I thought Firefly was a bit shit tbh

[Clownbaby]

I know a lot of people who are right into all the Sci fi series and live for Joss Whedon. They think I'm mad cause I think Firefly is a bit naff and I can totally see why it was cancelled after the first series.

I was looking forward to checking out this tragically cut short gem but I ended up really disappointed and a bit confused with what the fuss was about. There's just something really clunky and ugly to me about it. It's like the This Is Jinsy of science fiction shows. I don't find it quite naff enough to be full on camp, so it's in a strange sort of middle area where it's neither here nor there for me. Am I missing something? Should I give it another chance?

[Golden E. Pump]

I'm not having that. I will fight you.

I will lose, but I'll fight you.

[Clownbaby]

I'm not having that. I will fight you.

I will lose, but I'll fight you.

Each to their own I guess, I just don't get it at all. People are so protective of it as well!

[to infect aside]

There was a horrible tweeness to it, from what I remember.

[Clownbaby]

There was a horrible tweeness to it, from what I remember.

Like all the worst aspects of Doctor Who made into a kids show, in tone

[Norton Canes]

Never seen it but the film was OK. Sort of like Blake's 7 without the bitching.

[Kelvin]

Yeah, the film's good fun. I never saw the series.

[Bhazor]

It had Christina Hendricks in her scanties. That's a minimum 8/10 for the series.

It also had well written characters was well directed and had some clever meta comedy here and there. It also had the standard Whedon witty banter but before it got really irritating.

[Pranet]

I think Joss Whedon's stuff has a tone you either get or don't. This isn't code for saying people are thick or not, I've known smart people who don't get it and thick people who do.

[Custard]

I watched it a few years ago, after reading all the hype. Yet in the complete opposite of the OP, I ended up really liking it. The film is pretty decent, too.

Dunno if I'll ever feel the urge to watch either again, mind. It wasn't compelling TV, just quite good TV

[NoSleep]

Yeah, the film's good fun. I never saw the series.

The film truncates what should have been the longer story arc (and its punchline) from the TV series. It's a pity it wasn't allowed the room to develop beyond the first season and I would guess what we do see suffers from pressure from without (Fox, wasn't it?). At that point in time TV series with longer developing story arcs (Breaking Bad, Game Of Thrones) hadn't really come into their own and Fox particularly liked the old school idea of TV series that deliver a beginning, middle and end in one episode (and reset for next week's adventure). I think it would have definitely moved into darker territory, given the chance to grow where the story was naturally going.

[Golden E. Pump]

Like all the worst aspects of Doctor Who made into a kids show, in tone

So basically all of Doctor Who replicated in its entirety?

[Clownbaby]

So basically all of Doctor Who replicated in its entirety?

Aye pretty much

[Endicott]

Yeah, the film's good fun. I never saw the series.

It's my personal favourite science fiction film, and I rate it as better than any Star Wars film. Mind you that's not saying that much.

The series was great, and bears re-watching even though it's so short.

[Z]

I assume it stood out a lot more in 2001 or whenever it was? It's since evolved into being an easy watch fairly mainstream thing with some faux-cult cool value that'll attract droves of teenagers.


Serenity's film poster always annoyed me and I'm not sure why.

[Ignatius_S]

I know a lot of people who are right into all the Sci fi series and live for Joss Whedon. They think I'm mad cause I think Firefly is a bit naff and I can totally see why it was cancelled after the first series...

Fox didn't wait that long – it was cancelled during the first season was being aired.

One reason was that it instantly wanted a big hit from Whedon – when Firefly wasn't, the plug was pulled.

That was very much standard operating practice in the US TV industry, if something wasn't perceived to have performed to what the suits wanted, a show was very often pulled

Gradually, (and this is something that I used to post about) this culture started to shift. One reason is that it's rather expensive doing this and there have been quite a few shows that could have been easily cancelled on the basis on their early days, but went to be huge. A couple of comedy examples are Seinfeld and Only Fools and Horses. Game of Thrones took a little while to establish itself as the hit it would be – although the HBO model isn't as dependent on viewing figures, think it's a good example.

Personally, I rather liked Firefly – nothing like as much as quite a few friends did – but it was entertaining and, for me, showed a lot of promise. Also, Whedon actually had a long-running story arc, rather than the usual 'we keep going until we get cancelled'. IIRC, decent characters played by a very decent cast (Adam Baldwin, was particularly entertainging.

Going from memory, but I think Buffy took a little while to find its feet – Star Trek: The Next Generation certainly did, but end up a hugely successful shows with lots of lovely syndication. It can be hard to properly assess a show on the strength of a first season.

Also, there's the other side of the coin when a great first season gives no indication of the horrors in store for the next one. Murder One is a super example. The Ed O'Neill reboot of Dragnet isn't quite as super (the first season is solid, rather than outstanding) but still worth citing.

[Gulftastic]

I initially was resistant to watching it, as I blamed it for distracting Whedon and leading to the drop in quality of Buffy season 6, then I bought the boxset and watched and fell in love. It could have been one of the great sci-fi shows. Superb cast, who seemed to love working together. Iconic status beckoned.

I always wonder what Wash's death was like for those who saw the film before the TV series. I remember feeling numb in the cinema. I thought Shepherd Book might be the only death we'd get, but when Wash went, it ripped my heart out. Without knowing the character as well as I did from the episodes, what would it have been like?

[bgmnts]

Whedon is a mega cunt but Firefly is quite good. Probably bolstered by the fact it was binned.

[Mister Six]

I always wonder what Wash's death was like for those who saw the film before the TV series. I remember feeling numb in the cinema. I thought Shepherd Book might be the only death we'd get, but when Wash went, it ripped my heart out. Without knowing the character as well as I did from the episodes, what would it have been like?

As someone who watched Serenity first: kind of disappointing because he was obviously the fun, carefree character and Adam Tudyk is charismatic, but not really heart-wrenching. Just "Oh! I didn't expect that."

When Book died my mate said, "I thought he was supposed to be Obi Wan, but it turns out he's Luke's aunt and uncle." That's about as emotional as his death got.

Serenity doesn't really work independently from the series. The characters aren't really fighting for anything until about halfway through the film (when they have to stop the transmission that's doing whatever it is), and aside from the cast being so likeable there's not much reason to care what happens to any of them before that point.

Having watched and really enjoyed Firefly since, I retrospectively "get" it better than I did before, but Whedon's hopes that it would reignite the franchise by connecting with people who never saw the show really were misplaced.

(Also, since someone mentioned the tone, she series does become markedly darker towards the final episodes, in what was clearly an intentional shift - but it actually put me off it a bit...)

[Bhazor]

My biggest problem with the show and my feeling why the IP was left to die is that it's just pretty shallow as a setting. It really is just those six characters and without Whedon's direction it would just be fuck all left. Remember the MMORPG that was supposed to be happening? It would be like making an MMO based on Seinfeld. Certainly in contrast to Farscape which was on at the same time and was filled with all sorts of mad daft bullshit.

[Twit 2]

Joss Whedon makes shit for cunts, not much more analysis needed. Watched a bit of Firefly once and turned it off because it was shit. I kinda get what he tries to do, but it's shit. Not sure why I'm bothering posting this - thanks Joss!

[Alberon]

I had high hopes going into the series, but it was clunky as fuck. The characters were largely cliches (sorry but they were) and the whole setup clearly hadn't been thought through much beyond 'Space Western'.

I stuck with it as, has been said, television SF was a bit thin on the ground back then. Towards the end of its season it started to pick up and the film was good, but it really does not deserve its reputation as a lost classic.

[Clownbaby]

Joss Whedon makes shit for cunts, not much more analysis needed. Watched a bit of Firefly once and turned it off because it was shit. I kinda get what he tries to do, but it's shit. Not sure why I'm bothering posting this - thanks Joss!

YES. Shite.

I had high hopes going into the series, but it was clunky as fuck. The characters were largely cliches (sorry but they were) and the whole setup clearly hadn't been thought through much beyond 'Space Western'.

I stuck with it as, has been said, television SF was a bit thin on the ground back then. Towards the end of its season it started to pick up and the film was good, but it really does not deserve its reputation as a lost classic.

Totally agree. It just felt so "made up" to me. I know every TV show/film/whatever is technically made up, but sometimes you just can't get immersed in the made up thing, which is what I got with Firefly. It didn't feel complete. The actors were likeable and ok I guess, but it is not the trailblazing gem people hold it up to be (I think)

[chveik]

Joss Whedon makes shit for cunts, not much more analysis needed. Watched a bit of Firefly once and turned it off because it was shit. I kinda get what he tries to do, but it's shit. Not sure why I'm bothering posting this - thanks Joss!

You didn't need to bother. Whedon is a genius, and Firefly is great.

[Deyv]

I enjoyed Firefly a lot the first time I saw it, and the film's good too. Adam Baldwin is probably the best thing in the series, which is surprising because he's the worst thing in real life. The prostitute character was very underwritten though. If anyone wants me, I'll be in my bunk.

[Twit 2]

You didn't need to bother. Whedon is a genius, and Firefly is great.

Now, now. Goethe, Bach, da Vinci, Leopardi, Newton etc etc were geniuses. Joss Whedon writes middle-of-the- road, tongue-in-cheek comic book fare, for an audience (mostly) made of fuckless, artless berks. The guy who cooks the pakora at my favoured Indian probably has an equivalent amount of craft. Is he a genius then? WELL, IS HE?

[mothman]

I liked it. But. It's probably more fondly remembered because it had so untimely an end. Like I always say, if John Lennon hadn't been Chapmanned he'd probably be as much of an irrelevant embarrassment now as McCartney is. The initial reviews weren't great, even from SFX which was virtually a Buffy & Angel fanzine at that point.

The "Western in space" trope was laid on with a trowel. Given how much of a high-tech civilisation the 'Verse obviously was, it would have been easy to write off the ex-Browncoats and outlanders as just Space Crusties. Helpfully the Alliance were just so evil (often comic-villainously so) and wanted to be in charge of everything, without any of the responsibility that comes with such great power. They defeated the Browncoats just because they were a threat to their own authority, but after that all the people in the outlying territories could get tae fuck as far as the Alliance were concerned. The Alliance were... Space Tories! Plus the Alliance ships, uniforms etc. looked rubbish and cheap - rebooting the Alliance's "look" in Serenity was a smart move.

I still wonder if the nature of the 'Verse was ever going to be fully explored - or explained. Was it really just one star system with about three-dozen planets? Or a very small stellar cluster or binary (or more) star system where everything was close enough together to not involve full-on interstellar travel (i.e. involving long-duration sublight journeys, or some magical FTL capability - which none of the ships appeared to have)?

[chveik]

Now, now. Goethe, Bach, da Vinci, Leopardi, Newton etc etc were geniuses. Joss Whedon writes middle-of-the- road, tongue-in-cheek comic book fare, for an audience (mostly) made of fuckless, artless berks. The guy who cooks the pakora at my favoured Indian probably has an equivalent amount of craft. Is he a genius then? WELL, IS HE?

I don't see why you can't like Bach, Dostoievsky and Whedon at the same time. And I love all of them. Maybe it's a guilty pleasure but I don't really care. In any case I do like his series (not his films though), and I don't consider myself as a 'fuckless, artless berk'. WELL, SHOULD I?

[Deyv]

Where does one find these fuckless berks? I'd like to cure them.

Fair enough if you don't like his work, but if your problem is the audience Whedon's projects tend to attract, that's just sheer snobbery.

[Twit 2]

I don't see why you can't like Bach, Dostoievsky and Whedon at the same time. And I love all of them. Maybe it's a guilty pleasure but I don't really care. In any case I do like his series (not his films though), and I don't consider myself as a 'fuckless, artless berk'. WELL, SHOULD I?

Didn't say you couldn't like them both, just that calling him a genius is a bit much. If you're gonna use superlatives like that, what words are left to describe the likes of Mozart or Cezanne?

Where does one find these fuckless berks? I'd like to cure them.

Fair enough if you don't like his work, but if your problem is the audience Whedon's projects tend to attract, that's just sheer snobbery.

There's a chance I took an exaggerated position for comic effect.