New Space Western on Fox.

[loomer]

I mean, the norm is that Main characters don't die, or not very often. Whedon delights in not only killing off Main Characters but doing so with no real reason other then his own whims. Firefly never got to that pointy, but you can see it wuld of, in the Movie Serenity, Whedon goes and kilsl off three main Members, one of whom was whit the show form the start

I seem to recall him only killing off two main characters, BOTH who had been with the show from the start.

[Oskuro]

And his rationale was solid, if he hadn't killed those characters, the audience would have assumed the character shields were up, thus lessening the impact of the final scenes.

[Sarevok]

I agree. Dramatic deaths are overdone. Everyone and their dog has one. Wash`s death had a touch of "holy shit this is real" to it. Same for Book. Not creating a slow motion death sequence with sad music actually enhanced their deaths and gave it an authentic touch and the movie was better because of it. While viewing firefly i questioned whether they have bulletproof character shields and the movie showed that no they just got lucky so far.

[Bilbo]

I will say that whatever Firefly was, and whatever Whedon planned on doing with it, it managed to have a decent setting, but make it all about the characters within it. It managed to show us people who genuinely cared for each other in a way that wasn't as much stated as infused into the show itself.

I mean, Jesus, the historical parallels are naked: the Independents are the CSA... in SPAACE; the Reavers are the demonized image of Red Injuns... in SPAACE. Yet we root for Mal, a former solder of the Independents, the man who claims that "Reavers ain't men" and who proudly proclaims "I'm thinkin' we'll rise again."

How the fuck Whedon managed that is a good question, but I bet it had something to do with getting together a group of actors who really honestly enjoyed being in each other's company.

You are trying to push your comparison way too far. The Indeps were just that, they were independent. They were not a revolting part of a larger organization. The Alliance was an aggressive imperialistic power attempting (and suceeding) to expand its political and military control over all humanity.

As for the Reavers, I can see them being comparable to every piece of extremist propaganda put out about the Indians to justify their removal but in this case everything but the "they aint human" is true. In reality one can even argue that Mal was true on that part also, he never said they were never men, he said they aint men. Considering how they lived and what they did to themselves the Reavers should have died out within a few years of their creation. Radiation exposure combined with infection from massive self mutilation should have wiped them out pretty quickly. For them to survive this for what over 10 years suggests that its more than just a little change in their brain chemestry. The drug altered them on other levels also and they really are no longer human.

We shall rise again, just talk from someone that hopes one day that the yoke of oppression as pushed on them by a foreign power will one day be shaken off. Joss may have used a phrase thrown around for decades by CSA idiots but at best it works because we have all heard it not because the two situations are similar.

[Thanas]

The independants are not slavocrats. The Reavers are not indians. In fact, the only time we see anything even remotely approaching southern culture, it is on an alliance planet which does in fact have slaves.

[Eleas]

You are trying to push your comparison way too far. The Indeps were just that, they were independent. They were not a revolting part of a larger organization. The Alliance was an aggressive imperialistic power attempting (and suceeding) to expand its political and military control over all humanity.

You're missing the point. The question is not whether Whedon changed things around; he did. However, these are still historical pastiches, and things like that are risky to use and easily backfire. Whedon could have used them clumsily, in ways that would make viewers hate the protagonists' guts or just in general. He didn't.

The independants are not slavocrats. The Reavers are not indians. In fact, the only time we see anything even remotely approaching southern culture, it is on an alliance planet which does in fact have slaves.

Again, I am perfectly aware of that. However, the Reavers are inspired by the distorted view of Indian marauders in the Western mythos, just as the Independents are inspired by the CSA in that same mythos. Both are substantially different, but the parallels are clearly obvious.

"Inspired by" does not have to mean "identical to".

[Shroom Man 777]

I did not ever recall the Union having a distinct Chinese bent and in the equivalent era of American history, all I remember Chinamen doing was build railroads by blowing themselves up with TNT.

[Thanas]

Again, I am perfectly aware of that. However, the Reavers are inspired by the distorted view of Indian marauders in the Western mythos, just as the Independents are inspired by the CSA in that same mythos. Both are substantially different, but the parallels are clearly obvious.

"Inspired by" does not have to mean "identical to".

Yeah, but I do not get that association. Not immediately, not when the alliance is the one holding slaves, not when the backstory of the Reavers is so much different. I mean, I might just as well say the Independents are inspired by the Republicans in the Spanish Civil war and the Reavers are inspired by allegedly cannibalistic african tribes.

[Eleas]

Yeah, but I do not get that association. Not immediately, not when the alliance is the one holding slaves, not when the backstory of the Reavers is so much different. I mean, I might just as well say the Independents are inspired by the Republicans in the Spanish Civil war and the Reavers are inspired by allegedly cannibalistic african tribes.

Fair enough. I'll admit the comparison was a bit of a stretch. I just personally thought the Western setting was what cinched it for me, and I found it amusing that it (in my mind) presented a sort of alternate-reality take on old dime novel concepts marinated in liberal amounts of LSD.

[Fire Fly]

OK, I'll bite. Was Firefly really that good, or is it just rose colored glasses?

Hulu has them online for free. I also avoided the show for a long time since I do not find Western interesting but the show blends it in very nicely.

As to the OP, it honestly sounds a little horrible. I'd rather they just bring back Firefly which already has an established and fervent fan base already.

[Peptuck]

The anacronism is totally off the mark. Entire towns look like they were lifted from 19th century American wild west. There is no way you can justify people 500 years later in another star system living like that.

Though others have pointed out good reasons, there's another one that's almost outright stated in the show: Low existing tech base combined with deliberate government suppression of said tech base to prevent a future uprising among a disaffected population.

[Simon_Jester]

Again, I am perfectly aware of that. However, the Reavers are inspired by the distorted view of Indian marauders in the Western mythos, just as the Independents are inspired by the CSA in that same mythos. Both are substantially different, but the parallels are clearly obvious.

"Inspired by" does not have to mean "identical to".

Yeah, but I do not get that association. Not immediately, not when the alliance is the one holding slaves, not when the backstory of the Reavers is so much different. I mean, I might just as well say the Independents are inspired by the Republicans in the Spanish Civil war and the Reavers are inspired by allegedly cannibalistic african tribes.

As far as the facts go, that's perfectly sensible.

The interpretation only makes sense in terms of myths, not facts. In one major narrative thread of the mythic American West (where most of the interesting action occurs after the American Civil War), the Confederates were a Noble Lost Cause, the natives were Murdering Savages, and the government was a bunch of Oppressors trying to control the last refuge of the Heroic Outlaw. And if that's not your mythos of choice, what I just said is complete gibberish- as it should be, because when you compare that version of the myth to the facts it's a load of crap.

But if you're writing a space Western for an American audience, you can tap the archetypes to help make the story work for your intended audience. Make your charismatic spaceship captain the scarred but unbeaten veteran of a Noble Lost Cause, have the edges of civilization be the hunting grounds of Murdering Savages, make the lawful authorities into Oppressors so that the outlaws become Heroic by default... it works. At least, it works for Whedon's target audience.

It's not about any particular statement about the real nature of the CSA or the Native American tribes, except at two or three removes through multiple layers of allusion.

[Eleas]

As far as the facts go, that's perfectly sensible.

The interpretation only makes sense in terms of myths, not facts. In one major narrative thread of the mythic American West (where most of the interesting action occurs after the American Civil War), the Confederates were a Noble Lost Cause, the natives were Murdering Savages, and the government was a bunch of Oppressors trying to control the last refuge of the Heroic Outlaw. And if that's not your mythos of choice, what I just said is complete gibberish- as it should be, because when you compare that version of the myth to the facts it's a load of crap.

But if you're writing a space Western for an American audience, you can tap the archetypes to help make the story work for your intended audience. Make your charismatic spaceship captain the scarred but unbeaten veteran of a Noble Lost Cause, have the edges of civilization be the hunting grounds of Murdering Savages, make the lawful authorities into Oppressors so that the outlaws become Heroic by default... it works. At least, it works for Whedon's target audience.

It's not about any particular statement about the real nature of the CSA or the Native American tribes, except at two or three removes through multiple layers of allusion.

Thank you. You put what I wanted to say in much better terms than I did. I suppose what I wanted to say is that despite this seemingly simple trick, it ends up being about characters that are genuinely likeable humans.

[Thanas]

The interpretation only makes sense in terms of myths, not facts. In one major narrative thread of the mythic American West (where most of the interesting action occurs after the American Civil War), the Confederates were a Noble Lost Cause, the natives were Murdering Savages, and the government was a bunch of Oppressors trying to control the last refuge of the Heroic Outlaw. And if that's not your mythos of choice, what I just said is complete gibberish- as it should be, because when you compare that version of the myth to the facts it's a load of crap.

But if you're writing a space Western for an American audience, you can tap the archetypes to help make the story work for your intended audience. Make your charismatic spaceship captain the scarred but unbeaten veteran of a Noble Lost Cause, have the edges of civilization be the hunting grounds of Murdering Savages, make the lawful authorities into Oppressors so that the outlaws become Heroic by default... it works. At least, it works for Whedon's target audience.

It's not about any particular statement about the real nature of the CSA or the Native American tribes, except at two or three removes through multiple layers of allusion.

You do not need the CSA or American natives for that, though. All you need are the typical myths of all nations throughout history. Heck, I can get right back to Dietrich von Bern or other stories throughout antiquity and early medieval times. What you are describing are general trends throughout history that are not automatically indicative of any particular history. You need to have a strong attachment to american culture to automatically conclude that these are analogues to the American Civil war. I'd rather assume he used the wild west as a setting and used general story principles found throughout history instead of choosing to fixate on one narrow aspect of american history.

[Simon_Jester]

What you are describing are general trends throughout history that are not automatically indicative of any particular history. You need to have a strong attachment to american culture to automatically conclude that these are analogues to the American Civil war.

Which much of his target audience does. I don't believe Whedon was intentionally trying to comment on a narrow aspect of American history, but I do think that he was trying to tap into the tropes related to that aspect, because he was pitching the story to a group of people who'd recognize it.

So Whedon is invoking the archetypes of Oppressive Government, Noble Doomed Cause, and Wild Savages, but he's also tying his story to the fictional version of the American West... where the Noble Doomed Cause of choice was the CSA, the Wild Savages were native Americans, and where the Oppressive Government had to be the US Federal government by default if it existed at all.

Like most good stories, Firefly works on people who are not its specific intended audience, of course. The Noble Doomed Cause (for example) is an archetype, or at least present in a fairly large proportion of cultures, so it sells as a generic Noble Doomed Cause even among people who would never think of the CSA as one of them.* That doesn't mean there's no connection in the form of inspiration or conscious imitation to the specific cultural myths of the people Whedon was trying to sell his show to.

*Like me, for instance.

[Mr Bean]

Well they had the technology to terraform these worlds. These planets probably looked more like mars than an earth clone with duplicate biosphere. They gave it a breathable atmosphere, changed the climate put down all the plants and animals and made it tick like a living breathing duplicate of earth. And they did it all in a few hundred years at most. That implies a very high technology level. Even if the settlers to the outer planets were penniless rejects and social outcasts from the wealthy core they would not live like cowboys. There was no premade american wild west waiting to get turned into ranches down there. When the first settlers arrived in orbit they must have looked down on an alien world. It was all moonscape the settlers had to apply superscience to change into earth like conditions.

Firefly history indicates that all the first few planets were terraformed followed by all of the outer and middle planets in one go. It being a slow process and the only thing their transforming seems to do is change the world to be a nice oxygen rich environment with a sprinkling of earth planets and game animals to establish the bare bones of an ecosystem. Where they don't try hard we get things like Whitefall which was mostly large scrub land around the equator and little else, where they do try hard we get Persephone which is a pretty close to Earth.

Also note that it depends on the episode in the show. For example Higgins' Moon(Featured inJaynestown) the mudders live in a mix of prefab kind of housing you expected settlers to bring with them and rough lean too's while the local lord had built his house of wood, something often used as a good symbol of status where the area we saw were not exactly prime tree country.

You can sell the whole thing that in Firefly there was a some point a goverment push to get the outer planets settled. So they got settlers the old fashion with a mix of manditory and offering them inducements or bonuses to go. After all would you want to move to someplace like Whitehall when your already living on a very nice Earth clone as it is? So they send of the settlers, they give them the bare basics of support not to starve to death. Then there's a change in government or a change in public opinion and settlement becomes a secondary or tertiary concern and they begin back-sliding due to lack of numbers or cheap resupply.

[Oskuro]

The first episode of the series makes a point of explaining that many settlers were dropped at a given planet, with a few supplies, and left to their own devices. That's why the super-valuable goods they smuggle in the episode are what they are.

And now, more awesome quotes:

Simon: I'm trying to put this as delicately as I can...how do I know you won't kill me in my sleep?
Mal: You don't know me, son, so let me put this to you plainly: If I ever kill you, you'll be awake. You'll be facing me. And you'll be armed.

[Peptuck]

You can sell the whole thing that in Firefly there was a some point a goverment push to get the outer planets settled. So they got settlers the old fashion with a mix of manditory and offering them inducements or bonuses to go. After all would you want to move to someplace like Whitehall when your already living on a very nice Earth clone as it is? So they send of the settlers, they give them the bare basics of support not to starve to death. Then there's a change in government or a change in public opinion and settlement becomes a secondary or tertiary concern and they begin back-sliding due to lack of numbers or cheap resupply.

Not to mention the whole civil war thing that happened, too.

The Alliance's goal post-Unification War is to occupy and secure and pacify the Outer and Rim planets. A good way to keep an insurgency from rising into another out-and-out revolt is to ensure massive tech disparity. And keep in mind, the Alliance government is essentially full of people who believe that their particular brand of mind-controlling oppression is helping you.

[Shroom Man 777]

Terraforming is a very damn expensive thing. If I was a government, after I suckered those proles into working long and hard to make some uninhabited moon habitable, there's no way I'm going to go out of the way and waste even more money and have those shitpiece conscripted slave workers have modest futuristic sci-fi habitations. They can go live in squalor and ride/eat horses and use wood and nails to build houses that look like something from a Sergio Leone movie.

Meanwhile, those corporate investors and noble houses that speak gratuitous mispronounced and butchered Chinese because it is the current fad can settle on their new planet and live in posh surrounds.

The Alliance is for all points and purposes a dystopia. Why should those poor fringe world yokels living in squalor be treated any better than those convicts who killed all the aboriginies in Australia, or those shmucks in the gulags? Their descendents would also be just as well off, which is not very.