Firefly fans trying to raise money to bring back show

[MKSheppard]

Yeah, it's like that SciFi series back in the 1960's, you know, the one with a womanizing captain and his sidekick with the pointed ears and that space doc? What was it called, Star Trek?. Yeah, they tried to bring that one back, too, but nothing ever came of it...

How about you shut up you silly woman?

Star Trek had three seasons; providing a wide base to syndicate it. Star Trek the Motion Picture cost about $40 million to make, and took in about $11 million on it's first weekend; for a total of about $80 million total lifetime gross. The first movie while not being totally awesome, was financially healthy enough to provide a base for Wrath of Khan development to begin.

Firefly had just a shitty ten episode truncated season; and a movie that cost $39 million to make. Total gross? $38 million. Figure in the marketing costs of the movie; and it basically lost money.

Finally, the movie was one huge style over substance fallacy with The Operative and Mal.

Finally, lets all remember that Firefly gave us nBSG. There was going to be a BSG revival with Bryan Singer, but Firefly took the money and that died.

[Bakustra]

Yeah, it's like that SciFi series back in the 1960's, you know, the one with a womanizing captain and his sidekick with the pointed ears and that space doc? What was it called, Star Trek?. Yeah, they tried to bring that one back, too, but nothing ever came of it...

How about you shut up you silly woman?

Star Trek had three seasons; providing a wide base to syndicate it. Star Trek the Motion Picture cost about $40 million to make, and took in about $11 million on it's first weekend; for a total of about $80 million total lifetime gross. The first movie while not being totally awesome, was financially healthy enough to provide a base for Wrath of Khan development to begin.

Firefly had just a shitty ten episode truncated season; and a movie that cost $39 million to make. Total gross? $38 million. Figure in the marketing costs of the movie; and it basically lost money.

Finally, the movie was one huge style over substance fallacy with The Operative and Mal.

Finally, lets all remember that Firefly gave us nBSG. There was going to be a BSG revival with Bryan Singer, but Firefly took the money and that died.

1) Would you say that Broomstick, in addition to being a "silly woman", is also possibly "vapid" and maybe "hysterical"?

2) How exactly can a movie be a "style over substance fallacy", and assuming that you can explain this to people who don't share your twisted brain, what exactly makes Serenity an example of such?

3) Why exactly is the existence of nBSG a negative against Firefly, and why would such a revival of oBSG be a positive?

[Swindle1984]

I'm a big fan of Firefly, and I don't want to rain all over the browncoats' parade, but the truth is that nobody liked Firefly. Sure it has a fanatically devoted fanbase, but they have delusions of being much larger than they are, I think. Try pitching Firefly to most people. You can't get them to even consider watching it ("A space western? What is this shit?"). The premise is too peculiar and the cost too great for a show with very niche appeal. Getting fucked by Fox hurt, but I doubt the show would have lasted much longer even if they had given it a better time slot and heavier promotion.

Besides, Joss Whedon would have ruined Firefly if it had been left on air. As is we can remember it as a science fiction martyr instead of something that started out good but got buried by its creator's bullshit.

If they were to revive Firefly, I would recommend they reboot the continuity and change some things on account of Serenity spoiling everything as well as undoing much of Firefly's character development.

As far as I'm concerned, Firefly ended with the last episode. Serenity is an alternate continuity, thanks to its retconning of character development.

Bring back the series? Pick up where the last episode left off and ignore the movie.

[MKSheppard]

1) Would you say that Broomstick, in addition to being a "silly woman", is also possibly "vapid" and maybe "hysterical"?

I am in agreement with your concepts and find them intruiging and wish to subscribe to your newsletter, my good sir.

2) How exactly can a movie be a "style over substance fallacy", and assuming that you can explain this to people who don't share your twisted brain, what exactly makes Serenity an example of such?

Holy shit, where do I start?

How about the beginning, where River Tam escapes (wank itself) resulting in the OPERATIVE showing up and killing the people who ran the project to create her. Fairly typical evil corporation/whatever cleanup scene; which is in itself a style over substance thing. Great job! You are killing the people who can let you make River Tam Mk II, wasting your whole investment in the damn project.

Instead of simply shooting them all in the back of the head like a sensible person, he decides to do whole style over substance execution fetish, with a super secret martial arts paralysis move and placing his sword -- seriously why the fuck is he carrying around a Katana in the future -- under the doctor, so that the doctor eventually falls onto the sword?

Later, we have our loveable river tam, a 110 lb weakling massacring roomfuls of reavers without nary a scratch on her; and of course in the final showdown between the Operative and Mal; the Operative tries his super secret move on Mal -- and we think it's all over for mal, when all of a sudden he gets up and kicks the operative's ass.

Explanation? "Oh, I got that nerve cluster torn out by shrapnel ten years ago in the rebellion."

*fapfapfapffap*

EDIT: I just found my old Serenity review thread from 2006 and found some extra points:

• Mal being so stupid; hasn't the man ever heard of a double-tap or god forbid, a HEADSHOT? if he had just shot the Operative in the head from the get go; a lot of problems would have been prevented. Sadly, this is a reoccuring theme throughout the movie; Mal getting the drop on the Operative yet refusing to shoot him in the head.
• Yes, we're on a planet full of cities, nobody's alive, and what's the first thing we do? Take off our Helmets? GAH! *slaps Mal*

3) Why exactly is the existence of nBSG a negative against Firefly, and why would such a revival of oBSG be a positive?

I jsut like pointing out that Firefly killed BSG once as a curiosity.

[Batman]

Last I checked, the Operative killed all of one person.

[Swindle1984]

Last I checked, the Operative killed all of one person.

The scientist dude, his two security/bodyguards, the nerd with the realdoll, and... unless you count people he ordered others to kill, then that's it. Four.

[Batman]

I stand corrected.

[Bakustra]

1) Would you say that Broomstick, in addition to being a "silly woman", is also possibly "vapid" and maybe "hysterical"?

I am in agreement with your concepts and find them intruiging and wish to subscribe to your newsletter, my good sir.

So are you willing to ride the misogyny train all the way into the station and insist that she's not only "vapid", but a "vapid cunt", a "stupid bitch", and all the lovely panoply of sex- and gender-based insults? Or are you going to back down? Or will you throw a fit? Or will you run run run away? I'm on tenterhooks.

2) How exactly can a movie be a "style over substance fallacy", and assuming that you can explain this to people who don't share your twisted brain, what exactly makes Serenity an example of such?

Holy shit, where do I start?

How about the beginning, where River Tam escapes (wank itself) resulting in the OPERATIVE showing up and killing the people who ran the project to create her. Fairly typical evil corporation/whatever cleanup scene; which is in itself a style over substance thing. Great job! You are killing the people who can let you make River Tam Mk II, wasting your whole investment in the damn project.

Instead of simply shooting them all in the back of the head like a sensible person, he decides to do whole style over substance execution fetish, with a super secret martial arts paralysis move and placing his sword -- seriously why the fuck is he carrying around a Katana in the future -- under the doctor, so that the doctor eventually falls onto the sword?

Later, we have our loveable river tam, a 110 lb weakling massacring roomfuls of reavers without nary a scratch on her; and of course in the final showdown between the Operative and Mal; the Operative tries his super secret move on Mal -- and we think it's all over for mal, when all of a sudden he gets up and kicks the operative's ass.

Explanation? "Oh, I got that nerve cluster torn out by shrapnel ten years ago in the rebellion."

*fapfapfapffap*

EDIT: I just found my old Serenity review thread from 2006 and found some extra points:

• Mal being so stupid; hasn't the man ever heard of a double-tap or god forbid, a HEADSHOT? if he had just shot the Operative in the head from the get go; a lot of problems would have been prevented. Sadly, this is a reoccuring theme throughout the movie; Mal getting the drop on the Operative yet refusing to shoot him in the head.
• Yes, we're on a planet full of cities, nobody's alive, and what's the first thing we do? Take off our Helmets? GAH! *slaps Mal*

Well done, Shep! You've achieved literacy without comprehension! This would be a historic moment, but here it's just annoying. Your lengthy response never explained how a movie can be a fallacy, so you've failed to answer my question. Maybe you can try again, but somehow I doubt that you can communicate said idea in such a way that the neurotypical mind can understand it.

That said, your entire list could be boiled down into one sentence: "waah, my realisms!" Unfortunately, such sentences are not the sign of the intelligent critic, I am afraid.

3) Why exactly is the existence of nBSG a negative against Firefly, and why would such a revival of oBSG be a positive?

I jsut like pointing out that Firefly killed BSG once as a curiosity.

Sure you do, Shep. Sure you do.

[aussiemuscle308]

So they aren't even taking actual money? Just "pledges"?

"why didn't you say so... yes, i'd like to donate $10,000, from 'anonymous'" - Homer Simpson

[MKSheppard]

So are you willing to ride the misogyny train all the way into the station and insist that she's not only "vapid", but a "vapid cunt", a "stupid bitch", and all the lovely panoply of sex- and gender-based insults? Or are you going to back down? Or will you throw a fit? Or will you run run run away? I'm on tenterhooks.

*monocle droops*

My good sir! Such coarse language is uncalled for, particularly when dealing with hysterical women.

*replaces monocle*

Your lengthy response never explained how a movie can be a fallacy

Durr? The entire thing was basically a typical Joss Whedon style over substance fallacy like Alien: Resurrection was. In fact, if you go to the older movie, you can see many of the plot ideas that resurfaced like a bad hemorrhoid in Serenity; chief amongst them being grrl power.

[Shroom Man 777]

Okay, its got a girl doing kung fu and kicking ass. How is that any lamer than some hulked out steroid muscle man running around half-naked and machinegunning an entire island full of mustachioed goons without getting once wounded? Except maybe more folks would get off more at the sight of the half-naked muscle man than they would on close ups of ROBOT RIVERS' feet. Hell, how is that any lamer than some lame ancient movie for nerds about some space magic woo-woo stuff, culminating in some farm boy chucking a quantum torpedo on some space sphincter to blow up a death star or some god looking for a starship at the center of the universe or whatever?

Serenity was okay. Yeah, maybe totally overhyped by the brownshirts who voted it for the best sci-fi movie ever. But as far as the orgasmos of fatty nerds goes, it's pretty A-OK.

Sure beats some lame slow-ass paced pretentious shitty movie starting with some gorillas with sticks, some black rocks, and an ending with some lame cheap space man on some acid trip.

[Stofsk]

Sure beats some lame slow-ass paced pretentious shitty movie starting with some gorillas with sticks, some black rocks, and an ending with some lame cheap space man on some acid trip.

Shroom, I like you and all, but don't even go there. :[

[Vympel]

Well I could never watch 2001 again. Saw it when it was re-released in a local indie cinema back in ... 2002 or something, that's about it.

[Stofsk]

Pfft yeah but you like Transformers 2.

[Batman]

At least Transformers 2 has decent special effects and stuff actually happening (the stupidity of the stuff happening notwithstanding). 2001 has...nothing. 2001 makes Star Trek The Motionless Picture look like it's an action flic.

[Thanas]

Awesome visuals?

[Shroom Man 777]

Stuffsk, my point was re: Style over substance or whatever Shep was talking about before he dropped his monocle.

[Stofsk]

At least Transformers 2 has decent special effects and stuff actually happening (the stupidity of the stuff happening notwithstanding). 2001 has...nothing.

I can't believe you actually praised Transformers 2 for having decent special effects and then in the very next sentence claimed 2001 has nothing, when it has some of the best special effects in a science fiction movie ever.

Stuffsk, my point was re: Style over substance or whatever Shep was talking about before he dropped his monocle.

we cool then

[Batman]

2001 has awesome (for its time) special effects depicting...nothing whatsoever happening for most of the movie. Transformers 2 has decent (for its time and I seriously believe I'm doing Transformers 2 a disservice there on the VFX side if nothing else) effects depicting tons of things happening, even if the things happening are of the 'Yeah. Right. What? That makes absolutely no sense' variety.

[Simon_Jester]

Stuffsk, my point was re: Style over substance or whatever Shep was talking about before he dropped his monocle.

we cool then

I agree with Shroomy. Art is, by nature, going to be in large part about style. That's what it's for: style. You don't create art, or at least not good art, purely because you have some cool gadget you want to show off. Or to demonstrate how perfect the internal logic of the film is for the benefit of the biggest nitpickers on the Internet.

[Havok]

You know, I watched some Firefly recently. I also watched Serenity.

I'm sorry, but it is just not that good. I'm not sure what it is that people see in it.

[Aaron]

You know, I watched some Firefly recently. I also watched Serenity.

I'm sorry, but it is just not that good. I'm not sure what it is that people see in it.

It was a niche show, really.

I enjoyed it because of the interactions between Mal, Jayne, Zoe and occasionally Simon but like I said before, it's better off were it is. As for Shep, congrats you just listed problems that the majority of movies have. How the hell you manage to avoid an aneurysm is beyond me.

[Simon_Jester]

You know, I watched some Firefly recently. I also watched Serenity.

I'm sorry, but it is just not that good. I'm not sure what it is that people see in it.

It's not some kind of one-in-a-lifetime work of genius, no. But it was pretty good, and it would probably have stayed pretty good for a couple more seasons.

As I've said, I think the real reason the hyper-fans of the series get so worked up about it is because there's someone to blame for the show crapping out: Fox. Even given that it wasn't a great show, Firefly still got the shitty end of the stick from the network. That gives the fans a cause to rally around, instead of just standing around saying "we think this show was pretty cool, we like it."

[Bakustra]

So are you willing to ride the misogyny train all the way into the station and insist that she's not only "vapid", but a "vapid cunt", a "stupid bitch", and all the lovely panoply of sex- and gender-based insults? Or are you going to back down? Or will you throw a fit? Or will you run run run away? I'm on tenterhooks.

*monocle droops*

My good sir! Such coarse language is uncalled for, particularly when dealing with hysterical women.

*replaces monocle*

Yes, misogynistic and patronizing insults sure are a laugh riot, aren't they? You're trying to be funny here, but the only reason edgy/shock comedy is funny, as opposed to offensive, is because the audience knows the comic doesn't really believe what he or she is saying. It's a fine line, but you are nowhere near that line, because pretty much anybody who pays attention to the stuff you post knows you have no idea why what you're saying is considered bad. At least you stuck with it, though that's more of a negative than a positive, but with you, Shep, we have to take what we can get.

Your lengthy response never explained how a movie can be a fallacy

Durr? The entire thing was basically a typical Joss Whedon style over substance fallacy like Alien: Resurrection was. In fact, if you go to the older movie, you can see many of the plot ideas that resurfaced like a bad hemorrhoid in Serenity; chief amongst them being grrl power.

Still aren't explaining how or why, you idiot. Still weeping about your realisms. Still no change, though at least we're allowing the toxic beliefs to emerge. Hopefully, if anybody ever asks about you, this can be exhibit A someday.

Now, let's make a little list of all the other style over substance fallacies in movie form according to the "definition" Shep has produced. I'll start!
Star Wars, all of them: Swords better than guns. Cloth better than armor.
Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan: Space battle designed to resemble 18th-century naval combat for emotional effect, rather than realism.
Aliens: Greed of corporation and incompetence amongst military personnel to put characters in desperate situation.
Alien: Greed of corporation and incompetence amongst spaceship personnel to put characters in desperate situation.
2001: A Space Odyssey: Film filled with sequences designed to evoke similar emotions in audience as main character, rather than realism.

Add some more!

At least Transformers 2 has decent special effects and stuff actually happening (the stupidity of the stuff happening notwithstanding). 2001 has...nothing.

I can't believe you actually praised Transformers 2 for having decent special effects and then in the very next sentence claimed 2001 has nothing, when it has some of the best special effects in a science fiction movie ever.

Some people here are simply so wrong philosophers weep at the sound of their voices. 2001 would be a classic of cinema simply for its ability to communicate its themes and meanings in such a way that even people who hate it grasp at least one of them, if only subconsciously, let alone everything else Kubrick did with it.

[RedImperator]

At least Transformers 2 has decent special effects and stuff actually happening (the stupidity of the stuff happening notwithstanding). 2001 has...nothing. 2001 makes Star Trek The Motionless Picture look like it's an action flic.

All that says is that Transformers 2 is a pretty good special effects demo reel. It's still a shitty movie. You can get just as much action watching You Tube videos of train wrecks and atomic bomb tests, without having to sit through Michael Bay dialog to get to it. Meanwhile, if you think "trapped in a spaceship with a homicidal AI" needs whiz-bang ka-pow action to be effective, then I don't know what to tell you.

As I understand it, Fox treated it the same way they treat all their other shows. They take a chance and if it turn up big, they kill it and try the next thing.

Fox did a shit job with Firefly's initial run. The show makes no fucking sense with the episodes aired out of order, but that's what Fox did. A new show needs a steady, reliable time slot to grow an audience (especially in the days before DVR), but it kept getting preempted for baseball (Fox, incidentally, seems to have learned its lesson; it doesn't air new episodes of any ongoing series during the baseball playoffs anymore). It also helps if your time slot makes demographic sense, again, especially in the days before DVR. I guarantee you that you could kill almost any new show like that.