Chances for more Firefly as compared to Star Trek

POSTED BY: Sirvec
UPDATED: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 23:02
VIEWED: 14257
PAGE 3 of 4

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE

SIRVEC

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 5:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by CBY:
Quote:
Originally posted by Sirvec:
What I am saying is that like early Star Trek who's fans kept it going inspite of it's limited mainstream acceptance and the poor box office numbers for first movie the fans where able to keep it going.

Still, in my opinion you can't just pick the good aspects out of the Star Trek history without looking at the current situation. The movie and tv business changed a lot since then.

°°°°°°°°°°°°
http://www.byond-trax.com - my selfmade ambient/lounge/chillout music

You speak truth. Star Trek is in the pooper and it's steady decline and it's loss of profitability has turned some studios and audiences off to Sci fi. Furthermore as I posted earlier science fiction isn't the new unexplored arena it once was. However it's not out the door either and the BDM getting made is still proof that fans can get things done in Hollywood.

The common thread I try to incorporate into all of my posts is that if we want more we can't give up. If throw in the towel and say "this thing can not be done, it's over", guess what we'll be right. We have a bad trend of only seeing the bad. What I want point out is we got it pretty good right now. We got the BDM out of a failed series, shouldn't have happened. DVD sales are up and should keep going strong, maybe not as strongly as in the beginning but it's the slow and steady that will win the day.

As regards the state of the entertainment industry's view toward Sci-Fi, it hasn't changed so much that a Firefly to early Star Trek comparison is to far of the mark. We have something going against us that they didn't, sure, but we have things going for us that they didn't. Such as the time it took for our series to get a movie, the fact that we know this has been done before, and the greatest tool of all fans with impossible goals the internet. I think it balances out pretty well.

"Ta ma duh!"-Mal

CBY

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 5:35 PM

You have a good point there: The role of the internet. Honestly, I didn't think about that.

°°°°°°°°°°°°
http://www.byond-trax.com - my selfmade ambient/lounge/chillout music

HIGHWIREDSITH

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 5:42 PM

One thing that needs to be mentioned - Star Trek survived only when Gene Rodenberry loosened his grip on the creative process in the series. Said this in another thread, but the singular event that ultimately launched Star Trek from has-been (if ever was) status into cultural history was the second film The Wrath of Kahn. Kahn opened the door for Star Trek to transcend it's core group of Trekkies and brought millions into the fold. It launced a third film and set in motion a snowball effect that resulted in a canon of films, tv shows, and books that are really unprecedented in any genre. Nicholas Myer's re-imagining of the series tapped into the frenzy surrounding the Star Wars phenom (it was released a year after The Empire Strikes Back) and converted a ton of Star Wars fans (me for one).

That said, TWOK was the right director in the right place at the right time with the right material. I've no doubt that Whedon is the right director and he's got the right material. But what he lacks is the real void in the SF/Action genre that Star Wars and Star Trek had. Sure it ranks as the best that's out there right now, but there is so much SciFi, some of good, some of it not, it's no wonder FF gets lost in the shuffle.

Curious - when Trek came back to TV it did so via syndicated TV and not network TV. Both The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine were syndicated series' (much like Stargate or Xena were/are). Since it's clear that Whedon's woes came from the hands of network execs why didn't he ever consider syndication? I know he pitched the show to WB and SciFi (both turned him down), but did he try to go outside the networks, through a production company (like Trek did with Paramount)?

CBY

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 5:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HighWiredSith:
Sure it ranks as the best that's out there right now, but there is so much SciFi, some of good, some of it not, it's no wonder FF gets lost in the shuffle.

So much Sci-Fi? Where? If you count out cancelled shows in re-runs there is just a couple of fresh sci-fi shows right now (If you go with the classical definition of this genre, that is).

°°°°°°°°°°°°
http://www.byond-trax.com - my selfmade ambient/lounge/chillout music

HIGHWIREDSITH

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 5:57 PM

Well, let's see:
You've got and entire network devoted to nothing but science fiction. One of the most watched television shows on netowork TV right now is loosely SciFi (LOST). You have a number of other SciFi series on other networks and in syndication (Surface, Smallville, Invasion, Stargate SG-1, Stargate Atlantis, etc.). In the film genre there where what, 20+ scifi films released last year? This is just new stuff, this doesn't include endless reruns of everything from Xena to the X-Files.

Compare this with 1981 - total SF TV Shows still on at that time (maybe Buck Rogers, but who the hell wants to count that?) - none. Total SF networks - none. Total SF films released that year - just a guess but I'd say less than 5 got any real run in the theaters. Face it, mankind was hungry for SciFi. Nowadays, we got the buffet, not necessarily the quality we want but we got the quantity for sure.

CBY

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 6:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HighWiredSith:
Lost, Surface, Smallville, Invasion

All not classical sci-fi in my eyes. The channels seem to call every dramatic show with minor scientific or futuristic elements "sci-fi" and many people actually believe that - this is the real problem these days. But this is a difficult and leisured discussion.

°°°°°°°°°°°°
http://www.byond-trax.com - my selfmade ambient/lounge/chillout music

HIGHWIREDSITH

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 6:24 PM

What do you mean by "classical" SciFi? If you want to go with some kind of strict interpretation of what is science fiction (hard SF vs. soft SF) then I think you could eliminate Firefly fairly easy. After all, it has some SF elements but it's not hard science fiction and is a much a Western as it is SF. You want hard SF I doubt you'll find it on television or even in most films. Sounds like you're putting Firefly into some kind of subjective niche.

NUCLEARDAY

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 6:28 PM

Nice thread, I hadn't thought of it that way earlier. Nice to see things in a more positive view.

As far as an analogy to Star Trek's movie releases reinvigorating the franchise: I can say that at least for me, renting the Serenity DVD the other day has made me a convert to the movement.

I was fairly irked when Firefly was cancelled, but I figured that sort of thing happens all the time, and I'd managed to live through Family Guy, Futurama, Bill Maher, and alot of my other favorite shows getting pulled. Seeing that movie though, really made me feel... cheated? There's alot of potential to this story that never had a chance to be realized.

Actually, come to think of it: as far as the power of the internet and DVD sales... Look at what happened to Family Guy. Betcha the network execs are still chewing their caps over deciding to originally pull the plug on that show. :)

EYES

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 6:35 PM

I was only introduced to firefly 2 weeks ago, i have watched the series twice already. We never had it broadcast in the UK. I consider myself lucky that I did not have a wait between the series and the film.
All of the posts are right about series becoming stale, although with the stories, cast and quality available here its hard to see this happening to the verse.
On the subject of resurection consider Dr Who. The BBC were embaressed by this franchise for 15 years then it was reinvented at the right time and is now one of there biggest products. There is still a need for sci-fi but the quality and inventivness is vital to longevity.

CBY

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 6:36 PM

Classical sci-fi as I see it:

- Plays in Space, on other planets or a futuristic earth, not on a normal earth or island
- Features interesting, spaceships, gimmicks, new technology
- creates a unique, believable universe with it's own rules and societies.

...and so forth. In other words: For me Sci-Fi is about the technological future and adventures in space, not about what could happen tomorrow in my neighbor's garden or about a bunch a poeple stranded on an island.

Stargate, Galactica, Babylon 5, Star Trek, Farscape - this is Sci-Fi for me, certainly not Smallville.

°°°°°°°°°°°°
http://www.byond-trax.com - my selfmade ambient/lounge/chillout music

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE