Star Trek & FF/Serenity- an analysis of the popularity differences

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Monday, September 1, 2008 00:28
VIEWED: 8959
PAGE 2 of 6

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE

CITIZEN

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 11:03 PM

Star Trek lasted a lot longer than FireFly, the similarities are somewhat artificial. Star Trek had a chance to generate a strong fan base, Firefly did not, I don't think you need to look much further than that.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

TEXARCANA

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 11:15 PM

I only have one answer.
Yet it is the be-all, and end-all of any discussion.
The answer?
42.

RALLEM

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 11:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TexArcana:
I only have one answer.
Yet it is the be-all, and end-all of any discussion.
The answer?
42.

Of course.

http://swyzzlestyx.com/index.html

IMNOTHERE

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 11:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Q: Is Serenity's limited success due to it's inherently negative view of what we are and where we're going?

Maybe its to do with the rising and falling popularity of SF?

Star Trek was born in the 60s and 70s - the height of the Space Race - the human race was already on its way to the moon and would surely continue onwards. Any self-respecting kid had an Airfix Saturn 5 hanging next to the Airfix Enterprise.

Then it all went wrong. Forget Star Trek being cancelled - the whole fracking space race was cancelled due to falling ratings.

Trek survives because it has a huge fanbase, but as the films and TV spin-offs roll on they become more and more "for the fans only" and Star Trek fans become a figure of fun. After that, no "space" show really gets a mass following - even the most successful (Stargate) has very little pop culture impact. Babylon 5 is pretty influential within the SF fanbase but is too "love it or hate it" to have mass appeal.

Then as the millenium approaches, the public develop a taste for fantasy with, well, millenial themes, so we have the four horsemen getting their asses kicked weekly in the likes of X Files and Buffy - but that fizzles when y2k arrives without (much) armageddon.

So, Firefly launches into a world where science is screwing the environment, the latest developments in physics are incomprehensible without PhD-level maths, space exploration has been cancelled due to lack of interest and we couldn't get to the moon again if we wanted to.

Superheroes are OK, because they save us from stylized terrorists and they're all deeply symbolic of something or other, but space-based SF is seen as something for socially inadequate nerds still living with their parents at 25. Basically, nothing with a space ship in stands a chance.

Which is a great shame.

The only hope is that, here in the UK, kids who grew up on SF shows in the space age are starting to occupy influential positions in the BBC, so we have the Doctor Who reboot which (within the UK) has the sort of brand recognition only enjoyed by Star Wars and original Trek. Maybe the same thing will happen in the US.

Back in the day, the UK also had shows like "Blake's Seven" and "Survivors" which were definitely not optimistic.

On an aside - one thing that astonishes me is the lack of SF books from the US. In the last 10-15 years, the vast majority of SF books I have bought are from the UK (or Australia) - and I'm not consciously being parochial.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, August 28, 2008 12:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Star Trek lasted a lot longer than FireFly, the similarities are somewhat artificial. Star Trek had a chance to generate a strong fan base, Firefly did not, I don't think you need to look much further than that.

Bollocks.
I actually believe that FF was inherently not-fan-base-build-able due to it's independent-minded nature.
It's probably the boldest anti-authoritarian SF recent television has seen outside of Dark Angel (hmmm, funny that they're my two recent favourites), and that kind of free thinking don't sit too well with post 9-11 save-me-protect-me-oh-great-government types.

Starfleet would phaser Bin Laden into the next dimension; The Alliance would see how they might use him to their advantage- hence the uncomfortable IMO.

Chrisisall

FIREFLYMECHANIC

Thursday, August 28, 2008 1:30 AM

Interesting topic.
I love both Firefly and Star Trek,
Mal was much like Kirk, both tough leaders who made hard decisions for their following crew.
It isn't easy being a captain.
Anyway,
I know in my heart we will se more of Serenity.
It is just a matter of time, so we must stay strong in fan base numbers.
There are so many more Browncoats than we even know about. And I'm happy to find you guys and gals here, loving Serenity just like me.
I thank you all for supporting a show that I want to see come back.
I feel that it will. The sets must be in storage.
Joss will get it going again.
He loved Serenity.
Ron

RALLEM

Thursday, August 28, 2008 1:47 AM

I likes star trek next generation in the late 1980s nd early 1990s and was mildly amused by DS9, but really fell in love with Voyager when things ween't going well for the ship and crew, but I didn't know how much the socialistic utopia idea of Star Trek bothered me until I saw Firefly on DVD. I went years without television service so as you can imagine how televised sci fi wasn't a high priority for me. I would like to go back and see some of the shows I missed during those years.

http://swyzzlestyx.com/index.html

OPPYH

Thursday, August 28, 2008 2:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Bollocks.
I actually believe that FF was inherently not-fan-base-build-able due to it's independent-minded nature.
It's probably the boldest anti-authoritarian SF recent television has seen outside of Dark Angel (hmmm, funny that they're my two recent favourites), and that kind of free thinking don't sit too well with post 9-11 save-me-protect-me-oh-great-government types.

Chrisisall,
I think your slightly off on your assessment of Firefly. Firefly had an immediate, and super strong fan base. Those who watched it, loved it. Problem is not many were watching at the time. Matter of fact, I bet 80 percent of the people who post here didn't watch it when it originally aired.

By the time the good word was being spread around, it was already too late!

At least CBS gave Star Trek a chance. Fox didn't want Firefly, they didn't promote it, and were glad when they pulled the plug.

TEXARCANA

Thursday, August 28, 2008 6:22 AM

I do believe the airing Firefly was a bungled job.
It would have run at least as long as Star Trek if aired in a proper manner, and time slot.
Though I also believe it could have been even bigger if handled (network not production-wise) in the same manner as BSG or Stargate.
It's message resonates. And the story, as well as the characters are strong.

Quote:
Originally posted by OPPYH:
I bet 80 percent of the people who post here didn't watch it when it originally aired.

By the time the good word was being spread around, it was already too late!

I saw two originally aired episodes (Train Job, and later Heart of Gold); and was so Gorram pissed when I discovered that I missed the rest

...then I went out to the Rim (Planet Interweb. Where Al Gore rules) to find what I had missed...
I then went out and bought the DvD set. It was all shiny after that.
Except for the bitterness of not getting more...

Quote:
Originally posted by OPPYH:
At least CBS gave Star Trek a chance. Fox didn't want Firefly, they didn't promote it, and were glad when they pulled the plug.

Has there been an analogy between Fox execs, and the blue-gloved ones?

JONGSSTRAW

Thursday, August 28, 2008 11:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
It's the re-runs of Trek, playing multiple times every day that helped Star Trek become a pop culture icon.
Okay- let's say that FF held on by it's fingernails for two or three seasons- do you think re-runs and such would have made it a pop culture icon akin to Trek?
What I'm postulatin' here is that Trek, although it had it's darker eps (Private Little War for example), was mainly bright & funny & adventurous, whereas Firefly promised us more struggle and realistically complicated characters in a not-fun (for the most part) 'Verse. I can't really see an America that would be acceptin' of that lack of happy-happy on an iconic level.

In other words- Joss writes TOO well.

Just sayin'isall

With 79 episodes, Trek had more than its' share of dark episodes. It also had many episodes that dealt with uncomfortable themes of the changing times of the late 60's. There really was no way that Trek could have been highly popular when it aired, because Trek was actually way ahead of the curve on delicate social and political issues that we all take for granted today, but were unspoken back then. If Firefly could have produced 40 episodes I believe it could be thriving on re-runs. A season or two of Firefly re-runs shown at 11:00 pm would be seen by countless millions, and in short time Firefly would become part of our collective consciousness. The Honeymooner "classics" are 39 episodes that aired from 1953-1954. Every American knows those episodes by heart, because they've been seen hundreds of times. They also happen to be outstanding and still fresh, and perhaps more relevant today because there are a lot of Ralph Kramdens out there. With the strong characters of Firefly, there's no doubt that everyone watching would have been able to relate to and love many of the characters, like we Browncoats do.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE