Animated 'Firefly' Reboot in Development from Nathan Fillion, 20th TV(hollywoodreporter.com) |
Animated 'Firefly' Reboot in Development from Nathan Fillion, 20th TV(hollywoodreporter.com) |
Moreover, I felt Serenity was a good conclusion to the original mythology (River, Alliance, etc.). If they introduce a new mythology arc, it might not quite have the same resonance. And if they just do a bunch of monster-of-the-week episodes, it won't be enough.
But I don't want to criticize what I haven't seen. They know way better than I do, and even if the only result of this is that the original actors have a lot of fun, then I'm all for it. They deserve to take a shot.
If they went the full live-action route there’s a higher chance it tarnishes the legacy of the original.
I didn’t like Star Trek: Lower Decks but it didn’t make me feel like Trek has been ruined like Strange New Worlds and Starfleet Academy did.
Lower Decks in traditional Trek fashion had a rough season 1 but was stronger later. SNW an Academy had probably the best two season 1 performances of any Star Trek shows ever produced. There's one gripe about Academy that you can grant: The theme song sucks. Other than that, perfect.
There's some legitimately challenging writing decisions in Discovery and Picard, but if the three shows you mentioned ruin Trek for you, you never got it in the first place.
Its same with anything really - car enthusiasts obsess over limited runs of older cars because they are rare, not because they are good, and people were lining up at McDonalds when they re-released Szechuan sauce (which is literally soy sauce and ketchup).
If they would have done Season 2,3, and so on, it wouldn't be held in such a high regard as it is now.
Strongly disagree. The Firefly series was always exceptional. I watched it on DVD around the time it came out (maybe just after it was cancelled) and waited for the movie. The movie was actually a net negative, in my opinion, for killing off Wash (Tudyk), who was essential to the chemistry they had going.
I actually think the movie killing him off (and to a lesser extent, killing Book) hurt the momentum for further movies or other follow-ups.
> If they would have done Season 2,3, and so on, it wouldn't be held in such a high regard as it is now.
It's always possible that it could have gone off the rails. But the original Star Trek only ran for three seasons and spawned countless other shows and movies. I think if it had gone for two more seasons with the same cast, crew it, and general quality level it could potentially have been another Star Trek.
But, the animated series a good idea and smart.
First, it lets Nathan and Morena participate considering they're pretty busy with their prime time series.
Second, there's no reason to "jump ahead 20 years". They can pick right up from where they left off after they figure out how to dig Wash out of the ground. The animated characters don't have to age. They can do a prequel, they have a lot of flexibility which helps to not pigeon hole it.
And, ideally, the animated series can be less expensive, making it perhaps more of a chance for success and continuing (I have no idea how much modern animated show development costs compared to sets and CGI etc.).
I have not seen it, but I understand that The Clone Wars is a pretty successful series, so maybe that's an inspiration.
Mixed feelings about it being animated. The older I become, the more I have trouble relating to painted characters, no real clue why, so I couldn't even enjoy things I should have enjoyed like Arcane.
Also, of course, no Shepherd Book :-(
Anyway, I hope I'll like it. Really loved season 1.
This is just an announcement that they want to make it. Nobody has signed up to make even the pilot. It's not even a kickstarter.
My bull case for this is that Nathan Fillion and crew have had 20 years of exposure to this fact and likely know what they're getting into and how to do it right. The only question is if they'll be able to execute. I'm excited!
There’s plenty of writing talent out there that grew up wanting to emulate Buffy and Firefly, so if hearts and budgets are in the right place, recapturing that part of the show should be eminently feasible.
My tinfoil hat tells me Someone Important didn't want two shows from the same creator resurrected simultaneously and potentially competing with each other, but I put the hat back in the cupboard because even if it were true, that person's opinion would be stupid. Coincidences happen, and people can be fans of more than one thing.
Personally, I have high hopes for this Firefly venture. And for those who were hoping for a live action continuation, that's still not off the table! This may be how we get there.
Tara Butters from Dollhouse being involved makes me a feel a bit better, since I love Dollhouse (actually rewatching it right now). Now I can only hope this actually succeeds and maybe Dollhouse can get similar treatment.
I am sure some will be upset that it's animated, but if that is what it takes (and it turns out good) I'm fine with it.
My concern about original writers being involved in reboots is if they want to fill out the story they couldn't tell the first time around and end up with a more standard pacing that's less exciting, and end up getting cancelled before finishing. Then we end up with things like Tru Calling and Dark Matter, which had planned plots they couldn't finish.
“There was a problem loading the page please click OK to learn more.”
In theory it can be close to the real actors continuing it in early 2000s
Eww, absolutely not.
For better or worse.
And I risk saying that perhaps media that become iconic shouldn't be touched no matter what happened during production or screening. Because if you start fiddling around it even in a good faith that charm may be gone forever.
"Firefly/Serenity" for me is from same shelf as DS9 or rebooted BSG - a closed story that doesn't need any continuation. These titles got rather bitter than sweet ending; there are questions and that's good. Not everything has to be wrapped up with a picturesque idyllic scenery, where everyone "lived happily ever after".
But at the same time, I don't mind if they roll animated "Firefly". And I give them my thumbs up, will be happy if they manage to success but I don't have big expectations either.
So, I hope for some of that magic with firefly, they've earned it by keeping that series relevant for 20+ years.
The animated show is set between the original series and the movie, presumably because of Wash's character.
My understanding is that it fits between the series and the movie, so there will be no need to rename the land known as His Grave.
Animation costs are all over the place. It can be dirty cheap, it can be more expensive than a highly-produced live action. You can notice the difference, but it's not what actually matters for the show's success.
I usually don't like cartoons but I'm hopeful.
I adored Lower Decks. It was the right way to approach fan service for a franchise as I hate seeing fan service awkwardly ham fisted into every corner of nutrek. Some of the later seasons were a bit awkward, or rushed?, but overall I adored it. Terrific character development and overall really told that story of that period between being a bunch of green academy grads and being adaptable, competent professionals.
The setting is great, the writing is top-notch, and the acting is wonderful. The characters have great chemistry. It's funny.
The general universe is well done too. It lacks endless implausible human-shaped aliens and is light on space magic, which is nice. Overall it feels lived-in and there is some interesting history.
Honestly it's hard to think of another space-western style series that I'd rate so highly. I guess parts of the Mandalorian fit the bill, but I wouldn't rank it up there with Firefly.
In contrast to the sibling comment, I fell in love with the series before I knew it had been canceled. When I finished season 1, I immediately went in search of season 2. When I couldn’t find it, I went to find out when it was going to be released. Discovering what had happened to it was tremendously disappointing.
Had it lasted three seasons (or even only two), and still been 'cancelled before it's time' it would have faded from memory more quickly because the itch would have been scratched more satisfyingly.
It was good for it's time, and since it was cancelled it's locked within that time. How it translates against modern television is yet to be seen. However, the popularity of The Mandalorian means there is still a market for the Sci-fi Western.
(I liked parts of The Mandalorian, but it went downhill pretty fast in terms of ... everything. I like the sci-fi western thing - it's not serious, but it can touch serious-ness. The Expanse was serious, and touched some Western/Frontier sci-fi)
Firefly has memorable characters, great acting/actors, and good chemistry and good writing. And it's especially memorable because the show got fucked over so people can imagine a lot more greatness than was delivered.
The only thing I remember reading for sure is, the 2nd season would have largely been about exploring what was happening to Echo because of what occurred in the 1st season aired finale (episode "Omega") - which did happen, but it I don't remember it dominating the season. Didn't sound like it would have been a dark season, but looking back on it seems like it would have been painfully slow.
Nothing can replace actual actors.
Didn’t really interest me.
When the show was first released it was cancelled after half a season because it was expensive to make and couldn't compete in the ratings with slap-dash, almost free to produce "reality TV".
Plus there have been dozens of one-series sci-fi shows (Almost Human, Terra Nova, Space:Above and Beyond, etc.) and none have the same pull as Firefly.
Other science fiction shows Fox killed after not more than one season were The Lone Gunman, Harsh Realm, Minority Report, Second Chance, and John Doe.
Others did make it past the first season but not past the second, such as Dark Angel and Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles.
Even shows that make it longer often have trouble on Fox. Futurama for example was put in terrible time slots that often got preempted by sports which made it hard to grow its audience, and most of the time the creators had no idea if the current season was going to be their last. They had to keep trying to write season finales that would also be good series finales if they got cancelled between seasons.
They also do this to shows in other genres. Lucifer for example got cancelled after 3 seasons, with season 3 having ended on the biggest possible cliffhanger there could be for that show. That was very annoying.
My rule has now been for a long time that I will not watch any new scripted series on Fox that has any kind of ongoing story. If there are enough good reviews and word of mouth to make me want to watch it I'll wait until complete seasons are available on streaming, and then only if there exists some N such that if I watch to episode N and stop there won't be any cliffhangers or important ongoing story arcs open.
Beyond that, its called hedonistic adaptation, and its a real effect. If you get something good in a small amount, you are going to inflate how good it is. If you get that good thing in larger amounts, its going to seem less good.
(1) TOS (1) TNG (2) lower decks (3) the animated series?
But, I watch it for the science fiction. The other series were hardly the same genre.
DS9 was trying to be babylon 5 / sanctuary moon half the time. The lack of science research on voyager still works my spouse into a rage.
I actually like Discovery, but I can also point out a bunch of problems with it. Disappointing mystery boxes, questionable commitment to canon continuity, so much focus on a single character that many of the most interesting characters get no screen time. The fans often had better ideas about where the story is going than the writers did.
I also really like DS9, TNG, and Voyager, but you can easily also admit seasons 1 and 2 of each are... on the weaker side. They take time to warm up to the quality SNW and SFA nailed in their very first seasons. And bear in mind, we're working with ten episode seasons now, so even Strange New Worlds is barely past it's "season one" in classic show terms. Go find a single episode of Strange New Worlds or Starfleet Academy that's "Code of Honor"-worthy bad. You won't find one because there isn't one.
Lower Decks, Strange New Worlds, and Starfleet Academy are vastly better shows than Discovery or Picard. But more than that, LD, SNW, and SFA are some of the most classic-style Star Trek content you can get. We're talking largely episodic shows which heavily draw from TNG and TOS storylines and plot design, and often focused on discussing the very core of what Starfleet, and Star Trek in general, is about. If people are still griping about the Star Trek produced today, it's because they aren't watching it.
The weird part is these criticisms if pointed at Discovery or Picard might have held weight! But it's directed at shows which are a complete non sequitur for the claims made.
Academy is so bad that I have to wonder if there are people involved who deliberately want to destroy Star Trek so they can "re-boot" it from scratch later.
The recent Star Trek shows have their problems, most often whiffing the delivery of a satisfying conclusion to the season arc. (Discovery and Picard both had terrible mystery box seasons where the mystery ended up being dumb and disappointing.) Academy nailed it. The characters, the conclusion, the resolution to different subplot threads, all extremely solid.
Like, you can generally like or dislike a given show, but there are valid criticisms and then there are very invalid ones. And it's very clear you did not actually watch the series.
It certainly does not to me. This is supposed to be, ya know, the academy that the best of the best enter into in order to commission into Starfleet. The rest of Academy is one incomprehensible plot hole after another, followed by awful (and at times disrespectful) callbacks to prior shows.
Can you link some blog posts? I'd like to read them. Not on social media these days as I gave it up for Lent a decade ago and never went back, so I'm probably missing some more comprehensive criticisms of Academy.
It's important to understand that generally speaking, Academy standards are probably a lot lower than they used to be, the show, actually goes into this a couple times! Because, you know, the destruction of a large part of society and such. It is a school, and if the characters didn't need to learn something, they probably wouldn't need to be there.
You're generally going to find competency in the command staff/professors, and you generally do. Captain Ake is in at least one episode, orchestrating the entire episode behind the scenes, and in the following one, it doesn't say it explicitly, but it is most plausible that she also did as well. Episodes where the senior staff don't know what's happening, it's clear they know something is up, they just haven't determined what yet. I am not positive I can think of a spot where the officers in the show were anything but incredibly competent, and the show also avoids classic tropes like "the admiral is a jerk/evil", Starfleet is, in fact, led by an extremely competent and reasonable admiral.
It's fine that you think this is entertaining science fiction, and are grafting perceptions of "competence" on characters in this show. I don't want to nitpic everything in your response, except for this:
>Academy standards are probably a lot lower than they used to be, the show, actually goes into this a couple times!
The explanation for this makes no sense. This is the 32nd century (allegedly). The amount of advanced technology one would need to understand to be functional in this environment is extreme.
As an aside, and maybe this is the best way to explain my aversion to this show, the ship design is awful and makes absolutely no sense. I forget which "tech the tech" explanation there was for this, but every starship in Academy is a) hideous because the warp nacelles just float out in space for some reason, and b) makes no sense canonically. Star Trek used to actually respect engineering. Academy says "nah, fuck it, it's all magic now".
Computing technology is much further today than it was twenty years ago, but kids these days understand less about them because the technology is abstracted away better. (People use iPads now with no idea how a file system works.) In the 32nd century stuff feels magical, a lot of people probably don't need to know how it works to use it.
Floating nacelles make plenty of sense if they're independent drive units with all necessary components in the nacelle, consider they create a warp bubble around the entire assembly, but you can obviously wirelessly control a separate structure and the ships can manipulate them with force fields and such. Think about how many times a ship in earlier shows scraped a nacelle and exploded, separation is good design if technology now allows it. And remember... this is like many hundreds of years after Starfleet had timeships that could beam a person to and from any place in space and time. If anything the technology in this series feels a bit not magical enough for the time period.