Star Trek & FF/Serenity- an analysis of the popularity differences by chrisisall

Star Trek was never a popular show when it ran, but it did hold on long enough to produce enough episodes to make it the superstar of re-runs. It's the re-runs of Trek, playing multiple times every day that helped Star Trek become a pop culture icon. Unfortunately, Firefly will never have that opportunity. And I'm ok with that. I generally don't like popular things.

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

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 10:11 AM

PENGUIN

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:
Originally posted by yellowjacket:
Firefly was strangled, delayed, abused and thwarted in every possible way while it existed, but we still made a movie.

Damn skippy! This is why, even if we never get anything else, I'll be happy to be a Browncoat.

Amen!

King of the Mythical Land that is Iowa

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

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 10:39 AM

It was mentioned above that Firefly was a pessimistic view of our future, and I disagree with that ascertain. I think Firefly was a more accurate portrayal of our possible future than that of Star Trek, because while it did show us a rather bleak existences on the fringe of some make believe 'verse, it did make it clear this is from the perspective of our heroes, and it did show us that there were other perspectives to be had. I think that Firefly from any of the available perspectives shows a more realistic future of mankind, because in them the essence of mankind remained and we didn't become some socialistic utopia. I learned from Jack Handy on SNL why mankind was so difficult to understand, and that was because if you break mankind down into its root words of mank and ind they make no sense, and thus that explains why we are so difficult to understand.

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

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 11:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
It's the re-runs of Trek, playing multiple times every day that helped Star Trek become a pop culture icon.

Okay- let's say that FF held on by it's fingernails for two or three seasons- do you think re-runs and such would have made it a pop culture icon akin to Trek?
What I'm postulatin' here is that Trek, although it had it's darker eps (Private Little War for example), was mainly bright & funny & adventurous, whereas Firefly promised us more struggle and realistically complicated characters in a not-fun (for the most part) 'Verse. I can't really see an America that would be acceptin' of that lack of happy-happy on an iconic level.

In other words- Joss writes TOO well.

Just sayin'isall

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

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 12:22 PM

Quote:
Okay- let's say that FF held on by it's fingernails for two or three seasons- do you think re-runs and such would have made it a pop culture icon akin to Trek?
What I'm postulatin' here is that Trek, although it had it's darker eps (Private Little War for example), was mainly bright & funny & adventurous, whereas Firefly promised us more struggle and realistically complicated characters in a not-fun (for the most part) 'Verse. I can't really see an America that would be acceptin' of that lack of happy-happy on an iconic level.

In other words- Joss writes TOO well.

Just sayin'isall
]

Actually I think the fact that Firefly was cancelled so early after being such a great show is the reason Firefly is or will be the pop culture icon that it is or will be. Firefly is very much the new Trek imho.

http://swyzzlestyx.com/index.html

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

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 12:49 PM

OPPYH

If we would have gotten 3 full seasons of Firefly it would have changed the F___ING world!!!

Nuff said.

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

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 1:03 PM

CITIZEN

Star Trek lasted a lot longer than FireFly, the similarities are somewhat artificial. Star Trek had a chance to generate a strong fan base, Firefly did not, I don't think you need to look much further than that.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

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

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 1:15 PM

I only have one answer.
Yet it is the be-all, and end-all of any discussion.
The answer?
42.

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

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 1:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TexArcana:
I only have one answer.
Yet it is the be-all, and end-all of any discussion.
The answer?
42.

Of course.

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

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 1:47 PM

IMNOTHERE

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Q: Is Serenity's limited success due to it's inherently negative view of what we are and where we're going?

Maybe its to do with the rising and falling popularity of SF?

Star Trek was born in the 60s and 70s - the height of the Space Race - the human race was already on its way to the moon and would surely continue onwards. Any self-respecting kid had an Airfix Saturn 5 hanging next to the Airfix Enterprise.

Then it all went wrong. Forget Star Trek being cancelled - the whole fracking space race was cancelled due to falling ratings.

Trek survives because it has a huge fanbase, but as the films and TV spin-offs roll on they become more and more "for the fans only" and Star Trek fans become a figure of fun. After that, no "space" show really gets a mass following - even the most successful (Stargate) has very little pop culture impact. Babylon 5 is pretty influential within the SF fanbase but is too "love it or hate it" to have mass appeal.

Then as the millenium approaches, the public develop a taste for fantasy with, well, millenial themes, so we have the four horsemen getting their asses kicked weekly in the likes of X Files and Buffy - but that fizzles when y2k arrives without (much) armageddon.

So, Firefly launches into a world where science is screwing the environment, the latest developments in physics are incomprehensible without PhD-level maths, space exploration has been cancelled due to lack of interest and we couldn't get to the moon again if we wanted to.

Superheroes are OK, because they save us from stylized terrorists and they're all deeply symbolic of something or other, but space-based SF is seen as something for socially inadequate nerds still living with their parents at 25. Basically, nothing with a space ship in stands a chance.

Which is a great shame.

The only hope is that, here in the UK, kids who grew up on SF shows in the space age are starting to occupy influential positions in the BBC, so we have the Doctor Who reboot which (within the UK) has the sort of brand recognition only enjoyed by Star Wars and original Trek. Maybe the same thing will happen in the US.

Back in the day, the UK also had shows like "Blake's Seven" and "Survivors" which were definitely not optimistic.

On an aside - one thing that astonishes me is the lack of SF books from the US. In the last 10-15 years, the vast majority of SF books I have bought are from the UK (or Australia) - and I'm not consciously being parochial.

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

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 2:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Star Trek lasted a lot longer than FireFly, the similarities are somewhat artificial. Star Trek had a chance to generate a strong fan base, Firefly did not, I don't think you need to look much further than that.

Bollocks.
I actually believe that FF was inherently not-fan-base-build-able due to it's independent-minded nature.
It's probably the boldest anti-authoritarian SF recent television has seen outside of Dark Angel (hmmm, funny that they're my two recent favourites), and that kind of free thinking don't sit too well with post 9-11 save-me-protect-me-oh-great-government types.

Starfleet would phaser Bin Laden into the next dimension; The Alliance would see how they might use him to their advantage- hence the uncomfortable IMO.

Chrisisall

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

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 3:30 PM

FIREFLYMECHANIC

Interesting topic.
I love both Firefly and Star Trek,
Mal was much like Kirk, both tough leaders who made hard decisions for their following crew.
It isn't easy being a captain.
Anyway,
I know in my heart we will se more of Serenity.
It is just a matter of time, so we must stay strong in fan base numbers.
There are so many more Browncoats than we even know about. And I'm happy to find you guys and gals here, loving Serenity just like me.
I thank you all for supporting a show that I want to see come back.
I feel that it will. The sets must be in storage.
Joss will get it going again.
He loved Serenity.
Ron

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

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 3:47 PM

I likes star trek next generation in the late 1980s nd early 1990s and was mildly amused by DS9, but really fell in love with Voyager when things ween't going well for the ship and crew, but I didn't know how much the socialistic utopia idea of Star Trek bothered me until I saw Firefly on DVD. I went years without television service so as you can imagine how televised sci fi wasn't a high priority for me. I would like to go back and see some of the shows I missed during those years.

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

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 4:11 PM

OPPYH

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Bollocks.
I actually believe that FF was inherently not-fan-base-build-able due to it's independent-minded nature.
It's probably the boldest anti-authoritarian SF recent television has seen outside of Dark Angel (hmmm, funny that they're my two recent favourites), and that kind of free thinking don't sit too well with post 9-11 save-me-protect-me-oh-great-government types.

Chrisisall,
I think your slightly off on your assessment of Firefly. Firefly had an immediate, and super strong fan base. Those who watched it, loved it. Problem is not many were watching at the time. Matter of fact, I bet 80 percent of the people who post here didn't watch it when it originally aired.

By the time the good word was being spread around, it was already too late!

At least CBS gave Star Trek a chance. Fox didn't want Firefly, they didn't promote it, and were glad when they pulled the plug.

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

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 8:22 PM

I do believe the airing Firefly was a bungled job.
It would have run at least as long as Star Trek if aired in a proper manner, and time slot.
Though I also believe it could have been even bigger if handled (network not production-wise) in the same manner as BSG or Stargate.
It's message resonates. And the story, as well as the characters are strong.

Quote:
Originally posted by OPPYH:
I bet 80 percent of the people who post here didn't watch it when it originally aired.

By the time the good word was being spread around, it was already too late!

I saw two originally aired episodes (Train Job, and later Heart of Gold); and was so Gorram pissed when I discovered that I missed the rest

...then I went out to the Rim (Planet Interweb. Where Al Gore rules) to find what I had missed...
I then went out and bought the DvD set. It was all shiny after that.
Except for the bitterness of not getting more...

Quote:
Originally posted by OPPYH:
At least CBS gave Star Trek a chance. Fox didn't want Firefly, they didn't promote it, and were glad when they pulled the plug.

Has there been an analogy between Fox execs, and the blue-gloved ones?

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

Thursday, August 28, 2008 1:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
It's the re-runs of Trek, playing multiple times every day that helped Star Trek become a pop culture icon.
Okay- let's say that FF held on by it's fingernails for two or three seasons- do you think re-runs and such would have made it a pop culture icon akin to Trek?
What I'm postulatin' here is that Trek, although it had it's darker eps (Private Little War for example), was mainly bright & funny & adventurous, whereas Firefly promised us more struggle and realistically complicated characters in a not-fun (for the most part) 'Verse. I can't really see an America that would be acceptin' of that lack of happy-happy on an iconic level.

In other words- Joss writes TOO well.

Just sayin'isall

With 79 episodes, Trek had more than its' share of dark episodes. It also had many episodes that dealt with uncomfortable themes of the changing times of the late 60's. There really was no way that Trek could have been highly popular when it aired, because Trek was actually way ahead of the curve on delicate social and political issues that we all take for granted today, but were unspoken back then. If Firefly could have produced 40 episodes I believe it could be thriving on re-runs. A season or two of Firefly re-runs shown at 11:00 pm would be seen by countless millions, and in short time Firefly would become part of our collective consciousness. The Honeymooner "classics" are 39 episodes that aired from 1953-1954. Every American knows those episodes by heart, because they've been seen hundreds of times. They also happen to be outstanding and still fresh, and perhaps more relevant today because there are a lot of Ralph Kramdens out there. With the strong characters of Firefly, there's no doubt that everyone watching would have been able to relate to and love many of the characters, like we Browncoats do.

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

Thursday, August 28, 2008 4:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
If Firefly could have produced 40 episodes I believe it could be thriving on re-runs. A season or two of Firefly re-runs shown at 11:00 pm would be seen by countless millions, and in short time Firefly would become part of our collective consciousness.

Perhaps you're right...

Re-ex-amin-ing Nomadisall

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

Thursday, August 28, 2008 5:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by OPPYH:

Problem is not many were watching at the time. Matter of fact, I bet 80 percent of the people who post here didn't watch it when it originally aired.

But that doesn't 'splain Serenity's lackluster box office take- certainly we totally tried to promote it by early '05... I still remember how that Alba flick, Into The Blue, made tons more coin around the same time....

I just don't see the average Star Wars geek being able to fathom it, too many grays IMO. Maybe if it was titled "Star Wars: The Alliance Strikes Back" it might have done more business...I mean, I have HARDCORE Trek & Jedi fan friends that won't even give eps of Firefly a second look on the SF channel, no matter how much I cajole or coax

Chrisisall

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

Thursday, August 28, 2008 5:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by OPPYH:

Problem is not many were watching at the time. Matter of fact, I bet 80 percent of the people who post here didn't watch it when it originally aired.

But that doesn't 'splain Serenity's lackluster box office take- certainly we totally tried to promote it by early '05... I still remember how that Alba flick, Into The Blue, made tons more coin around the same time....
I just don't see the average Star Wars geek being able to fathom it, too many grays IMO. Maybe if it was titled "Star Wars: The Alliance Strikes Back" it might have done more business...I mean, I have HARDCORE Trek & Jedi fan friends that won't even give eps of Firefly a second look on the SF channel, no matter how much I cajole or coax.

First, thanks for your enthusiastic support of my Firefly re-run premise.
Second...you are right about the reluctance of many to even give it a chance.

Remember Spock's little speech to Valeris in ST: Undiscovered Country? He said to her that Logic was not the end of knowledge, but the beginning. So the same with Trek & Star Wars; there is something more out there, namely Firefly.

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

Thursday, August 28, 2008 5:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
...I mean, I have HARDCORE Trek & Jedi fan friends that won't even give eps of Firefly a second look on the SF channel, no matter how much I cajole or coax.

Chrisisall

As far as Star Wars Fans go: They are to conditioned to candy-coated no-substance extravaganza to understand anything else imo.
Trek is something else though: One would think that a good Serial-style show would work for them.
Firefly, and BSG have eclipsed all other Sci-Fi EXCEPT Babylon 5 for me.

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

Thursday, August 28, 2008 7:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by TexArcana:

As far as Star Wars Fans go: They are too conditioned to candy-coated no-substance extravaganza to understand anything else imo.

Trouble with SW is that you can groove to the deeper stuff in it, or just ride the eye candy & forget all synaptic activity your brain is capable of. BSG has a grandeur that suffices for those types lookin' for 'splosions & stuff, and Trek has some of the best designed spaceships ever, plus: phasers (yeah, baby)...

Although FF & Serenity look great, you can't just watch it for the cool explosions & laser battles.
Lookin' back on it, I'm surprised FOX didn't demand that that 'pretty black chick' wear a halter top so they could attract more young teen boys

isall

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

Thursday, August 28, 2008 7:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:

First, thanks for your enthusiastic support of my Firefly re-run premise.

Yeah, I may have been in error before, just don't ask me to execute my prime functionisall

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

Thursday, August 28, 2008 7:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:

First, thanks for your enthusiastic support of my Firefly re-run premise.
Yeah, I may have been in error before, just don't ask me to execute my prime functionisall

Relax Nomad, no need to have a meltdown or anything.

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

Thursday, August 28, 2008 8:05 AM

You are the Creatorisall

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

Thursday, August 28, 2008 8:59 AM

OPPYH

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
But that doesn't 'splain Serenity's lackluster box office take- certainly we totally tried to promote it by early '05... I still remember how that Alba flick, Into The Blue, made tons more coin around the same time....
I just don't see the average Star Wars geek being able to fathom it, too many grays IMO. Maybe if it was titled "Star Wars: The Alliance Strikes Back" it might have done more business...I mean, I have HARDCORE Trek & Jedi fan friends that won't even give eps of Firefly a second look on the SF channel, no matter how much I cajole or coax.

I can't explain Serenity's box office disappointment either. I think we were all hopin(including Joss) it would be a springboard to get another show or movie going...oh well. Of course If I knew nothing about Firefly, I may have been tempted to see Into the Blue instead of Serenity. Alba soaking wet in a blue bikini for ninety minutes. How can that be bad?

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

Thursday, August 28, 2008 9:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by TexArcana:

As far as Star Wars Fans go: They are too conditioned to candy-coated no-substance extravaganza to understand anything else imo.
Trouble with SW is that you can groove to the deeper stuff in it, or just ride the eye candy & forget all synaptic activity your brain is capable of. BSG has a grandeur that suffices for those types lookin' for 'splosions & stuff, and Trek has some of the best designed spaceships ever, plus: phasers (yeah, baby)...

Although FF & Serenity look great, you can't just watch it for the cool explosions & laser battles.
Lookin' back on it, I'm surprised FOX didn't demand that that 'pretty black chick' wear a halter top so they could attract more young teen boys.

isall

I would tend to disagree on the availability of "Deeper Stuff" in SW (I will qualify this by saying that I went to the premiere 32 times "way back when"; and enjoyed the first three movies): The Story is as old as Human Civilisation; and has been told (only the names have changed) over campfires, and in Fairytales/Legend from the time we learned to speak...
I would also take issue with BSG being "'Splosions" focussed: The mind-games, sexual tensions and character twists take it to a level beyond simple "Flash bang/Oo-Ah". As a matter of fact THAT is why I and my friends like so much.

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

Thursday, August 28, 2008 9:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by TexArcana:

The Story is as old as Human Civilisation; and has been told (only the names have changed) over campfires, and in Fairytales/Legend from the time we learned to speak...

That (pregnant pause) is why it's deep.

Quote:

I would also take issue with BSG being "'Splosions" focussed: The mind-games, sexual tensions and character twists take it to a level beyond simple "Flash bang/Oo-Ah".

You misunderstand me- I'm sayin' you CAN take it as merely eye candy, it obviously is much more than that.

Chrisisall

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

Thursday, August 28, 2008 9:40 AM

I think the reason Serenity did not do well was because of its name. Didn't we have a discussion here about this at least once before where a name of a movie can have a significant effect on its outcome of viewers. It was mentioned by some expert that if Joss had named the movie after a location it would have turned out a larger audience.

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

Thursday, August 28, 2008 9:42 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
That (pregnant pause) is why it's deep.

And so there was the silent patter of little baby pauses.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

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

Thursday, August 28, 2008 10:03 AM

As much as I'm grateful to Universal for making Serenity, there's no doubt that they gave it the "D" list treatment. What made anyone think a movie could be successful without some big-time Hollywood stars in it? Even the lousy Star Wars had Natalie Portman & Ewan McGregor, two popular movie stars. Serenity could have used some star power to attract new viewers.

I'm one of the lucky ones who saw the movie but never saw the series. I only knew about the movie from seeing a nice article on it in Starlog magazine. There were 2 pictures in the mag that influenced me to go see it...the pic of River on the ceiling in her blue satiny costume, and the pic of the whole gang sitting on the steps listening to Joss. The way they were focused on him, and the gentle & graceful manner that Summer was sitting upright and paying close attention just moved me to wanna see it. It made me feel that I had missed out on something that others were enjoying.

And the only reason I had bought the Starlog Magazine was because Hurricane Wilma had knocked out my electricity for a week, and I bought a bunch of magazines to keep me from going insane from boredom.

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

Thursday, August 28, 2008 10:19 AM

One other thing, in the seventies (when Trek gained the bulk of it's fan base), there wasn't much SF at all on TV, just re-runs of Lost In Space, a Logan's Run show & so on, Trek was THE best thing at that time, when FF came on it had LOTS of shows to compete with that, while not as good, were certainly quality product.

Hmmmisall

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

Thursday, August 28, 2008 10:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by TexArcana:

The Story is as old as Human Civilisation; and has been told (only the names have changed) over campfires, and in Fairytales/Legend from the time we learned to speak...
That (pregnant pause) is why it's deep.
Quote:

I would also take issue with BSG being "'Splosions" focussed: The mind-games, sexual tensions and character twists take it to a level beyond simple "Flash bang/Oo-Ah".
You misunderstand me- I'm sayin' you CAN take it as merely eye candy, it obviously is much more than that.

Chrisisall

(Calm demeanor during pregnancy): Okay. My definition of depth tends to bend toward a story that is new, and/or contains multi-layered elements.
Not something that has been re-hashed since time immemorial with recognisable characters and elements.
As far a BSG goes: I am willing to bet the Fanbase is made-up of those who are not addicted to eye-candy; as the bulk of episodes have involved human intrigue. Not space battles/gun duels etc.
The only eye-candy readily offered on an episode-to-episode basis is the group of fit, sexy younger actors running around in military scivvies (with the exception of "6"/Tricia Helfer and her parade of slinky outfits).
Note on eye-candy definition: Sci-Fi is a parade of flashing lights, and interesting buttons to push. These are not considered part of the eye-candy imo. As they are standard fair for us

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

Thursday, August 28, 2008 11:09 AM

It can be argued though that Star Wars and Star Trek holds more complexity than Firefly because the other two series have novels and paperback books and comic books to flush their stories out. Firefly does have comic books but so far I am unaware of any novels or paperback books. I am still a Firefly fan and lean towards it being the better story of the three, but I don't think it is a good thing to put down the other shows because they pack more eye candy which may or may not hide any complexity in the story.

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

Thursday, August 28, 2008 11:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rallem:
It can be argued though that Star Wars and Star Trek holds more complexity than Firefly because the other two series have novels and paperback books and comic books to flush their stories out. Firefly does have comic books but so far I am unaware of any novels or paperback books. I am still a Firefly fan and lean towards it being the better story of the three, but I don't think it is a good thing to put down the other shows because they pack more eye candy which may or may not hide any complexity in the story.

http://swyzzlestyx.com/index.html

Ahhhh. If one wants to focus on "after the fact" value-added complexity, the discussion becomes a "what if" situation.
I would offer that the Firefly Universe has a lot of "what if" available. Purely based on the level of technological development still to be achieved (when compared to SW, or ST).
Whether Mr. Whedon believes in Alien Life or not...

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

Thursday, August 28, 2008 11:43 AM

I would really love to see some canon novels and paperback stories for Firefly and am sorry the Joss Whedon hasn't capitalized on these venues for making money and for flushing out his stories.

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

Friday, August 29, 2008 6:16 AM

Another Sci-Fi series (that I'm a big fan of) that is an example of something that put-up the "good fight" imho is Babylon 5.
That show (at least up here in the Great White North) had to struggle to stay alive during it's run.
Even though it was hella lots of fun, with a large cast; and good effects for it's day.
They did try to stretch it to much once the "Sheridan phase" was over; and it died off.
Yet during the Sinclair/Sheridan run of the first 4 Seasons it was a great show imho.
J. Michael Straczynski put up a great fight to keep it going.
-An good example of a Producer/Creator who fought for his vision imho.
And those of us that were big fans were well served.
I have fond memories of my living room being packed with Archaeology Students who would pilgrimage to my place (I was one of the only ones with a good TV) to watch it.
I would spend the off-season trying to keep track of where it would be airing next (Thanks the Lords of Kobol for UPN!)...

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

Friday, August 29, 2008 7:30 AM

SUASOR

Star Trek was in syndication for over five years, in a market where there was not a lot of competition (cable didn't get big until the 1980s). All those local stations had lots of dead air to fill, because the networks didn't provide enough content to cover the 18 hours a day most stations were on the air. Trek pulled good ratings for a syndicated show, and it built a huge fan base while it was doing it.

FF sells lots of DVDs, gets some "syndication" action, but, overall, is not getting as much exposure as Star Trek did.

But that's why we have to keep the lights on, vote in polls, post messages and be (not-too-annoying) pests about it.

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

Friday, August 29, 2008 8:29 AM

I think we should be pesky but polite in all of our attempts to get Firefly back on the air. ANother problem with trying to get Firefly into syndication is that it does not cover a full season, let alone three like Star trek.

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

Friday, August 29, 2008 10:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rallem:
I think we should be pesky but polite in all of our attempts to get Firefly back on the air. ANother problem with trying to get Firefly into syndication is that it does not cover a full season, let alone three like Star trek.

Agreed.
It needs to be run as a short-run "miniseries" format on channels like SPACE/SCi-Fi/SKY, right from the Pilot through Serenity.

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

Friday, August 29, 2008 10:56 AM

MIIKE

i pesonally don't really like startrek next gen ,too much talking for me to get involved with it and really disliked the portrayal of a one world government and system that everyone in their verse had to buy into,much prefered original startrek with kirk and spock as they seemed to play opposite parts of one psychee a kind of scifi yin and yang ,the reason startrek is so big i personally believe is that at the time of startrek there was a lot fewer channels on tv so people had less choice and thus high ratings ,firefly had to compete with bad scheduling in a world with distractions such as the internet where most scifi fans now seem to reside ,plus firefly had hardly any promotion except for word of mouth by the fans,and are bdm can hardly be considered a flop on the sales of the dvds ,it was also the main reason a lot of people bought into hd dvd ,anyhow peace miike

October 12th, 1985. Dog carcass in alley this morning, tire tread on burst stomach. This city is afraid of me. I have seen its true face. The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood and when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown.

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

Friday, August 29, 2008 11:16 AM

I understand the next gen had a pretty messed up portrayal of the government but I liked it never the less.