New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Firefly - Page 4

post #91 of 104
Fox shat on 'Undeclared' and 'The Tick', so I expect nothing good from them.

As far as giving Trek shows a chance, I watched 'Enterprise' for 4 eps then quit. I gave it another chance with the season-ender and the 2nd season premiere, but I don't see myself sticking with it for more than another ep or 2.

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #92 of 104
Quote:
It's funny that some people, me among them, will give an average sci-fi show like Enterprise more than a season to prove it's worth. Yet with Firefly some people don't want to give the thing more than a couple of episodes. SO how long would we give it with the ST brand? Or are we happier to watch a show when we know it'll be around for 7 years? At least Firefly will have to earn a full/2nd season.


It has more to do that people have a history with Trek, so any Trek show is going to get the benefit of the doubt from Trek fans. Same with JMS fans and Crusade or Jeremiah. The same will be true of Joss fans. I'm sure most will faithfully watch the show all season.

It is those of us who are not members of these groups that don't have as much invested in it. For us, if it doesn't grab on, why should we waste time with more than a couple of episodes?

BTW, I have already given up on Enterprise. I only went out of the way to watch the premere, and watch other episodes if I was home, and wasn't impressed.

Jason
post #93 of 104
What's Legend?
post #94 of 104
I kept thinking I was watching Brisco County, Jr.

Where is Bruce? We need Bruce!!



Overall, I liked it. Especially the subtle but sarcastic humor.. Much like Stargate SG-1. At the end I too was thinking "Oh great. This is setting up a long running plot line of the bad guy trying to find the crew." I was pleasantly surprised by the outcome
post #95 of 104
Quote:
It's funny that some people, me among them, will give an average sci-fi show like Enterprise more than a season to prove it's worth. Yet with Firefly some people don't want to give the thing more than a couple of episodes. SO how long would we give it with the ST brand? Or are we happier to watch a show when we know it'll be around for 7 years?
There are actually a bunch of people who at least make noise about "why should we commit to a show if we don't know it'll be around in six weeks?"; I've never really understood that. I mean, if it's entertaining now, it's worth it, right?

Conversely, the "hey, your average 'Star Trek' series takes two years to find its feet so watch it in case it gets good" argument doesn't sway me much. TV's a darwinian environment, so shows should be good from minute one.

Quote:
Fox shat on 'Undeclared' and 'The Tick', so I expect nothing good from them.
Other than at least a few weeks of a show you enjoyed. It's not like Fox is notably worse than other networks in this regard. At least they're not UPN - Fox does actually at least try to program good, unique shows and hope that they find more than a niche audience. What other network even takes a chance on "The Tick"?

Quote:
What's Legend?
A "Gadget Western" a la "Wild Wild West" and "Brisco" that ran on UPN for a few months. Starred Richard Dean Anderson (when he was still squeamish about using a gun) and John de Lancie, was written by former Star Trek guy Mike Piller, and featured probably a few more Trek in-jokes than was good for it. It had some charm, like Anderson's authentic Old West facial hair, but suffered by being too soon after "Brisco" and not nearly as good.
post #96 of 104
Quote:
Other than at least a few weeks of a show you enjoyed. It's not like Fox is notably worse than other networks in this regard.

Personally, I think Fox has a knack for putting great shows in a very wrong time slot and/or promoting them in the wrong manner. Worse than other networks.

Of course, this is subjective and we can argue it until we are blue in the face.
post #97 of 104
I guess the point I was trying to make was that I'd rather have Fox than ABC or UPN, neither of which makes much of an attempt to actually make great (or at least non-derivative) shows.

Of course, I'd rather Fox had marketers as good as their series-development people (who are, generally, remarkably good/daring), too. That Fox puts good shows on, to me, greatly outweighs that they have a hard time selling them.
post #98 of 104
Is it that Fox is canceling great shows more than any other network or is it that Fox is overall trying more great shows then any other network? I mean, for a lot of people, Alias is the only reason they watch ABC. Likewise, I couldn't care less about NBC if it weren't for Will & Grace and ER. CBS is at least making an attempt to break free of their image as a stodgy old station for old people. But Fox as the newest of the Big Four generates every season more great pilots that any other network. There's countless shows that have failed and countless more that have done well that I have loved over the years. The WB is starting to do some great stuff too, but still nothing with the versatility of Fox. As for UPN, they spend the bulk of their programming devoted to a perceived "urban" audience, with resultant shows that are little better than the blaxplotation films of the 70's. The only good comedy they had, "The Hughleys" (which actually benefitted from UPN's nothing-to-lose attitude over former host ABC's oppressive family restrictions) was canceled after last season. (Fox, in turn, caters to the African American audience instead of insulting it. Bernie Mac is a very watchable show, and Cedric the Entertainer is supposed to be decent as well.) The only show I'm even remotely interested in this season is the Twilight Zone, and if it doesn't blow me away in the next two episodes, that's done to "Birds of Prey."

To sum it all up, Fox consistently tries more interesting and diverse programming than any other network. They should be commended for trying, not disparaged for the inevitable cancellation.
post #99 of 104
The Show was certainly interesting enough for me to watch a few more.
post #100 of 104
I wonder what Ben Edlund's role is (I mean, beyond Producer) with Firefly? How much has he contributed to the process? Certainly the show felt like a Joss show and not some composite between Joss and Tick. Is he going to pen stuff or just produce? In Joss shows, people usually do multiple roles be it producing, directing, and as with Buffy the Musical, singing and dancing (honest). Being a big fan of at least the animated Tick (the live show, while nice to look at didn't really match the same level as the animated or comic book) it would be nice to see Ben's stamp on the show.

Maybe Jayne will yell "Spoooooon!" when he jumps into combat the next time.


Phil
post #101 of 104
I think Ben Edlund was brought in to watch over the humor, which is quite Jossian.

The Buffy/Angel crew already have their voice. Firefly is still finding its, and he needed someoen competant to watch over it

The only thing I worry about is that he's going to write a cliffhanger and not resolve it untile 3 seasons later
post #102 of 104
Cliffhanger about what? The blue hands? Or just take 3 seasons to resolve the main stories of the characters?


Phil
post #103 of 104
I think what this show also needs is something that hasn't been done too often in television (beyond actor pricing snafus) is more of a changing cast. While the appeal of a television show is often with people identifying with characters over time, I think it has been a Joss tradition to change people and get rid of some to spice things up. Beyond the big three, there have been tons of changes to the Buffy cast that have only, IMHO, added to the value of the show. My fear with Firefly is that while all these cast members are "passengers" they may never get off the ship. I can see why the medic will hang around and the main crew, but as much as I like Ron Glass and that wonderful eyeful of the prostitute, I can see them stretching character credibility to keep them on forever just 'cause they are cool.

They need more people to keep people guessing as to who will make it, who will turn evil/good, who is relevant. That was Star Trek's big problem to some extent. The crew of the Enterprise was filled with what was considered "the best of the best" or at least they implied that. But because of the show being a job, actors aren't going to up and leave because it would make sense to do so. Riker, the best Number One in Starfleet never left the ship even though he should have long ago (yes, they addressed this, but had lame expectations for him staying). At least with the original series, they put forth the "Five Year Mission" that allowed the crew to stay together as if they were team out to finish the goal. The open-ended nature of series television makes it hard to rotate casts, but I think a string of wildly inventive characters (a Joss AND Ben speciality) is what can make or break this show.


There...that should hold me until this Friday.

Phil
post #104 of 104
Well, now that I've seen the 2 hour pilot, I must say that they aired the wrong episode. While "Serenity" doesn't have too much in the way of action, it does set up the characters very well. "Train Job" seems to take place directly after "Serenity" and it shows. I know Serenity is going to be aired mid-season, but it just doesn't make sense, since it's at its core, an "origin" episode. Anyway, while I was planning on tuning in this Friday after seeing Train Job, my anticipation has only increased after seeing Serenity.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Archived Threads 2001-2004

Gear mentioned in this thread: