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.

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.

 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.

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.

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.

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.

 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?

 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.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
A good cast and good writing are basically what a show needs.

This. They're about 99% of the show's success.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 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.

 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.

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.

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.

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.

Has anyone seen corroboration on this rumour yet?

 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....

Kid Kyoto, the term you were looking for is “Golden Girls Archetypal Quartet”.

 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?

We all know it's going to be bad.

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.

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.

 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.

 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.

 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

 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 some talk about Sky doing one not long after BSG finished it’s run, but it never seemed to go anywhere.