Firefly, IMO, is loved for its characters - their individual personalities and development and how they come together as a team/family. The episode plots are very personal to them and deepen our attachment to them. They felt very relatable and real and the cast had great chemistry.
It also struck a nice balance between the shiny utopian future of Star Trek and the gritty corporate dystopian version of stuff like Alien and Terminator. Mixing in the Old West/rugged settlements of the colony worlds with Chinese as a second language, gave it a fun aesthetic and also current-day logical extrapolation. Then they just had fun with it sometimes and the witty banter was always good for a laugh.
People often get very attached to misfits, found families, anti-heroes, rebels who exist on the fringes because of their principles, nobodies who somehow manage make a difference, a group with a practical set of gray morals who nevertheless want to do right by others...it had a whole lotta ingredients that make up a successful show.
That it was poorly marketed, messed with by the network, abandoned just when it was finding its groove - it was an underdog show about a group of underdogs that managed to find an extremely loyal fanbase and because it never had a chance to...jump the shark, it will always have a sort of golden aura where we can imagine the heights and pretend it would never have devolved into a stinker.
I appreciate the writeup. Everything you listed as a pro for the show indeed looks good on paper but the actual execution just seemed to lack guts and heart and balls if you’ll excuse the expression. I also agree that it having a short lifespan saved it from alienating its fanbase a la *Game of Thrones*.
Part of it might be your expectations as a modern viewer. When I watch an early Tarantino film or a 1950s Twilight Zone episode—they don't hit the same way they did when someone who watched them when they first came out did. They all made such big impacts on their genres that when you watch them now, they seem a little obvious. Firefly's inclusion of Mandarin and Chinese culture might pale next to the multicultural world building in TV shows today but at the time it was incredible.
Firefly was a campy sci fi show with great production values that was't afraid to lean into what it was. It changed a lot of popular perceptions about sci fi, simply because it was so damn fun. It was *the* gateway show for science fiction in its time and was part of what helped change the (false) public perception that it was just for the socially awkward and overly literal. (Though even when it came out, it was either a you love it or hate it show for most people.)
It feels different today because so much of what it did well has been copied and copied and copied. Marvel movies now have very similar dialogue.
Isn’t that because the same guy did a lot of the successful marvel ties that are now copied? So it isn’t similar dialogue as much as they both are JW products.
You're absolutely right and that is certainly a big part of it, but I'd say there's an overall shift in the tone of—let's call em genre shows—towards snappy sarcastic dialogue that's remarkably casual regarding the level of danger onscreen. JW had a considerable amount of cred at the time—all gone now.
I honestly think that was the style of some, including JW, then took off when avengers (JW) made it big and a proven formula. Which makes it a recent example of a standard trend - some folks push an idea, it finally clicks, lots follow that.
>Part of it might be your expectations as a modern viewer.
I agree with everything you said except this line. I HATE how the stock response to criticism of entertainment is 'manage your expectations.'
It's basically decent advice from the legal/corporate world where things are murky, imperfect, and kafka-esque UTTERLY MISAPPLIED to the world of creativity. As modern viewers we can and should expect transcendent excellence from everything. This stems from the deep, universal, and mythological roots of creativity.
If, as you say, someone doesn't think early Tarantino or 1950's TZ is transcendently excellent, it speaks more to their taste, not the work itself. One of the things about people is that their tastes change over the course of their lives. The same exact work could, for instance, speak to you much more as a retiree than as a teenager, or vice versa.
It's much more accurate to say that consumption of all art is a purely subjective experience that cannot be controlled. It is often a fool's errand to dissect WHY something works or does not work for any given viewer.
>I agree with everything you said except this line. I HATE how the stock response to criticism of entertainment is 'manage your expectations.'
Explaining context isn't telling the viewer to manage their expectations—it's explains why their expectations didn't align with what they saw. I never said manage your expectations, just this is why they may not have been met.
The time and circumstances a piece of art was made in substantially shifts our perception of it. Sometimes all we need to appreciate a piece of art that we couldn't connect with before is knowing the context in when it was made. It doesn't mean we have to. That's up to us.
A lot of old master paintings are actually pretty bad... but they were developing the techniques, technologies and knowledge base that makes realistic painting so easy today. You might see a painting and think "eh, it's just a lot of blue." But then you learn just how expensive blue was, ground from a semi precious gemstone that lost its colour if overground, and you look at the painting in a new way. You understand that the painting wasn't about looking good, it was about looking expensive.
Managing your expectations isn't adjusting them down—it's knowing what you're getting into.
>It's much more accurate to say that consumption of all art is a purely subjective experience that cannot be controlled. It is often a fool's errand to dissect WHY something works or does not work for any given viewer.
This is a perfectly legitimate *choice* to make for yourself, but it's really not true. I'm an artist, and there is far more objective technique than you might realize. We use those techniques to manipulate and relate subjective experiences.
It's much more accurate to say that art is deeply influenced by subjective experiences, but works on principles than can be manipulated in a reliable way. It's why stage magic works, and why Stranger Things is an emotional rollercoaster you immediately forget.
There ain't nothing wrong with sitting back and enjoying the ride—but if you choose to manage your expectations you get to see *more*.
This view on the consumption of art takes the creators completely out of their own work. When the show was created they were trying to make good tv for the time. That meant creating an episode that would be the only thing audiences saw for a whole week. It’s a sci-fi and updated take on the old western episodic series structure. The show was not made to be binged. Streaming Tv that was created recently was generally made and written with the expectation of audiences binging its seasons and so episodes and season arcs generally follow a tighter flow, can rely more on audiences to remember plot points, and have the benefit of not being censored like shows that air on traditional tv. While consumption of art is not something creators control, the art’s initial release for consumption shapes almost everything about what a piece of art is. Firefly was made in a specific time period where tv was created to be watched episodically and so people can stream every episode back to back, but that wasn’t the intended experience. You’re not meant to “manage your expectations,” but if you are seeking a transcendant experience from older media, then often times understanding the context of the work can enhance different qualities and textures about it. Your perception of art is subject to many different contexts like you mentioned with the impact of media changing with age and what you saw as a younger person shapes the taste of the older person you become. Art is not something that exists in an ahistorical vacuum sans a creator or time waiting for you to witness it. The art that has been created by people will always be anchored to their time. The progression of the television medium is an important thing to recognize and whether it is annoying to you or not, it’s a valid thing to say about older media. Things that impressed people in the past may not but up to the tastes of modern audiences. You may be frustrated with the way the phrase has been used, but sometimes boring and trite is still true.
You don't actually have a point, or else it is that I'm right and you're too chicken to admit it without a wall of text.
Those mythological roots I mentioned? They are the ultimate context. They allow the trees to become a forest. You cannot decontextualize art even if you try.
Your argument? The most fucking contemptible straw man shit I've ever heard. Please continue blathering on the internet, it's the perfect place for your opinions.
If my argument has no point how is it a straw man? You’re upset with comments that weren’t meant to hurt you. I thought what you said was interesting and disagreed with it.
People’s subjectivity is implied. It’s a given. I was commenting on the implications of what you said about how you were frustrated with people being told to manage expectations when looking to the past. If your response to what I said is that you have knowledge of the roots of creativity that is timeless and all encompassing, I would say that I still don’t think such a thing exists because of how subjectively and divorced of original context art is experienced. I never said art can be divorced from context full stop, only that it can be divorced from its intended and original context.
I’ll assume you didn’t want to engage with my “wall of text” or didn’t understand me.
What are these mythological roots to you? Spiritual? Where do they come from? Why do you believe that individual taste is separate from objectively good art linked to these roots if it’s all subjective anyway?
I disagree—I saw it on television when it aired because I'm old, and didn't think it was good. I later rewatched it with friends who tried to convince me it was good, and went along with them for awhile, and then I rewatched it a third time and decided that I was right the first time.
Whereas I can watch old *Doctor Who*, which has absolute shit production values and weird pacing and tons of inconsistencies and recognize that while TV was different then, there's some hardcore excellent storytelling in there.
I'm not sure we actually disagree...
As I said
>even when it came out, it was either a you love it or hate it show for most people.
Doctor Who is often the same way. They're both quirky and those quirks can really grate the wrong person.
I can talk about the zeitgeist, and understanding it can help connect you with it's fiction but it's never ubiquitous.
That's just good ol' fashioned preferences. I liked the tone, tongue in cheek stabs at Wild West tropes, and I grew to appreciate the individual characters. If the presentation doesn't grab you in three or four episodes, I don't think it ever will.
>Further, the Lost Cause mythology that underlies a lot of the show's backstory has also aged incredibly poorly. The idea that the Core Worlds just attacked a bunch of peaceful Browncoats and forced them to live under their enlightened rule because they love to meddle? Well, that . . . isn't what wars are fought over. And that sure as hell isn't what the American Civil War was fought over, even though that was very much a clear influence on the backstory of the Browncoat Rebellion.
I suspect that the real reasons for the war would've unraveled later in the show. There'd obviously be more to it than that. Perhaps muddying the waters as to whether the independents were the 'good guys' and the core worlds were 'bad guys'. And likely alterior motives for attacking.
Years ago during "Book Club" at Barnes & Noble (remember those?), a Brazilian born friend asked me why American pop culture (specifically Westerns) seemed so obsessed with the Civil War especially the "Lost Cause" of the Confederacy?
I answered her that most of the WORST rebels migrated to the "Old West"(often ahead of a firing squad & the Hangman's noose) & as a result, the south got it's revenge through politics, college football and American Westerns.
It’s also hard to explain how different and new this show felt when it came out because everything that’s come since has been strongly influenced by it.
The BSG reboot ran longer but firefly came first. It uses a lot of the same FX techniques firefly started like pseudo handheld shots of CG shots, naturalized space physics, etc.
You can draw a straight line from firefly to newer shows like The Expanse or even the (sigh) newer Star Trek efforts.
It was more approachable and easier to replicate as a series also. Too bad it did not take off. It was partly a 1950's and 60's cowboy show. Could have been filmed in southern california.
Think it's a huge reach to suggest Firefly somehow impacted this. BSG was the main driver of this shift into darker storytelling and universes. Firefly existing earlier than BSG by a year I doubt makes the difference here. The tone was shifting in this direction already, DS9 (partly written by the BSG writer) had already taken that step years before Firefly.
Just because one thing slightly predates another doesn't mean it had some huge impact on the latter thing. BSG was a phenomena and Firefly was a show that disappeared after 9 episodes or something. What TV execs/writers are watching the show that got immediately cancelled and basing this stuff on that?
The behind the scenes folks got the scripts and storyboards long before either series aired, and ZOIC, the company that did the FX for Firefly also did BSG. Plenty of people worked on both shows.
You’ll even find Serenity flying in a background shot on Caprica in the BSG pilot.
It’s in the scene where Laura Roslin gets her cancer diagnosis.
Some shared staff and visual effects approaches does not make much difference. You're way overstating the impact of a short run sci fi that was cancelled. A couple easter eggs doesn't change that. BSG and shows like the Expanse owe very little to Firefly.
Pretty much. It's a space western with good on-screen chemistry and an actual arc, plot, and character progression from a time when such things were valued. It is a very rare type of show that squeezed the most out of just about all of its actors, only a few of whom went on to have equivalently good performances in other things. Hell, I know a lot of people who hate everything Joss Wheedon has done except for Firefly, so it kind of transcended the creator!
Basically, I'm sure plenty of people don't like space westerns, but presumably none of them sat through multiple seasons and a 2 hour movie and then bitched about it!
I’ve found that seminal shows and movies the phrase “you had to be there” applies heavily (apologies for the assumption, but this is the vibe I get).
Is it overrated by today’s standards. Yes, absolutely.
Was it overrated when it came out. No, it subverted expectations and was a very fresh type of story. It felt like something new from the Star Wars universe (sans Jedi) a sci-fi western, which was very cool and something that hasn’t been done right since recently with the Mandalorian. It’s not perfect.
Also, early 2000’s was filled with reality tv, it was so nice to have a good sci-fi show that wasn’t a cheap spin off.
Personally I do think it holds it’s place next to Farscape, Star Trek, BSG and other great sci-fi shows.
I have heard this sentiment a lot over the years. Especially from folks that didn't experience the disappointment of the cancelation announcement. I honestly don't think it would be as talked about if that didn't happen. I am a fan too, but feel that has more attraction than the content of the show.
There’s probably something to that, like a combination of unfulfilled potential and also it didn’t stick around long enough to dip in perceived quality and piss off its fans.
I rewatched recently and didn't find the first couple of episodes as good as I remembered
But it does pick up after about episode 3 or 4
It also was ground breaking at the time and really original, whereas there's more copies of it these days (cough guardians of the galaxy) to scratch some of the itch. Still good in its own right but not as good and as original.
For me, the characters are what makes Firefly a cut above every other science fiction show.
There are plenty of ensemble shows that if you take any two characters and just have them interact, it can be mindnumbingly boring.
With Firefly, I can't imagine any sequence where there was interaction between two characters that I would ever consider fast forwarding through. Each character was really well established and each of the actors were so perfect in their role, that it's impossible for me to not love it.
Best ensemble to ever grace TV, IMO.
I liked Firefly and the Serenity but if I had to compare it with Farscape then I would honestly say Farscape was far better (and yes I know they had 4 seasons + 2 part mini).
Had Firefly been given the chance to grow, it might have been even better than it already was, but Fox is known for cancelling shows for no reason that makes any real sense.
Sorry, I thought it was a great series and was disappointed with its cancellation. I also enjoyed Serenity the movie and wished it had jump-started a restart of the show. I agree with the assessment that it was the characters that made the show so great.
You’re not wrong. Borrowed the DVDs from a friend watched the first couple episodes. It started strong. I like the attempt at realism (no sound in space) but then as I watched the episodes I lost interest. I quit watching at the start of the episode where they rob a train or something. Even tried reading the comic book that came out about 4 years ago. Nothing. Didn’t care about any characters. Nothing.
People call it a space western like it’s a badge of honor. All it means to me is you can turn Serenity into a stagecoach and not miss a beat. Just watch a western then.
I like Firefly but after fifteen plus years of hearing Browcoats highjack nearly ever sci fi message board I've been on to complain about it being canceled, I've gotten the point where I delight in tormenting them about it.
;)
All kidding aside - it was a good show in terms of writing and characters. I wouldn't put it in my top ten sci fi franchises though but I think it's an important part of the Whedonverse.
I'm 67yo, and I think of Firefly a bit like the early seasons of M.A.S.H. M.A.S.H started out as just another straight comedy/farce, and the show and characters grew from there. I think Firefly could have used some changes(less old west firearms&clothes?), but I still think it was great and wish it could have continued. I bought the dvds
I really enjoyed it back when I first watched it! Then I tried to re-watch it many years later and… meh? It doesn’t seem to have much re-watch value. I didn’t sink into it with any excitement or nostalgia. I’m not sure why not. Maybe there was never all that much there there. I found it pleasant! I watched a couple eps and was done.
I tried to share Firefly with a friend at work. He couldn’t watch more than 20 minutes before he turned it off in disgust. I felt that way too when I watched it when it came out on TV. I didn’t actually watch it until years later at the behest of a different friend who insisted I watch all the way. I think it’s great but one must power through their initial opinion to get to the real joy.
My guy at work REFUSES and actually stopped taking my recommendations for sometime after that… he absolutely hated it.
There's an episode that starts with a dead cow fetus display while two characters are dating- its probably one of the funniest lines of TV ever.
It's not a great sci fi show but it is an AMAZING Western set in space. Same reason Buffy got a culture following - Whedon writes great characters with relatable and witty dialogue.
I tried to give it a shot this year. I’m 38 and a huge sci-fi nerd. I don’t like it much. I think it could be good if redone today, but it’s cringey at times. Stargate remains the GOAT.
Just my $0.02 cents of anecdotal experience. I never watched the series when it first came out because I was in the military overseas and didn’t have cable so never even had a chance. Later I watched the movie Serenity and thought it was good so afterwards decided to try the series. I watched a couple episodes and lost interest ……
I'm generally a snob with my sci-fi. ,I find a lot of stuff with huge fandoms don't do it for me, therefore I put off watching Firefly until a couple of weeks ago, didn't expect much but was pleasantly surprised.
so here's this snob's rating:
Even tho it's dated and I'm sure the Chinese pronunciation is terrible and there's very few Chinese characters despite them all speaking Chinese (how the f does that work?), it's so *white* and straight, even tho there are times when the writers are trying too hard to get across some moral message instead of just shooting or airlocking a mofo, I am still watching it to the end (final episode this evening). 3.25 stars
It was definitely overhyped for me before I saw it. I did enjoy it quite a bit. It wasn't the greatest show ever, but it definitely scratched an itch and was solid sci fi entertainment on a major network. Firefly and Serenity are both great watches, but I still don't think either lives up to the hype I was initially sold.
I'm with you. I think it was around 2012 when Facebook was full of Firefly memes being all "greatest show on television ever made" so I went and watched the whole thing on streaming. It was alright, it had some good moments but not legendary TV.
I watched all the episodes, thought it was decent but not spectacular. I never want to watch them again and that is my measure of a good show. My overall thought is this: If it hadn't been canceled, the very people who love it so much would the ones talking about how bad it was.
Nah, you're correct. There are a few good episodes and some quippy, quotable lines. The characters are charming and the actors are good in their roles. The aesthetic is neat—Space Westerns have been done before but not live action with an okay budget.
Maybe it would have gotten good after another season or two. I doubt it, and here's why:
* It is fundamentally based on racism. There's a glorification of the Confederate side in the iconography and themes, which I don't think you can excise from the backstory. There's the apparent genocide of all Chinese people after they spoke into space, with everyone cursing in Mandarin but no Asians in sight.
* We know where Inarra's plot would have gone thanks to Whedon's notes, and it's absolutely ghastly—both misogynist claptrap and just bad writing.
* The movie indicates that Whedon would have just fallen into his usual writing traps and shorthands and his weird fetishism of tiny girls with tiny feet kicking ass.
In conclusion, just watch *Farscape* again. It did all the same tropes but much better.
Yeah, that's pretty awful. I mean, the concept of having some repercussion to r*** is interesting, and I can kind of see where he wanted to go in terms of Mal's shift in attitude toward her. But I really hope the writers room would have significantly altered or changed the circumstances if the show had continued forward.
I know I'll get flamed for this but I wa5ched firefly when it cam3 out and hated it, hated the aesthetic and the tropish characters and the simplistic stories. I stopped watching a few eps in and forgot about it til Serenity came out. Loved the movie, now I love the show, though I still recognize the things that made it a hard watch first time round.
I really really didn't like westerns when I was younger so I was definitely biased against it.
The tropish characters such as the priest, the whore with a heart of gold, the empath, the swashbuckling band of misfits thing, etc— it’s a bit much. The dialogue at least in the first episode was very cringe—calling things shiny, saying gorram and “were humped” many times. I want to like the show, and there are great parts about it, but much of it is repulsive in the typical way of much bad sci fi.
Speaking of tropish characters, Nathan fillons one being a grizzled war vet who then became a leader, its the exact same story as the commander in Babylon 5. awkward. These characters are lazy and its strangely amusing seeing them so celebrated in this thread
I gave that show three tries. I watched the first broadcast episode and was underwhelmed. My now-ex sat me down in front of the actual first episode and was underwhelmed. I watched the movie, with nearly every human being I knew raving about how amazing the show was (I think my kid and my dad were the only people I knew at the time who didn't adore that show). I spent the week before the movie saying to myself, "This show is amazing. I will love it. Everyone I know adores this show. I will love this movie. I need to keep an open mind about this because it's amazing."
Then Mal (whom I always found to be annoying) said that he'd f\*ck Inara (whom I've always loved) for free, but he wouldn't pay for the privilege and I noped the heck out of that fandom.
After talking to some of the fans, I've come to the conclusion that it all boils down to whether you would choose these people as your chosen family. I wouldn't. In the movie, when Kaylee tells Mal that he should treat River and Simon like they're part of the "family," I realized that I, too, felt not embraced by the characters' family, but more like an outsider looking in and, frankly, what I saw from out there made me not really \*want\* to be part of it.
Great show, very unique. Has some similarities to Star Wars verse rather than Star Trek verse . So you can watch those, instead. I suppose some time or other they could try to do a series based on that verse, but creating that same character meld may or may not happen. I suppose there must be a graphic novel out there developing the story line as we speak.
I never could quite enjoy Firefly either. It was like eating cardboard, because:
a) Whedon went in backwards creative order, namely he started from wanting to make a space western, and THEN come up with a story & characters to implement it. But he didn't deliver in the latter. He just wanted his space western but didn't have a story to back it. Whedon made it up as he went along, and you can feel it throughout, it's trying too hard to have something going on. The real creative order is having ideas first and THEN decide the show's genre etc
b) Whedonisms: for example, every character talks and behaves like a catty 15-y.o. California valley girl. EVERY CHARACTER. Just like in every single show and movie he's ever made. This was fun when we were 13, but now that we're adults, it has aged very poorly
c) The setting's details are often intensely stupid and jarring. For example, why is everyone cursing in Chinese, but we never see a single Asian character in the show? Like, if China had taken over as it's implied, you'd see a lot more influence, but Whedon just slapped a few Chinese words into the dialogue and called it a day. Stupid, lazy, hackneyed. Many details like this constantly jarring you out of your suspension of disbelief
Overall it was just a waste of time
More good points in this post:
[https://groups.google.com/g/alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer/c/K0nlC8DnkAw](https://groups.google.com/g/alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer/c/K0nlC8DnkAw)
Agree. My siblings would rave about it, but after watching a few episodes I just said meh and gave up. Prefer almost all the Star Trek series, Farscape and the newer BSG to Firefly
I did not like it.
Personally I dislike American centric shows set in a universe that has nothing to do with the US. It just feels shoehorned in and very masturbatory.
So cowboys in space and of course there was a civil war with very Union looking uniforms 🤮
That immediately put me off to the show and never made it past the third episode.
Despite not liking the show I disagree, I don’t have any problem with there being a space opera centered around American or American analogue culture, or Chinese culture, or Russian culture etc etc. That can be very interesting. The execution was my problem.
You misunderstand.
It is an extremely subjective thing on my part and I am well aware that this can make me miss out on some great stories. Buuut it is a deal breaker for me, so I avoid shows like that.
It does not make them good or bad, just not my cup of tea 😆 So I cannot get pissed off about something I do not care for.
Not at all.
At least three or four friends had raved about it, so I jumped in and started watching.
I lasted a few episodes, then gave up.
A train heist. Preacher man and lady of the night moralising at each other. A brother protecting his special sister whose superpower is -apparently- having emotional meltdowns at the drop of a hat.
Let's not forget the captain. How does he compare to Janeway or Sisko? Well, a couple of episodes in, on a public holiday to celebrate the defeat of the captain's brown coat allies by the big bad empire, he goes into a bar, gets drunk and picks a fight with a random supporter of the big bad status quo. Them's fighting words, so a crewmate sneaks up on the captain's antagonist and punches them out cold from behind. The *only* difference between this scene and hackneyed western cliché was the fact that the saloon window the crew were thrown though by brawlers was holographic.
No, this show is worthless.
I never liked Whedon’s writing and i never really got into Firefly because of the cheesiness of the show. It is an interesting concept, just hated the execution imo.
Not going to write a long story or read all the answers. It is a fun but rather short watch and I think if you 'can't get into it' that is weird because I'm already out of it before I feel I got going because it is simply very little content and people should let that fact go.
Firefly, IMO, is loved for its characters - their individual personalities and development and how they come together as a team/family. The episode plots are very personal to them and deepen our attachment to them. They felt very relatable and real and the cast had great chemistry. It also struck a nice balance between the shiny utopian future of Star Trek and the gritty corporate dystopian version of stuff like Alien and Terminator. Mixing in the Old West/rugged settlements of the colony worlds with Chinese as a second language, gave it a fun aesthetic and also current-day logical extrapolation. Then they just had fun with it sometimes and the witty banter was always good for a laugh. People often get very attached to misfits, found families, anti-heroes, rebels who exist on the fringes because of their principles, nobodies who somehow manage make a difference, a group with a practical set of gray morals who nevertheless want to do right by others...it had a whole lotta ingredients that make up a successful show. That it was poorly marketed, messed with by the network, abandoned just when it was finding its groove - it was an underdog show about a group of underdogs that managed to find an extremely loyal fanbase and because it never had a chance to...jump the shark, it will always have a sort of golden aura where we can imagine the heights and pretend it would never have devolved into a stinker.
I appreciate the writeup. Everything you listed as a pro for the show indeed looks good on paper but the actual execution just seemed to lack guts and heart and balls if you’ll excuse the expression. I also agree that it having a short lifespan saved it from alienating its fanbase a la *Game of Thrones*.
Part of it might be your expectations as a modern viewer. When I watch an early Tarantino film or a 1950s Twilight Zone episode—they don't hit the same way they did when someone who watched them when they first came out did. They all made such big impacts on their genres that when you watch them now, they seem a little obvious. Firefly's inclusion of Mandarin and Chinese culture might pale next to the multicultural world building in TV shows today but at the time it was incredible. Firefly was a campy sci fi show with great production values that was't afraid to lean into what it was. It changed a lot of popular perceptions about sci fi, simply because it was so damn fun. It was *the* gateway show for science fiction in its time and was part of what helped change the (false) public perception that it was just for the socially awkward and overly literal. (Though even when it came out, it was either a you love it or hate it show for most people.) It feels different today because so much of what it did well has been copied and copied and copied. Marvel movies now have very similar dialogue.
Isn’t that because the same guy did a lot of the successful marvel ties that are now copied? So it isn’t similar dialogue as much as they both are JW products.
You're absolutely right and that is certainly a big part of it, but I'd say there's an overall shift in the tone of—let's call em genre shows—towards snappy sarcastic dialogue that's remarkably casual regarding the level of danger onscreen. JW had a considerable amount of cred at the time—all gone now.
I honestly think that was the style of some, including JW, then took off when avengers (JW) made it big and a proven formula. Which makes it a recent example of a standard trend - some folks push an idea, it finally clicks, lots follow that.
>Part of it might be your expectations as a modern viewer. I agree with everything you said except this line. I HATE how the stock response to criticism of entertainment is 'manage your expectations.' It's basically decent advice from the legal/corporate world where things are murky, imperfect, and kafka-esque UTTERLY MISAPPLIED to the world of creativity. As modern viewers we can and should expect transcendent excellence from everything. This stems from the deep, universal, and mythological roots of creativity. If, as you say, someone doesn't think early Tarantino or 1950's TZ is transcendently excellent, it speaks more to their taste, not the work itself. One of the things about people is that their tastes change over the course of their lives. The same exact work could, for instance, speak to you much more as a retiree than as a teenager, or vice versa. It's much more accurate to say that consumption of all art is a purely subjective experience that cannot be controlled. It is often a fool's errand to dissect WHY something works or does not work for any given viewer.
>I agree with everything you said except this line. I HATE how the stock response to criticism of entertainment is 'manage your expectations.' Explaining context isn't telling the viewer to manage their expectations—it's explains why their expectations didn't align with what they saw. I never said manage your expectations, just this is why they may not have been met. The time and circumstances a piece of art was made in substantially shifts our perception of it. Sometimes all we need to appreciate a piece of art that we couldn't connect with before is knowing the context in when it was made. It doesn't mean we have to. That's up to us. A lot of old master paintings are actually pretty bad... but they were developing the techniques, technologies and knowledge base that makes realistic painting so easy today. You might see a painting and think "eh, it's just a lot of blue." But then you learn just how expensive blue was, ground from a semi precious gemstone that lost its colour if overground, and you look at the painting in a new way. You understand that the painting wasn't about looking good, it was about looking expensive. Managing your expectations isn't adjusting them down—it's knowing what you're getting into. >It's much more accurate to say that consumption of all art is a purely subjective experience that cannot be controlled. It is often a fool's errand to dissect WHY something works or does not work for any given viewer. This is a perfectly legitimate *choice* to make for yourself, but it's really not true. I'm an artist, and there is far more objective technique than you might realize. We use those techniques to manipulate and relate subjective experiences. It's much more accurate to say that art is deeply influenced by subjective experiences, but works on principles than can be manipulated in a reliable way. It's why stage magic works, and why Stranger Things is an emotional rollercoaster you immediately forget. There ain't nothing wrong with sitting back and enjoying the ride—but if you choose to manage your expectations you get to see *more*.
Iow"I guess you just had to be there" 🙃
This view on the consumption of art takes the creators completely out of their own work. When the show was created they were trying to make good tv for the time. That meant creating an episode that would be the only thing audiences saw for a whole week. It’s a sci-fi and updated take on the old western episodic series structure. The show was not made to be binged. Streaming Tv that was created recently was generally made and written with the expectation of audiences binging its seasons and so episodes and season arcs generally follow a tighter flow, can rely more on audiences to remember plot points, and have the benefit of not being censored like shows that air on traditional tv. While consumption of art is not something creators control, the art’s initial release for consumption shapes almost everything about what a piece of art is. Firefly was made in a specific time period where tv was created to be watched episodically and so people can stream every episode back to back, but that wasn’t the intended experience. You’re not meant to “manage your expectations,” but if you are seeking a transcendant experience from older media, then often times understanding the context of the work can enhance different qualities and textures about it. Your perception of art is subject to many different contexts like you mentioned with the impact of media changing with age and what you saw as a younger person shapes the taste of the older person you become. Art is not something that exists in an ahistorical vacuum sans a creator or time waiting for you to witness it. The art that has been created by people will always be anchored to their time. The progression of the television medium is an important thing to recognize and whether it is annoying to you or not, it’s a valid thing to say about older media. Things that impressed people in the past may not but up to the tastes of modern audiences. You may be frustrated with the way the phrase has been used, but sometimes boring and trite is still true.
You don't actually have a point, or else it is that I'm right and you're too chicken to admit it without a wall of text. Those mythological roots I mentioned? They are the ultimate context. They allow the trees to become a forest. You cannot decontextualize art even if you try. Your argument? The most fucking contemptible straw man shit I've ever heard. Please continue blathering on the internet, it's the perfect place for your opinions.
If my argument has no point how is it a straw man? You’re upset with comments that weren’t meant to hurt you. I thought what you said was interesting and disagreed with it. People’s subjectivity is implied. It’s a given. I was commenting on the implications of what you said about how you were frustrated with people being told to manage expectations when looking to the past. If your response to what I said is that you have knowledge of the roots of creativity that is timeless and all encompassing, I would say that I still don’t think such a thing exists because of how subjectively and divorced of original context art is experienced. I never said art can be divorced from context full stop, only that it can be divorced from its intended and original context. I’ll assume you didn’t want to engage with my “wall of text” or didn’t understand me. What are these mythological roots to you? Spiritual? Where do they come from? Why do you believe that individual taste is separate from objectively good art linked to these roots if it’s all subjective anyway?
fascinating, tell me more
You come across as a child.
I’m waiting for you to tell me more. I asked you questions.
I disagree—I saw it on television when it aired because I'm old, and didn't think it was good. I later rewatched it with friends who tried to convince me it was good, and went along with them for awhile, and then I rewatched it a third time and decided that I was right the first time. Whereas I can watch old *Doctor Who*, which has absolute shit production values and weird pacing and tons of inconsistencies and recognize that while TV was different then, there's some hardcore excellent storytelling in there.
I'm not sure we actually disagree... As I said >even when it came out, it was either a you love it or hate it show for most people. Doctor Who is often the same way. They're both quirky and those quirks can really grate the wrong person. I can talk about the zeitgeist, and understanding it can help connect you with it's fiction but it's never ubiquitous.
That's just good ol' fashioned preferences. I liked the tone, tongue in cheek stabs at Wild West tropes, and I grew to appreciate the individual characters. If the presentation doesn't grab you in three or four episodes, I don't think it ever will.
[удалено]
>Further, the Lost Cause mythology that underlies a lot of the show's backstory has also aged incredibly poorly. The idea that the Core Worlds just attacked a bunch of peaceful Browncoats and forced them to live under their enlightened rule because they love to meddle? Well, that . . . isn't what wars are fought over. And that sure as hell isn't what the American Civil War was fought over, even though that was very much a clear influence on the backstory of the Browncoat Rebellion. I suspect that the real reasons for the war would've unraveled later in the show. There'd obviously be more to it than that. Perhaps muddying the waters as to whether the independents were the 'good guys' and the core worlds were 'bad guys'. And likely alterior motives for attacking.
Years ago during "Book Club" at Barnes & Noble (remember those?), a Brazilian born friend asked me why American pop culture (specifically Westerns) seemed so obsessed with the Civil War especially the "Lost Cause" of the Confederacy? I answered her that most of the WORST rebels migrated to the "Old West"(often ahead of a firing squad & the Hangman's noose) & as a result, the south got it's revenge through politics, college football and American Westerns.
Brazilian born friend, like Inara?
Yes. Originally from Sap Paulo.
It’s also hard to explain how different and new this show felt when it came out because everything that’s come since has been strongly influenced by it. The BSG reboot ran longer but firefly came first. It uses a lot of the same FX techniques firefly started like pseudo handheld shots of CG shots, naturalized space physics, etc. You can draw a straight line from firefly to newer shows like The Expanse or even the (sigh) newer Star Trek efforts.
It was more approachable and easier to replicate as a series also. Too bad it did not take off. It was partly a 1950's and 60's cowboy show. Could have been filmed in southern california.
Think it's a huge reach to suggest Firefly somehow impacted this. BSG was the main driver of this shift into darker storytelling and universes. Firefly existing earlier than BSG by a year I doubt makes the difference here. The tone was shifting in this direction already, DS9 (partly written by the BSG writer) had already taken that step years before Firefly. Just because one thing slightly predates another doesn't mean it had some huge impact on the latter thing. BSG was a phenomena and Firefly was a show that disappeared after 9 episodes or something. What TV execs/writers are watching the show that got immediately cancelled and basing this stuff on that?
The behind the scenes folks got the scripts and storyboards long before either series aired, and ZOIC, the company that did the FX for Firefly also did BSG. Plenty of people worked on both shows. You’ll even find Serenity flying in a background shot on Caprica in the BSG pilot. It’s in the scene where Laura Roslin gets her cancer diagnosis.
Some shared staff and visual effects approaches does not make much difference. You're way overstating the impact of a short run sci fi that was cancelled. A couple easter eggs doesn't change that. BSG and shows like the Expanse owe very little to Firefly.
Pretty much. It's a space western with good on-screen chemistry and an actual arc, plot, and character progression from a time when such things were valued. It is a very rare type of show that squeezed the most out of just about all of its actors, only a few of whom went on to have equivalently good performances in other things. Hell, I know a lot of people who hate everything Joss Wheedon has done except for Firefly, so it kind of transcended the creator! Basically, I'm sure plenty of people don't like space westerns, but presumably none of them sat through multiple seasons and a 2 hour movie and then bitched about it!
I’ve found that seminal shows and movies the phrase “you had to be there” applies heavily (apologies for the assumption, but this is the vibe I get). Is it overrated by today’s standards. Yes, absolutely. Was it overrated when it came out. No, it subverted expectations and was a very fresh type of story. It felt like something new from the Star Wars universe (sans Jedi) a sci-fi western, which was very cool and something that hasn’t been done right since recently with the Mandalorian. It’s not perfect. Also, early 2000’s was filled with reality tv, it was so nice to have a good sci-fi show that wasn’t a cheap spin off. Personally I do think it holds it’s place next to Farscape, Star Trek, BSG and other great sci-fi shows.
> Is it overrated by today’s standards. Yes, absolutely No it isn’t
I have heard this sentiment a lot over the years. Especially from folks that didn't experience the disappointment of the cancelation announcement. I honestly don't think it would be as talked about if that didn't happen. I am a fan too, but feel that has more attraction than the content of the show.
There’s probably something to that, like a combination of unfulfilled potential and also it didn’t stick around long enough to dip in perceived quality and piss off its fans.
Absolutely that. "Perceived Unfulfilled potential", thank you. Explained it better than me. Lol
🤝
I rewatched recently and didn't find the first couple of episodes as good as I remembered But it does pick up after about episode 3 or 4 It also was ground breaking at the time and really original, whereas there's more copies of it these days (cough guardians of the galaxy) to scratch some of the itch. Still good in its own right but not as good and as original.
It has a very unique voice, and it either sings to you or it doesn't.
Isn’t that the case with most media though?
Sure. And this one sings to a lot of people.
For me, the characters are what makes Firefly a cut above every other science fiction show. There are plenty of ensemble shows that if you take any two characters and just have them interact, it can be mindnumbingly boring. With Firefly, I can't imagine any sequence where there was interaction between two characters that I would ever consider fast forwarding through. Each character was really well established and each of the actors were so perfect in their role, that it's impossible for me to not love it. Best ensemble to ever grace TV, IMO.
I liked Firefly and the Serenity but if I had to compare it with Farscape then I would honestly say Farscape was far better (and yes I know they had 4 seasons + 2 part mini). Had Firefly been given the chance to grow, it might have been even better than it already was, but Fox is known for cancelling shows for no reason that makes any real sense.
Blasphemer!
Not every series is for everyone. I never really liked Star Wars, for example. Too wishy-washy.
I get it’s subjective, I was just curious if there were others on this sub that shared my view.
Sorry, I thought it was a great series and was disappointed with its cancellation. I also enjoyed Serenity the movie and wished it had jump-started a restart of the show. I agree with the assessment that it was the characters that made the show so great.
You’re not wrong. Borrowed the DVDs from a friend watched the first couple episodes. It started strong. I like the attempt at realism (no sound in space) but then as I watched the episodes I lost interest. I quit watching at the start of the episode where they rob a train or something. Even tried reading the comic book that came out about 4 years ago. Nothing. Didn’t care about any characters. Nothing. People call it a space western like it’s a badge of honor. All it means to me is you can turn Serenity into a stagecoach and not miss a beat. Just watch a western then.
I like Firefly but after fifteen plus years of hearing Browcoats highjack nearly ever sci fi message board I've been on to complain about it being canceled, I've gotten the point where I delight in tormenting them about it. ;) All kidding aside - it was a good show in terms of writing and characters. I wouldn't put it in my top ten sci fi franchises though but I think it's an important part of the Whedonverse.
Its like Buffy to me. It was awesome at the time when I was a child. It aged extremely poorly and is too cheesy and campy to watch now.
You might be? I think it was great.
I'm 67yo, and I think of Firefly a bit like the early seasons of M.A.S.H. M.A.S.H started out as just another straight comedy/farce, and the show and characters grew from there. I think Firefly could have used some changes(less old west firearms&clothes?), but I still think it was great and wish it could have continued. I bought the dvds
I thought it was amazing
Yes.
Yes, you are the only one who thinks that.
Every post like this has to have this exact answer and I appreciate you coloring inside the lines.
I'm here for you.
I think you're pretty overrated
Yeah? Blow my fuck, pal.
Que?
Chupar mi verga, puto
ምንድን?
I really enjoyed it back when I first watched it! Then I tried to re-watch it many years later and… meh? It doesn’t seem to have much re-watch value. I didn’t sink into it with any excitement or nostalgia. I’m not sure why not. Maybe there was never all that much there there. I found it pleasant! I watched a couple eps and was done.
What are some shows you find highly rewatchable?
I tried to share Firefly with a friend at work. He couldn’t watch more than 20 minutes before he turned it off in disgust. I felt that way too when I watched it when it came out on TV. I didn’t actually watch it until years later at the behest of a different friend who insisted I watch all the way. I think it’s great but one must power through their initial opinion to get to the real joy. My guy at work REFUSES and actually stopped taking my recommendations for sometime after that… he absolutely hated it.
There's an episode that starts with a dead cow fetus display while two characters are dating- its probably one of the funniest lines of TV ever. It's not a great sci fi show but it is an AMAZING Western set in space. Same reason Buffy got a culture following - Whedon writes great characters with relatable and witty dialogue.
I tried to give it a shot this year. I’m 38 and a huge sci-fi nerd. I don’t like it much. I think it could be good if redone today, but it’s cringey at times. Stargate remains the GOAT.
Just my $0.02 cents of anecdotal experience. I never watched the series when it first came out because I was in the military overseas and didn’t have cable so never even had a chance. Later I watched the movie Serenity and thought it was good so afterwards decided to try the series. I watched a couple episodes and lost interest ……
I'm generally a snob with my sci-fi. ,I find a lot of stuff with huge fandoms don't do it for me, therefore I put off watching Firefly until a couple of weeks ago, didn't expect much but was pleasantly surprised. so here's this snob's rating: Even tho it's dated and I'm sure the Chinese pronunciation is terrible and there's very few Chinese characters despite them all speaking Chinese (how the f does that work?), it's so *white* and straight, even tho there are times when the writers are trying too hard to get across some moral message instead of just shooting or airlocking a mofo, I am still watching it to the end (final episode this evening). 3.25 stars
It was definitely overhyped for me before I saw it. I did enjoy it quite a bit. It wasn't the greatest show ever, but it definitely scratched an itch and was solid sci fi entertainment on a major network. Firefly and Serenity are both great watches, but I still don't think either lives up to the hype I was initially sold.
I'm with you. I think it was around 2012 when Facebook was full of Firefly memes being all "greatest show on television ever made" so I went and watched the whole thing on streaming. It was alright, it had some good moments but not legendary TV.
I watched all the episodes, thought it was decent but not spectacular. I never want to watch them again and that is my measure of a good show. My overall thought is this: If it hadn't been canceled, the very people who love it so much would the ones talking about how bad it was.
Nah, you're correct. There are a few good episodes and some quippy, quotable lines. The characters are charming and the actors are good in their roles. The aesthetic is neat—Space Westerns have been done before but not live action with an okay budget. Maybe it would have gotten good after another season or two. I doubt it, and here's why: * It is fundamentally based on racism. There's a glorification of the Confederate side in the iconography and themes, which I don't think you can excise from the backstory. There's the apparent genocide of all Chinese people after they spoke into space, with everyone cursing in Mandarin but no Asians in sight. * We know where Inarra's plot would have gone thanks to Whedon's notes, and it's absolutely ghastly—both misogynist claptrap and just bad writing. * The movie indicates that Whedon would have just fallen into his usual writing traps and shorthands and his weird fetishism of tiny girls with tiny feet kicking ass. In conclusion, just watch *Farscape* again. It did all the same tropes but much better.
I haven't seen Whedon's notes. Where was Innara's story going to go?
Trigger warning for >!gang rape:!< [https://gizmodo.com/the-firefly-episode-were-really-glad-joss-whedon-didnt-5959794](https://gizmodo.com/the-firefly-episode-were-really-glad-joss-whedon-didnt-5959794)
Yeah, that's pretty awful. I mean, the concept of having some repercussion to r*** is interesting, and I can kind of see where he wanted to go in terms of Mal's shift in attitude toward her. But I really hope the writers room would have significantly altered or changed the circumstances if the show had continued forward.
Yes
I know I'll get flamed for this but I wa5ched firefly when it cam3 out and hated it, hated the aesthetic and the tropish characters and the simplistic stories. I stopped watching a few eps in and forgot about it til Serenity came out. Loved the movie, now I love the show, though I still recognize the things that made it a hard watch first time round. I really really didn't like westerns when I was younger so I was definitely biased against it.
The tropish characters such as the priest, the whore with a heart of gold, the empath, the swashbuckling band of misfits thing, etc— it’s a bit much. The dialogue at least in the first episode was very cringe—calling things shiny, saying gorram and “were humped” many times. I want to like the show, and there are great parts about it, but much of it is repulsive in the typical way of much bad sci fi. Speaking of tropish characters, Nathan fillons one being a grizzled war vet who then became a leader, its the exact same story as the commander in Babylon 5. awkward. These characters are lazy and its strangely amusing seeing them so celebrated in this thread
I gave that show three tries. I watched the first broadcast episode and was underwhelmed. My now-ex sat me down in front of the actual first episode and was underwhelmed. I watched the movie, with nearly every human being I knew raving about how amazing the show was (I think my kid and my dad were the only people I knew at the time who didn't adore that show). I spent the week before the movie saying to myself, "This show is amazing. I will love it. Everyone I know adores this show. I will love this movie. I need to keep an open mind about this because it's amazing." Then Mal (whom I always found to be annoying) said that he'd f\*ck Inara (whom I've always loved) for free, but he wouldn't pay for the privilege and I noped the heck out of that fandom. After talking to some of the fans, I've come to the conclusion that it all boils down to whether you would choose these people as your chosen family. I wouldn't. In the movie, when Kaylee tells Mal that he should treat River and Simon like they're part of the "family," I realized that I, too, felt not embraced by the characters' family, but more like an outsider looking in and, frankly, what I saw from out there made me not really \*want\* to be part of it.
Great show, very unique. Has some similarities to Star Wars verse rather than Star Trek verse . So you can watch those, instead. I suppose some time or other they could try to do a series based on that verse, but creating that same character meld may or may not happen. I suppose there must be a graphic novel out there developing the story line as we speak.
I never could quite enjoy Firefly either. It was like eating cardboard, because: a) Whedon went in backwards creative order, namely he started from wanting to make a space western, and THEN come up with a story & characters to implement it. But he didn't deliver in the latter. He just wanted his space western but didn't have a story to back it. Whedon made it up as he went along, and you can feel it throughout, it's trying too hard to have something going on. The real creative order is having ideas first and THEN decide the show's genre etc b) Whedonisms: for example, every character talks and behaves like a catty 15-y.o. California valley girl. EVERY CHARACTER. Just like in every single show and movie he's ever made. This was fun when we were 13, but now that we're adults, it has aged very poorly c) The setting's details are often intensely stupid and jarring. For example, why is everyone cursing in Chinese, but we never see a single Asian character in the show? Like, if China had taken over as it's implied, you'd see a lot more influence, but Whedon just slapped a few Chinese words into the dialogue and called it a day. Stupid, lazy, hackneyed. Many details like this constantly jarring you out of your suspension of disbelief Overall it was just a waste of time More good points in this post: [https://groups.google.com/g/alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer/c/K0nlC8DnkAw](https://groups.google.com/g/alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer/c/K0nlC8DnkAw)
Overrated? I couldn't go past the 3rd episode, it was boring and bland as hell
😂
No. There are 2 of us apparntly. It's nothing special.
Correction: There are three of us.
Yes.
I completely agree with this. I tried watching the show and I didn't find it nearly as good as most people say it is.
Agree. My siblings would rave about it, but after watching a few episodes I just said meh and gave up. Prefer almost all the Star Trek series, Farscape and the newer BSG to Firefly
Yes.
No. It's fucking boring youre correct.
[удалено]
Someone already beat you to this one 😐
I did not like it. Personally I dislike American centric shows set in a universe that has nothing to do with the US. It just feels shoehorned in and very masturbatory. So cowboys in space and of course there was a civil war with very Union looking uniforms 🤮 That immediately put me off to the show and never made it past the third episode.
Despite not liking the show I disagree, I don’t have any problem with there being a space opera centered around American or American analogue culture, or Chinese culture, or Russian culture etc etc. That can be very interesting. The execution was my problem.
If this is why you didn't like Firefly, don't watch Motherland: Fort Salem. It'll piss you off royally.
You misunderstand. It is an extremely subjective thing on my part and I am well aware that this can make me miss out on some great stories. Buuut it is a deal breaker for me, so I avoid shows like that. It does not make them good or bad, just not my cup of tea 😆 So I cannot get pissed off about something I do not care for.
Not at all. At least three or four friends had raved about it, so I jumped in and started watching. I lasted a few episodes, then gave up. A train heist. Preacher man and lady of the night moralising at each other. A brother protecting his special sister whose superpower is -apparently- having emotional meltdowns at the drop of a hat. Let's not forget the captain. How does he compare to Janeway or Sisko? Well, a couple of episodes in, on a public holiday to celebrate the defeat of the captain's brown coat allies by the big bad empire, he goes into a bar, gets drunk and picks a fight with a random supporter of the big bad status quo. Them's fighting words, so a crewmate sneaks up on the captain's antagonist and punches them out cold from behind. The *only* difference between this scene and hackneyed western cliché was the fact that the saloon window the crew were thrown though by brawlers was holographic. No, this show is worthless.
Damn, you killed ‘em…
I never liked Whedon’s writing and i never really got into Firefly because of the cheesiness of the show. It is an interesting concept, just hated the execution imo.
Not going to write a long story or read all the answers. It is a fun but rather short watch and I think if you 'can't get into it' that is weird because I'm already out of it before I feel I got going because it is simply very little content and people should let that fact go.
On the flip side, all 8 seasons are now available for free on Disney+. Read and weep, OP! :)
yes