Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

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 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.

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.

 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

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.

 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 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.

 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.

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.

 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

 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.

 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.

 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.

That assumes all people are rationale, people can be petty. especially if they have power.

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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

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)

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"

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.

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.

You know Battlestar Galactica was a reboot of a older series right?

 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.

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.