The first man to raise a fist is the man who's run out of ideas. H.G. WELLS
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. FEYNMAN If this is monkey pee, you're on your own.SCULLY
Excellent show. The only silver lining in its cancellation can be found along hints that Whedon et al. pushed too hard in the first season (see: "Heart of Gold"), and may well have burned out before the third season -- instead, fans have over a dozen good episodes and a matchless, two-hour pilot.
Serenity was, I thought, a failure in resolution; to say nothing of its being too macabre for success at the box office. But it's a movie, and can be ignored from a writing and production standpoint. Joss Whedon would be precisely the man to stage a five-minute comedy brief explaining exactly why his own film was to be declared apocryphal. Besides, doesn't Sci-Fi, which is playing Firefly in syndication, have something of a history for resurrecting stillborn classics?
If so they shot themselves in the foot somewhat by killing off the most likeable of the characters (Wash). And they killed off Book too before he could provide any of his backstory.
Hence my suggestion that the movies be excised. Neither of the deaths made any difference in the narrative, needless and occurring with bizarre indifference as they were. Serenity wasn't a snuff film. Bring Wash and Book back; and get rid of the insipid, metachlorian-like explanation for Reavers at the same time.
Originally Posted by oberon
Yes and no. They brought back Star Trek. It didn't feel the same.
The show returned as The Next Generation, which was, after a respective three seasons, several times better than the original series.
IMO, Serenity was one of the best movies ever made, but only about a tenth as good as the series (you can deduce my opinion of Firefly from that). But I understand why Whedon did what he did with the movie. Firefly was all about subtle, meaningful interactions between several main characters, developed over several episodes. That doesn't work well for a feature film, especially for people not familiar with the series, and for the kind of story a film has. He needed to trim down the number of characters (he is at least tentatively planning more films), and make them more immediate and archetypal in nature.
But Wash? I mean, come on. Of all the characters to lose, why him?
It's interesting people brought up Star Trek. I'll likely be drawn and quartered for saying this, but I could never get into the Trek series (any of them). Everything is just too bright and clean and neatly resolved, and the characters seem designed more to fill assigned roles than to have actual personalities with real backstories, issues, and motivations.
To me, Firefly was everything Star Trek wasn't.
I'm not a procrastinator. I'm a long-term planner.