Would you want Firefly without Mal?
POSTED BY: GWEK
UPDATED: Thursday, December 10, 2009 11:55
VIEWED: 20272
PAGE 1 of 8
We all know that DOLLHOUSE not getting renewed for a third season, and while none of it is anything more than speculation, there seems to be a bit of renewed buzz about FIREFLY.
Let's speculate for a moment, and imagine that FOX, Universal, or some other studio gives Joss the go-ahead to do another season of FIREFLY.
The problem is this: CASTLE seems to be a success, so Nathan Fillion is unavailable. Similarly, Morena Baccarin and Adam Baldwin might also not be available (although I have my doubts about the future health of V, and CHUCK seems to constantly be on the bubble...).
So I put this to you:
Would you want another season of FIREFLY if the only returning cast members wer Gina Torres, Jewel Staite, Sean Maher, and Summer Glau? (With the possibility of Baccarin and/or Baldwin, but pretty much no hope for Fillion.)
Second question:
Given the choice between an ongoing series with only part of the original cast, or a direct-to-DVD movie annually with all seven of the surviving crew, which would you choose?
www.stillflying.net: "Here's how it might have been..."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There's no Firefly without Mal. Joss based the series on him, so the alternative is to shoot when the actors are available. I can't imagine the actors not bending over backwards to be available to do more Firefly.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I agree that they would do what they can to show back up, but I can't imagine that Fillion, being the scene-chewing star of his own series, has too much spare time these days!
www.stillflying.net: "Here's how it might have been..."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
F*X owns the rights until 2012.
Chaplain of the 76th Independant Battalion
Do not bother dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!
...it's worse than you know...Operative
...it usually is.....Mal
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think I could handle no Mal as long as Joss is directly involved. I'm pretty sure he would be able to work around that.
Besides, the show is called Firefly, not Capt. Tightpants. Heck, Serenity herself isn't guaranteed a spot in the show...
Unless, Joss decides to go with the Serenity title, of course.
ETA: to answer the actual question, would I want it without Mal? Hell no. He makes the show. 
But at this point, I'll take what I can get.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'd rather go with another film or two. Firefly without Mal, Inara or Jayne and - depending on when they set the story - Book and Wash.. Well it just isn't Firefly.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by fillygirl:
F*X owns the rights until 2012.
I believe this statement is a bit fallacious. The production company of 20th Century Fox owns production rights to Firefly until 2012, I believe. From what I've read, that's the extent of any 'fox' holding the 'rights' to Firefly. The F*X that canceled us doesn't have any real 'rights' that I can find. I saw a video snippet at one point of Joss Whedon talking about being canceled, going to the head of whatever department he needed to go to, and asking if he could 'have the rights' so he could shop the show to other networks. If I remember the quote correctly it was, "And they said yes. And I think that was the last time I talked to them." Obviously, this was a few years before Dollhouse. But it does say to me that Fox, as in the canceling network, has no real power to block a series from being made. I've often seen the maliciousness of 'F*X' being touted as a hurdle to the series returning, but if they granted freedom to shop the series to other networks, I just can't see that as being true. Now, Universal may have certain rights, pertaining to the world of motion pictures, and I don't know whether or not that would be a hurdle.
To answer the original query, I wouldn't like to see the story without Mal. (I wouldn't like to see it without anyone.
)
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
..your entitled to believe what ever you want. There is so much wrong with your post......
Chaplain of the 76th Independant Battalion
Do not bother dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!
...it's worse than you know...Operative
...it usually is.....Mal
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What, exactly, is wrong with my post? The fact that I did the tiniest bit of research? The fact that I quoted something I heard come straight out of Joss Whedon's mouth? The fact that I have been searching for anything that indicates, to any extent, that the canceling network of Fox owns any rights to future Firefly projects and have found nothing (aside from fan speculation) while there are plenty of indicators that they do not? Or is it just the fact that I disagreed with you on some level? IMO I was quite respectful and impersonal. I didn't attack you or say you were absolutely wrong, I said that everything I'd read or heard on the subject indicated that you might, in this case, be mistaken about some details. I don't understand why you would come out swinging, with nothing to support your argument other than saying there was 'so much wrong' with my post. Speaking to me like some foolish child, who is 'believing whatever I want' on some kind of whim, rather than looking it up, pursuing it, and attempting to come to a conclusion based on what I have found, is not a very constructive way to converse. It's not going to get you any respect from me, or make me bow to your opinion as being absolutely correct, especially when I've found so much that counters it. Since you have no cites, and a simple google search yields articles that seem to indicate Fox (the network) has no rights to the future of the franchise, I don't see why you're so quick to throw stones my way like this. If you find something supporting, or even constructive, I'd be interested. I'm not interested in your vitriol.
BTW, to all who might want to check my quote out, I believe the snippet I saw of Joss talking about this issue was from Done the Impossible. When I have time to re-watch it, I will. If anyone else has a copy and the time, check to see if it's on there. I'm almost certain it is.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Guys, I appreciate the discussion about who owns the rights to the show in reality, but this thread was supposed to be about a THEORETICAL philosophical fan choice for us Browncoats:
Would you rather have a new series with only 4-6 surviving cast members (and definitely no Mal) or semi-regular direct-to-DVD movies with ALL 7.*
*In either case, assume that we're post-Serenity, so Wash and Book are dead (although that doesn't rule out flashbacks, "ghosts," etc). If we went with a series, presumably Whedon would round out with new folk (possibly some of the talented newcomers from DOLLHOUSE), so it wouldn't be "just" 4 characters.
www.stillflying.net: "Here's how it might have been..."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME