44272
Post by: Azreal13
Disney announced a lot of their big plans for the future in a huge investor presentation last week, but they didn’t announce all of them. There’s one property that I’ve been hearing whispers about that didn’t get mentioned. That property is Firefly. The lack of an announcement about it doesn’t mean, however, that Disney isn’t keen to do something with the Joss Whedon cult phenom. In fact, they’re working on a new Firefly series for Disney+. Development on their Firefly reboot is in such an early stage, however, that they couldn’t make an announcement about it during last week’s Investor Day.
Disney acquired the rights to Firefly in their acquisition of Fox back in 2019. There was no immediate move to do anything with the property, but something has changed. That something is the end of movie theaters.
Movie theaters are done. The biggest chain in the world will likely shutter permanently next month and the others are likely to follow suit. As a result Disney’s focus is shifting away from movies and towards producing programming for streaming platforms. Their investor presentation last week demonstrated this with a strong focus on Disney+ programming. To feed the streaming beast Disney needs more and more TV programming. Specifically, they’d like to have something that’s a draw besides Star Wars and Marvel. One of their plans to up the variety of content on their streaming platform is Firefly.
My source tells me that Disney is in early development on a Firefly reboot. The new show would start the story of Captain Mal Reynolds and his crew aboard the Serenity over from scratch, with an aim to make this a long-running series on Disney+. There is a twist here and the twist is that they see the show as ideal family-friendly programming for Disney+. My source tells me they’re planning to target it more at a PG-adventure, family audience and less at the sort of PG-13 dynamic the original Joss Whedon show went for.
This shift in tone suggests the new version of Firefly might drop characters like Inara, who is basically a prostitute. Instead it’ll probably lean more into the fun and adventure aspect of the universe’s stories. Fans may initially be unhappy, but it’s easy to see a way it could work.
My source was unable to confirm to me whether series creator Joss Whedon is actually involved in the new Firefly reboot. Whedon has recently been embroiled in a strange controversy with some of his former actors and it’s made him difficult to employ. Disney, not wanting to court the ire of outraged Twitter activists, may simply be unwilling to have him involved in their brand. It could also end up that Whedon won’t want to be involved, if indeed Disney really is committed to turning Firefly into a gold standard family-friendly adventure series. That may skew too far from his original vision for the program.
Firefly was cancelled by Fox television back in 2002. It only produced 14 episodes. The series would later get something a revival with the movie Serenity in 2005. That wrapped up some of the show’s plots, but ultimately never became the box office juggernaut dedicated Firefly fans thought it deserved to be. Since then the franchise has been dormant, with the cast having moved on to other things. Disney’s Firefly reboot could be just the thing fans have been waiting for.
https://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/ent/firefly-reboot-disney.html
113121
Post by: petrov27
>>>>>There is a twist here and the twist is that they see the show as ideal family-friendly programming for Disney+. My source tells me they’re planning to target it more at a PG-adventure, family audience and less at the sort of PG-13 dynamic the original Joss Whedon show went for.
good lord I hope not....
54233
Post by: AduroT
Hm. Dunno. Basically just an entirely new show based on Firefly it sounds like. Without the original actors it’ll have to earn itself its standing with me all over again.
58873
Post by: BobtheInquisitor
The basic concept behind Firefly was strained enough even when held together with a great cast and snappy dialogue. The Mandalorian is filling its niche as a space Western. This reboot will have a lot of baggage to overcome to succeed.
241
Post by: Ahtman
I had a longer more detailed response but at this point this seemed the most succinct, honest response:
77922
Post by: Overread
The problem is the original series didn't get very far at all; even with the film they hardly touched the material or setting's potential. That's before you consider that the original series was made on a tiny (for its scope) budget.
IT was held together by really great actors who had a fantastic on-screen chemistry between them.
Can you do it again - sure you can because Firefly is just Cowboy Bebop and Outlaw Star influenced sci-fi.
Can you do it again and hit the dream of every Browncoat fan - NEVER.
Thing is if they drop the PG13 rating and if they don't have Joss nor any of the original actors then it could wind up being "firefly" in name only. If anything if they reach that point I'd rather it was called something else and allowed to go its own way. It's not as if the name is needed by Disney for marketing and its fanbase, whilst loyal, is probably not easy to court and bring into the fold if there's nothing to connect them to the original (if anything they could wind up an anti-force of early criticism and hate)
93221
Post by: Lance845
They don't need Joss. They do need the really great writing room crew that made the old one work and/or equivalents along with a great cast. All that being said, we don't know if this is real at all. Some guy on some site says he heard a thing.
I will wait till we hear something official to believe any of it.
125898
Post by: RegularGuy
*Concern*
77922
Post by: Overread
 Lance845 wrote:They don't need Joss. They do need the really great writing room crew that made the old one work and/or equivalents along with a great cast. All that being said, we don't know if this is real at all. Some guy on some site says he heard a thing.
I will wait till we hear something official to believe any of it.
Also loads of projects get to that stage and never ever mature. Heck a few years back there were decent rumours that Temeraire was going to get a film directed by Peter Jackson. Author and Director had spoken; he'd read the book; wanted to do it. But we've never heard anything since and chances are its one of a million ideas that never got funded or in the end went anywhere. Not likely abandoned, just never progressed.
93221
Post by: Lance845
 Overread wrote: Lance845 wrote:They don't need Joss. They do need the really great writing room crew that made the old one work and/or equivalents along with a great cast. All that being said, we don't know if this is real at all. Some guy on some site says he heard a thing.
I will wait till we hear something official to believe any of it.
Also loads of projects get to that stage and never ever mature. Heck a few years back there were decent rumours that Temeraire was going to get a film directed by Peter Jackson. Author and Director had spoken; he'd read the book; wanted to do it. But we've never heard anything since and chances are its one of a million ideas that never got funded or in the end went anywhere. Not likely abandoned, just never progressed.
Right. And even if it does get green lit and moved forward, anything that this person is saying (which again, could be nothing) is subject to change. They might be talking about the possibility of it being more PG. That doesn't mean it will be in it's final release form. If it ever has any end product at all.
78787
Post by: trexmeyer
Joss is overrated as a writer and has a tendency to write the same set of characters over and over. IMO, Firefly was good moreso because of the cast and concept than the writing. It was different enough from standard sci-fi and a few of the casting choices really worked out well. It shouldn't be rebooted. As a whole, the setting isn't anything special. It worked in that specific time and place.
78065
Post by: SkavenLord
Would Disney even have enough material to reboot the series while still keeping it close to the source material? Star Wars had six movies to work with and select pieces of external fluff (ex. Thrawn) to incorporate as well. Marvel had decades upon decades of storylines and heroes. Firefly had twelve episodes and one movie.
It kind of feels like Theseus’ Ship if the ship in question was a raft composed of a handful of planks.
113031
Post by: Voss
 SkavenLord wrote:Would Disney even have enough material to reboot the series while still keeping it close to the source material?
Honestly, there isn't much source material. There isn't really much to the setting.
Corps, Freedom (with revolvers and accents), Terraforming, Chinese, Whores, Psychics and not-Demons. Spitball it together with snappy dialogue and a decent cast that gelled together fairly well.
Its even unclear if they've got one solar system where they've worked over a bunch of moons, or several solar systems. Start looking under the carriage and there isn't much there at all. The setting is basically a hollywood set- a town that looks good in the background shot, but there isn't actually any building behind the façade.
----
Anyway. Don't think much of this. Its a property they own, so why not push out a few episode and make some cash from it? Cheaper than working up their own ideas for a space adventure series, I guess.
16387
Post by: Manchu
TBH Firefly is the kind of property that I think is well-suited to Disney developing it. It’s already committed to/defined by a heavy emphasis on superficial diversity and self-righteous progressivism, dressed up in a homespun idiom to make it feel authentic. Not to mention the arcs driven by mystery boxes.
78787
Post by: trexmeyer
Well, Manchu's description of the series was the most brutal criticism of anything I've read in a long time, so I'll tip my hat to him.
289
Post by: Col Hammer
Firefly with new set of actors and (presumably) new writers?
I'd rather they made up a whole new crew rather than the old crew who acts differently from the first series (because of new actors and writers).
Firefly is a ship class, so just make it some other Firefly and not Serenity.
Then the changes wouldn't be so jarring. That's my take on this anyhow.
79409
Post by: BrianDavion
this would be a waste of time and resources for disney. the firefly fandom crosses over with the star wars fandom so closely I don't think they'd get any new audiance with this. and it would inevitably dissappoint the Browncoats.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
I’m suspicious this is true, to be honest.
As mentioned, The Mando covers the Space Western. And there’s nothing in Firefly you can’t transpose to Star Wars.
Now, the PG thing doesn’t concern me. Mando has shown a pretty mature level of content without crossing into PG-13 (no blood, bad language, nor gratuitous violence). As have the MCU films (think about the poor schmo in Winter Soldier kicks off the boat. Go look at the scene. Imagine the horrific injuries).
But I still can’t see how they could ressurect it without it becoming a Mando clone.
I for one shall await corroborated reports - and an official statement from Disney.
122350
Post by: Cronch
On one hand no Joss and his grossness, so that's a yay, on the other hand, all five people who still care about it are not going to be happy cause they still think Joss is somehow a good showrunner.
Waste of resources, imo.
109057
Post by: Cybtroll
Disney that again learnt the wrong lesson from the Mandalorian.
It's the recurring theme of the end of 2020
16387
Post by: Manchu
 trexmeyer wrote:Well, Manchu's description of the series was the most brutal criticism of anything I've read in a long time, so I'll tip my hat to him.
And I don’t even dislike the show!
132
Post by: bbb
Disney has churned out tons of shows aimed at tweens over the years. I wonder if this is an attempt to use a similar model, but target the sci-fi genre, or just utilize IP they now own from Fox.
3802
Post by: chromedog
It's not a "reboot".
It's an exhumation. Leave it dead and buried in its own mediocrity.
81438
Post by: Turnip Jedi
So essentially a CW show in spaaaace...
Think I'll pass
63623
Post by: Tannhauser42
 Col Hammer wrote:Firefly with new set of actors and (presumably) new writers?
I'd rather they made up a whole new crew rather than the old crew who acts differently from the first series (because of new actors and writers).
Firefly is a ship class, so just make it some other Firefly and not Serenity.
Then the changes wouldn't be so jarring. That's my take on this anyhow.
Alternatively, it could still be the Serenity. Just have the first episode start with a retired Mal selling the ship to a new captain. Firefly: The Next Generation.
100203
Post by: jaredb
I'd certainly like to see more stories in that universe, I'm looking forward to seeing what this will look like. Disney+ has pretty good stuff so far, so I know quality will be there.
64581
Post by: Jerram
When's Hollywood going to learn, you try rebooting something with new actors playing the same characters and new writers and new tone and the majority of the time it fails with a whimper. In such cases what have you gained by using an existing property when most of the existing fans say Feth that. Stop with the reboots and expand the properties instead of doing the same exact thing over and over and over.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Color me interested.
I found the original firefly vastly overhyped and just another 2000s era sci-fi show like SG-1, BSG and wchost or other shows.
There isn't much to ruin or isn't gonna be hard to recreate.
1206
Post by: Easy E
Disney is missing the boat completely. If they want to reboot something, they should go with Space: Above and Beyond!
122274
Post by: SamusDrake
They always kept banging on about how wonderful this show was back in the day. I saw Serenity to see what the fuss was about and it basically started off with "not this Matrix ********* again..." only to instead end up an enjoyable sci-fi western. Would have been up for a sequel had it got that far.
Never watched the series as some said the film wasn't canon, others a prequel or a sequel. I was happy with the film and still pop it in the dvd player once in a while, but not being sure left it there.
Gut feeling says no to a new cast and crew. 2005 is still "recent" and the thing that shines the most in Serenity is how comfortable the cast were with their roles and each other, and where the story could have been about a trip to the shops for some bread & milk for all I cared, the film as a whole felt like it was in its happy place and in turn quite happy to tag along. After the tiresome SG1, BSG and Andromeda, Serenity felt like a comfortable reunion of sorts which I didn't feel awkward gatecrashing for 2 hours. I felt rather welcome actually! 
All I can say is this regarding writing out "ladies of the night" - whats it going to be like when they get round to Alien and Predator? Tongue-punching victim's brains out and slashing'n'skinning? Yeah, good luck Disney turning them into family shows!  Automatically Appended Next Post:  Easy E wrote:Disney is missing the boat completely. If they want to reboot something, they should go with Space: Above and Beyond!
Good lord, I remember that one! First episode was a bit weak but tuned in weekly all the same.
58873
Post by: BobtheInquisitor
My favorite part of Space:Above and Beyond was when the elite pilots were handed rifles and sent to backwater battlefields to fight in the dirt.
I’m in.
19970
Post by: Jadenim
I bought the DVD of Space: Above and Beyond (don’t forget the colon!) a few years ago, purely on the basis of nostalgia. I was very pleasantly surprised at how well it’s aged, I would recommend giving it a revisit to anyone. It’s sort of proto-BSG.
100870
Post by: Commodus Leitdorf
I mean, yay? But, as a Netflix executive once said. The reason Arrested Development got more seasons is because the fanbase kept growing after it was cancelled. Fireflys fanbase has been the same size it's always been and hasn't really grown. Which is why they didn't pick it up themselves.
I mean I'll watch it but my Space cowboy fix is being handle by the Mandalorian as of right now.
518
Post by: Kid_Kyoto
Firefly... yeah I remember that show. It was no Cleopatra 2525 but it was OK.
Jerram wrote:When's Hollywood going to learn, you try rebooting something with new actors playing the same characters and new writers and new tone and the majority of the time it fails with a whimper. In such cases what have you gained by using an existing property when most of the existing fans say Feth that. Stop with the reboots and expand the properties instead of doing the same exact thing over and over and over.
I know!
Remember that time they rebooted Star Trek with no Kirk and no Spock? God what an embarrassment. I heard the lead actor, forget his name, never even unpacked his suitcases.
21358
Post by: Dysartes
 Kid_Kyoto wrote:Jerram wrote:When's Hollywood going to learn, you try rebooting something with new actors playing the same characters and new writers and new tone and the majority of the time it fails with a whimper. In such cases what have you gained by using an existing property when most of the existing fans say Feth that. Stop with the reboots and expand the properties instead of doing the same exact thing over and over and over.
I know!
Remember that time they rebooted Star Trek with no Kirk and no Spock? God what an embarrassment. I heard the lead actor, forget his name, never even unpacked his suitcases.
In fairness to Jerram, his initial point was about reboots where you keep the same cast of characters, but with new actors, as opposed to a new show in the same setting - if you wanted a Star Trek comparison, it'd be more to the Lens Flare films, rather than The Next Generation 
108848
Post by: Blackie
Firefly is one of the best tv shows in history, and definitely among my favorite ones. With Disney destroying everything they touch, with the exception of the only thing they're really able to produce (AKA animation movies), I have zero hype about this reboot.
But I'll probably watch it anyway: I adore sci-fi movies and tv series, and they're pretty uncommon these days. In fact I'm basically just watching The Mandalorian which I consider pretty meh, just like the majority of other sci-fi series/movies that have been released in the last few years.
518
Post by: Kid_Kyoto
 Dysartes wrote: Kid_Kyoto wrote:Jerram wrote:When's Hollywood going to learn, you try rebooting something with new actors playing the same characters and new writers and new tone and the majority of the time it fails with a whimper. In such cases what have you gained by using an existing property when most of the existing fans say Feth that. Stop with the reboots and expand the properties instead of doing the same exact thing over and over and over.
I know!
Remember that time they rebooted Star Trek with no Kirk and no Spock? God what an embarrassment. I heard the lead actor, forget his name, never even unpacked his suitcases.
In fairness to Jerram, his initial point was about reboots where you keep the same cast of characters, but with new actors, as opposed to a new show in the same setting - if you wanted a Star Trek comparison, it'd be more to the Lens Flare films, rather than The Next Generation
Though to be frank the first 2 seasons of TNG were unwatchable dreck.
113031
Post by: Voss
SamusDrake wrote:They always kept banging on about how wonderful this show was back in the day. I saw Serenity to see what the fuss was about and it basically started off with "not this Matrix ********* again..." only to instead end up an enjoyable sci-fi western. Would have been up for a sequel had it got that far.
Never watched the series as some said the film wasn't canon, others a prequel or a sequel. I was happy with the film and still pop it in the dvd player once in a while, but not being sure left it there.
Gut feeling says no to a new cast and crew. 2005 is still "recent" and the thing that shines the most in Serenity is how comfortable the cast were with their roles and each other, and where the story could have been about a trip to the shops for some bread & milk for all I cared,
Several episodes were basically this, to be honest. It was largely a character dialogue/interaction show (largely because Whedon started to realize he had no idea what to do with things like 'plots' and 'overarching stories'
All I can say is this regarding writing out "ladies of the night" - whats it going to be like when they get round to Alien and Predator? Tongue-punching victim's brains out and slashing'n'skinning? Yeah, good luck Disney turning them into family shows!
Disney has multiple studios in its stable that have done both ultra violence and ultra sexy. They don't lack for outlets for non-family brands.
77922
Post by: Overread
Firefly had issues with its ovearching story plots in that its original showing in the USA was shown out of order. Even if he had been very bold (for that time) and gone for more than he already did, they'd likely have failed the series even more.
Short adventures was a good way to start the series off and even then many connected bit by bit to the next one. They weren't all fully stand alone episodes.
It's important to remember that he didn't have several seasons of series in the bank and budget; if anything he'd got just the one. So script writing likely reflected that. you see that in a lot of TV series; the first season isn't just about finding the series identity and such, its also where you might only have one season to secure finances for following seasons. So you don't want too much unresolved at the end of the first season, you want fans happy with a few mysteries, but not too much.
As for its fanbase I'd argue that it did grow. However it's been so long now that its fanbase basically maxed out and without any hope of a further season it just didn't keep growing. It didn't help that its initial season was sabotaged so its original chance to grow an audience was very low.
From what I gather executives had a tiff and the one in charge of show slots got hold of firefly and gave it a mess. No fixed time slot each week; pairing it against major established shows and sports events; showing its episodes out of order. Basically everything you could do with a schedual to cause a series to tank in viewers. That Firefly actually managed to secure a big enough audience to be a well known series that spawned a movie and years of fans is actually a sign of just how strong the original formula was and hints that it could have been far greater.
54233
Post by: AduroT
They did that to Almost Human as well if I recall the title correctly where they just aired episodes out of order. It’s just stupid.
55408
Post by: Graphite
Eh.
I liked Firefly. Serenity was good. But yeah, I put that entirely down to the characters, cast and writing. The setting is OK, but there's now so much "generic space Western" that really, what would make it stand out? And you can't get the whole original crew back, because those harpoons don't come out in the wash.
77922
Post by: Overread
 AduroT wrote:They did that to Almost Human as well if I recall the title correctly where they just aired episodes out of order. It’s just stupid.
It's clearly internal politics raising its head. Easy way to get one up on a staff member you don't like is to mess the schedule so that one of their pet series fails. What's more shocking is that it seems to be something staff can get away with without being punished. It's likely just part of a jumble of middle to upper management drama and infighting.
99103
Post by: Captain Joystick
Easy E wrote:Disney is missing the boat completely. If they want to reboot something, they should go with Space: Above and Beyond!
You're giving me flashbacks to when the producers of Zixx: Level 1 announced they were making a reboot of... well, Reboot - and the end product was just a (somehow worse) remake of Zixx.
107281
Post by: LunarSol
There's basically no reason to do this. The cast was really the only thing that made the original unique. Brand recognition is a thing though, but they're basically starting from scratch. It might be good, just.... not what fans are actually demanding.
3309
Post by: Flinty
 Jadenim wrote:I bought the DVD of Space: Above and Beyond (don’t forget the colon!) a few years ago, purely on the basis of nostalgia. I was very pleasantly surprised at how well it’s aged, I would recommend giving it a revisit to anyone. It’s sort of proto- BSG.
I've been meaning to rewatch that for a while. Need to.dig it out again.
Hopefully the new Rogue squadron series will basically be a reboot of space:above and beyond. Similar premise, with super fighter pilots who are also.amazing ground troop infltrator.spy.assassins 
21313
Post by: Vulcan
Overread wrote: AduroT wrote:They did that to Almost Human as well if I recall the title correctly where they just aired episodes out of order. It’s just stupid.
It's clearly internal politics raising its head. Easy way to get one up on a staff member you don't like is to mess the schedule so that one of their pet series fails. What's more shocking is that it seems to be something staff can get away with without being punished. It's likely just part of a jumble of middle to upper management drama and infighting.
Yeah, you'd think deliberately wasting the money spent on even a single season of a TV series - and therefore deliberately cutting into the profit margin AND the boss's bonus - would get you kicked out on your backside posthaste. But it seems the bosses in America enjoy brown-nosing even more than they love cash, which tells you how far that particular issue has gone in the American business world.
518
Post by: Kid_Kyoto
 Vulcan wrote: Overread wrote: AduroT wrote:They did that to Almost Human as well if I recall the title correctly where they just aired episodes out of order. It’s just stupid.
It's clearly internal politics raising its head. Easy way to get one up on a staff member you don't like is to mess the schedule so that one of their pet series fails. What's more shocking is that it seems to be something staff can get away with without being punished. It's likely just part of a jumble of middle to upper management drama and infighting.
Yeah, you'd think deliberately wasting the money spent on even a single season of a TV series - and therefore deliberately cutting into the profit margin AND the boss's bonus - would get you kicked out on your backside posthaste. But it seems the bosses in America enjoy brown-nosing even more than they love cash, which tells you how far that particular issue has gone in the American business world.
IIRC in the DVD commentaries Weaton also explains that he was a complete ass (that's not how he put it). The studio tells him to tone down the Western bits, so he writes a theme song with guitars and cowboys and shoots and opening with horse drawn carriages. And does it so late there's no time to change things. He presents it as winning a victory against the suits, but if someone working for me pulled that kind of $%^&, spending my money after I told him not to do something. Yeah, I'd work to make his life miserable too.
21313
Post by: Vulcan
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Vulcan wrote: Overread wrote: AduroT wrote:They did that to Almost Human as well if I recall the title correctly where they just aired episodes out of order. It’s just stupid.
It's clearly internal politics raising its head. Easy way to get one up on a staff member you don't like is to mess the schedule so that one of their pet series fails. What's more shocking is that it seems to be something staff can get away with without being punished. It's likely just part of a jumble of middle to upper management drama and infighting.
Yeah, you'd think deliberately wasting the money spent on even a single season of a TV series - and therefore deliberately cutting into the profit margin AND the boss's bonus - would get you kicked out on your backside posthaste. But it seems the bosses in America enjoy brown-nosing even more than they love cash, which tells you how far that particular issue has gone in the American business world.
IIRC in the DVD commentaries Weaton also explains that he was a complete ass (that's not how he put it). The studio tells him to tone down the Western bits, so he writes a theme song with guitars and cowboys and shoots and opening with horse drawn carriages. And does it so late there's no time to change things. He presents it as winning a victory against the suits, but if someone working for me pulled that kind of $%^&, spending my money after I told him not to do something. Yeah, I'd work to make his life miserable too.
Wouldn't it make more sense to either a) wait and see if it worked, in which case admitting he was right is the sane thing to do? or b) just fire him outright and replace him, which is the sane thing to do if you're 100% sure he's wrong? instead of c) doing everything you could to totally waste several million dollars which is not sane in ANY setting?
I mean, if you're really sure it won't work, then perhaps d) discontinue the show entirely and show high-rating re-runs during those flex-spots you were planning to stuff the show into? Playing a re-run that has a proven audience will net you much more ad revenue than playing a show that no one is watching, after all.
What you're describing could easily diagnosed a form of psychotic narcissism - being so entrenched in your own sense of power and pride that you'll actively commit fully self-destructive actions to continue feeding that power and pride. Of course, that then ties into how America deals with mental health (or more accurately, refuses to deal with it)... which then ties into the politics of why this is so, so perhaps this line of thought is best left alone.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
That assumes all people are rationale, people can be petty. especially if they have power.
93221
Post by: Lance845
You can't use logic to explain politics.
That exec assigned to his project isn't looking to make HIMSELF look bad. He is looking to make Whedon look bad.
Sabotageing a product that had all the financial backing so that it fails despite any production support is a good way to make the show runners look like a bunch of asses. Doesn't mater how much money gets burned up in doing it or how smart of a business decision it is.
54233
Post by: AduroT
 Captain Joystick wrote: Easy E wrote:Disney is missing the boat completely. If they want to reboot something, they should go with Space: Above and Beyond!
You're giving me flashbacks to when the producers of Zixx: Level 1 announced they were making a reboot of... well, Reboot - and the end product was just a (somehow worse) remake of Zixx.
Did that ever come out? I remember seeing previews for it that everyone thought looked horrible, and then no one ever talked about it again.
63623
Post by: Tannhauser42
Lance845 wrote:You can't use logic to explain politics.
That exec assigned to his project isn't looking to make HIMSELF look bad. He is looking to make Whedon look bad.
Sabotageing a product that had all the financial backing so that it fails despite any production support is a good way to make the show runners look like a bunch of asses. Doesn't mater how much money gets burned up in doing it or how smart of a business decision it is.
It's also been a long running issue in Hollywood that when studio execs change, the new exec will usually sabotage/cancel any/all of the projects he took over from the previous exec. You want to make sure that your projects will be the successful ones so that you can take full credit for their success. You don't want your predecessor's projects to be successful, because you can't take full credit for that success.
181
Post by: gorgon
 Tannhauser42 wrote: Lance845 wrote:You can't use logic to explain politics.
That exec assigned to his project isn't looking to make HIMSELF look bad. He is looking to make Whedon look bad.
Sabotageing a product that had all the financial backing so that it fails despite any production support is a good way to make the show runners look like a bunch of asses. Doesn't mater how much money gets burned up in doing it or how smart of a business decision it is.
It's also been a long running issue in Hollywood that when studio execs change, the new exec will usually sabotage/cancel any/all of the projects he took over from the previous exec. You want to make sure that your projects will be the successful ones so that you can take full credit for their success. You don't want your predecessor's projects to be successful, because you can't take full credit for that success.
That kind of thing happens with a lot of management changes in many industries, but not because of credit. Incoming exec often isn't aligned philosophically with outgoing exec. That's often in fact why the change was made -- those at the top wanted a different perspective. So new exec often looks at old exec's projects and says 'yeah, I don't agree with these'. It really isn't always about ego.
Edit: Regarding Firefly reboots, I don't see the point. It was a cute show with a cast who had some chemistry together. There was nothing special about the concept or plots or much of anything else.
60720
Post by: OrlandotheTechnicoloured
SamusDrake wrote:All I can say is this regarding writing out "ladies of the night" - whats it going to be like when they get round to Alien and Predator? Tongue-punching victim's brains out and slashing'n'skinning? Yeah, good luck Disney turning them into family shows!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote:Disney is missing the boat completely. If they want to reboot something, they should go with Space: Above and Beyond!
Good lord, I remember that one! First episode was a bit weak but tuned in weekly all the same.
you can get away with far more violence than even a suggestion of sex (let alone paid for sex) in a PG show the way US ratings work
and I'd watch Space Above and Beyonder it was an interesting idea
(if dumb, really you're going to risk your highly trained pilots on ground combat, I don't think so, but you could re-work it so most of the flying was done by an AI with the pilot basically just there to input the mission parameters, it would make the natural/vat grown human conflict even more poignant, as the natural humans feel themselves becoming more and more redundant)
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Also, companies have been repurposing old stuff since movies where invented. Even without names things where based on classic novels, old pulp stories, or history.
They have been doing this for ever, we just started calling them "Reboots"
77922
Post by: Overread
There's a difference between taking Cowboy Bebop and making Firefly inspired by it and remaking Firefly as Firefly.
Inspired by shows have the advantage that they are fully their own thing; no baggage no random handovers or expectations. The only downside is being "unknown" names.
Remakes can be great, but they can also feel very forced when there's a lot of new things and new ideas and new directions to the point where its clear that the Director doesn't want to make a remake and is instead going for something else entirely.
54729
Post by: AegisGrimm
Straight up "no". This would be like remaking Battlestar Galactica, but removing all the parts of what made the show exactly what it is. And that's called "Caprica", and it sucked.
Firefly was Lightning in a Bottle. Stop just retreading old successes. All of the Star Wars shows they are planning are good ideas, that expand the setting in different ways. Stick with those.
Firefly with none of the original characters and a lighter, less adult tone is just a random tweener friendly space show that you would find on the CW. Even CW sci-fi shows like The 100 are too dark for Disney's kid-friendly formula.
93221
Post by: Lance845
You know Battlestar Galactica was a reboot of a older series right?
64581
Post by: Jerram
Dysartes wrote: Kid_Kyoto wrote:Jerram wrote:When's Hollywood going to learn, you try rebooting something with new actors playing the same characters and new writers and new tone and the majority of the time it fails with a whimper. In such cases what have you gained by using an existing property when most of the existing fans say Feth that. Stop with the reboots and expand the properties instead of doing the same exact thing over and over and over.
I know!
Remember that time they rebooted Star Trek with no Kirk and no Spock? God what an embarrassment. I heard the lead actor, forget his name, never even unpacked his suitcases.
In fairness to Jerram, his initial point was about reboots where you keep the same cast of characters, but with new actors, as opposed to a new show in the same setting - if you wanted a Star Trek comparison, it'd be more to the Lens Flare films, rather than The Next Generation
Exactly, ST:TNG is an example of what I meant by expanding the properties so thanks for making by point :b
As far as Space: Above and Beyond . Every Marine a rifleman is more than a phrase, and while I doubt we're routinely sending marine aviators out on patrol as a group in the dessert, I wouldn't bet against the crew of a marine C-130 if they were competing against a normal army platoon on a combat course.
518
Post by: Kid_Kyoto
The Firefly DVD commentaries might be worth watching if you're looking to understand how Hollywood works.
IIRC Fox wanted to keep Whedon (gotta remember how to spell that) because of Buffy/Angel but the price was this sci fi show. Which might actually work. But he also wanted cowboys and horses and six shooters in space which the network considered poison.
So you have them pulling juvenile pranks on each other. Whedon makes his cowboy themed opening and makes it too late for Fox to commission another one. Fox tells him to write a new first episode in a weekend. So Whedon makes sure it's a cowboy style train robbery. In space. And so it went.
Again IIRC Whedon presented all of this as the clever, clever director pulling on over on the suits. And then expressed surprise and outrage his show was yanked around and cancelled in one season. It just sounds like a toxic relationship.
Why do studios do this, why not give him creative freedom? because he's spending their money and using their airtime. And supposedly the studio producers overseeing the project are the experts on what will sell. If you want creative freedom, sit in your room and write a novel. If you want a TV show with literally 100s of actors and crew and millions of dollars spent, it will come with strings.
Honestly the whole drama behind the show is almost as interesting as what was on the screen.
And to be clear I liked Firefly. Westerns were a dominant genre in TV, movies, novels, radio, pulps and plays for 100 years. Transplanting those tropes to In Space worked well and I can see it working again.
19970
Post by: Jadenim
Jerram wrote:As far as Space: Above and Beyond . Every Marine a rifleman is more than a phrase, and while I doubt we're routinely sending marine aviators out on patrol as a group in the dessert, I wouldn't bet against the crew of a marine C-130 if they were competing against a normal army platoon on a combat course.
Obviously, part of it is dramatic licence, because “these are our characters, they have to be in all the stories”, although now that I think about it, with the larger ensemble casts they do these days, you could make the series about a ship with both infantry and pilots, switching focus between them. But a key part of it is that humans are getting their arses kicked. They’re losing the war, badly, and they’re just throwing anyone available onto a mission.
I really hope the Firefly thing is bogus; I love the series and, whilst I think the setting has some interesting ideas, it really was bottled lightning in terms of the cast chemistry and production. I just don’t think you’d hit that again. And you’d lose most of the interesting things about the setting if you start filing off the darker edges.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Kid_Kyoto wrote:The Firefly DVD commentaries might be worth watching if you're looking to understand how Hollywood works.
IIRC Fox wanted to keep Whedon (gotta remember how to spell that) because of Buffy/Angel but the price was this sci fi show. Which might actually work. But he also wanted cowboys and horses and six shooters in space which the network considered poison.
So you have them pulling juvenile pranks on each other. Whedon makes his cowboy themed opening and makes it too late for Fox to commission another one. Fox tells him to write a new first episode in a weekend. So Whedon makes sure it's a cowboy style train robbery. In space. And so it went.
Again IIRC Whedon presented all of this as the clever, clever director pulling on over on the suits. And then expressed surprise and outrage his show was yanked around and cancelled in one season. It just sounds like a toxic relationship.
Why do studios do this, why not give him creative freedom? because he's spending their money and using their airtime. And supposedly the studio producers overseeing the project are the experts on what will sell. If you want creative freedom, sit in your room and write a novel. If you want a TV show with literally 100s of actors and crew and millions of dollars spent, it will come with strings.
Honestly the whole drama behind the show is almost as interesting as what was on the screen.
And to be clear I liked Firefly. Westerns were a dominant genre in TV, movies, novels, radio, pulps and plays for 100 years. Transplanting those tropes to In Space worked well and I can see it working again.
Lets be honest, Josh Whedon is kinda a jerk and it can show in his work sometimes.
109034
Post by: Slipspace
One thing I've always wondered about Firefly is whether it would have worked as a multi-season series. It may well be that the 13 episodes they made represent the best it could ever have become. I know there were plot threads woven into those episodes to be picked up on in later seasons but it's often easier to add those little hooks as intriguing possibilities than it is to effectively expand on them. Would we be sitting here saying Firefly was brilliant if it had got 3 full seasons? Is the setting actually that compelling? We'll never know, but if that's what you're basing a reboot on, it seems to have missed the reason for the show being so well regarded.
Firefly was good because of a combination of the writing and the cast, IMO. It's not too difficult to write a small number of self-contained episodes and make them really good, especially when the cast are as good as we had in Firefly.
518
Post by: Kid_Kyoto
A good cast and good writing are basically what a show needs. I mean was Buffy's setting that intriguing? Is Westeros?
If there is a reboot one thing I would like would be a GoT-style 'anyone can die' (or just get off the ship) approach. The feeling of desperate smugglers living on the edge kind of fades when there's a status quo cast.
5212
Post by: Gitzbitah
I can think of one way to make a Firefly reboot work as PG. Heck, they could even give it a laugh track and have it be phenomenally successful.
All you need is Kaylee as narrator, and make it the story from her point of view. So you don't cast someone to out-Mal Nathan Fillion- you hire someone to play how she pictured Mal. You get the hottest dude you can find to play the Dr, and present everyone as caricatures of themselves, in Kaylee's happy go lucky version of the 'verse.
To please fans, you can occasionally have cameos where she gets too stressed out and sees things as they really are.
93221
Post by: Lance845
 hotsauceman1 wrote: Kid_Kyoto wrote:The Firefly DVD commentaries might be worth watching if you're looking to understand how Hollywood works.
IIRC Fox wanted to keep Whedon (gotta remember how to spell that) because of Buffy/Angel but the price was this sci fi show. Which might actually work. But he also wanted cowboys and horses and six shooters in space which the network considered poison.
So you have them pulling juvenile pranks on each other. Whedon makes his cowboy themed opening and makes it too late for Fox to commission another one. Fox tells him to write a new first episode in a weekend. So Whedon makes sure it's a cowboy style train robbery. In space. And so it went.
Again IIRC Whedon presented all of this as the clever, clever director pulling on over on the suits. And then expressed surprise and outrage his show was yanked around and cancelled in one season. It just sounds like a toxic relationship.
Why do studios do this, why not give him creative freedom? because he's spending their money and using their airtime. And supposedly the studio producers overseeing the project are the experts on what will sell. If you want creative freedom, sit in your room and write a novel. If you want a TV show with literally 100s of actors and crew and millions of dollars spent, it will come with strings.
Honestly the whole drama behind the show is almost as interesting as what was on the screen.
And to be clear I liked Firefly. Westerns were a dominant genre in TV, movies, novels, radio, pulps and plays for 100 years. Transplanting those tropes to In Space worked well and I can see it working again.
Lets be honest, Josh Whedon is kinda a jerk and it can show in his work sometimes.
Whedon isn't kind of a jerk. Hes a full on Jerk of one of the highest calibers. You can hear all about how he treated actresses on Buffy and Angel all the way through what he did on the set of Justice League. I would honestly be surprised if he ever works again. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Gitzbitah wrote:I can think of one way to make a Firefly reboot work as PG. Heck, they could even give it a laugh track and have it be phenomenally successful.
All you need is Kaylee as narrator, and make it the story from her point of view. So you don't cast someone to out-Mal Nathan Fillion- you hire someone to play how she pictured Mal. You get the hottest dude you can find to play the Dr, and present everyone as caricatures of themselves, in Kaylee's happy go lucky version of the 'verse.
To please fans, you can occasionally have cameos where she gets too stressed out and sees things as they really are.
Kaylee, whos introduction to the crew was getting fethed in the engine room so she could look at the engine?
109034
Post by: Slipspace
Kid_Kyoto wrote:A good cast and good writing are basically what a show needs. I mean was Buffy's setting that intriguing? Is Westeros?
Yes? By "setting" I'm not just talking about the world, but also the direction the story goes (which isn't really a setting - my bad in that one). I think good writing and cast are imperative but the overarching ideas are also important to keep people interested and generate drama, IMO. Firefly's writing quality was mainly centred around the character interactions rather than any kind of brilliant plot or ongoing story - possibly due to the limited number of episodes. My point with Firefly was more just me wondering if the show would still be regarded the same way if there had been more of it. Catching lightning in a bottle is difficult, catching a whole thunderstorm much more so.
108848
Post by: Blackie
This. They're about 99% of the show's success.
181
Post by: gorgon
Slipspace wrote: Kid_Kyoto wrote:A good cast and good writing are basically what a show needs. I mean was Buffy's setting that intriguing? Is Westeros?
Yes? By "setting" I'm not just talking about the world, but also the direction the story goes (which isn't really a setting - my bad in that one). I think good writing and cast are imperative but the overarching ideas are also important to keep people interested and generate drama, IMO. Firefly's writing quality was mainly centred around the character interactions rather than any kind of brilliant plot or ongoing story - possibly due to the limited number of episodes. My point with Firefly was more just me wondering if the show would still be regarded the same way if there had been more of it. Catching lightning in a bottle is difficult, catching a whole thunderstorm much more so.
Yeah, it had the advantage of dying young.
21313
Post by: Vulcan
AegisGrimm wrote:Straight up "no". This would be like remaking Battlestar Galactica, but removing all the parts of what made the show exactly what it is. And that's called "Caprica", and it sucked.
Lance845 wrote:You know Battlestar Galactica was a reboot of a older series right?
Yes, and the later reboot removed all the parts of the original series that made it what IT was, and the result ALSO sucked. At least, it did for those of us who remember the original series fondly, anyway.
When you start cheering for the genocidal villains to win because the heroes are worse villains than the villains ever were, your series is not good.
3309
Post by: Flinty
Or it is in fact amazingy well written such that the viewers can empathise with both sides and it shows how many shades of grey can occur even in a situation where good and bad should be black and white.
The original Galactica was charmingly 70s. The updated one was a totally different type of show.
21313
Post by: Vulcan
Slipspace wrote:One thing I've always wondered about Firefly is whether it would have worked as a multi-season series. It may well be that the 13 episodes they made represent the best it could ever have become. I know there were plot threads woven into those episodes to be picked up on in later seasons but it's often easier to add those little hooks as intriguing possibilities than it is to effectively expand on them. Would we be sitting here saying Firefly was brilliant if it had got 3 full seasons? Is the setting actually that compelling? We'll never know, but if that's what you're basing a reboot on, it seems to have missed the reason for the show being so well regarded.
Firefly was good because of a combination of the writing and the cast, IMO. It's not too difficult to write a small number of self-contained episodes and make them really good, especially when the cast are as good as we had in Firefly.
As I understand it, the movie Serenity is basically what Whedon was planning to do with the series. So take that movie and expand it out. Being hunted by the agent covers several episodes, hunting down the test planet takes several more, etc. etc. etc. Much more room for sub-plots and character development as well.
Now.... would this have been better? Or would have dragged on too long? At this point, that's anyone's guess.
The need for so many people with any shred of power to exert that power over everyone around them as much as the can even to their own detriment just plain boggles my mind... even though I deal with it daily. I really think humanity is NOT optimized for social co-operation, but social combat. We only accomplish anything because someone gets the power to force it through DESPITE other people being involved, not BECAUSE they can get other people involved.
Heaven help us if we ever encounter a truly co-operative intelligent species.
93221
Post by: Lance845
I think the reboots popularity speaks for itself. BSG modern was the game of thrones of it's day. Everyone loved to watch it and then it shat the bed with the ending lol.
21313
Post by: Vulcan
 Flinty wrote:Or it is in fact amazingy well written such that the viewers can empathise with both sides and it shows how many shades of grey can occur even in a situation where good and bad should be black and white.
The original Galactica was charmingly 70s. The updated one was a totally different type of show.
How does one empathize genocidal villains, and heroes that manage to out-villain them? I can't think of any groups in history that attempted or committed genocide that are worthy of my empathy, why are these different?
Really, the reboot BSG was not BSG. It used the same names, but really was a completely different show and should have been done WITHOUT any reference to BSG. Call it 'Complete Jerks Being Killed By Genocidal Robots' or some such.
More than anything else, the BSG reboot reminded me of the 1995 movie First Knight. They took names from Arthurian legend, tossed all the staples of the legends, stories, and previous movies, and created an AWFUL movie. Lancelot, the perfect knight... as a rogue and thief? Say what?
Just as awful as Commander Tigh going from a total professional to a drunken incompetent, or Lieutenant Starbuck going from a charming scoundrel to an insubordinate jerk (and worse). Base slander on the original characters.
If you're going to completely re-write the story, the characters, and even the basic concept to that extent, go the extra step and make up your own names. Don't try to sell it using an existing franchise if you're not going to do honor the pre-existing material.
77922
Post by: Overread
Vulcan wrote: Flinty wrote:Or it is in fact amazingy well written such that the viewers can empathise with both sides and it shows how many shades of grey can occur even in a situation where good and bad should be black and white.
The original Galactica was charmingly 70s. The updated one was a totally different type of show.
How does one empathize genocidal villains, and heroes that manage to out-villain them? I can't think of any groups in history that attempted or committed genocide that are worthy of my empathy, why are these different?
Really, the reboot BSG was not BSG. It used the same names, but really was a completely different show and should have been done WITHOUT any reference to BSG. Call it 'Complete Jerks Being Killed By Genocidal Robots' or some such.
More than anything else, the BSG reboot reminded me of the 1995 movie First Knight. They took names from Arthurian legend, tossed all the staples of the legends, stories, and previous movies, and created an AWFUL movie. Lancelot, the perfect knight... as a rogue and thief? Say what?
Just as awful as Commander Tigh going from a total professional to a drunken incompetent, or Lieutenant Starbuck going from a charming scoundrel to an insubordinate jerk (and worse). Base slander on the original characters.
If you're going to completely re-write the story, the characters, and even the basic concept to that extent, go the extra step and make up your own names. Don't try to sell it using an existing franchise if you're not going to do honor the pre-existing material.
I'm in the same boat. The new Battlestar had its charms and its good points, but it was always lumbered with the past; break it out and make it its own thing able to go its totally own unique direction.
Same for Firefly; make another space western with its own tropes, themes, ideas, etc... Heck perhaps they for for an Indian mix instead of China or their own created cultures.
Heck I'd wager they'd want aliens in it and that was one thing Firefly outright avoided; not even one alien not even a hint of aliens.
79409
Post by: BrianDavion
One thing to note about firefly. it's release date was 2002. let's look at the world of sci-fi in 2002.
Star Trek had basicly died then, with enterprise entering it's second season (enterprise just didn't do well for a number of reasons)
BSGr wouldn't come out for another 2 years
Attack of the clones hit the theatre which means the inital period of time saw anticipation followed by dissappointment (meanwhile firefly was the "ahn solo roguery in space people had been missing from the prequals)
By and large... firefly came out at just the right time to scratch and itch that wasn't being scratched.
right now, well right now "geek media" has an embaressment of riches.
Right now, we have, in active development, AT LEAST 4 or 5 trek shows, at LEAST a half dozen SW shows, about a DOZEN MCU shows, (and the SW and MCU stuff is all on disney plus)
So yeah, firefly is gonna face stiff compeition.
Truthfully I'd give this rumor more credit if it was revealed netflix had bought the rights or something, Netflix is going to want something to complete with these juggernaughts.
518
Post by: Kid_Kyoto
Well I started my rewatch and one thing to note is that besides the Western motif Firefly also uses the D&D party/heist film/A-Team crew motif. (I'm sure TV Tropes has a pithier name)
Each cast member has their own specialty and are needed to keep going. Besides the obvious (the pilot, the muscle, the mechanic) you have them play different and essential dramatic and emotional roles to drive the story and audience forward. Unlike say Star Trek where yeah you have specialties but you have a whole ship of hundreds it's just them.
This is also the problem since, at least for the 14 episodes made, everyone is essential and no one can die or even leave the ship no matter how much they should. The movie indicates that there was a plan to send some of them on their merry way, but as it the show tries a lot to create tension out of cast members being shot or stabbed but they're always OK.
Like I said, give me Firefly with Game of Thrones 'anyone can die any time' rules and you've got a show.
108848
Post by: Blackie
Well, Firefly was released in an era in which seasons typically last 22-24 episodes and a main character that dies in the first half of the first season is quite unlikely even for those tv series in which main characters die frequently.
Who actually died in episodes 1-5 of Game of Thrones? I can only think of Viserys and King Robert and both died in the second half of the season.
What about The Walking Dead? The real main characters starts to die at the end of season 2, and in season 1 it's just a very secondary character that leaves the show, Andrea's sister.
Firefly was gutted, it was meant to be a much longer story. Killing off main characters so early for a story that isn't based on a hundred characters likt GoT wouldn't make any sense.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Has anyone seen corroboration on this rumour yet?
77922
Post by: Overread
 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
This is also the problem since, at least for the 14 episodes made, everyone is essential and no one can die or even leave the ship no matter how much they should. The movie indicates that there was a plan to send some of them on their merry way, but as it the show tries a lot to create tension out of cast members being shot or stabbed but they're always OK.
Well except that:
1) Firefly clearly flew without a doctor for a considerable length of time
2) Jane isn't essential, he's muscle but Zoe and Mal are more than enough muscle at times
3) River and Book are not needed at all. River provides no gain for the crew and is a pure negative (a point Jane points out a lot). Book makes some impact in cooking, but otherwise he's not essential.
4) Mal can fly Serenity without Wash
5) Innara isn't needed either; heck she often goes off to do her own thing in several episodes.
6) Zoe is purely there to back up Mal and to be Wash's wife. If removed the only issue Mal would have is more clashing with Jane.
Each crew member brings boons with them. Innara allows them access to some ports or facilities or just the upper-ranks of society here and there; Jane brings a lot of heavy muscle/firepower; Wash lets Mal not have to fly Serenity all the time and is higher skilled (thus able to do things Mal can't); Simon patches them up and clearly does a far better job than Zoe or the others can do with "field skill" style medical cover; or having to rush to an emergency station every time. Other crew members can cook (which is Shepherds only real main crew contribution).
Of the entire crew I'd say that the only one that is totally not replaceable is Kaylee.
So I'd say a vast majority of the crew can be lost without it preventing them adventuring. Of all the crew perhaps only Kaylee is impossible to lose long term because of the nature of Serenity in falling apart (a point raised several times that Fireflies are good ships, provided you've a mechanic to keep it going). Even then her skills are good but not magical, another mechanic can be hired (though perhaps not the one Kaylee replaced originally  ).
Thing is if you pick any small cast story its hard to replace/remove characters without it impacting the show. That's the nature of having a very small tightly woven cast of characters. Sure you can find roles that can be replaced and such, but by and large removing them does change the nature of the show. The only way for that not to be the case is if you have a small core and then a larger sub-core of characters surrounding that and you replace the sub-characters who get less development time etc....
58873
Post by: BobtheInquisitor
Kid Kyoto, the term you were looking for is “Golden Girls Archetypal Quartet”.
181
Post by: gorgon
Vulcan wrote: Flinty wrote:Or it is in fact amazingy well written such that the viewers can empathise with both sides and it shows how many shades of grey can occur even in a situation where good and bad should be black and white.
The original Galactica was charmingly 70s. The updated one was a totally different type of show.
How does one empathize genocidal villains, and heroes that manage to out-villain them? I can't think of any groups in history that attempted or committed genocide that are worthy of my empathy, why are these different?
Really, the reboot BSG was not BSG. It used the same names, but really was a completely different show and should have been done WITHOUT any reference to BSG. Call it 'Complete Jerks Being Killed By Genocidal Robots' or some such.
More than anything else, the BSG reboot reminded me of the 1995 movie First Knight. They took names from Arthurian legend, tossed all the staples of the legends, stories, and previous movies, and created an AWFUL movie. Lancelot, the perfect knight... as a rogue and thief? Say what?
Just as awful as Commander Tigh going from a total professional to a drunken incompetent, or Lieutenant Starbuck going from a charming scoundrel to an insubordinate jerk (and worse). Base slander on the original characters.
If you're going to completely re-write the story, the characters, and even the basic concept to that extent, go the extra step and make up your own names. Don't try to sell it using an existing franchise if you're not going to do honor the pre-existing material.
Oh, stop the "X wasn't X" talk. The title screen said BSG, so that's what it was. Doesn't matter that YOU didn't like it -- BSG is what everyone involved in the show worked hard to create. The majority of fans and critics would probably argue that it's one of the best executed reboots ever. Because like the best cover songs (very interesting that Hendrix's 'All Along the Watchtower' is considered to be that), it's familiar yet genuinely offers something new. Creators have the right to re-interpret older material. Some of the best storytelling comes that way.
If you don't like the newer BSG, that's fine and you can go re-watch the originals any time you want. But let's be real about the 'existing franchise'. It was a single season back in the '70s that even a lot of Gen Xers never saw. How much of a 'franchise' was there?
81759
Post by: BaconCatBug
We all know it's going to be bad.
181
Post by: gorgon
To be fair, it has a chance to be good if they bring some genuinely fresh ideas to the table, like with BSG. If they just try to ape the original, then it's destined to disappoint due to the nature of the original's appeal.
518
Post by: Kid_Kyoto
Still enjoying my rewatch but...
They really have to stop going with 'crew member shot/stabbed/whatever' as a way to raise the stakes. Most action shows would only do it once or twice a season, this is almost every episode.
Oh noes! Will the guy whose name is in the credits survive his wound?!?!
Other than that, yeah, well-plotted, skillful world-building, great dialogue and acting.
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
Kid_Kyoto wrote:Still enjoying my rewatch but...
They really have to stop going with 'crew member shot/stabbed/whatever' as a way to raise the stakes. Most action shows would only do it once or twice a season, this is almost every episode.
Oh noes! Will the guy whose name is in the credits survive his wound?!?!
Other than that, yeah, well-plotted, skillful world-building, great dialogue and acting.
Then the movie happens and you are like "They NEVER killed characters in the show, so they will be fine." Then they aren't, so you kind of understand why they were showing how dangerous the life they live is.
21313
Post by: Vulcan
 gorgon wrote: Vulcan wrote: Flinty wrote:Or it is in fact amazingy well written such that the viewers can empathise with both sides and it shows how many shades of grey can occur even in a situation where good and bad should be black and white.
The original Galactica was charmingly 70s. The updated one was a totally different type of show.
How does one empathize genocidal villains, and heroes that manage to out-villain them? I can't think of any groups in history that attempted or committed genocide that are worthy of my empathy, why are these different?
Really, the reboot BSG was not BSG. It used the same names, but really was a completely different show and should have been done WITHOUT any reference to BSG. Call it 'Complete Jerks Being Killed By Genocidal Robots' or some such.
More than anything else, the BSG reboot reminded me of the 1995 movie First Knight. They took names from Arthurian legend, tossed all the staples of the legends, stories, and previous movies, and created an AWFUL movie. Lancelot, the perfect knight... as a rogue and thief? Say what?
Just as awful as Commander Tigh going from a total professional to a drunken incompetent, or Lieutenant Starbuck going from a charming scoundrel to an insubordinate jerk (and worse). Base slander on the original characters.
If you're going to completely re-write the story, the characters, and even the basic concept to that extent, go the extra step and make up your own names. Don't try to sell it using an existing franchise if you're not going to do honor the pre-existing material.
Oh, stop the "X wasn't X" talk. The title screen said BSG, so that's what it was. Doesn't matter that YOU didn't like it -- BSG is what everyone involved in the show worked hard to create. The majority of fans and critics would probably argue that it's one of the best executed reboots ever. Because like the best cover songs (very interesting that Hendrix's 'All Along the Watchtower' is considered to be that), it's familiar yet genuinely offers something new. Creators have the right to re-interpret older material. Some of the best storytelling comes that way.
If you don't like the newer BSG, that's fine and you can go re-watch the originals any time you want. But let's be real about the 'existing franchise'. It was a single season back in the '70s that even a lot of Gen Xers never saw. How much of a 'franchise' was there?
The point remains that if you change the names involved, even the people who HAD seen the previous entry would never have connected the two together. It wasn't a re-imagining at all; it was something completely different and only linked to the original by those names.
79409
Post by: BrianDavion
Kid_Kyoto wrote:Well I started my rewatch and one thing to note is that besides the Western motif Firefly also uses the D&D party/heist film/A-Team crew motif. (I'm sure TV Tropes has a pithier name)
Each cast member has their own specialty and are needed to keep going. Besides the obvious (the pilot, the muscle, the mechanic) you have them play different and essential dramatic and emotional roles to drive the story and audience forward. Unlike say Star Trek where yeah you have specialties but you have a whole ship of hundreds it's just them.
This is also the problem since, at least for the 14 episodes made, everyone is essential and no one can die or even leave the ship no matter how much they should. The movie indicates that there was a plan to send some of them on their merry way, but as it the show tries a lot to create tension out of cast members being shot or stabbed but they're always OK.
Like I said, give me Firefly with Game of Thrones 'anyone can die any time' rules and you've got a show.
yeah no feth Game of Thrones. Game of Thrones took it to the oppisite extreme. GOT is the 90s comic books of Television, it's so obsessed with being "EXTREEME" and "EDGEY" that it's more tiring then entertaining
518
Post by: Kid_Kyoto
 Dreadwinter wrote:
Then the movie happens and you are like "They NEVER killed characters in the show, so they will be fine." Then they aren't, so you kind of understand why they were showing how dangerous the life they live is.
I actually figured the movie would go with a Blake's 7 ending.
Blake's 7, now there's a show that needs a reboot.
19970
Post by: Jadenim
There was some talk about Sky doing one not long after BSG finished it’s run, but it never seemed to go anywhere.
132
Post by: bbb
Kid_Kyoto wrote:Westerns were a dominant genre in TV, movies, novels, radio, pulps and plays for 100 years. Transplanting those tropes to In Space worked well and I can see it working again.
**cough**Mandalorian**cough**
35310
Post by: the_scotsman
 bbb wrote: Kid_Kyoto wrote:Westerns were a dominant genre in TV, movies, novels, radio, pulps and plays for 100 years. Transplanting those tropes to In Space worked well and I can see it working again.
**cough**Mandalorian**cough**
Because as we all know, when something works really well once Hollywood never tries to find some other existing property that allows them to release the same thing altered slightly to appeal to the same consumers.
181
Post by: gorgon
Vulcan wrote: gorgon wrote: Vulcan wrote: Flinty wrote:Or it is in fact amazingy well written such that the viewers can empathise with both sides and it shows how many shades of grey can occur even in a situation where good and bad should be black and white.
The original Galactica was charmingly 70s. The updated one was a totally different type of show.
How does one empathize genocidal villains, and heroes that manage to out-villain them? I can't think of any groups in history that attempted or committed genocide that are worthy of my empathy, why are these different?
Really, the reboot BSG was not BSG. It used the same names, but really was a completely different show and should have been done WITHOUT any reference to BSG. Call it 'Complete Jerks Being Killed By Genocidal Robots' or some such.
More than anything else, the BSG reboot reminded me of the 1995 movie First Knight. They took names from Arthurian legend, tossed all the staples of the legends, stories, and previous movies, and created an AWFUL movie. Lancelot, the perfect knight... as a rogue and thief? Say what?
Just as awful as Commander Tigh going from a total professional to a drunken incompetent, or Lieutenant Starbuck going from a charming scoundrel to an insubordinate jerk (and worse). Base slander on the original characters.
If you're going to completely re-write the story, the characters, and even the basic concept to that extent, go the extra step and make up your own names. Don't try to sell it using an existing franchise if you're not going to do honor the pre-existing material.
Oh, stop the "X wasn't X" talk. The title screen said BSG, so that's what it was. Doesn't matter that YOU didn't like it -- BSG is what everyone involved in the show worked hard to create. The majority of fans and critics would probably argue that it's one of the best executed reboots ever. Because like the best cover songs (very interesting that Hendrix's 'All Along the Watchtower' is considered to be that), it's familiar yet genuinely offers something new. Creators have the right to re-interpret older material. Some of the best storytelling comes that way.
If you don't like the newer BSG, that's fine and you can go re-watch the originals any time you want. But let's be real about the 'existing franchise'. It was a single season back in the '70s that even a lot of Gen Xers never saw. How much of a 'franchise' was there?
The point remains that if you change the names involved, even the people who HAD seen the previous entry would never have connected the two together. It wasn't a re-imagining at all; it was something completely different and only linked to the original by those names.
The captain of an aircraft carrier in space leads a ragtag fleet of civilian ships on a quest to find the lost planet Earth after their colonies are destroyed by a peacetime sneak attack by their robot adversaries. That's completely recognizable.
Some characters being different in their execution doesn't make the show 'unrecognizable'. Even Starbuck is *recognizable* as the cards-playing, cigar-chomping, somewhat promiscuous hotshot top pilot in the fleet and best friend to Apollo. Kara Thrace is certainly more troubled than the Dirk Benedict version, but it's also a much more interesting character. Old Starbuck was a cartoon character that probably had more character development in one episode of Galactica 1980 than in the entire single season of BSG.
You're obviously completely entitled to like whichever version you want. I just don't know how you can argue that 'it's not BSG'. It is...it's just not the version you prefer.
64581
Post by: Jerram
A series is more than just a summary, title and names. It's themes, its tone, its which emotional strings does it pull.
As someone who initially skipped the first season of NuBSG in annoyance, I still ended up enjoying most of it but think it would have been better if they had expanded the property instead of cannibalizing it. Why not follow the Pegasus or heaven forbid expand to a different Battle Star. Could have dropped all sorts of easter eggs hinting that the cylons were dividing they're attention elsewhere, would have been neat.
113031
Post by: Voss
Thats an interesting idea, but with most shows, themes and tone vary (sometimes even wildly) from episode to episode. Most can't manage a consistency that stays the same over the course of series.
181
Post by: gorgon
Jerram wrote:A series is more than just a summary, title and names. It's themes, its tone, its which emotional strings does it pull.
As someone who initially skipped the first season of NuBSG in annoyance, I still ended up enjoying most of it but think it would have been better if they had expanded the property instead of cannibalizing it. Why not follow the Pegasus or heaven forbid expand to a different Battle Star. Could have dropped all sorts of easter eggs hinting that the cylons were dividing they're attention elsewhere, would have been neat.
I don't know that the themes between the two series are completely different. The reboot is more intense about them, I think. But that would have happened *to some degree* even if Richard Hatch had gotten his continuation project off the ground. TV changed a lot in the 25-30 years between series.
Regarding a continuation series, creators will always want more freedom, not less, and ditching perceived baggage will help grant that. The cold, hard math is that the original property was never valuable enough to keep as-is. Like I said, even a lot of Gen Xers never saw this one-season show of mixed quality that basically completely faded from non-geek public consciousness (and even many geeks weren't *truly* familiar with it beyond the basic concept). That's an easy full reboot...we're not talking about a sprawling IP with deep roots like SW/ ST, etc.
21313
Post by: Vulcan
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Dreadwinter wrote:
Then the movie happens and you are like "They NEVER killed characters in the show, so they will be fine." Then they aren't, so you kind of understand why they were showing how dangerous the life they live is.
I actually figured the movie would go with a Blake's 7 ending.
Blake's 7, now there's a show that needs a reboot.
There was a sequel book; Avon and Villa managed to survive, but I don't remember the details of how.
518
Post by: Kid_Kyoto
Well almost finished with my rewatch., minus 2 episodes. Somehow one of the DVDs will only show one episode, have to try it on my computer tonight.
's a good show. Deserves its place in the canon, and yeah, deserved a lot more seasons.
The movie Serenity is interesting, if we assume that it's a summarized version of season 2 than some of my concerns would have been answered. Inara and Book left the boat (their rationales for being there were always a bit weak) but reoccur as characters, Wash dies (so does Book), we get answers about River etc.
Simon Tam seems to know a lot more about River in Serenity, presumably he'd have learned that stuff in S1 and 2 but in the film he just knows and never mentioned it.
Thinking about it the sheer number of survivable gun wounds (almost literally one per episode) can be hand waved as superior medical tech. Maybe they could have included a line about it somewhere...
Apparently word of God is the series happened in one solar system with no FTL which I think is a mistake. There's a great line about no matter how far the alliance spreads we'll just move out a little farther, which only works if there's an endless frontier. Plus it makes the idea of the missing planet Miranda kind of... not doable. I prefer the idea they did have some limited FTL, that big flash of light from the Firefly's tail being a jump. But whatever. I do like how they avoided technobabble.
But then again if the Verse is just one solar system it raises other interesting questions like how did humanity get there? Generation ships or is there FTL tech locked away somewhere? And are there other colonized solar systems out there, that maybe took another development path?
So yeah, I can see how fans get lost down the Firefly rabbit hole. There is more here than 'Buffy in the Old West in Space'.
104890
Post by: ScarletRose
Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Apparently word of God is the series happened in one solar system with no FTL which I think is a mistake. There's a great line about no matter how far the alliance spreads we'll just move out a little farther, which only works if there's an endless frontier. Plus it makes the idea of the missing planet Miranda kind of... not doable. I prefer the idea they did have some limited FTL, that big flash of light from the Firefly's tail being a jump. But whatever. I do like how they avoided technobabble.
But then again if the Verse is just one solar system it raises other interesting questions like how did humanity get there? Generation ships or is there FTL tech locked away somewhere? And are there other colonized solar systems out there, that maybe took another development path?
So yeah, I can see how fans get lost down the Firefly rabbit hole. There is more here than 'Buffy in the Old West in Space'.
Having glanced at the maps in the RPG for Serenity apparently it's a trinary star system - a binary pair of stars in the center with a red dwarf (that has it's own separate set of planets) orbiting at the edge.
And it all fits in 30 AU, which is ridiculously small.
I think a reboot that's going anywhere will have to rewrite the cosmology. Limited FTL and make the whole thing maybe 3,000 AU - a cluster of 3 stars grouped together in a bigger empty area.
3309
Post by: Flinty
On the FTL side of things, I think they avoided it to give space for the episodes that have them drifting about away from the normal trade routes. Of course there would be ways to make that fit with FTL as well, probably along the lines of 40ks system of having to jump to the outskirts of a system and sublight in.
Then again, at the sublight velocities required to wander about reasonably in a space of 30AUs, it seems unlikely that achieving an interception velocity mid-journey would be worth the fuel.required to achieve the required delta-v.
518
Post by: Kid_Kyoto
I think they handled it well, keeping it vague about core worlds and outer worlds and never getting into the mechanics.
Frankly there's no reason they can't keep that up and just ignore any RPG or comics or other auxiliary materials.
1206
Post by: Easy E
I mean, for story telling purposes; you just need to know there ARE Core Worlds and there ARE frontier worlds.
For the story, not much else matters.
8617
Post by: Hulksmash
Its been confirmed its going to follow Zo and Wash's kid who captains the serenity now. A lot is going to depend on the writing and new cast. But itll allow for cameos.
77922
Post by: Overread
 Hulksmash wrote:Its been confirmed its going to follow Zo and Wash's kid who captains the serenity now. A lot is going to depend on the writing and new cast. But itll allow for cameos.
Well that's at least a minor ray of hope that they are sticking with some continuity of the original series whilst giving breathing room to change everything
21313
Post by: Vulcan
Just imagine how much more run down the Serenity is by then. Eek!
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Hulksmash wrote:Its been confirmed its going to follow Zo and Wash's kid who captains the serenity now. A lot is going to depend on the writing and new cast. But itll allow for cameos.
Can we get a source for this?
Sorry to be a negative Norris, but I’m always suspicious of single website reports. It’s not a reflection on you of course, you’re just passing it on.
63623
Post by: Tannhauser42
Easy E wrote:I mean, for story telling purposes; you just need to know there ARE Core Worlds and there ARE frontier worlds.
For the story, not much else matters.
Unfortunately, today's sci-fi geeks need to know everything, every detail. Everything must be analyzed and catalogued to ensure that each new episode does not violate the established canon.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
Yes, exhausting isn't it?
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Tannhauser42 wrote: Easy E wrote:I mean, for story telling purposes; you just need to know there ARE Core Worlds and there ARE frontier worlds.
For the story, not much else matters.
Unfortunately, today's sci-fi geeks need to know everything, every detail. Everything must be analyzed and catalogued to ensure that each new episode does not violate the established canon.
I remember when a youtuber said in his defense of Dark Souls 2, where the story is fractured and doesn't make sense "it's a geeks worst nightmare, a game where everything can't be put into a wiki"
93221
Post by: Lance845
Tannhauser42 wrote: Easy E wrote:I mean, for story telling purposes; you just need to know there ARE Core Worlds and there ARE frontier worlds.
For the story, not much else matters.
Unfortunately, today's sci-fi geeks need to know everything, every detail. Everything must be analyzed and catalogued to ensure that each new episode does not violate the established canon.
Mostly thats just SW geeks. People are perfectly happy to not have every single detail of every characters lives explained ad naseum in the MCU or other geek properties. But at this point SW is more content explaining minutia in detail then anything else.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Oh god it’s not just me!
Are we a supplier group now?
104890
Post by: ScarletRose
Lance845 wrote: Tannhauser42 wrote: Easy E wrote:I mean, for story telling purposes; you just need to know there ARE Core Worlds and there ARE frontier worlds.
For the story, not much else matters.
Unfortunately, today's sci-fi geeks need to know everything, every detail. Everything must be analyzed and catalogued to ensure that each new episode does not violate the established canon.
Mostly thats just SW geeks. People are perfectly happy to not have every single detail of every characters lives explained ad naseum in the MCU or other geek properties. But at this point SW is more content explaining minutia in detail then anything else.
I'm not sure the MCU is really the best example - there's literally thousands of pages of comics for the people who care what Spiderman's favorite sandwich is or whatever. The minutia is simply in a different medium than the main property.
Also sci-fi geeks have been talking about the intricacies of their favorite setting/series forever. Star Trek fans in the 60s may not have had the internet but they were just as particular about every aspect of their preferred sci-fi series as any SW fan is today.
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
hotsauceman1 wrote: Tannhauser42 wrote: Easy E wrote:I mean, for story telling purposes; you just need to know there ARE Core Worlds and there ARE frontier worlds.
For the story, not much else matters.
Unfortunately, today's sci-fi geeks need to know everything, every detail. Everything must be analyzed and catalogued to ensure that each new episode does not violate the established canon.
I remember when a youtuber said in his defense of Dark Souls 2, where the story is fractured and doesn't make sense "it's a geeks worst nightmare, a game where everything can't be put into a wiki"
That explains why Dark Souls 2 is my favorite entry in that series.
81438
Post by: Turnip Jedi
I refer you to Homers rebuttal of the Itchy and Scratchy ribcage xylophone conundrum
Although keeping my list of gak klaxons Youtubers in need of a good belt sanding to the face fully up to date is kind of tiring
44272
Post by: Azreal13
Hulksmash wrote:Its been confirmed its going to follow Zo and Wash's kid who captains the serenity now. A lot is going to depend on the writing and new cast. But itll allow for cameos.
This idea is a new comic series launching next March, not connected to any TV show at all AFAICS.
518
Post by: Kid_Kyoto
Damn it when we will they finally tell us what State Springfield is in! I'm tired of all the clues and teases!
58873
Post by: BobtheInquisitor
Kid_Kyoto wrote:Damn it when we will they finally tell us what State Springfield is in! I'm tired of all the clues and teases!
I saw an interview back in 97 where Matt Groenig and a couple of the other writers were laughing about that very question, but it turned out one of them had an answer. In an early episode, we see a brief glimpse of Homer’s license with the letters NT under state. One of the writers admitted it was his joke, standing for “North Tacoma”.
105418
Post by: John Prins
I missed this thread earlier, and all I can say is 'meh'.
They can't recapture the original - the group chemistry made the show, and I doubt they can replicate that.
But they can't ruin it either. It was brief and glorious and it died before it had a chance to run out of ideas or be meddled with by executives. It wasn't ruined by resolving the romantic tensions or by any great character reformations (just a bit of nudges in directions), and Serenity pretty much wrapped up the show in a satisfactory manner.
|
|
