook that is going to capture my interest? Where is he going?

roj

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

Friday, October 4, 2002 11:39 AM

JASONZZZ

http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=651

that's sort of my take. I am sort of "understanding" what the point is (Just not "getting" it). Whedon is trying to explain current contemporary issues but in that theme. StarTrek was trying to do that a bit too, except that they would show you that "hey, things can improve. Maybe this is how".

FF is a way to "discuss" and "explain", what's going on in a different context. Me, I get bored with just rehashes... But there's literary value in it somewhere...

Quote:
Originally posted by Alternity:
I don't know where Whedon is going with this thing. It's supposed to be an anti-Trek show. Star Trek has an optimistic view of the future. Firefly is more cynical and is trying to show a future that isn't any different than the present. Nothing has changed. Trying to be realistic is good I suppose, but I watch TV as an escape from reality. My week is full of reality, cynicism, and pessimism. I don't need to watch it on TV. So where's the hook that is going to capture my interest? Where is he going?

roj

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

Friday, October 4, 2002 12:56 PM

ZICSOFT

Quote:
Originally posted by Alternity:
I don't know where Whedon is going with this thing. It's supposed to be an anti-Trek show. Star Trek has an optimistic view of the future. Firefly is more cynical and is trying to show a future that isn't any different than the present. Nothing has changed. Trying to be realistic is good I suppose, but I watch TV as an escape from reality. My week is full of reality, cynicism, and pessimism. I don't need to watch it on TV. So where's the hook that is going to capture my interest? Where is he going?

roj

Nothing has changed? You mean George W Bush is President of the Alliance?

I guess you mean that Firefly doesn't assume that "progress" is inevitable. Where, here's a hot flash: it aint.

There's nothing wrong with wanting a little escapist fantasy at the end of the day. But there's more than one kind of escaspism. Maybe you like your escapism simply and glossy and always-makes-you-feel-good. But there's already plenty of that. Some of us want more. We stories we can think about, and that talk about things we care about. We're tired of that Star Trek/Star Wars stuff that says "just lay back and turn off your brain". Most of all, we want stories that we can actually believe in.

If you don't like that kind of story, well, there's plenty of other stuff on TV. But maybe you should give this kind of show a chance. You might find things that you didn't know you were missing.

JOSS, WHERE'S MY CHECK???!!!

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

Friday, October 4, 2002 3:46 PM

ALTERNITY

Quote:
I guess you mean that Firefly doesn't assume that "progress" is inevitable. Where, here's a hot flash: it aint.

You are correct. Firefly says that this "negative progress" that I observe today will continue for a few hundred more years. That is depressing, not entertaining, and not enlightening.

roj

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

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE