FIREFLY NECROPSY (#3 of 4) - WHAT WENT WRONG? by xed

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

FIREFLY NECROPSY (#3 of 4) - WHAT WENT WRONG?

POSTED BY: XED
UPDATED: Sunday, December 22, 2002 10:30
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3716
PAGE 1 of 1

Saturday, December 21, 2002 7:27 AM

SLOW ARIEL ARC AND SPOTTY EARLY SCRIPTS

The third problem must be laid at the feet of "Firefly"'s writing staff.
The first episode, "The Train Job," offered a clunky cliche plot (you could see the twist coming a mile away), a superb supervillain Adlia Niska who wasn't on screen nearly enough (always showcase your most vivid characters -- and Adlai Niska's an unforgettable one), a great sub-villain Kroll who got vanquished far too easily (compared with Sean Connery's long fight with Oddjob in "Goldfinger" -- we needed to see Mal take on Niska's subvillain Kroll in a much more satisfying knock-down-drag-out) and a plot crucially wounded by a long half-hour dead space in the middle.
I mean, think about it, folks. Slow start to the episode. A dumb bar fight. Not essential. Basiclaly a time-waster (but NECESSARY to show Mal's background -- NOT NEEDED IF FOX HAD SHOWN THE GORRAM 2-HR PILOT!) Then you've got a big build-up to the train robbery. 20 minute sof setup, great ADlia Niska character development. Then 3 minutes of excitement. Then...Mal and Zoe just sit around for a half hour in a sherrif's office.
Whoops.
That's just majorly poor screenwriting. The plot gets us all revved up, then slams into a brick wall. Bad idea. VERY bad move to pop the cltuch and downshift once the narrative REALLY gets revved up.
The time wasted in the middle of "The Train Job," in the sherrif's office, comes back to haunt us with the excessively telescoped fight at the end. With a villain as evil as Kroll, we need to see him get greased _ugly_. A swift kick into the engine intake doesn't cut it. After all, this is the creep who hangs people from the ceiling -- and *enjoys* it. We need an Oddjob-like blow-out, something satisfyingly spectacular.
So "The Train Job" clobbered the series right off, a mediocre episode worth perhaps 4 out of 10 on a scale running from 0 (Cattlecar Galaxative) to 10 (the short-lived but magnificent British sci-fi series Star Cops).
The second episode, "Bushwhacked," rated even worse. The entire episode consists of people stading around talking, except for the fight at the last 5 minutes. Grossly incompetent screenwriting. Just a terrible plot. Beckett's "Waiting For Godot" in outer space. Kiss of death. No wonder viewers tuned out.
Add to that the sickening slasher-film aspects of "Bushwhacked" (presumably the bodies are so horribly mutilated that it's what drove the surviving crew member insane, but we never get to see it. Thankfully. his is Hannibal Lecter territory, folks, and not something I want to tune into on a regular basis every week in series TV) and you've got a recipe for an audience repellant. Bushwhacked rates 1 out 10...and that's generous.
"Jaynestown" rated much better -- though depressing, a twist you didn't see coming (for a change) and some harsh truth at the end. At least 7 out of 10. The fight with Jayne's ex-partner should've lasted longer -- we need some serious perpitetiea here, kiddies.
The Governor's son gives us a little ray of hope at the end, too.
Can't talk about Shindig since my gorram cable company killed my serivce for 45 minutes RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE EPISODE! Thanks, AT&T Broadband. May reavers sew your skin into their clothing.
"Our Mrs. Reynolds," at least 8 out of 10. Yes, the sudden shift of gears from character-driven to plot-driven in mid-streamed jolted. But, hey -- the final scene worked beautifully 'n tied both halves together.
"Out Of Gas" rated 10 out of 10, Shoot, maybe even 11. Superb. As mangificent a piece of TV as I've seen. Right up there with the 1970 "Andersonville Tiral" on PBS or "A Pravite Little War" from the original Trek or "The Harvest Of Chiron" from Blake's 7. "Ariel" rated at least 9 out of 10. "War Stories," at least 9 or 10 out of 10.
"Objects In Space" -- magnificent. One of the great villains. Jubal Early (one of Lee's cavalry commanders, by the way) was written with the pen of an angel. Superlatives fail. Calling this episode first-rate (as with the 2-hour pilot, or "Out of Gas") is a litotes so extreme is borders on parapraxia.
So we've got 2 incredibly weak episodes followed by fairly decent one...then 4 kiiller world-class episodes in a row.
Sadly, in today's TV market, that kind of slow start won't cut it. Compare with the superb scriptwriting out of the starting gates for "Buffy the Vampire Slaery." The very first episode? Outstanding. A vivid meditation on mothers living vicariously through their kids -- albeit with plenty of action, tons of wit, and a clever mystery you'd never have guessed in a million years. (The mom is a wtich bitch who's switched bodies with her daughter.) Best of all, a great Twilight-Zone-like ending -- the witch mom winds up trapped eternally in the cheerleader statue of herself!
Compare with the first couple of epsidoes of "Firefly" and you can see the problem.
If we had a time machine, in hindsight (always 20-20) Joss and his writing staff shoulv'e dumped "The Train Job" and jettisoned "Bushwhacked," Instead, start with the magnificent "Out Of Gas" (one of hte best hours of TV ever, period) and go from strength to strength by cutting out "Shindig" and the episdoe fatger that and moving on at top speed directly to "Ariel" and "War Stores" and "Objects In Space."
By cutting out the episodes that didn't push forward the plot arc with Ariel at top speed, and by eliminating the poorer scripts, "Firefly" could've hit the ground running. Probably the gaping wound left byt eh missing 2-hour pilot was just too much to overcome... But, in an ideal universe, Fox would've aired hte 2-hour pilot, AND Joss and his writing staff would've slammed that ball into the basket by cutting out the poorer scripts and going from "Out Of Gas" to "Ariel" to "War Stories" to "Obejcts In Space."
THAT just might have attracted enough viewers to keep the series alive. And at its best, "Frefly" was consummately worthy of staying alive. Trouble was, there wasn't nearly enough of the series' best up front, and the very best of the best -- the 2-hour pilot -- was hacked and sliced out entirely by the insane Fox suits, only aired AFTER the series was *killed* (!!!?!?!!!?!?!?!)
The other problem involves Ariel. A characnter who gibbers and slashes folks non-stop doesn't work. Joss recognized this and his writers obviously strove heroically to shift Ariel out of that cul-de-sac. Alas, not fast enough. Starting with Out Of Gas and moving direclty to the episode "Ariel" would've eliminated most of hte problems caused by Ariel's infruiating gabble-babble. You nust can't flesh out a genuine character and make her a part of an esemble cast when she merely sits around recitng, "Two by two...hands of blue" over and over.
So the slow development of the Ariel arc, which would've been the centerpiece of the now-hypothetical first season of Firefly, also helped kill the show.
NEXT POST -- Funny-hat characters

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

Saturday, December 21, 2002 8:51 AM

ROBERTSPARLING

I've read two of your posts so far, and while not entirely impressed with your spelling (I'm assuming you're not from the states, or you just don't really care, which is fine but if you're gonna post, attempt good grammar and spelling) you were right on plenty accounts: mostly on the high ratings you gave Our Mrs. Reynolds, Out Of Gas, etc. The Train Job was a bitter pill we had to swallow because we knew that Fox had scrapped the pilot because they were catering to the lowest denominator. But I question greatly your "knowledge" of screenwriting. Jaynestown, Shindig,and Bushwhacked were good episodes and don't deserve the "throw them out" treatment you recommend. Were they the best episodes? No, of course not. They weren't meant to be.

Bushwhacked was meant to show that the characters who seem to be so "on top" of the universe they inhabit in "The Train Job" and subsequent eps, still had something to fear besides the bureaucracy of the Alliance. The Reavers were introduced in the pilot and Bushwhacked was there to demonstrate the horror they represent, where as it was only mentioned in Serenity. Another aspect of the ep was to give the veiwers more background on the characters. We get a glimpse of the marriage between Zoe and Wash and how they really are different people who make it work. We get a small amount of Inara's reasons for staying on Serenity. We get funny moments about Kaylee busting on Alliance technology and Jayne having a stare-down. And we get more Mal demonstrating that he is in fact a hero. This is not an ep to thrown away.

Jaynestown, meant mostly to be a funny ep, and we got some Kaylee/Doctor relationship building. We also got the absolute hilarity of River attempting to "fix" Book's bible, and the hair scene that followed. And smack-dab at the end, we got some poetic waxing about why people need heros. Good ep.

Shindig? plenty of fun moments, foreshadowing of River's psychic abilities, and a better understanding of the social classes of this new era in human history, not to mention more information on the roles of Companions in said social classes. And there's always the cute Inara/Mal dancing around their mutal dislike/attraction to one another. Once again, a good ep.

And the first episode of Buffy wasn't the "witch-bitch" one where a mom takes over her daughter's body. Just a matter of point there.

So that's it, but I'm wondering why you didn't make mention of Safe? Cable company screw you on that one too?

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

Saturday, December 21, 2002 10:01 AM

XED

Robert Sparling remarks "Jaynestown, Shindig,and Bushwhacked were good episodes and don't deserve the "throw them out" treatment you recommend. Were they the best episodes? No, of course not. They weren't meant to be."
Now, let me posit that we may well agree on 2 out of 3 here. Please note that my cable company screwed me and I didn't get to see but the first 5 minutes of Shindig. Can't speak about that ep. Looked darn good. But what can I say about only 5 minutes at the start? I cannot speak to that episode, having watched only 45 minutes of static. (Thanks, AT&T Cable, that's what I pay $35 a month for -- solid static.)
If you would bother to actually read my post discussing Jaynestown, you may discover that I gave it 7 out of 10. That qualifies as good in anyone's book, doesn't it? 5 out of 10 is OK, 7 out of 10 is at least good, 9 or 10 out of 10 is superb.
So we agree that Jaynestown was a good episode. How good...well, reasonable people can differ. So where, exactly, do we disagree?
You also mention that "The Train Job was a bitter pill we had to swallow" because Fox didn't air the pilot.
Again, sir -- where do we disagree?
I'm with you on that one.
You go on to aver "Jaynestown, Shindig,and Bushwhacked were good episodes and don't deserve the "throw them out" treatment you recommend."
We disagree strongly about Bushwhacked. But let us leave that aisde -- Jaynestown was a good episode, and I've already mentioned I can't speak about Shindig, since my cable company lost service for 45 minutes in the midst of that episode.
So the only real issue is whether you take issue with my draconian suggestion to dump those episodes and start with "Out Of Gas." How about this? Start with "Out Of Gas" and move to "Ariel" and the rest, then once the series has hooked a solid audience (assuming Fox had started withteh 2-hr pilot), move The Train Job and Jaynestown into later slots.
My point is simply that Whedon and crew should've (could've) led with their strongest episodes, the better to hook a solid repeat audience. Would you agree with that?
If so, again I fail to see where we have an argument.
However, I take strong issue with your assertion "Were they the best episodes? No, of course not. They weren't meant to be."
They SHOULD have been meant to be the best episodes. In the cut-throat world of today's eries TV, a show MUST lead with its very best episodes right from the git-go, else it dies. And dies fast.
Your failure to recognize this brutal reality of today's series TV makes me question your screenwriting credentials, sir.
You go on to mention "Bushwhacked was meant to show that the characters..." blah-blah woof-woof.
Jack Warner famously said, "If you want to send a message, use Western Union."
Meaning -- scirptwriting (and good fiction writing in general) is not about "what is meant to show" any damn thing.
Good scriptwriting is about reaching into the audience's guts and grabbing 'em by the heart and squeezing hard.
I don't what Bushwhacked was meant to show, and neither should you. That's immaterial. Bushwhacked failed as drama. That's what matters.
It failed as compelling can't-stop-watchintg TV. that's what matters. It failed as a white-water river run that carries the viewer past shoals and razor-sharp rocks. That's what matters.
Once again, sir, I question your credentials as a screenwriter.
Good writing is not about "what is meant to show" anything. It's about making the viewer weep and laugh and pound the table with uncontrollable excitement.
"Bushwhacked" filaed on all counts. If ya wanna get technical, let's get technical. "Bushwahcked" failed so obviously 'cause I know (as a viewer) that Firefly will nto end with that episode. Therefore there's no suspense when the Allianace oficer threatens to impound Firefly and sell it to pay for Mal's trial. We know that can't happen, for there's another episode scheduled next week.
Anyone with a decent knowledge of scriptwriting
would recognize that fatal flaw.
You go on to remark "We get a small amount of Inara's reasons for staying on Serenity. We get funny moments about Kaylee busting on Alliance technology and Jayne having a stare-down. And we get more Mal demonstrating that he is in fact a hero. This is not an ep to thrown away."
Your conclusion does not follow from your premises.
Yes, we get funny moments. Yes, we get Mal demonstrating this or that character trait. A good script does not consist of funny moments and characters demonostrating traits. A good script consists of a narrative flow that whirls you into the vortex which is the human heart at war against itself, to quote Bill Faulkner. A good script is a seamless tapestry that rises to a crescendo. Not a series of moments.
That is precisely why "Bushwhacked" fails so badly. It's a bricolgae of moments. No narrative sweep. No suspense (for reasons already mentioned). No crescendo. Nothing affirmed, nothing ennobled, nothing transfigured. Just a Jason-type slasher runnign around int he last 5 minutes.
For that reason, "Bushwhacked" most culminantly deserves to be thrown away.
As mentioned, we agree on Jaynestown. It shoudl ahve been rotated to a later spot, IMHO. But reasonable people can disagree. I rate it at least 7 out of 10, which qualifies as "good" in anyone's book, doesn't it?
Can't speak to Shindig, for reasons mentioned.
"Safe" I would rate at about 5 out of 10. You know (long before it happens) that River will run away. You know (long before it happens) that River or Simon will piss folks off. You know (long before it happens) that Mal will rescue 'em.
Connect-the-dots plotting. Everything visible miles away before it happens.
Contrast that with a superbly surpising and immensely fresh episode like "Out Of Gas." Or "Objects In Space."
In retrospect, "Safe" is crippled by 2 problems -- first, it's the second half of "Shindig" (apparently -- judging from the "In the previous episodes" teaser). My cable went out during Shindig, so that proved galling. But a series this new and with no proven audience shouldn't be doing epsidoes at the very start that depend on the previous episode for much of their context.
Second problem -- the big one: "Safe" seems primarily arc-driven. That is to say, the episode mainly boils down to revealing River's psychic powers, the better to push forward the River Tam arc.
Problem is, we don't need a whole episode to get that kind of exposition. In fact, we don't need this episode for such epxosition at all. The very first 3 minutes of "Objects In Space" give us a superb exposition of River's psychic powers.
And since we know from the git-go that River and Simon Tam won't get killed (after all the setup, we *know* River's arc forms the basis for the first season), what's the point of the phoney jeopardy with River getting burnt as a witch?
Your failure to mention these fatal flaws once again leads me to suspect your knowldege of scriptwriting.
Thanks, by the way, for correcting my error re: Buffy. Point taken.

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

Saturday, December 21, 2002 10:36 AM

ROBERTSPARLING

my only point in mentioning Shindig was that you did in fact say to

"go from strength to strength by cutting out "Shindig" and the episdoe (after) that and moving on at top speed directly to "Ariel" and "War Stores" and "Objects In Space."

Your own words. This quote is the only reason i mentioned it, because you said earlier that you hadn't seen it, but by the above statement you judged it cut-worthy.

And I'm not saying I'm a screenwriter. I'm not and have no aspiration to be one. I'm saying that I'm sure you aren't either. To blither on about what they should have done to keep Firefly on the air, when you don't have actual experience in the field, is irresponsible. Don't make a claim to knowledge you don't have. That is all I mean. When I say that the scriptwriting is good, I base it off of only the fact that Joss and the gang deliver good shows time after time, as evidenced by the critical acclaim that Buffy and Angel have garnered, and the fact that they have experienced long lives on their respective networks. If Firefly had premeired on a different network (WB or UPN I think would be better than say ABC, and NBC hasn't had a Sci-Fi drama that worked since Sliders), I do beleive that it would have lasted at least a whole season before any talk of cancellation began. I would even go on to say that it would have been picked up, because the audience that digs Joss and company is usually more drawn to the mentioned networks. Fox attracts gutter television watchers with shows like COPS and Fastlane (sorry to anyone who likes it but it's Fast and The Furious with Tiffnay-Amber Theisen and little else).

I will say that I don't like you. That's just honesty. You and I would not get along and I think you see that. By the way check your other post on 2of 4. You attacked me for things I did not post.

I don't see the point of blaming the creative aspect of the show, when it is clearly a managment issue that doomed the show (as you often agree when you say that they scrapped the gorram pilot).

And sorry for missing the Jayenstown rating, my fault entirely.

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

Saturday, December 21, 2002 11:01 AM

DARKANGELSLAYER

Hello, this is the guy who started the "Why Firefly deserves to die" thread. I'm not even going to bother to read the whole thing.

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

Saturday, December 21, 2002 11:49 AM

XED

My turn for an apology -- I'm not familiar withteh reponse system on this forum. I'm used to a linear, rather than tiered, forum. So I just responded at the end of the latest thread. That's the way things work on less sophisticated forums than this one. Everything sort of mixes together, responses with original posts, in a linear mode.
In any case, mea culpa if I gave the impression (due to my lack of familiarity with this kind of forum) that I was responding to you rather than someone else.
Now I've figured out that each post gets its own reponse individually. If you wish to take this as proof of my gross stupidity, I won't argue.
You may not like me, sir, but I think we agree on most points. More thanyou'd imagine.
I certainly suspect you're dead right when you remark that another network might have given Firefly time to get crticial Neilsen mass. But then, the big three networks seem hostile to serious science fiction of any kind. I mean, how much of it have we seen in recent years from NBC or CBS or ABC?
The indie networks eem to be the ones willin to take risks with science fiction.
Sadly, Fox's self-sabatoging behavior is simply inexplicable...yet apparently unstoppable.
I just don't get it. Fox spent millions ont he Firefly pilot. It was on the sehlf.
Why not SHOW IT...??
I mean..if it's done?
If they're already paid for it...?
Why not just SHOW THE DARN THING at the start of the series?
If it does, okay, but jeez! They paid already. The money's spent. Why not take a shot?
If they DON'T show the 2-hr Firefly pilot, they get nothing, sure as shootin'. If they do show it, they *might* get something. On the one hand a guraanteed loss...on the other hand a possible win. Duh.
What does simple common sense tell Fox to do?
And yet they didn't.
As for my having no scriptwriting experience-- sir, how do know what experience I have or don't have?
As for Shindig, you're right -- I can't really sp eak to it. Judging by the teaser at the very start of Safe, however, Shindig was the first half of a two-parter ending in Safe, and IMHO they're both expendable compared to the vastly superior episodes "Out Of Gas" and "Ariel" and "War Stories" and "Objects In Space."
Lead with strength. Give viewers a half dozen killer episodes. Grab 'em by the throats and don't let go. That's what I'd have tried for.
We can argue about whether Joss and Marti & co. were wise or unwise to air the aepisodes they aired...but here's the kicker:
The Neilsens don't lie.
And the gave a big thumbs-down to Joss's and Marti's decision.
Perhaps, given, the sophisticated and character-driven nature of Firefly's scripts, no possible decision (and no possible episode order) would've made the show a hit.
That's pessimistic. I really think more highly of even a mass audience than that. At least, I hope a mass audience has more on the ball than that. And with the success of unlikely character-driven hits like "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" don't you think there's some justification for being optimistic about the perspicacity of a mass audience?
When you remark "I don't see the point of blaming the creative aspect of the show, when it is clearly a managment issue that doomed the show (as you often agree when you say that they scrapped the gorram pilot)" once again we're largely ij agreement. The original sin, the giant crime, lay in Fox's crazy decision to scrap the pilot.
Everything after that was a doomed game of catch-up.
Withal, I still must cite some independent evidence. Quite a few of my friends are serious science fiction TV fans. I told 'em all to watch Firefly.
Well, they did.
And each guy 'n gal said the same thing about the first 2 episodes -- "I don't know who these people are, and I don't care about 'em, so this show is history."
Now, maybe they're all idiots. A number 'em are published science fiction writers -- published in big-time science fiction magainzes and science fiction anthologies. So if you want call these folks names...well, you're got a tough row to hoe. They're not stupid, they can't stand most network TV, they science fiction inside out, and they've got a keen sense of what makes fiction worth reading.
If all these folks had such unfiromly negative reactions to the first 2 episodes of Firefly, might that not suggest something about the creative aspect of the show? At least, as far as those critical first couple of espiodes go?
I kept bugging these folks to watch Firefly. They refused. By the time I told 'em the show had become first-rate, around the time of Jaynestown, they'd given up on the show.
Is that atypical?
Maybe.
But I suspect not.
And in that case, the creative folks behind Firefly might just bear a wee bit of the responsibility for its demise, mightn't they?

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

Sunday, December 22, 2002 6:42 AM

DARKANGELSLAYER

Quote:
Originally posted by xed:
And each guy 'n gal said the same thing about the first 2 episodes -- "I don't know who these people are, and I don't care about 'em, so this show is history."
Now, maybe they're all idiots. A number 'em are published science fiction writers -- published in big-time science fiction magainzes and science fiction anthologies. So if you want call these folks names...well, you're got a tough row to hoe. They're not stupid, they can't stand most network TV, they science fiction inside out, and they've got a keen sense of what makes fiction worth reading.

I managed to hook my friends on FF with no problem. And most of them are die hard Dark Angel fans too.

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

Sunday, December 22, 2002 6:59 AM

ARCPLAYER

XED,
Please read my "People,People" post.

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

Sunday, December 22, 2002 7:25 AM

HKCAVALIER

There's an old joke: how many actors does it take to screw in a light bulb? Two, one to do it and one to say "I could have done it better." Asking an artist to critique something in her own medium is risky at best. Aside from the excentric pet peeves, jelousy will always come up if something's any good, and these tendancies are exacerbated by how "struggling" and "unpublished" the artist is feeling that day.

Also, and I think that this is what irks me about your necropsy threads in general XED, blaming the artist for not capturing the mass audience is only hurtful. All any of us can do is tell the story we need to tell, tell it true, keep it close to the bone and hope the people are with us. Of course, I might have more luck with my sit-com script than my cycle of poems in the style of the 17th century metaphysical poets but beyond that, telling me it's my fault that nobody likes my work is disrespectful. So no, it is not Joss and the writers fault that Firefly was cancelled. Period. That's what marketers and executives and advertisers are for.

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

Sunday, December 22, 2002 10:30 AM

OUTLANDER

XED I thing I know the kind of people that you and your friend are. They are the kind of people that have what I call a superiority complex. This is where you and your friends look down on everything and anything. Everything IS criticised and pushed away and nothing is appreciated and embraced. You are more likely to look at the negative aspects of something rather than the positive aspect and all of this is done so you can feel superior to everything and everyone.

I've looked at all your comments and they all seem to be very unconvincing. There so many shows that are being shown at the moment that would love to have the writing, characters and long term story potential that Firefly has.

The truth is that the main reason why Firefly has been cancelled is not the writing, not the characters and not anything else that you may be struggling to justify. It is simply because of the bad treatment it got from FOX.

Everything else you are posting is just a lot of pointless smoke blowing and it is taking peoples attention away from more important things like convincing UPN to pick up Firefly.

You could have easily made your points in a single thread with a couple of paragraphs. Please stop these pointless postings.

P.S. I'm not looking for a response just a bit of common sense.

One more thing. You actuality gave Bushwhacked 1 out of 10. Bushwhacked with its brilliantly scary beginning (very reminiscent of the original Alien), three twists along the way (a survivor appears unexpectedly, the alliance appears unexpectedly, Simon and river hiding on the outside of Serenity). Jayne’s practical joke on Simon is great. The crew interrogation scene is brilliant and funny. And the Crew watching the ship being destroyed at the end is a nice little ending. I could go on but what is the point? You don't get Firefly at all, do you??????

As for Buffy most of the first season episode weren’t even remotely as good as Firefly. The episode you talked about, were the mother takes over the body of the daughter to become a cheerleader was a snooze-a-thon. Buffy and the gang take an entire episode to work out who is nocking off the other cheerleaders. What riveting TV that was? If you want to be all high mighty and you want to hold on to some credibility you should't be so supportive of such below average Buffy episodes(Here's a hint. If you are looking for a good Buffy episode try season 2 and 3 instead of 1).

THIS IS THE FIREFLY MESSAGE BOARD NOT THE XED MESSAGE BOARD.

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

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE