# Firefly Reconsidered: Why Firefly Isn't "Hall of Fame" Great



## Snarf Zagyg (Jun 1, 2021)

I have a thing about creating various lists. Top five action heroes of the 80s. Best miniseries on Netflix. Top Three Heuristics to use while DMing. While creating these many lists that I like to make, primarily for my own enjoyment and others’ suffering, I realized something. Reading isn’t just fun, it’s FUNdamental. HA!

No, really, I learned my own reliance on rules. Rules are good. Rules are what keeps society going in an orderly fashion, allowing the transfer of wealth from the have-nots to the haves. Most importantly, rules allow for the creation of functional lists to argue about. And one of the most important rules for any list of the greatest X, is that the X in question must be complete.

This is one of those “canon” or “Hall of Fame” questions that has already been debated ad nauseum in other areas. It is very hard to judge the body of work of an athlete, an artist, or anyone when the work is unfinished- when there is more to add (or, perhaps, to subtract) how can you properly rate it? If you look at the rules (yes, rules) for the greatest in various types of sports, the “Halls of Fame” you will see one rule in particular that always stands out- that the career must be complete. Basketball player? Retired for four years. Baseball player? Retired five years. NFL? Five year retirement requirement. NASCAR? Used to have a three year retirement requirement, now must be 55 years or older and competed for ten years or more (or 30 years regardless of age ... um....).

It’s the same even in squishier areas. You want to get in the Rock and Roll hall of Fame? Gotta wait 25 years after you release your first album. So it is pretty well established is most areas that you either need to be COMPLETE (retired) or at least BEEN AROUND SO LONG YOU CAN BE PROPERLY JUDGED (at least 25+ years) in order to be eligible for consideration as the best of something. As hall of fame worthy. As a true great.

And I think it’s important to apply the same standard when discussing the greatest television series. Perhaps even moreso, because of the particular issues of television. We can call this the Firefly/Dexter paradox.

A show can be great for a short period of time. For example, the first season of Dexter was some groundbreaking television for its time. If you had asked me, in 2006-07, when all we had was the very first season of Dexter, I would have guessed that this was a show that (like the Sopranos which was wrapping up, and the Wire which had just completed Season 4, arguably its greatest season) was heading to the “all-time greats” list. But while there were some occasional good points later in the series, for example, the Trinity Killer, on the whole the series became an exercise in trolling its fans, eventually ending on a season so bad that it is an infamous marker of terrible television. That's right- your show either gets cancelled while you're a hero, or you live long enough to become a lumberjack.

Firefly, while overrated for reasons I will explain later, had a string of very good episodes, with amazing acting. But it only had 14 episodes (and a movie, but that's neither here nor there). It never had the chance to get bad, or improve. It is forever frozen in amber as what it was, but, and this is important, the show could never disappoint its fans. It will always live on as the show that would have fulfilled all of its fans wildest expectations, if only it hadn’t been cancelled.

That’s why Firefly doesn’t work, for me, on any “best of” lists. Sustained excellence counts for something. Even if the sample size is relatively small, like shows that are self-contained and complete (The Prisoner, The Leftovers), they still have finished telling the story. And as anyone who is a fan of Lost or the X-Files will be more than happy to explain to you, it is quite easy for a show to provide mysteries and questions; it is much more difficult for a show to provide answers that satisfy.

That's why we always those love things that end prematurely, and accord them added weight, because what they did in our imaginations is so much better than what actually was likely to be produced. But the sad reality is that, in all likelihood, the longer something goes on, the more likely it is to disappoint.

Think of Star Trek, the original series. Sure, it is sad that it was cancelled. But then again, season three was ... uneven at best. Think of all the best Star Trek episodes .... yep, none of them (with the exception, maybe, of the Tholian Web) occur in Season 3. It's hard to keep compelling stories going for long periods of time- arguably, this learned lesson is why we have been seeing shorter seasons of TV, and why many shows have (smartly) chosen to end rather than keep churning out episodes.

And now, time for my unpopular opinion. Firefly? It’s fine. A bit overrated. It gets way too much credit because 1) it’s sci-fi, and there aren’t a lot of good sci-fi shows (especially back then); 2) it’s Whedon (ahem, I will address this); and 3) it was cancelled. But if you really, really look at it .... meh.

Let’s start with the obvious. It's not great _because_ it's a sci-fi show. It wasn’t hard science fiction, like the Expanse, or even Babylon 5 (for its time, they tried to get it pretty accurate all things considered). It wasn’t “ideas” sci-fi, like the best Star Trek or Twilight Zone. It was, you know, “fun.” A good story. That mix of individual and lightly serialized storytelling that was becoming popular in the 90s and early 2000s (like other sci-fi shows, such as Buffy, Angel, and X-Files).

It was a western in space. Cool, right! More importantly, it was a lightly fictionalized and futurized re-telling of the “Lost Cause” myth. Which, um, yeah...... So the "western" part was kinda cool, but there are those of us that are still a little uncomfortable with the whole "the good guys are lightly re-skinned ex-confederate soldiers, y'all."

And then, of course, we don’t know what would have happened if the story had continued. As many people know, there was the whole idea of Inara and the Reavers (I will spare anyone coming in on this conversation the details, but it wasn’t pleasant). Now, we only have second-hand descriptions of how this story would have played out ... but it wasn’t a good look for the show. And if you're familiar with that planned plotline, then you also know that there have been certain other issues involving the creator of the show, which make it, maybe, a good thing it didn't get the time to tell that particular story.

I personally understand why people enjoy the show; I loved Buffy, and Angel, and Dollhouse. It would have been great to see the show develop (absent that one planned plot), and more likely than not, it could have/would have/should have been a classic. And, of course, there is also the lingering knowledge of Fox killing off shows ... this was a long trend for them ... Action, Profit, Almost Human, Undeclared, Wonderfalls, The Adventures of Briscoe County Jr., The Tick, etc. etc. etc. etc.

But in the end, it was a promising show, not an all-time great.


----------



## RangerWickett (Jun 1, 2021)

I don't think that length is necessary. HBO's Chernobyl miniseries was phenomenal. I think it should go down history as one of the best works of history inspired drama on TV. It did not need to be six seasons and a movie to count.


----------



## payn (Jun 1, 2021)

Not much to argue about really. Firefly was a whimsy character driven show that was fun to watch but often felt at odds with its all too serious setting and writing. A perfect storm of Wheddon fans, starving sci-fi enthusiasts, and cult followers of another too soon cancellation. The capstone film was a feat in itself. Many a cancelled too soon shows look on with envy.

I do think television has been evolving in the last couple decades and you can see some trends for sure. Moving to a serialized story instead of episodic allows for less filler and a better concentrated plot, al beit often at the expense of character development. As for episode #s declining, that has a lot to do with shooting in more interesting and expensive locations. A lot of those 24 episode shows shoot in the same set over and over again. Like friends apartment and coffee shop or Marvel netflix shows and their not so secret hideouts. You also cant overlook the talent. Film and Television used to be quite segregated. Now its not uncommon to see popular film stars take stabs at television series that would have been unthinkable just a few decades ago.

There is always the risk of jumping the shark. Lindelof and Abrams never wanted Lost to go more than 2 seasons. It was too popular for the studio to let it end that soon. I think Sopranos ran into this issue too where you have every actor on the show directing and writing episodes. Sooner or later you get too many cooks in the kitchen at the cost of consistency and quality. Breaking Bad was just long enough. The wire was too (woof that final season was getting bad, good time to call it quits) that these series will be remembered fondly. Dexter and Walking Dead type shows may have moments of brilliance, but extend themselves into irrelevancy, which hurts their overall legacy, IMO.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jun 1, 2021)

RangerWickett said:


> I don't think that length is necessary. HBO's Chernobyl miniseries was phenomenal. I think it should go down history as one of the best works of history inspired drama on TV. It did not need to be six seasons and a movie to count.




From the OP:
_That’s why Firefly doesn’t work, for me, on any “best of” lists. Sustained excellence counts for something. Even if the sample size is relatively small, like shows that are self-contained and complete (The Prisoner, The Leftovers), they still have finished telling the story._

Miniseries are self-contained and complete.

Also completely agree about _Cherenobyl. _There were dramatic liberties taken (of course), but that was a truly inspired bit of television.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 1, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> No, really, I learned my own reliance on rules. Rules are good. Rules are what keeps society going in an orderly fashion, allowing the transfer of wealth from the have-nots to the haves. Most importantly, rules allow for the creation of functional lists to argue about. And one of the most important rules for any list of the greatest X, is that the X in question must be complete.




I mostly accept this argument.  Yeah, Firefly's full potential wasn't seen, so it is hard to put in a "best of sci-fi list".  

I note, however, that it was cut off after what, these days, would be one season of TV.  It probably fits on a list of "Best _Seasons_ of Sci-fi" list pretty reasonably.



Snarf Zagyg said:


> Let’s start with the obvious. It’s not “real” sci-fi.




Ah, gatekeeping.  Great Maker, save us from the purists who want to define the genre for us.  



Snarf Zagyg said:


> It wasn’t hard science fiction, like the Expanse, or even Babylon 5 (for its time, they tried to get it pretty accurate all things considered). It wasn’t “ideas” sci-fi, like the best Star Trek or Twilight Zone. It was, you know, “fun.” A good story. That mix of individual and lightly serialized storytelling that was becoming popular in the 90s and early 2000s (Buffy, Babylon 5, X-Files, etc.).




Firefly rather comfortably fits in the realm of soft SF, right alongside B5 (which is _not_ hard sf - it usually avoided talking about the actual science as much as possible, and when it did, it got it wrong), and Star Trek.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jun 1, 2021)

Umbran said:


> Ah, gatekeeping.  Great Maker, save us from the purists who want to define the genre for us.



Oh, stop. There is nothing more chilling to conversation and understanding than condescension and throwing around terms like "gatekeeping."

The "real" was in those quotes for a reason. I wasn't _defining the genre. _Instead I was going into the more common point that Firefly is, for all practical purposes, a western (and a "Lost Cause" inspired western, at that). This is not any different than someone saying that _Star Wars _is really fantasy.

Define things however you like, and leave the nastiness elsewhere, please.




Umbran said:


> Firefly rather comfortably fits in the realm of soft SF, right alongside B5 (which is _not_ hard sf - it usually avoided talking about the actual science as much as possible, and when it did, it got it wrong), and Star Trek.




B5 was most certainly as hard as you'd get for the time. It famously had the JPL advise on the science in the show, and the JPL advised on the science used in B5- the writing was changed due to their input at times. Moreover, they strived to do things "correctly" (such as the spinning for gravity, or explanations when there wasn't spinning) unlike the vast majority of science fiction at the time.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 1, 2021)

Mostly I think Firefly, Buffy, and Angel all have outstanding casts with great chemistry. The acting is usually on point, but the direction and writing often leave something to be desired. Especially when it comes to longer arcs. I think the strength of the casting covered up a lot of the flaws elsewhere.


----------



## Ryujin (Jun 1, 2021)

While I can agree that "Firefly" isn't as epic as we want to remember it, largely due to the "it might have been" (thanks to John Greenleaf Whittier) factor, I do take issue with a couple of points; your definition of Science Fiction and that a body of work must be complete, in order to be of "hall of fame" calibre. 

Firstly, if someone metaphorically knocks it out of the park then it's just plain excellent. Duration or level of 'completeness' is immaterial. Maybe you need to be more careful that you don't project your own expectations on what the completed thing might have looked like, but good is just plain good.

Secondly, your definition of "real" SciFi is far too narrow. I'll start by being a little pedantic. Common use for the whole genre tends to be what you said; SciFi. That encompasses a whole lot of sub genres. When we think of the term 'Science Fiction' it tends to invoke the hard science stuff. Then you have Science Fantasy (Star Wars, etc.). There's Military SF that might be hard science, or otherwise. To my mind, "Firefly" is undoubtedly SciFi. Even "Star Trek" was billed to Paramount Studios execs as, literally, "a Wagon Train to the stars" by Roddenberry and so a "space western." You can clearly see that DNA in some episodes. By your definitions we would throw things like Doc Smith's "The Lensmen" series out of the SciFi category. Sorry, that doesn't fly with me.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 1, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> From the OP:
> _That’s why Firefly doesn’t work, for me, on any “best of” lists. Sustained excellence counts for something. Even if the sample size is relatively small, like shows that are self-contained and complete (The Prisoner, The Leftovers), they still have finished telling the story._
> 
> Miniseries are self-contained and complete.
> ...



Completeness of story isn't necessary either. There should be the potential for a series to burn with the brightness of potential only to have it snuffed out by corporate fecklessness. Any criteria about needing to tell a complete story or last for many seasons is just arbitrary at best, biased against any series killed before their time at the worst.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jun 1, 2021)

Campbell said:


> Mostly I think Firefly, Buffy, and Angel all have outstanding casts with great chemistry. The acting is usually on point, but the direction and writing often leave something to be desired. Especially when it comes to longer arcs. I think the strength of the casting covered up a lot of the flaws elsewhere.




Well, I think that all of them tend to pale in comparison to more modern TV, which has the luxury of being able to focus in on plots, and without the hectic schedule (again, Buffy and Angel were shot on the typical 22 season schedule, and they were one-hour dramas ... that's an insane pace by the standards of prestige TV today!). They had to appeal to both the habitual viewer with the arcs (both mini-, in the sense of over the course of several episodes, and maxi-, in the sense of the season-long arc) as well as the intermittent viewer with the "monster of the week" that they were still doing.

That said, I don't understand the writing point. One of the hallmarks of Buffy/Angel/Firefly was they stylized dialogue and plots.


----------



## Ryujin (Jun 1, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Oh, stop. There is nothing more chilling to conversation and understanding than condescension and throwing around terms like "gatekeeping."
> 
> The "real" was in those quotes for a reason. I wasn't _defining the genre. _Instead I was going into the more common point that Firefly is, for all practical purposes, a western (and a "Lost Cause" inspired western, at that). This is not any different than someone saying that _Star Wars _is really fantasy.
> 
> ...



It also didn't hurt that they specifically employed Harlan Ellison as a "continuity consultant." His ego may be as big as the galactic disk, however, it's almost (almost) justified.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jun 1, 2021)

billd91 said:


> Completeness of story isn't necessary either. There should be the potential for a series to burn with the brightness of potential only to have it snuffed out by corporate fecklessness. Any criteria about needing to tell a complete story or last for many seasons is just arbitrary at best, biased against any series killed before their time at the worst.




_shrug_

Not the point. The point is this ... "Sustained excellence counts for something." 

Miniseries, and shows that are complete in telling their story (such as _The Prisoner,_ or _The Leftovers_) can be judged _in toto_.

The problem is judging shows like _Firefly _against shows that had to keep plugging away. _Lost _had an amazing two seasons, and some really good ones after that. But it gets dinged because it had to keep churning out episodes. Same with so many other shows- when a show is cancelled, what _could be in the imagination_ is always greater than what can be produced. Moreso when it's in the first season- the first two seasons are usually when the show's creators use up most of their best material.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jun 1, 2021)

Ryujin said:


> Secondly, your definition of "real" SciFi is far too narrow.




That wasn't the point. Science fiction is broad enough to cover Buffy, or Angel. It covers Person of Interest. It's 3% and the Handmaid's Tale. Watchmen and Russian Doll. 

It's all SciFi.


----------



## Blue Orange (Jun 1, 2021)

They took the sky, get over it.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jun 1, 2021)

Ryujin said:


> It also didn't hurt that they specifically employed Harlan Ellison as a "continuity consultant." His ego may be as big as the galactic disk, however, it's almost (almost) justified.




Harlan's vast talent ensured that he continued to get work, and his personality ensured that the work was in short supply and not commensurate to his talent. 

It was one heckuva balance.


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Jun 1, 2021)

I have a suspicion that all Whedon shows age terribly. You can definitely grade them on a curve, based on when they were made, the fact there was little to no prestige TV at the time (and so everything that requires tons of wacky sets and special effects looks like dinner theater), and that a lot of writer rooms sort of lifted his best qualities and distributed them across subsequent TV and movies, retroactively making him seem less innovative...but whatever the reasons, fair or unfair, I think the end-result is just not very rewatchable.

That's my experience, at least, and I really really liked Dollhouse and Firefly at the time. I also rewatched the first Avengers recently and thought it really held up, with a waaaaaaay better sense of story, pacing and characters than Endgame or Infinity. And Cabin in the Woods is great! Still!! The guy could write.

But something seems to have happened to him after that first Avengers movie. Age of Ultron is just limping through story beats. Justice League? The Snyder Cut's no masterpiece but it revealed that the worst, just laughably bad parts of the original were almost all Whedon. And then whatever happened with the Nevers, who knows. But it's like he just imploded, creatively, around 2012. It's obvious now that he was always a complete naughty word to work with, but that's not the only thing killing his career. He was in a tail spin well before Ray Fisher exposed him.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 1, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Oh, stop. There is nothing more chilling to conversation and understanding that condescension and throwing around terms like "gatekeeping."




How about you listen to dissent before you accuse folks of condescension or chilling conversation.



Snarf Zagyg said:


> The "real" was in those quotes for a reason. I wasn't _defining the genre. _Instead I was going into the more common point that Firefly is, for all practical purposes, a western (and a "Lost Cause" inspired western, at that). This is not any different than someone saying that _Star Wars _is really fantasy.




Membership in genres is _inclusive_, not exclusive.  You can be a western _and_ sci-fi.  Or sci-fi _and_ a noir mystery.  Embrace the power of _AND_.



			
				Snarf Zagyg said:
			
		

> Define things however you like, and leave the nastiness elsewhere, please.




Well, dude, one of the major supports for your thesis is this classification.  There's nothing nasty about pointing out that you rather abitrarily drew a line in the sand and said, "This is Out".  And there's a word for that.



Snarf Zagyg said:


> B5 was most certainly as hard as you'd get for the time.




In the genre as a whole?  Goodness no.  The genre is much, much larger than the TV medium. 

Hard SF is when the story is about or largely driven by the details of physical laws of the fictional universe.  Soft SF is when the story forgoes the technical details, to get at the sociology, psychology, politics, economics, and anthropology speculation that results from the science and engineering.

Babylon 5 largely foregoes the technical details to get at the sociology and politics.  Ergo, it fits in the soft bucket. 

But both B5 and Firefly fit n the Sci-fi bucket overall. 

_"It's been said that science fiction and fantasy are two different things; science-fiction the improbable made possible, fantasy the impossible made probable."_
— *Rod Serling*




Snarf Zagyg said:


> It famously had the JPL advise on the science in the show, and the JPL advised on the science used in B5- the writing was changed due to their input at times. Moreover, they strived to do things "correctly" (such as the spinning for gravity, or explanations when there wasn't spinning) unlike the vast majority of science fiction at the time.




Pretty much none of this _had relevance to the plot_, though. It was window dressing. JMS is many things, but willing to allow technicalities to get in the way of a good story isn't one of them 

Note:  I love B5.  I am currently rewatching Season 2.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 1, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> _shrug_
> 
> Not the point. The point is this ... "Sustained excellence counts for something."



And sustained excellence should count for something. But so should excellence even if it's cut short. Nobody's gonna say Jimi Hendrix shouldn't be in the same Hall of Fame as Eric Clapton simply because he only survived long enough to make 3 studio albums compared to Clapton's 40+. It just means there should be multiple ways to be considered.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jun 1, 2021)

Grendel_Khan said:


> I have a suspicion that all Whedon shows age terribly. You can definitely grade them on a curve, based on when they were made, the fact there was little to no prestige TV at the time (and so everything that requires tons of wacky sets and special effects looks like dinner theater), and that a lot of writer rooms sort of lifted his best qualities and distributed them across subsequent TV and movies, retroactively making him seem less innovative...but whatever the reasons, fair or unfair, I think the end-result is just not very rewatchable.
> 
> That's my experience, at least, and I really really liked Dollhouse and Firefly at the time. I also rewatched the first Avengers recently and thought it really held up, with a waaaaaaay better sense of story, pacing and characters than Endgame or Infinity. And Cabin in the Woods is great! Still!! The guy could write.
> 
> But something seems to have happened to him after that first Avengers movie. Age of Ultron is just limping through story beats. Justice League? The Snyder Cut's no masterpiece but it revealed that the worst, just laughably bad parts of the original were almost all Whedon. And then whatever happened with the Nevers, who knows. But it's like he just imploded, creatively, around 2012. It's obvious now that he was always a complete naughty word to work with, but that's not the only thing killing his career. He was in a tail spin well before Ray Fisher exposed him.




I don't want to derail this into a Whedon thread (his issues are ... well-known). 

I do think that it's possible to at least partly separate the art and the artist, and that he helped to create some powerful and meaningful works. OTOH, I also think it can be difficult to separate aspects at times, and having just re-watched Buffy in its entirety, there were a few parts that were more cringe-y, in hindsight (and with Whedon-knowledge) than expected.

That said, I would disagree that his shows "age terribly." 

I think that, FOR ME-
Dollhouse aged worst. I enjoyed it at the time, but I can't imagine watching it again, now, given ... everything.
Firefly is second-worst. Every thing about it, from the Lost Cause mythology, to Inara, to the Inara/Reaver plot, that slightly skeeved me out before ... is so much worse now. I can't see re-visiting it.
Angel & Buffy? Not too bad. Buffy has a few moments, but what's surprising is how well parts of it aged. IMO. Angel, however ... the Charisma Carpenter stuff goes from "What? What happened?" to "C'mon, man, you really suck."

Agree on first Avengers and Cabin in the Woods.


----------



## Ryujin (Jun 1, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> That wasn't the point. Science fiction is broad enough to cover Buffy, or Angel. It covers Person of Interest. It's 3% and the Handmaid's Tale. Watchmen and Russian Doll.
> 
> It's all SciFi.



You made a specific point of defining "real" Science Fiction. I simply responded to that. Your original statement doesn't really support this response, in my estimation.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jun 1, 2021)

Umbran said:


> How about you listen to dissent before you accuse folks of chilling conversation.




As you are aware, I have to listen to you.... so there's that. So when you come in and accuse people of gatekeeping (when they aren't) and use pejorative and condescending language to them, do not be surprised if they don't want to engage with you any further.


----------



## Benjamin Olson (Jun 1, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> It’s the same even in squishier areas. You want to get in the Rock and Roll hall of Fame? Gotta wait 25 years after you release your first album. So it is pretty well established is most areas that you either need to be COMPLETE (retired) or at least BEEN AROUND SO LONG YOU CAN BE PROPERLY JUDGED (at least 25+ years) in order to be eligible for consideration as the best of something. As hall of fame worthy. As a true great.




I was onboard with what you were saying until you invoked the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, which should not be emulated in any way in any context. While the 25 year waiting period is not the most obnoxious practice of theirs by far, it still seems unduly long (and given the lifestyle choices of many musicians encourages far too many postumous inductions). Sometimes it does take a quarter century or more for a group to be appreciated and recognized (2019 inductees the Zombies are a recent exemplar of a group that, while not exactly obscure in their own day, had minimal commercial and only marginally better critical success but then had their reputation rightfully grow over subsequent decades). But a 25 year requirement doesn't help acts that require later reevaluation, it is a restraint on inducting ones that at one point seem great but later prove otherwise, and I just don't know who the musical act is that at a more reasonable 15 years after their first release seemed Hall of Fame worthy but later in the following ten years produced music that not only was not great but also somehow proved that their previous music was not great and that they, as musicians, were, in fact, never great. It is certainly possible to have scandals come up in those additional years that lead to a moral/political re-evalution, but what role that should play in evaluating someone's Hall of Fame worthiness in any field of endeavor is a whole nother question.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jun 1, 2021)

Ryujin said:


> You made a specific point of defining "real" Science Fiction. I simply responded to that. Your original statement doesn't really support this response, in my estimation.




To be specific, I was answering the paragraph that I had before that (which stated that many people highly estimate it because it's a sci-fi show, and there weren't many sci-fi shows at the time).

I don't think that's accurate- first, because there were many SciFi shows. I have an incredibly broad definition of science fiction, and just because something has space ships doesn't mean it's the only sci fi around. Hence, the quote marks around real. 

More importantly, I was segueing into the point, which is that the show wasn't about the science or ideas inasmuch as it was a western - a specific Lost Cause inspired western, but a western, that happened to be in space.

This is slightly different than Star Trek (TOS), which was pitched as a western, but quickly became an "idea-driven" science fiction show, with many prominent writers from the time.

That said, to ensure clarity I edited the original text.


----------



## Ryujin (Jun 1, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> To be specific, I was answering the paragraph that I had before that (which stated that many people highly estimate it because it's a sci-fi show, and there weren't many sci-fi shows at the time).
> 
> I don't think that's accurate- first, because there were many SciFi shows. I have an incredibly broad definition of science fiction, and just because something has space ships doesn't mean it's the only sci fi around. Hence, the quote marks around real.
> 
> ...



So, just to once again be pedantic about it, like "Star Wars" is a Western in space


----------



## Deset Gled (Jun 1, 2021)

payn said:


> Moving to a serialized story instead of episodic allows for less filler and a better concentrated plot, al beit often at the expense of character development.




I strongly disagree with this statement.  Serialized stories lead to some of the most boring filler-filled shows I have ever experienced.

When an episodic show like ST:TNG or X-Files had a "filler" episode, we got a monster-of-the-week or ship-in-a-bottle episode.  But when you get right down to it, those episodes are what the core or those shows are really about.  A nice, self contained problem, which a solution in the same episode.  You might even get a second-run character getting a day in the limelight out of it, or some fun trivia or minor backstory to explore.  It's like the rice/potato/carb to a hearty meal; it's not filler, it's the base.

When a serialized show like Walking Dead or The 100 has a filler episode, you literally get a bunch of characters sitting on a set, just talking about stuff we've already seen.  No action, no new info.  Just pure emptiness.  It's like opening a bag of chips and finding out that the top 50% of the bag is air.  And inevitably, someone on the internet will tell you that you just aren't appreciating the "character development".  And I don't.  Plot and characters taking action shows development; characters rehashing what we've already seen is clip review episode without the clips.



Grendel_Khan said:


> I have a suspicion that all Whedon shows age terribly. ...
> 
> That's my experience, at least, and I really really liked Dollhouse and Firefly at the time. ...




I tend to disagree with this as well.  I think Buffy holds up just fine.  Also Toy Story, Alien Resurrection, Dr. Horrible, etc.

OTOH, I also don't think all of his stuff was good the first time around.  Things like Titan AE, Dollhouse, and the later seasons of Angel all flopped for me when they were new.  And I don't think they've gotten any better with age (although I was thinking about giving Titan AE another chance some day).


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jun 1, 2021)

Benjamin Olson said:


> I was onboard with what you were saying until you invoked the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, which should not be emulated in any way in any context. While the 25 year waiting period is not the most obnoxious practice of theirs by far, it still seems unduly long (and given the lifestyle choices of many musicians encourages far too many postumous inductions). Sometimes it does take a quarter century or more for a group to be appreciated and recognized (2019 inductees the Zombies are a recent exemplar of a group that, while not exactly obscure in their own day, had minimal commercial and only marginally better critical success but then had their reputation rightfully grow over subsequent decades). But a 25 year requirement doesn't help acts that require later reevaluation, it is a restraint on inducting ones that at one point seem great but later prove otherwise, and I just don't know who the musical act is that at a more reasonable 15 years after their first release seemed Hall of Fame worthy but later in the following ten years produced music that not only was not great but also somehow proved that their previous music was not great and that they, as musicians, were, in fact, never great. It is certainly possible to have scandals come up in those additional years that lead to a moral/political re-evalution, but what role that should play in evaluating someone's Hall of Fame worthiness in any field of endeavor is a whole nother question.




You wouldn't want to emulate the Rock and Roll Hall of fame in any way? What about the ability to have Prince (RIP) solo on While My Guitar Gently Weeps while Tom Petty (RIP) can't believe it?

The R&R Hall of Fame has a lot of issues, but the 25 years isn't one of them. The Zombies' first release was in 1965- they've been eligible since 1990.

Kate Bush (for example) has been eligible since 2003.

But that's the issue, isn't it? It's not the time. Most musicians and bands release their first album before the age of 25, which means that, at worst, they are looking at induction before the age of 50. Which seems fine. The problem is that this Hall doesn't know what it's doing. They include older bands and younger bands, "rock" and "rap." Look at some of the nominees who didn't make it this year-
LL Cool J or Dionne Warwick?
Kate Bush or Rage Against the Machine?
Fela Kuti or Iron Maiden? 

I love the diversity, but it's getting into apples/oranges comparisons. It's basically become, "All music."


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jun 1, 2021)

Deset Gled said:


> I tend to disagree with this as well.  I think Buffy holds up just fine.  Also Toy Story, Alien Resurrection, Dr. Horrible, etc.




All the likes, just because of Dr. Horrible.


----------



## CleverNickName (Jun 1, 2021)

So now I'm asking myself, Was _Firefly _"real" science fiction?  And I think my answer is, Real enough for me.

EDIT:  I see the original post has been revised, and this comment is now moot.  Nothing to see here.


----------



## payn (Jun 1, 2021)

Deset Gled said:


> I strongly disagree with this statement.  Serialized stories lead to some of the most boring filler-filled shows I have ever experienced.
> 
> When an episodic show like ST:TNG or X-Files had a "filler" episode, we got a monster-of-the-week or ship-in-a-bottle episode.  But when you get right down to it, those episodes are what the core or those shows are really about.  A nice, self contained problem, which a solution in the same episode.  You might even get a second-run character getting a day in the limelight out of it, or some fun trivia or minor backstory to explore.  It's like the rice/potato/carb to a hearty meal; it's not filler, it's the base.
> 
> When a serialized show like Walking Dead or The 100 has a filler episode, you literally get a bunch of characters sitting on a set, just talking about stuff we've already seen.  No action, no new info.  Just pure emptiness.  It's like opening a bag of chips and finding out that the top 50% of the bag is air.  And inevitably, someone on the internet will tell you that you just aren't appreciating the "character development".  And I don't.  Plot and characters taking action shows development; characters rehashing what we've already seen is clip review episode without the clips.



Ugh, how many self contained problems and solutions can you take? I mean it just sucks that Dr House is so damn smart and good at his job that he cant be fired... It's like eating cheerios over and over again just hoping for a piece of fruit or something to make it less expected and predictable.  Also, you did pick one of the worst examples in Walking Dead, which is a masters class in filler episodes. (This is what happens when ratings are too good, shows are not allowed to die...) HBO Watchmen or The Leftovers now those are some complete breakfasts that don't come in a box with a toy as a gimmick.


----------



## Deset Gled (Jun 1, 2021)

payn said:


> It's like eating cheerios over and over again just hoping for a piece of fruit or something to make it less expected and predictable.




I liked Cheerios as a kid, I like Cheerios now.  I like Cheerios because they're Cheerios.  If I didn't like Cheerios, I wouldn't be eating Cheerios.  If you don't like Cheerios, that's fine, but let me enjoy my breakfast in peace.   



payn said:


> Also, you did pick one of the worst examples in Walking Dead, which is a masters class in filler episodes.




That was on purpose.  At one point, my wife and I took turns watching new episodes to inform the other if it was filler or not.  And my example of people telling me I didn't appreciate the "character development" was from ENWorld itself.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 1, 2021)

RangerWickett said:


> I don't think that length is necessary. HBO's Chernobyl miniseries was phenomenal. I think it should go down history as one of the best works of history inspired drama on TV. It did not need to be six seasons and a movie to count.



HBO has its customers trained well. Any show they had even a partial glancing hand in gets referred to as “HBO’s X”. Quite the accomplishment!

Firefly isn’t habitually referred to as “Fox’s Firefly”. But Rome, a series HBO didn’t make, is refreshing to as “HBO’s Rome”. How did HBO accomplish this feat of Pavlovian training?


----------



## Cadence (Jun 1, 2021)

All time great TV show seems not even worth going after in any reasonable fashion. All time great sci-fi seems a not inane try, but I doubt it would make it if everyone sat down and compared the contenders.  Favorite show? it would be sad to be on a show where no one had you as a favorite.

----

RE: FOX sci-fi

Brisco was a hoot but seemed more uneven.  But I love Brisco's friendship with Bowler, Comet, that one of the characters is Wiley Coyote, and the theme song.  (And I really like lots of other things about it). My 11yo loves the show too.

The one I'm most disappointed.it didn't get to end the way it wanted to is Dark Angel.  I love the ensemble cast working at Jam Pony.  My vote for most tragic early cancellation, and above Brisco on my personal list.

But anyway, I wouldn't argue either belongs on a best of TV  list, even if I would vote for them on a top 10 favorites list and they're some of the few shows I actually own. 

---

I liked him better in Castle.

Are Alf and Third Rock from the Sun Sci-Fi, or is an alien centered comedy not enough.

----

M*A*S*H is the GOAT for TV in general. (But then again I've never seen any of the cable only in the US shows, so greatest pre 2000 anyway).


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Jun 1, 2021)

Genuinely interesting seeing responses about people rewatching Buffy. I was never into it in the first place, but I think my suspicion about his stuff generally aging poorly is well and truly wrong. 



payn said:


> Ugh, how many self contained problems and solutions can you take? I mean it just sucks that Dr House is so damn smart and good at his job that he cant be fired... It's like eating cheerios over and over again just hoping for a piece of fruit or something to make it less expected and predictable.  Also, you did pick one of the worst examples in Walking Dead, which is a masters class in filler episodes. (This is what happens when ratings are too good, shows are not allowed to die...) HBO Watchmen or The Leftovers now those are some complete breakfasts that don't come in a box with a toy as a gimmick.




Once serialized TV shows happened I stopped being able to handle anything else. Closest I can get now is something like the Crown, which is serialized in many (most?) ways, and though each episode is also very self-contained it wouldn't really hang together without a sequential watch. Sometimes the serial element of a show doesn't work out, but anything else feels so antiquated and silly to me now.

Also, the Leftovers is a perfect show, even when it's not. Biggest swings of any series, which only connected because of the serialized format, and how mercilessly they would subvert it.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jun 1, 2021)

Cadence said:


> Favorite show? it would be sad to be on a show where no one had you as a favorite.








I mean, behind Jake Busey's toothy grin is a sad clown.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jun 1, 2021)

Grendel_Khan said:


> Also, the Leftovers is a perfect show, even when it's not. Biggest swings of any series, which only connected because of the serialized format, and how mercilessly they would subvert it.



What I tell people: "Just make it through the first season. Yes, it's so depressing, but it's worth it."

What I don't tell people: "Because if you make it through that, it's amazing TV. And the ending episodes ... will haunt you for eternity and make the first season seem like a light-hearted romp."


----------



## billd91 (Jun 1, 2021)

Morrus said:


> HBO has people trained well. Any show they had even a partial glancing hand in gets referred to as “HBO’s X”. Quite the accomplishment!
> 
> Firefly isn’t habitually referred to as “Fox’s Firefly”. But Rome, a series HBO didn’t make, is refreshing to as “HBO’s Rome”. How did HBO accomplish this feat of Pavlovian training?



Premium subscription service - you had to seek it out and pay for it on top of your other cable fees in contrast to anything broadcast over the airwaves on Fox, ABC, etc. I suppose it still has a reputation as a premium service (even after the final season of Game of Thrones) of high quality TV shows.
Fox, by comparison, doesn't exactly scream "premium".


----------



## Cadence (Jun 1, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I have a thing about creating various lists.






Snarf Zagyg said:


> And, of course, there is also the lingering knowledge of Fox killing off shows ... this was a long trend for them ... Action, Profit, Almost Human, Undeclared, Wonderfalls, The Adventures of Briscoe County Jr., The Tick, etc. etc. etc. etc.




Now I'm thinking a top # poll of FOX sci-fi shows would be fun.  I just don't know how big # should be or how many each person should be able to vote for.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jun 1, 2021)

Cadence said:


> Now I'm thinking a top # poll of FOX sci-fi shows would be fun.  I just don't know how big # should be or how many each person should be able to vote for.




Well, the other issue would be defining the shows that are eligible. Is Profit sci-fi? I certainly don't think so (despite the amazing star role of Adrian 'I'm in all the sci fi' Pasdar), but I certainly wouldn't want to exclude any shows out by accident.


----------



## Cadence (Jun 1, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Well, the other issue would be defining the shows that are eligible. Is Profit sci-fi? I certainly don't think so (despite the amazing star role of Adrian 'I'm in all the sci fi' Pasdar), but I certainly wouldn't want to exclude any shows out by accident.




Are there any web-sites that categorize.  I was thinking IMDB, but on my phone anyway it looks really strict.

Maybe that's the first poll, which of the FOX shows should count as sci-fi.  (Buffy is just fantasy, right?)


----------



## Morrus (Jun 1, 2021)

billd91 said:


> Premium subscription service - you had to seek it out and pay for it on top of your other cable fees in contrast to anything broadcast over the airwaves on Fox, ABC, etc. I suppose it still has a reputation as a premium service (even after the final season of Game of Thrones) of high quality TV shows.
> Fox, by comparison, doesn't exactly scream "premium".



So to train folks to parrot your brand name, you just have to make them pay for it?


----------



## Ryujin (Jun 1, 2021)

Cadence said:


> Now I'm thinking a top # poll of FOX sci-fi shows would be fun.  I just don't know how big # should be or how many each person should be able to vote for.



#1 - Fringe


----------



## Ryujin (Jun 1, 2021)

Morrus said:


> So to train folks to parrot your brand name, you just have to make them pay for it?



Connect their cash expenditure to a piece of art and they're less likely to pan it. Same sort of thing tends to happen if someone invests the time and money into a summer blockbuster, in the theatre; rave reviews on the way out, even if it was crap.


----------



## Deset Gled (Jun 1, 2021)

Morrus said:


> So to train folks to parrot your brand name, you just have to make them pay for it?




I disagree with Bill on this.

It's "HBO's Rome" and "HBO's Chernobyl" because those are relatively generic names. There are lots of documentaries on Chernobyl and Rome, so we specify which one we're talking about. I've never heard anyone says "HBO's Game of Thrones" or "HBO's Westworld". YMMV.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 1, 2021)

Deset Gled said:


> I disagree with Bill on this.
> 
> It's "HBO's Rome" and "HBO's Chernobyl" because those are relatively generic names. There are lots of documentaries on Chernobyl and Rome, so we specify which one we're talking about. I've never heard anyone says "HBO's Game of Thrones" or "HBO's Westworld".



Yeah, but we have all the same documentaries, and others, on Chernobyl and Rome, but we don't say "HBO's Rome" or "HBO's Chernobyl". So that's not the causation. It must be something else.


----------



## Ryujin (Jun 2, 2021)

Morrus said:


> Yeah, but we have all the same documentaries, and others, on Chernobyl and Rome, but we don't say "HBO's Rome" or "HBO's Chernobyl". So that's not the causation. It must be something else.



Probably has at least a little to do with not having to then also explain where you're watching it, but I do still stand by my 'investment' comment.


----------



## Richards (Jun 2, 2021)

I reject the original constraints.  "Firefly" is definitely in my personal Hall of Fame, despite getting canceled after only filming 14 episodes.  I don't care what plot lines might have been used if the show had lasted longer, I don't care whether the quality would have improved, stayed the same, or decreased over time had it had a full run - those 14 episodes for me are some of the most enjoyable sci-fi I've ever watched on television.

Johnathan


----------



## Morrus (Jun 2, 2021)

Ryujin said:


> Probably has at least a little to do with not having to then also explain where you're watching it,



But only HBO customers explain where they're watching it. BBC or ITV or Sky or Fox or (insert US TV channels here) customers don't. HBO has this unusual hold, where people even try to come up with bizarre reasons to explain why they do it. It's a weird Pavlovian marketing thing which is marked and notable with HBO. The studio's name is literally integrated into the show's name. In the US it's not Rome, it's HBO's Rome. It's one of the most remarkable marketing coups I've ever seen! And it's so good it has its victims defending it!


----------



## Ryujin (Jun 2, 2021)

Morrus said:


> But only HBO customers explain where they're watching it. BBC or ITV or Sky or Fox or (insert US TV channels here) customers don't. HBO has this unusual hold, where people even try to come up with bizarre reasons to explain why they do it. It's a weird Pavlovian marketing thing which is marked and notable with HBO. The studio's name is literally integrated into the show's name. In the US it's not Rome, it's HBO's Rome. It's one of the most remarkable marketing coups I've ever seen! And it's so good it has its victims defending it!



Here's it's not just with HBO, but also Netfix and Amazon Prime. Usually "X" on Netflix though, because Netflix's "X" is clumsy sounding.


----------



## payn (Jun 2, 2021)

Pour me another cup of HBO kool-aid cause im still thirsty!


----------



## Ryujin (Jun 2, 2021)

Richards said:


> I reject the original constraints.  "Firefly" is definitely in my personal Hall of Fame, despite getting canceled after only filming 14 episodes.  I don't care what plot lines might have been used if the show had lasted longer, I don't care whether the quality would have improved, stayed the same, or decreased over time had it had a full run - those 14 episodes for me are some of the most enjoyable sci-fi I've ever watched on television.
> 
> Johnathan



Contract killer getting kicked into Serenity's engine is definitely in my hall of fame SF moments


----------



## payn (Jun 2, 2021)

Ryujin said:


> Here's it's not just with HBO, but also Netfix and Amazon Prime. Usually "X" on Netflix though, because Netflix's "X" is clumsy sounding.



Right its _The Boys on Prime_, _Stranger Things on Netflix_, or _Showtime's Billions_. Folks are using so many streaming services now they are cluing folks into where they are catching these shows. In the past, everybody had network television and premium channels only had movies so there was no need.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 2, 2021)

Ryujin said:


> Here's it's not just with HBO, but also Netfix and Amazon Prime. Usually "X" on Netflix though, because Netflix's "X" is clumsy sounding.



This predated all that. "HBO's"_ Rome_ (not made by HBO) was back in 2005. Amazon Video was 10 years later.  Netflix streaming didn't get big until 2014 or so. I first noticed it back with _Rome_ in 2005, and it's been prevalent since in a way that no other channel or studio has.


----------



## payn (Jun 2, 2021)

Morrus said:


> This predated all that. "HBO's"_ Rome_ (not made by HBO) was back in 2005. Amazon Video was 10 years later.  Netflix streaming didn't get big until 2014 or so.  I first noticed it back with _Rome_ in 2005, and it's been prevalent since in a way that no other channel or studio has.



Yeah I think it happened with The Sopranos. Most folks at the time had basic cable, which covered most television programs. HBO made the leap from premium channel that shows movies, to premium channel that makes series content. Though, I didnt start doing the "HBO's" thing until recently myself. Even basic cable stuff I get asked about now. Just the other day on a thread here I mentioned a biopic on pro wrestler Booker T and was immediately asked where to watch it; A&E.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 2, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I have a thing about creating various lists. Top five action heroes of the 80s. Best miniseries on Netflix. Top Three Heuristics to use while DMing. While creating these many lists that I like to make, primarily for my own enjoyment and others’ suffering, I realized something. Reading isn’t just fun, it’s FUNdamental. HA!
> 
> No, really, I learned my own reliance on rules. Rules are good. Rules are what keeps society going in an orderly fashion, allowing the transfer of wealth from the have-nots to the haves. Most importantly, rules allow for the creation of functional lists to argue about. And one of the most important rules for any list of the greatest X, is that the X in question must be complete.
> 
> ...



Heathen!

Now that I've gotten that out of the way.  Heathen!

Sorry!  Sorry!

Okay.  I'm not sure I agree that completeness is necessary to show greatness.  Bo Jackson's NFL career was cut very short, but in the amount of time he ran, he did some really amazing things.  Enough for me to consider him one of the greats.   NFL Greatest ranks him at #39 in the top 100 of all time.  He didn't even play 4 complete seasons.  Firefly is Bo Jackson.


----------



## Richards (Jun 2, 2021)

I'll fully agree with that, despite never having heard of Bo Jackson before now.  (I'm not what you'd call a sports guy.)

Johnathan


----------



## payn (Jun 2, 2021)

I gotta go on a tangent for a moment. All this sports talk about hall of famers and not knowing who they are reminds me of an episode of Wheel of Fortune. The puzzle was "Hockey Hall of Fame inducts Wayne Gretzky" which is a hell of a puzzle. This dude spinning though? No idea who it was. He just kept spinning and getting letters and buying vowels and getting bonus gifts. The other two players looked like they wanted to smack this guy. Finally, he tries to solve it and gets it wrong. "Wayne Gretucky" or something. Has to use his free spin card, (which he has from all his spins) to get the z finally. Manages to solve it then. Damn'dest thing I ever seen.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 2, 2021)

payn said:


> I gotta go on a tangent for a moment. All this sports talk about hall of famers and not knowing who they are reminds me of an episode of Wheel of Fortune. The puzzle was "Hockey Hall of Fame inducts Wayne Gretzky" which is a hell of a puzzle. This dude spinning though? No idea who it was. He just kept spinning and getting letters and buying vowels and getting bonus gifts. The other two players looked like they wanted to smack this guy. Finally, he tries to solve it and gets it wrong. "Wayne Gretucky" or something. Has to use his free spin card, (which he has from all his spins) to get the z finally. Manages to solve it then. Damn'dest thing I ever seen.



Then there are those people who would get that puzzle, get both H's and the Z and then solve it.  Those people irk me.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 2, 2021)

Morrus said:


> This predated all that. "HBO's"_ Rome_ (not made by HBO) was back in 2005.



But mostly paid for *by* HBO, and first airing there too. So it’s not like the appellation is strictly wrong, you just don’t grok how strong HBO branding is over here.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 2, 2021)

Deset Gled said:


> I strongly disagree with this statement.  Serialized stories lead to some of the most boring filler-filled shows I have ever experienced.




I'm not sure how the idea of "filler" works for non-serialized shows.  

A serialized show has "filler" when the main serialized plot is shorter than the season, and they have to _fill time_.  An episodic show has no plot to have gapes that need filling.  An episodic show is effectively _all filler_.

Now, there are going to be dud episodes in either form.  I think the percentage of duds will likely grow as the length of the season grows.  In the past, a typical season was 20+ episodes, but today it is roughly half what it used to be.  That means that a lot of episode concepts that used to be considered viable are probably getting culled.  The shorter season requires more focus to accomplish whatever it wants to do.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 2, 2021)

Any discussion of genre series that seemed pretty cool, but that died before they could prove themselves, would be incomplete without mentioning _The Middleman_.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 2, 2021)

I agree I love it but it wasn't around long enough. 

 I've started valuing consistency over peaks and valleys so I would argue Stargate Atlantis and Farscape perhaps are the best sci Fi shows. 3-5 seasons call it a day. 

 Star Trek is just to inconsistent IMHO for example but I like DS9 a lot due to consistency. Stargate SG1 similar problem but more filler with occasional dud. 

 New shows might be able to do better over multiple seasons but if they're only 1/3rd or 1/2 the size it's not that impressive IMHO.

 Would probably throw B5 in top 5 list the occasional episode was filler not to many duds though.


----------



## ccs (Jun 2, 2021)

Morrus said:


> Yeah, but we have all the same documentaries, and others, on Chernobyl and Rome, but we don't say "HBO's Rome" or "HBO's Chernobyl". So that's not the causation. It must be something else.



It's not because we paid more for it, it's not to (consciously) differentiate between other versions/similar titles, it's because HBO's stuff was magnitudes better than most other shows on at the time.   At the very least it left more of an impression. Thus we remember that it was _HBO's_ Rome, etc.


----------



## ccs (Jun 2, 2021)

Richards said:


> I reject the original constraints.  "Firefly" is definitely in my personal Hall of Fame, despite getting canceled after only filming 14 episodes.  I don't care what plot lines might have been used if the show had lasted longer, I don't care whether the quality would have improved, stayed the same, or decreased over time had it had a full run - those 14 episodes for me are some of the most enjoyable sci-fi I've ever watched on television.
> 
> Johnathan



Agree.
Nor does Whedon having now been revealed to be some A-list ****  impact my enjoyment of those 14 episodes.  Oh look, another Hollywood type is actually an awful person.  I'm shocked.


----------



## Imaculata (Jun 2, 2021)

I find it a bit weird that people hate on Firefly based on the Inara/Reaver plot; a plot that never made it into the show.

Judge a show by what it is, not by what it could have been.

Almost every episode of Firefly is great. Great character moments, lots of humor, and plot twists. And thanks to Serenity, we also know how it would have ended. The only episode I dislike is Safe, and even that episode has its moments.

Modern shows can learn a thing or two about how to write a 1 hour episode and still have room for twists and turns, and character development. I'm looking at you Mandalorian!

As for Buffy, I recently rewatched the entire show with a friend, who had never seen it before. It still holds up really well, and she loved it. In my opinion, over all its seasons, it has only a few duds. Almost the entire first season is the show trying to find its voice, but the things that would end up making it such a great show, are already there.

In my opinion, the worst episodes are: Beer Bad, Where the wild things are, Beauty and the Beasts, I Robot You Jane. Not a whole lot, considering how many seasons there are.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 2, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> I find it a bit weird that people hate on Firefly based on the Inara/Reaver plot; *a plot that never made it into the show.*



Wow.  Thanks.  I've been racking my brains trying to figure out how I could have forgotten it.


----------



## Imaculata (Jun 2, 2021)

Maxperson said:


> Wow.  Thanks.  I've been racking my brains trying to figure out how I could have forgotten it.




It is probably one of many plots that never made it into the show... like with every tv show.

Such a strange criticism: to critique a show for a bad plot line that got dropped.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jun 2, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> It is probably one of many plots that never made it into the show... like with every tv show.
> 
> Such a strange criticism: to critique a show for a bad plot line that got dropped.




It‘s not a dropped plot line.
it‘s where the plot was going, but they didn’t get to do it because it was cancelled.


----------



## Imaculata (Jun 2, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> It‘s not a dropped plot line.
> it‘s where the plot was going, but they didn’t get to do it because it was cancelled.




Perhaps. Pure speculation at this point. It's not in the show, so it is silly to critique the show for it.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jun 2, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> Perhaps. Pure speculation at this point. It's not in the show, so it is silly to critique the show for it.




No. Speculation would be, "I think they might have done a musical episode, but with puppets. Kinda like Buffy AND Angel."

When the writer/producer Tim Minnear says that he was recruited by Whedon with the pitch for that episode, and you see that the structure of the episodes was built to foreshadow that episode, it's not just speculation. If Buffy had been cancelled one episode before Angel was 'revealed' as a vampire (um... spoiler?) would that have been speculation? Or both the planned outcome of the choices they were making, and, you know, obvious?

Is it _possible_ that they might have changed direction? Sure. But there has never been any indication that they were going to.

As for why it matters to the critique, or _my critique_- the relationship dynamic between Inara and Mal is the worst aspect of the show to begin with. The idea that the resolution of Mal's inability to resolve his Madonna/Whore complex is to have Inara gangraped makes it go from slightly uncomfortable to grotesque. Again, IMO, YMMV.

The reason I didn't want to go to deep into this in the OP is that Firefly is fine. It's a decent show. I didn't write the OP to pile on to the show. I truly love Buffy and Angel. I liked Firefly and Dollhouse. But the things that, for me, make Firefly a standout (specifically- an absolutely stellar cast) do not overcome the issues that I have with it that become more glaring over time and that I cannot overlook. I barely made it through re-watching the last time, and that was before the Whedon mess came out.

If you love the show like Homer Simpsons loves donuts- unreservedly and with pink frosting, then such is your considered choice and I have no wish to disturb it.


EDIT- I wanted to make a slight caveat. When I say that the Inara/Mal dynamic is the worst aspect, I mean the Mal aspect. And I also think that the borrowing of Lost Cause mythology is arguably worse, for me. It may not bother other people who don't notice it or don't care.


----------



## Janx (Jun 2, 2021)

Umbran said:


> I'm not sure how the idea of "filler" works for non-serialized shows.
> 
> A serialized show has "filler" when the main serialized plot is shorter than the season, and they have to _fill time_.  An episodic show has no plot to have gapes that need filling.  An episodic show is effectively _all filler_.



Bottle episodes, clip shows.  TNG had a few of them, and they're noted in the various episode guides.  They happened because being forced to film 24 episodes meant stretching budgets.  So they'd make a filler episode on the cheap so they'd have more money for other episodes.

Stargate SG-1 was probably one of the last shows to do clip shows (in my viewings), but they at least wrote it into a gag of some sorts.


----------



## cmad1977 (Jun 2, 2021)

Firefly is nowhere near as good as it could have been and no where near as good as it is remembered.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 2, 2021)

cmad1977 said:


> Firefly is nowhere near as good as it could have been and no where near as good as it is remembered.



Then why do I enjoy it just as much every time I re-watch it?


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 2, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> No. Speculation would be, "I think they might have done a musical episode, but with puppets. Kinda like Buffy AND Angel."
> 
> When the writer/producer Tim Minnear says that he was recruited by Whedon with the pitch for that episode, and you see that the structure of the episodes was built to foreshadow that episode, it's not just speculation. If Buffy had been cancelled one episode before Angel was 'revealed' as a vampire (um... spoiler?) would that have been speculation? Or both the planned outcome of the choices they were making, and, you know, obvious?
> 
> ...



Sure, it was an intended(at that time) story arc.  Those arcs turn on a dime, though.  A minor character intended to be in 2 episodes and die will sometimes due to popularity not die and remain for the rest of the show's run.  All we know at this point is that is what was intended when she pulled out the syringe.  Given the shows high popularity, we don't know that her arc would have ended with gang rape and death.  Whedon had the opportunity to finish that arc in Serenity which featured the Reavers, but he didn't.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jun 2, 2021)

Maxperson said:


> Sure, it was an intended(at that time) story arc.  Those arcs turn on a dime, though.  A minor character intended to be in 2 episodes and die will sometimes due to popularity not die and remain for the rest of the show's run.  All we know at this point is that is what was intended when she pulled out the syringe.  Given the shows high popularity, we don't know that her arc would have ended with gang rape and death.  Whedon had the opportunity to finish that arc in Serenity which featured the Reavers, but he didn't.




The arc wasn't going to end with her death. Again, it was intended to resolve _Mal's_ issues.

EDIT: Okay, so here's the gist. The syringe would make it so that if Inara was sexually assaulted, those who did so would die. So when she was sexually assaulted by _all the Reavers, that killed them. _And she survived. And Mal finds her, and he's all like, wow, maybe I should stop calling her a (less pleasant term for) harlot. Yay?


----------



## payn (Jun 2, 2021)

God, this thread is getting gross.


----------



## Sepulchrave II (Jun 2, 2021)

My main problem with Whedon is that he writes all of his female characters from the perspective of an oversexed teenage boy who isn’t getting any action. Once you see the fetishizing for what it is, pretty much everything becomes cringe-inducing.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 2, 2021)

Sepulchrave II said:


> My main problem with Whedon is that he writes all of his female characters from the perspective of an oversexed teenage boy who isn’t getting any action. Once you see the fetishizing for what it is, pretty much everything becomes cringe-inducing.



Jack Chalker the author is like that with his books as well.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 2, 2021)

payn said:


> God, this thread is getting gross.




Yeah.  I can only hope that, if it had continued, someone would have talked Wheadon out of that one.  Maybe the actors, or the network...

But, there are reasons why he's not really in favor any more, and this is indicative.


----------



## Imaculata (Jun 2, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> The arc wasn't going to end with her death. Again, it was intended to resolve _Mal's_ issues.
> 
> EDIT: Okay, so here's the gist. The syringe would make it so that if Inara was sexually assaulted, those who did so would die. So when she was sexually assaulted by _all the Reavers, that killed them. _And she survived. And Mal finds her, and he's all like, wow, maybe I should stop calling her a (less pleasant term for) harlot. Yay?




But it didn't happen. Much like how Peter Jackson intended for Aragorn to fight Sauron at the end of Return of the King, or how Arwen was supposed to take part in the Battle of Helmsdeep. Things that were already shot, but got cut before release. Do we judge the Lord of the Rings trilogy based on what might have been?

I don't. I'm glad they didn't follow through with those things, but I judge the final product. I get that Josh Whedon's fall from grace puts an ugly spin on all this. But in the end, Firefly is what it is. We don't need to speculate what might have been. We got Serenity to end the story, and it wasn't included in that either.


----------



## Janx (Jun 2, 2021)

Of all the complaints about Firefly, there's a certain caucasity in what's not mentioned.

Where are the Asians?  All that Chinese swearing was in there because China was a major power when space was settled.  Yet nary an actual Chinese person.

I like Firefly as much as the next guy, but like all shows, it's got a few issues of stuff it actually did.  Some of that might've been Fox, but the end product is the end product.


----------



## Marc_C (Jun 2, 2021)

I don't care about other people's Lists or Hall of Honours. The only list that counts is mine. Firefly (+Serenity) is still in my top 5 sci-fi series after all these years.


----------



## payn (Jun 2, 2021)

Janx said:


> Of all the complaints about Firefly, there's a certain caucasity in what's not mentioned.
> 
> Where are the Asians?  All that Chinese swearing was in there because China was a major power when space was settled.  Yet nary an actual Chinese person.
> 
> I like Firefly as much as the next guy, but like all shows, it's got a few issues of stuff it actually did.  Some of that might've been Fox, but the end product is the end product.



This struck me early and often with Firefly.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jun 2, 2021)

I do agree with the fundamental premise that a non-completed show can't really make the hall of fame. Too many shows fail to stick the landing, so much that its basically become a trope on its own.

Though Firefly remains one of best seasons I television imo, I do agree that without seeing how it ends it only be a maybe, and maybe is not strong enough for the hall of fame.

Now a few notes on other points named.


The Inara/Reaver controversy: I'm sorry, but if you saw all the dropped plotlines that writers come up with for a show it would make your head spin. Part of the freedom of the creative process is the ability to express thoughts in the safety that your fellows and editing will help you tune ideas and drop bad ones. So what if that was an idea on the table, there are so many steps that are followed before it becomes cannon....and if its not cannon its not up for debate. Next you'll tell me I need to include Starwars fanfiction in my discussion of Star Wars movies....I mean heck, at least those stories were actually finished.
Weadon: I love how people have gone from "these shows are women empowerment" to "these shows are so cringe-inducing". The simple truth is, like most art: You see what you want to see. First off, we don't really know what happened with Weadon and his crew, and probably will never get the full story. If wrong-doings happened, I hope people take the HR and legal means to correct them. But airing them in public...sorry the days of stamping red A's on people and publicly stoning them in the streets are supposed to be long gone.... we have standard means for people to seek justice for this reason. 
I also like how people just keep piling on for Weadon for JL.... when its been proven at this point that the vast majority of footage used is Synder's. Yeah Weadon put together a crappy movie....from a patchwork of Synder footage. And the Snyder cut is no saving grace, its got a few solid moments....which for a 4 hour movie I would freaking hope so. But the Syndercut is not a great movie, its a movie thats a little bit better than the crappy one that came before it. I laugh how the fans wanted to torch Synder for MoS or BvS....but now he does a little improvement of JL and he's basically Jesus....talk about a fickle fandom.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 2, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> And as anyone who is a fan of Lost or the X-Files will be more than happy to explain to you, it is quite easy for a show to provide mysteries and questions; it is much more difficult for a show to provide answers that satisfy.



THIS. So much. In the immortal words of Supernatural*, "Any chapped-a** monkey with a keyboard can poop out a beginning. But endings are impossible."

This is why I still love Babylon 5, even though in many respects it has aged badly. It didn't just set up mysteries--it resolved them. It didn't just ask questions--it answered them. It did not tie off every loose end, but it got most of them, and wrapped up each major character's personal arc, and delivered a really solid, satisfying conclusion to the story.

*Which--since we're discussing endings--ended with the conclusion of Season 5. There were never any additional seasons of Supernatural. Nope.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jun 2, 2021)

Dausuul said:


> THIS. So much. In the immortal words of Supernatural*, "Any chapped-a** monkey with a keyboard can poop out a beginning. But endings are impossible."
> 
> This is why I still love Babylon 5, even though in many respects it has aged badly. It didn't just set up mysteries--it resolved them. It didn't just ask questions--it answered them. It did not tie off every loose end, but it got most of them, and wrapped up each major character's personal arc, and delivered a really solid, satisfying conclusion to the story.
> 
> *Which--since we're discussing endings--ended with the conclusion of Season 5. There were never any additional seasons of Supernatural. Nope.




I'm guessing that there's an interesting Venn Diagram between the people who argue so vociferously in favor of Firefly that I decide to write this (you know, the same people that make it the #1, or one of the very top shows in all of the internet rankings), and those people who throw giant tantrums about Game of Thrones and insist that the whole show is terrible no-good bad, because they didn't like the last two seasons.


----------



## ehren37 (Jun 2, 2021)

Deset Gled said:


> I strongly disagree with this statement.  Serialized stories lead to some of the most boring filler-filled shows I have ever experienced.
> 
> When an episodic show like ST:TNG or X-Files had a "filler" episode, we got a monster-of-the-week or ship-in-a-bottle episode.  But when you get right down to it, those episodes are what the core or those shows are really about.  A nice, self contained problem, which a solution in the same episode.  You might even get a second-run character getting a day in the limelight out of it, or some fun trivia or minor backstory to explore.  It's like the rice/potato/carb to a hearty meal; it's not filler, it's the base.




Yeah, the Monster of the Week X-Files episodes are by far what people liked/remembered. Clyde Buckman's Final Repose is better than the entire dull meta plot combined. It's a lesson many game masters could learn from... let adventures stand alone in a longer campaign.


----------



## Janx (Jun 2, 2021)

Stalker0 said:


> I do agree with the fundamental premise that a non-completed show can't really make the hall of fame. Too many shows fail to stick the landing, so much that its basically become a trope on its own.



I disagree with this metric because networks are fickle and actual good shows do get canceled without an ending.  Netflix is notorious for this (ex. The OA).

We could just as easily sample all sci-fi shows first 13 episodes so they all have a level playing field.  Its possible other favorite shows wouldn't measure up as well.  The first season of TNG was the worst of TNG and arguably, Firefly was better than that.


----------



## payn (Jun 2, 2021)

Stalker0 said:


> Weadon: I love how people have gone from "these shows are women empowerment" to "these shows are so cringe-inducing". The simple truth is, like most art: You see what you want to see. First off, we don't really know what happened with Weadon and his crew, and probably will never get the full story. If wrong-doings happened, I hope people take the HR and legal means to correct them. But airing them in public...sorry the days of stamping red A's on people and publicly stoning them in the streets are supposed to be long gone.... we have standard means for people to seek justice for this reason.



Those standard means are not as effective as you may assume them to be.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 2, 2021)

ehren37 said:


> Yeah, the Monster of the Week X-Files episodes are by far what people liked/remembered. Clyde Buckman's Final Repose is better than the entire dull meta plot combined. It's a lesson many game masters could learn from... let adventures stand alone in a longer campaign.



NCIS suffers from the same thing.  When the seasons were just a bunch of independent stories, it was a MUCH better show than when they started creating story arcs that went the entire season.


----------



## ehren37 (Jun 2, 2021)

Dausuul said:


> THIS. So much. In the immortal words of Supernatural*, "Any chapped-a** monkey with a keyboard can poop out a beginning. But endings are impossible."
> 
> This is why I still love Babylon 5, even though in many respects it has aged badly. It didn't just set up mysteries--it resolved them. It didn't just ask questions--it answered them. It did not tie off every loose end, but it got most of them, and wrapped up each major character's personal arc, and delivered a really solid, satisfying conclusion to the story.
> 
> *Which--since we're discussing endings--ended with the conclusion of Season 5. There were never any additional seasons of Supernatural. Nope.



YES. Season 5 was the natural end. Dean with his family, Sam watching over them, apocalypse averted. 

None of this "They've got to save the world again, again... Only THIS time, it's personal! For the THIRD time!!!" Let those boys have the peace the damn Kansas song promised!


----------



## Sepulchrave II (Jun 2, 2021)

Stalker0 said:


> Weadon: I love how people have gone from "these shows are women empowerment" to "these shows are so cringe-inducing".



Hey, I've been dissing Whedon's infantilism for years. Long before he was revealed to be a toxic pervert.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jun 2, 2021)

Sepulchrave II said:


> Hey, I've been dissing Whedon's infantilism for years. Long before he was revealed to be a toxic pervert.




Look, I like a lot of the art he created. But ... there were quite a few people out there both pointing out the _major_ issues with the art, as well as discussing observed problems with him, before it blew up.

They were just mostly (and unfortunately) ignored.


----------



## dragoner (Jun 2, 2021)

I've seen a few episodes, never really liked it. I mean I lived in California for over 20 years, my wife's Father was Apache, born on the Mescalero Reservation so I am familiar with the west. She kind of liked it, took me to see Serenity, it's OK, I don't rip it down, except it isn't a favorite. The Killer Angels was an okay book, nevertheless Dee Brown's Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee should be required reading.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 2, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Look, I like a lot of the art he created. But ... there were quite a few people out there both pointing out the _major_ issues with the art, as well as discussing observed problems with him, before it blew up.
> 
> They were just mostly (and unfortunately) ignored.



For all his talent, there were always those off-key notes in Whedon's work. The recent revelations make it easier to connect those dots (why, yes, I do enjoy a good mixed metaphor, thank you), but plenty of folks noticed the dots long ago even if not all of us put them together.

Joss Whedon is one more example of why it's unwise to put creators, or their work, on pedestals. It's possible to appreciate his accomplishments without blinding oneself to his flaws--and, conversely, condemn the flaws without denying the accomplishments.


----------



## gavalinb (Jun 2, 2021)

I really enjoyed _Firefly_ and _Serenity._ I wouldn't rank the crew higher than my holy trinity of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy, but still found it worth watching. Would I put it above _Babylon 5_? Certain seasons of _B5_, maybe. One nice thing about the brevity of _Firefly_'s existence is it didn't get bloated or overstay its welcome. I think _B5_ could have been wrapped up better in that fourth season and avoided the worst bits of Season 5.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jun 2, 2021)

gavalinb said:


> I think _B5_ could have been wrapped up better in that fourth season and avoided the worst bits of Season 5.



I wish B5 season 5 could have been a half season. The last half of season 5 has some solid and epic moments, its mostly the first half that just feels like its treading water. Though I did love View from the Gallery (where you follow the ordinary maintenance crew), that was a fun change in perspective to see how the rest of us actually view what's going on.

One thing about Season 5.... best opening! That opening credits spiel still gets me pumped to this day!


----------



## gavalinb (Jun 2, 2021)

Stalker0 said:


> I wish B5 season 5 could have been a half season. The last half of season 5 has some solid and epic moments, its mostly the first half that just feels like its treading water. Though I did love View from the Gallery (where you follow the ordinary maintenance crew), that was a fun change in perspective to see how the rest of us actually view what's going on.
> 
> One thing about Season 5.... best opening! That opening credits spiel still gets me pumped to this day!



I _did_ like the Rosencrantz and Gildenstern approach to that View from the Gallery episode. Mostly, I just didn't care for the new station commander or the telepath rebellion nonsense.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 2, 2021)

gavalinb said:


> I really enjoyed _Firefly_ and _Serenity._ I wouldn't rank the crew higher than my holy trinity of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy, but still found it worth watching. Would I put it above _Babylon 5_? Certain seasons of _B5_, maybe. One nice thing about the brevity of _Firefly_'s existence is it didn't get bloated or overstay its welcome. I think _B5_ could have been wrapped up better in that fourth season and avoided the worst bits of Season 5. ... I _did_ like the Rosencrantz and Gildenstern approach to that View from the Gallery episode. Mostly, I just didn't care for the new station commander or the telepath rebellion nonsense.



Season 5 got royally screwed by real life.

First, the network canceled the show midway through season 4. So the writers scrambled to jam in all of the important plot points in the last half of 4. Then the show was unexpectedly un-canceled, leaving them with very little to do for 5, so they had to gin up some kind of a plot to fill in the gaps. Thus the telepath rebellion.

And then, there was some kind of miscommunication which resulted in Claudia Christian leaving unexpectedly. No one seems real clear on exactly what happened, but it doesn't seem to have been what either Claudia or JMS would have wanted. However, it happened. Thus, Ivanova out, Lochley in.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jun 2, 2021)

gavalinb said:


> or the telepath rebellion nonsense.




Oh, c'mon. Byron and the mopes provided the best scenery-chewing acting since, oh, junior high drama club!


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 2, 2021)

Stalker0 said:


> I wish B5 season 5 could have been a half season. The last half of season 5 has some solid and epic moments, its mostly the first half that just feels like its treading water. Though I did love View from the Gallery (where you follow the ordinary maintenance crew), that was a fun change in perspective to see how the rest of us actually view what's going on.
> 
> One thing about Season 5.... best opening! That opening credits spiel still gets me pumped to this day!



I just finished re-watching the series last week.  It had been a long time and I noticed that HBOMax had it.


----------



## Deset Gled (Jun 2, 2021)

Dausuul said:


> It's possible to appreciate his accomplishments without blinding oneself to his flaws--and, conversely, condemn the flaws without denying the accomplishments.




This, so very much.  See also: Alfred Hitchcock, H.P. Lovecraft, Abraham Lincoln, etc, etc,



Snarf Zagyg said:


> If Buffy had been cancelled one episode before Angel was 'revealed' as a vampire (um... spoiler?) would that have been speculation? Or both the planned outcome of the choices they were making, and, you know, obvious?
> 
> Is it _possible_ that they might have changed direction? Sure. But there has never been any indication that they were going to.




IMNSHO, yes, that would be speculation.  I treat what is formally pubished as being canon.  Any word-of-god stuff is not canon until it shows up in actual, published material.  Doesn't matter if it was an episode away, a season away, or a spinoff series away.  For a very related example, the plot of the Annointed One in Buffy changed at the absolute last minute.  He was supposed to be the big bad of season two.  It was planned all through season one, was written that way completely thought season one, and didn't change until they wanted to start filming and realized the child actor had aged too much.

I actually look down on creators who try and force things into their product through "word-of-god" decrees.  For a specific example, J.K. Rowling angers me with stuff like Dumbledor's sexuality.  You had 7 main books, an infinite number of tie-in opportunities like Beetle the Bard, and 10 movies.  If he's gay, have the guts to show it somewhere in the darned series already.  If the only place you actually say it is on Twitter, it doesn't count.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 2, 2021)

Dausuul said:


> First, the network canceled the show midway through season 4. So the writers scrambled to jam in all of the important plot points in the last half of 4. Then the show was unexpectedly un-canceled, leaving them with very little to do for 5, so they had to gin up some kind of a plot to fill in the gaps. Thus the telepath rebellion.




So, it seems hat some of the telepath stuff was originally planned to happen across seasons four and five, but not all in one big glom like it came out.



Dausuul said:


> And then, there was some kind of miscommunication which resulted in Claudia Christian leaving unexpectedly.




Common among reports that have floated around is that it had to do with that un-cancellation, short timelines, and contract negotiations.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 2, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Oh, c'mon. Byron and the mopes provided the best scenery-chewing acting since, oh, junior high drama club!




And Byron did introduce the Good Hair Gene to the Telepath community.  Once he shows up, even telepaths living Down Below have _marvellous_ hair, never mind that regular bathing and hair care products are a luxury down there...


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 2, 2021)

Umbran said:


> And Byron did introduce the Good Hair Gene to the Telepath community.  Once he shows up, even telepaths living Down Below have _marvellous_ hair, never mind that regular bathing and hair care products are a luxury down there...



Maybe they just made us all see them as having good hair and grooming.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jun 2, 2021)

Maxperson said:


> Maybe they just made us all see them as having good hair and grooming.




I love Babylon 5 so much that I really want to be able to stake out my claim on the Hot Take corner of ... "You know, the whole Byron plot? Not so bad after all!"

I just can't. Byron was like concentrated Marcus musk. Byron made me re-think my position on Bester.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 2, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Byron made me re-think my position on Bester.




The enemy of my enemy... can still be a complete nozzle.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jun 2, 2021)

Umbran said:


> The enemy of my enemy... can still be a complete nozzle.




Definitely! But Bester is the kind of complete nozzle I can get behind! 

Walter Koenig is having FUN playing Bester. And when Ensign Pavel Chekov (TOS) is having FUN, we are all winners, aren't we?


----------



## Ryujin (Jun 2, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Definitely! But Bester is the kind of complete nozzle I can get behind!
> 
> Walter Koenig is having FUN playing Bester. And when Ensign Pavel Chekov (TOS) is having FUN, we are all winners, aren't we?



If you want to see a couple of episodes of Koenig playing a complete douche, look up the old Canadian SciFi series "The Starlost" (1973-1974). It was only a few years after Star Trek: TOS wrapped and you might be surprised by a few of the names that pop up in the credits of various episodes.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 2, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I love Babylon 5 so much that I really want to be able to stake out my claim on the Hot Take corner of ... "You know, the whole Byron plot? Not so bad after all!"
> 
> I just can't. Byron was like concentrated Marcus musk. Byron made me re-think my position on Bester.



I loved the series, but I didn't like the Byron and Co. storyline, either.  I just kept thinking, "Someone please get these people a planet.  Soon!"


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 2, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Definitely! But Bester is the kind of complete nozzle I can get behind!
> 
> Walter Koenig is having FUN playing Bester. And when Ensign Pavel Chekov (TOS) is having FUN, we are all winners, aren't we?



LOL  True story.  When I was much younger I worked at a video store that Walter Koenig frequented to rent videos.  We would talk a bit and then he'd go on his way.  A bit later I discovered, having run into him a few times, that he also shopped at my local grocery store.  Fast forward a few years and I was walking through Burbank, CA and Walter comes walking down the sidewalk.  When he reached me he paused, looked at me and said, "I know you."  I got recognized by a movie star!


----------



## Ryujin (Jun 2, 2021)

Maxperson said:


> LOL  True story.  When I was much younger I worked at a video store that Walter Koenig frequented to rent videos.  We would talk a bit and then he'd go on his way.  A bit later I discovered, having run into him a few times, that he also shopped at my local grocery store.  Fast forward a few years and I was walking through Burbank, CA and Walter comes walking down the sidewalk.  When he reached me he paused, looked at me and said, "I know you."  I got recognized by a movie star!



I love stories like that


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Jun 2, 2021)

I realize the thread has moved past this, but I want to resurrect this issue of sticking the landing.

I feel like the harsh realities of TV make it unfair to lean too heavily on how a show ends. You have to get real lucky to have the kind of advance warning needed to put together a true ending, and so many of the best shows aren't ratings hits, and are always wondering when they'll get the axe. Plus, by the time a show ends it might have different showrunners, major cast changes, etc. And also some shows, particularly in the pre-serial era, just sort of end, because there was no central thruline anyway. Cheers had a very cool final scene, but if the show had ended 10 episodes earlier, who'd have cared?

TV shows are too different from movies or novels to really put the same weight on endings, I think. What if the charitable thing to do is to just gauge them based on the overall impact they have on you? For example, I thought the X-Files was the greatest show on TV for a while there (not that TV was particularly great at the time), and once the leads were gone but the show was just shambling along anyway, I was gone and that was fine. Even the ho-hum/bad movies were sort of ancillary to me, and I avoided the revival seasons like my life depended on it.

For someone else, the movies or those last seasons might have retroactively snuffed out any affection for the X-Files. I'm not saying you should always give bad endings or follow-ups a pass. Just that you never know when Deadwood or Rubicon or My So-Called Life or tons of other great shows are going to get cancelled, and that shouldn't automatically knock them out of any halls of fame. If Friday Night Lights had ended a couple seasons earlier I'd still think it's a masterpiece.

I managed to talk about a lot of non-SF shows there, maybe since I think most SF shows aren't all that great. I'm just saying that the upcoming final season of the Expanse could somehow be the dumbest thing possible and I'd still rank it higher than just about anything in the genre (on TV).


----------



## payn (Jun 2, 2021)

Television is being written more in mind with endings now. With episodic TV you didnt need to worry about the ending until you needed to worry about the ending. Serial by its nature leads to an ending so one needs to be thought of from the beginning. Unless, of course, a series is cursed with super ratings, then the writers are forced to carry on and on and on...


----------



## Stalker0 (Jun 2, 2021)

Grendel_Khan said:


> You have to get real lucky to have the kind of advance warning needed to put together a true ending, and so many of the best shows aren't ratings hits, and are always wondering when they'll get the axe.



My counter to this, as when I watch the last season of many shows (and these are known last seasons), I am always astounded by how much time is often wasted. They will just be putzing along for episode after episode and then suddenly try to cram in all this plot into like 4-5 episodes (or hell sometimes 2-3). I will use "The 100" as a recent example....a show that was so "not CW" on the CW that I've been a fan for a long time.

The had an entire season to end that show, and it felt like they didn't really start ending until like the last 3 episodes, and so of course completely botched it (that was an ending for the bad ending gallery if I ever saw one). They could have tied one plotline after another, episode by episode, finished the plot with an episode left, and did a nice epilogue to show how all the characters (which is the thing most of the audience actually care about) wind up.

The other big offender are the "mystery box" type shows.... LOST being the predominant example. There was nothing "rushed" about lost, the writers simply threw out this mystery and just didn't really know how to end it well.


I get that good endings are a skill....but that is part of why they are a key separator for "hall of fame" works..... if your whole product doesn't work, I may still enjoy it.....but you aren't getting into the same Hall as shows that nailed it from beginning to end.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 2, 2021)

Stalker0 said:


> I get that good endings are a skill....




I think that much of the point that they are at least as much about _luck_ as they are skill.

Corporate decisions are only vaguely related to the quality of a show - there's studio politics and other drivers that are beyond the control of the show, such that many shows can't stick the landing, because they aren't given the opportunity to craft a good ending.


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Jun 2, 2021)

Wait, I have a question that's still, I think, related to the OP (apologies if I missed a similar prompt earlier in the thread):

Halls of fame notwithstanding, what are your favorite gone-too-soon SF/fantasy shows?

I'd go with Ultraviolet. I haven't rewatched it in years but it absolutely blew me away. Along with tons of great ideas and a tone that's still pretty unique in genre TV, it provided a nice early glimpse of Idris Elba being the goddamn best.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 2, 2021)

Grendel_Khan said:


> Wait, I have a question that's still, I think, related to the OP (apologies if I missed a similar prompt earlier in the thread):
> 
> Halls of fame notwithstanding, what are your favorite gone-too-soon SF/fantasy shows?
> 
> I'd go with Ultraviolet. I haven't rewatched it in years but it absolutely blew me away. Along with tons of great ideas and a tone that's still pretty unique in genre TV, it provided a nice early glimpse of Idris Elba being the goddamn best.



I Am Not OK With This.








						I Am Not Okay with This (TV Series 2020) - IMDb
					

I Am Not Okay with This: Created by Jonathan Entwistle, Christy Hall. With Sophia Lillis, Wyatt Oleff, Sofia Bryant, Kathleen Rose Perkins. Sydney is a teenage girl navigating the trials and tribulations of high school while dealing with the complexities of her family, her budding sexuality, and...




					www.imdb.com


----------



## dragoner (Jun 3, 2021)

double post


----------



## dragoner (Jun 3, 2021)

Grendel_Khan said:


> Halls of fame notwithstanding, what are your favorite gone-too-soon SF/fantasy shows?



Dark Matter - Dark Matter (TV Series 2015–2017) - IMDb


----------



## MarkB (Jun 3, 2021)

ehren37 said:


> Yeah, the Monster of the Week X-Files episodes are by far what people liked/remembered. Clyde Buckman's Final Repose is better than the entire dull meta plot combined. It's a lesson many game masters could learn from... let adventures stand alone in a longer campaign.



I don't think there's anything wrong with laying down some breadcrumbs for a longer-scale plot, or even with just throwing them out there without having yet thought through how or if you'll make use of them.

But what absolutely does piss me off is when, as was the case with The X-Files and even moreso with Lost, the showrunners are very much asking the audience to play along and try to gather those clues in the hope of figuring out what's going on. Setting up a mystery is one thing, but trying to sell it as a mystery the audience can solve, when even the writers don't know the solution, is just deceptive marketing, and a very cynical way to try to keep viewers on the hook.


----------



## MarkB (Jun 3, 2021)

Deleted - kept getting Server Error message when trying to post.


----------



## MarkB (Jun 3, 2021)

Deleted - kept getting Server Error message when trying to post.


----------



## MarkB (Jun 3, 2021)

Deleted - kept getting Server Error message when trying to post.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jun 3, 2021)

Umbran said:


> I think that much of the point that they are at least as much about _luck_ as they are skill.



I think we could argue that about a lot of great works. How much of the artwork is the artist's skill, and how much was the right inspiration at the right time?

The great sports game where one player was a little bit injured....or whose body was just completely in gear.

The writer who was poised to finish their greatest series....only to die too early.


At the end of the day, it doesn't matter why and how a work got to where it is....only how good it is. And unfortunately shows with no ending or bad endings are always going to compare less favorably to a show that managed to maintain quality throughout its run.


----------



## MarkB (Jun 3, 2021)

Deleted - kept getting Server Error message when trying to post.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jun 3, 2021)

Umbran said:


> I think that much of the point that they are at least as much about _luck_ as they are skill.



I think we could argue that about a lot of great works. How much of the artwork is the artist's skill, and how much was the right inspiration at the right time?

The great sports game where one player was a little bit injured....or whose body was just completely in gear.

The writer who was poised to finish their greatest series....only to die too early.


At the end of the day, it doesn't matter why and how a work got to where it is....only how good it is. And unfortunately shows with no ending or bad endings are always going to compare less favorably to a show that managed to maintain quality throughout its run.


----------



## MarkB (Jun 3, 2021)

Deleted - kept getting Server Error message when trying to post.


----------



## MarkB (Jun 3, 2021)

Deleted - kept getting Server Error message when trying to post.


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Jun 3, 2021)

MarkB said:


> I don't think there's anything wrong with laying down some breadcrumbs for a longer-scale plot, or even with just throwing them out there without having yet thought through how or if you'll make use of them.



For what it's worth, I was in that (apparent) minority that preferred the conspiracy episodes over the monsters of the week. I still loved some of the latter, but the ones that really stuck with me were part of the former. Scully's sister getting shot in the dark flipped a switch in my brain that never quite flipped back.

EDIT: Things are a bit glitchy right now, but I meant for this to be a reply to the post MarkB was _replying_ to, which read:

ehren37 said:
Yeah, the Monster of the Week X-Files episodes are by far what people liked/remembered. Clyde Buckman's Final Repose is better than the entire dull meta plot combined. It's a lesson many game masters could learn from... let adventures stand alone in a longer campaign.


----------



## payn (Jun 3, 2021)

dragoner said:


> Dark Matter - Dark Matter (TV Series 2015–2017) - IMDb



A good first season, but it got bad fast.

I just binged Intergalactic on Peacock which was basically another Dark Matter, Kill Joys, insert SyFy channel b rate show here. Fun ideas that tend to go down the tubes because of bad writing and amateur actors.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 3, 2021)

MarkB said:


> Deleted - kept getting Server Error message when trying to post.



You were more stubborn than I was.  I only created 4 duplicates, not 7!


----------



## Janx (Jun 3, 2021)

MarkB said:


> I don't think there's anything wrong with laying down some breadcrumbs for a longer-scale plot, or even with just throwing them out there without having yet thought through how or if you'll make use of them.
> 
> But what absolutely does piss me off is when, as was the case with The X-Files and even moreso with Lost, the showrunners are very much asking the audience to play along and try to gather those clues in the hope of figuring out what's going on. Setting up a mystery is one thing, but trying to sell it as a mystery the audience can solve, when even the writers don't know the solution, is just deceptive marketing, and a very cynical way to try to keep viewers on the hook.



I was at a con with a bunch of Lost people on a panel and I think it was Michael Emmerson said he had a chat with one of the producers.  That yielded this nugget: people loved or hated the ending because Lost had good characters and intriguing plot, but the ending focussed only on Character and neglected the other half of the audience who wanted plot resolution, not character resolution.

Both lost and BSG suffered from this "making it up as we go" when it came to plot.  Implying there was a huge deal, clues, etc, but they didn't actually know.  Few shows have really done the work that Babylon 5 did, of knowing the full arc and mysteries and making it all make sense.  That's why they run out of steam and let us down.  Really, the mistake Lindelhof and friends make is focussing mostly on character, when in reality you need both in equal measure.  Babylon 5 had that, and few if any shows since learned how.


----------



## dragoner (Jun 3, 2021)

payn said:


> A good first season, but it got bad fast.
> 
> I just binged Intergalactic on Peacock which was basically another Dark Matter, Kill Joys, insert SyFy channel b rate show here. Fun ideas that tend to go down the tubes because of bad writing and amateur actors.



I haven't heard of Intergalactic; another one that everyone wanted to go on longer was Stargate Universe, which I liked, except I see why it failed, as it was not the Stargate everyone was used too, much darker in tone, and a serial, not episodic.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 3, 2021)

Stalker0 said:


> I think we could argue that about a lot of great works. How much of the artwork is the artist's skill, and how much was the right inspiration at the right time?




I'm not talking about inspiration.  I'm talking about _opportunity_.  As in "are you _allowed_ to write an ending at all."

_Babylon 5_ almost didn't get the chance, and then the networks yank them around so the final season was decidedly lower-caliber.  _Person of Interest_ got cancelled, but luckily were given a half-season to manage to wrap things up.  _Timeless_ only got a 2-hour TV movie to resolve a major plot point.  Firefly just got cut off mid-season, not even airing all the episodes made.  _ST: Enterprise_ got cut off just as a guy who actually knew what to do with the show got the reins.    

The list goes on for shows that were not allowed to attempt to find a satisfying end.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 3, 2021)

dragoner said:


> I haven't heard of Intergalactic; another one that everyone wanted to go on longer was Stargate Universe, which I liked, except I see why it failed, as it was not the Stargate everyone was used too, much darker in tone, and a serial, not episodic.




Didn't really like the characters in SGU. 

 And they killed off Atlantis to make it. SG1 and Atlanta had likeable characters.

 Plot was crap as well.


----------



## dragoner (Jun 3, 2021)

Zardnaar said:


> Didn't really like the characters in SGU.
> 
> And they killed off Atlantis to make it. SG1 and Atlanta had likeable characters.
> 
> Plot was crap as well.



Say that in some parts of the SG/SF community and you will start a holy war, I know to this day some people don't like me for criticizing it. SG1 was done, even before bringing in Morena Baccarin, and Atlantis was done when Jewel Staite came on. I like both of those as well. Surprisingly enough Atlantis had some of the best space battles of any sci-fi of its time. Talking about all these shows, it is funny how many of the actors reappear through shows like Firefly, Stargate, and Dark Matter.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 3, 2021)

dragoner said:


> Say that in some parts of the SG/SF community and you will start a holy war, I know to this day some people don't like me for criticizing it. SG1 was done, even before bringing in Morena Baccarin, and Atlantis was done when Jewel Staite came on. I like both of those as well. Surprisingly enough Atlantis had some of the best space battles of any sci-fi of its etc. Think they were all filmed in Canada.time. Talking about all these shows, it is funny how many of the actors reappear through shows like Firefly, Stargate, and Dark Matter.






dragoner said:


> Say that in some parts of the SG/SF community and you will start a holy war, I know to this day some people don't like me for criticizing it. SG1 was done, even before bringing in Morena Baccarin, and Atlantis was done when Jewel Staite came on. I like both of those as well. Surprisingly enough Atlantis had some of the best space battles of any sci-fi of its time. Talking about all these shows, it is funny how many of the actors reappear through shows like Firefly, Stargate, and Dark Matter.




 And Continuum, Warehouse 13, Dark Matter, Sanctuary etc. Think they were all filmed in Canada. 

 SG1 was really done around season 7, Atlantis was fairly consistent but last season was the weakest IMHO. 

  SGU Stargate without a Stargate team and barely any aliens or Stargate (gave up early season 2).


----------



## dragoner (Jun 3, 2021)

Zardnaar said:


> And Continuum, Warehouse 13, Dark Matter, Sanctuary etc. Think they were all filmed in Canada.
> 
> SG1 was really done around season 7, Atlantis was fairly consistent but last season was the weakest IMHO.
> 
> SGU Stargate without a Stargate team and barely any aliens or Stargate (gave up early season 2).



Yes, I think it is Sky in Canada, and Syfy is NBC and Warner Brothers? Who incidentally did Person of Interest. TV is way convoluted, I mean, you can also see all of those people appear in the Hallmark channel made for TV movies, cheesy romance.

A lot of these shows did have a decent lifecycle, SG1 in particular. Atlantis losing two of the most developed characters, where Staite, nothing against her, but she wasn't going to fill the gaping wound their loss created. Then again neither of those shows with a more old style individual episode format would survive today, people would hate them. SGU, it was what it was, I didn't like the drone war thing, and Carlyle is a good actor except his character as soon as you began to get some sympathy for him he did something that made me not like him. So yeah, totally modern interpretation of Stargate, cool in a way, jarring compared to the old, and the legacy issues of the series. The million year old ship that was covered in greebles was over the top also.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jun 3, 2021)

dragoner said:


> I haven't heard of Intergalactic; another one that everyone wanted to go on longer was Stargate Universe, which I liked, except I see why it failed, as it was not the Stargate everyone was used too, much darker in tone, and a serial, not episodic.



I think the main problem was the lack of a good villain. Realistically, when you are literally jumping around galaxies, the idea that any single entity could be a challenge....would probably have to be so insanely advanced that it would be hard to stop. Further, there is no world building.... every place you visit...you will never ever see again, so there is no sense that what your doing could have positive or negative ramifications later.

The tried using the "left over war machines" angle for a while, but again soulless machines don't provide a very interesting challenge.

Probably what they should have done was just double down on the internal drama. They started to do that but it was a bit split and still felt hollow. Yes that is a very different SG than we are used to seeing...but I think that is the premise you have to work with.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jun 3, 2021)

Umbran said:


> The list goes on for shows that were not allowed to attempt to find a satisfying end.



Which takes us right back to the OPs premise.... that shows that aren't finished shouldn't make the hall of fame. And personally I have to agree with that....because as there is a large lists of shows that did end very badly (even when given the proper chance to do so).... it seems doing a good ending is pretty difficult.

It does suck that many shows aren't given the chance to finish, but judging an entire body of work on possibility is prone to folly.... because now the show can always be as great as "what could have been". That's too nebulous to give a work an equal level of status to amazing shows that did finish and did provide us the whole package.


----------



## dragoner (Jun 3, 2021)

Stalker0 said:


> I think the main problem was the lack of a good villain. Realistically, when you are littering jumping around galaxies, the idea that any single entity could be a challenge....would probably have to be so insanely advanced that it would be hard to stop.
> 
> The tried using the "left over war machines" angle for a while, but again soulless machines don't provide a very interesting challenge.
> 
> Probably what they should have done was just double down on the internal drama. They started to do that but it was a bit split and still felt hollow.



Lou Diamond Philip's arc was tedious, a good actor, just that he didn't have anyone to play off of as written, he always felt temporary. Carlyle vs Ferreira, that too became tedious, and then they tried filling it with actors that just weren't that good. The storyline _did_ feel hollow, the constant battle with the drones boring, it had so much potential it felt like that it just never seemed to quite reach.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 3, 2021)

Stalker0 said:


> Which takes us right back to the OPs premise.... that shows that aren't finished shouldn't make the hall of fame. And personally I have to agree with that....because as there is a large lists of shows that did end very badly (even when given the proper chance to do so).... it seems doing a good ending is pretty difficult.



It really shows the opposite.  It shows that since the vast majority of shows are not allowed to finish, are forced to finish quickly and badly, or have their finishes interfered with by studio execs, the lack of or bad finish should not be held against the show.  If you exclude them, you don't end up with a list of the best.  You end up with a list of the lucky.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 3, 2021)

dragoner said:


> Lou Diamond Philip's arc was tedious, a good actor, just that he didn't have anyone to play off of as written, he always felt temporary. Carlyle vs Ferreira, that too became tedious, and then they tried filling it with actors that just weren't that good. The storyline _did_ feel hollow, the constant battle with the drones boring, it had so much potential it felt like that it just never seemed to quite reach.




 I think it had to many factor's against it. 

 Writing, no clear villain, no clear hero/heroes, unlikeable characters, writing, plot, paving etc. 

It's telling it lasted two seasons while the others had 10 and 5. I've wanted to do a rewatch but wife vetoed it. We do SG1 and Atlantis every 3 years or so.


----------



## dragoner (Jun 3, 2021)

Zardnaar said:


> I think it had toany factor's against it.
> 
> Writing, no clear villain, no clear hero/heroes, unlikeable characters, writing, plot, paving etc.
> 
> It's telling it lasted two seasons while the others had 10 and 5. I've wanted to do a rewatch but wife vetoed it. We do SG1 and Atlantis every 3 years or so.



A shame considering how much it had going for it, the writing dithered, that's what did it, I think, they had put together elements that should have worked, except didn't for the Stargate franchise. Though that is probably what kills most shows, and sci-fi gets it the worst because special effects mean SF costs 10 times what a normal show does.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 3, 2021)

dragoner said:


> A shame considering how much it had going for it, the writing dithered, that's what did it, I think, they had put together elements that should have worked, except didn't for the Stargate franchise. Though that is probably what kills most shows, and sci-fi gets it the worst because special effects mean SF costs 10 times what a normal show does.




 Yeah probably mostly in the writers. They had enough talent for a great show. 

 I remember being enthusiastic to watch it and let down.


----------



## Ryujin (Jun 3, 2021)

dragoner said:


> Yes, I think it is Sky in Canada, and Syfy is NBC and Warner Brothers? Who incidentally did Person of Interest. TV is way convoluted, I mean, you can also see all of those people appear in the Hallmark channel made for TV movies, cheesy romance.



In Canada the frequent co-producer of SciFi shows, along with SyFy in the US, was called SPACE. It's owned by the CTV Network (Bell Media) and, as such, was part of a rebranding effort a couple of years back that sucked any individual personality our of SPACE. Or, as it's now known, CTV SciFi Channel.


----------



## Ryujin (Jun 3, 2021)

dragoner said:


> Lou Diamond Philip's arc was tedious, a good actor, just that he didn't have anyone to play off of as written, he always felt temporary. Carlyle vs Ferreira, that too became tedious, and then they tried filling it with actors that just weren't that good. The storyline _did_ feel hollow, the constant battle with the drones boring, it had so much potential it felt like that it just never seemed to quite reach.



It was one of those shows that when you saw a bigger name actor, you know they weren't around for long. Rona Mitra lasted what; three episodes?

For me. the premise was fine. The idea of being on a runaway ship, that was part of a galactic effort to seed gates on distant planets, had some legs. Unfortunately I didn't find any of the characters at all compelling, nor really even likeable, and the more that was revealed about back-stories the less I liked them.


----------



## amethal (Jun 3, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> And I also think that the borrowing of Lost Cause mythology is arguably worse, for me. It may not bother other people who don't notice it or don't care.



I think it probably resonates more with Americans, for obvious reasons.

European history (for example) is knee-deep in lost causes, and apart from a few obvious exceptions (at the risk of Godwin-ing the thread) they often aren't any more objectionable than the forces they were fighting against.

My own cultural "Lost Cause" dates back to either 1282 or 1415, depending on how you want to look at it.


----------



## BrokenTwin (Jun 3, 2021)

Yeah, the whole "Browncoats are Confederate soldier analogies" never occurred to me until someone spelled it out for that exact reason. Not American, so the cultural reference flew right over my head. But I seriously can't unsee how odd the lack of Asian actors in the show is since it was pointed out to me.
But for me, Firefly's overarching story isn't what interested me. The whole 'hands of blue' bit felt incredibly disjointed from the rest of the series. I loved the show entirely because the core cast seemed to play so well off of each other, and it felt more like a family drama in space than any 'epic sci-fi plot'. I loved all of the main characters, and wanted to see how they'd organically grow and change.
Realistically, do I think Whedon could have maintained that appeal if he was given more time with the show? Not really. But for what we got, it was a good show. And in a way, the fact that it was cut off so abruptly and didn't have time to get bad helps maintain that.


----------



## payn (Jun 3, 2021)

dragoner said:


> I haven't heard of Intergalactic; another one that everyone wanted to go on longer was Stargate Universe, which I liked, except I see why it failed, as it was not the Stargate everyone was used too, much darker in tone, and a serial, not episodic.



I loved Stargate Universe, at least at first. Was disappointed they came up with another A.I. super enemy.


----------



## payn (Jun 3, 2021)

Umbran said:


> I'm not talking about inspiration.  I'm talking about _opportunity_.  As in "are you _allowed_ to write an ending at all."
> 
> _Babylon 5_ almost didn't get the chance, and then the networks yank them around so the final season was decidedly lower-caliber.  _Person of Interest_ got cancelled, but luckily were given a half-season to manage to wrap things up.  _Timeless_ only got a 2-hour TV movie to resolve a major plot point.  Firefly just got cut off mid-season, not even airing all the episodes made.  _ST: Enterprise_ got cut off just as a guy who actually knew what to do with the show got the reins.
> 
> The list goes on for shows that were not allowed to attempt to find a satisfying end.



Penny Dreadful was interesting like this. The showrunner claimed he was allowed to end the series as he wanted, though seeing how things unfolded that seems very unlikely. I mean they introduced Dr. Jekyll, but we never saw Mr. Hyde even though it was building to it. They introduced a new character just 3 episodes before the end (a female Indiana jones who was kick ass) that served little purpose. 

What seemed more likely is the showrunner expected at least one more season, but didn't get it. The show may have ended like the showrunner wanted, just not when the showrunner wanted it to.


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Jun 3, 2021)

dragoner said:


> I haven't heard of Intergalactic; another one that everyone wanted to go on longer was Stargate Universe, which I liked, except I see why it failed, as it was not the Stargate everyone was used too, much darker in tone, and a serial, not episodic.



I truly loved SGU, and couldn't get through even a single episode of SG-1 (I don't think I even knew that Atlantis had existed). SGU felt like a real show, more like prestige TV in terms of complexity and emotional realism. The fact that it went down in flames so quickly, and that so many SG-1 fans lobbied and cheered for its cancellation was the first time I fully realized that there's a version of genre fandom that I'll never understand. Just a huge gulf there, in terms of what we want out of narratives. Kind of a sad moment for me, to be honest, like losing your tribe.


----------



## payn (Jun 3, 2021)

Grendel_Khan said:


> I truly loved SGU, and couldn't get through even a single episode of SG-1 (I don't think I even knew that Atlantis had existed). SGU felt like a real show, more like prestige TV in terms of complexity and emotional realism. The fact that it went down in flames so quickly, and that so many SG-1 fans lobbied and cheered for its cancellation was the first time I fully realized that there's a version of genre fandom that I'll never understand. Just a huge gulf there, in terms of what we want out of narratives. Kind of a sad moment for me, to be honest, like losing your tribe.



Im with you on that. I wasnt a regular SG-1 fan and didnt really get into Atlantis. Universe was so interesting because it was a crew lost at sea. There was so much potential to discover new territory and find new mysteries. Season 1 wasnt incredible but it laid the groundwork for something with so much potential. Season 2 just went off the tracks and the show was seemingly rudderless at its conclusion.  

I also noticed the sheer amount of a-holes online demanding this show being taken off the air since its pilot episode. I hadn't experienced anything like it since ST DS9. Still got nothin on Star Wars fans tho


----------



## Ryujin (Jun 3, 2021)

payn said:


> Im with you on that. I wasnt a regular SG-1 fan and didnt really get into Atlantis. Universe was so interesting because it was a crew lost at sea. There was so much potential to discover new territory and find new mysteries. Season 1 wasnt incredible but it laid the groundwork for something with so much potential. Season 2 just went off the tracks and the show was seemingly rudderless at its conclusion.
> 
> I also noticed the sheer amount of a-holes online demanding this show being taken off the air since its pilot episode. I hadn't experienced anything like it since ST DS9. Still got nothin on Star Wars fans tho



Yeah, I really don't get that. Don't like the show and want it off the air? Don't watch it. If enough people agree with you it'll be cancelled.


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Jun 3, 2021)

payn said:


> Im with you on that. I wasnt a regular SG-1 fan and didnt really get into Atlantis. Universe was so interesting because it was a crew lost at sea. There was so much potential to discover new territory and find new mysteries. Season 1 wasnt incredible but it laid the groundwork for something with so much potential. Season 2 just went off the tracks and the show was seemingly rudderless at its conclusion.
> 
> I also noticed the sheer amount of a-holes online demanding this show being taken off the air since its pilot episode. I hadn't experienced anything like it since ST DS9. Still got nothin on Star Wars fans tho




I was going to say something about how it sort of foreshadowed the Star Wars sequel wars nonsense, and all of the adjacent grossness, but got cold feet. But it really did feel a bit like an early warning sign--look, guys, we have the ability to wreck something. Behold, the power of FANDOMMM!!!!

You didn't see me screaming online about how SG-1 was just the same people winking and cracking wise on yet another planet that just happens to look like Canadian woodlands. It just didn't watch it. The idea of pressuring entertainment execs to keep stuff on the air or get a movie made is genuinely inspirational. Trying to nuke stuff, review-bombing, etc? Insane. Also, iirc it's not like SyFy took the money they saved by cancelling SGU and pumped it into something great. Wasn't that SyFy's super fallow period, when it was suddenly all WWE and reality competitions?


----------



## Umbran (Jun 3, 2021)

Stalker0 said:


> Which takes us right back to the OPs premise.... that shows that aren't finished shouldn't make the hall of fame. And personally I have to agree with that....because as there is a large lists of shows that did end very badly (even when given the proper chance to do so).... it seems doing a good ending is pretty difficult.




I mostly agree, but with caveats.  I have an issue with refusing to call a thing awesome because some suit was a nincompoop.

And I reject the assertion that if a show didn't finish, judgement of it is _necessarily_ about what it could have been.  It may tend to be that way, but mindful review can avoid that pitfall.


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Jun 3, 2021)

Umbran said:


> I mostly agree, but with caveats.  I have an issue with refusing to call a thing awesome because some suit was a nincompoop.
> 
> And I reject the assertion that if a show didn't finish, judgement of it is _necessarily_ about what it could have been.  It may tend to be that way, but mindful review can avoid that pitfall.




This is an unreasonably fiddly proposal, but I've always thought that we should judge a lot of shows on a per-season basis. 

I know, I know, who has the time for that. But serialized shows, in particular, are almost always sketched out as a season, a little like an extended/segmented movie. So just as people might love Empire Strikes Back but sort of shrug at Return of the Jedi, separating a movie series into its component parts, why not do the same with TV. It's obviously harder to keep track of individual seasons, especially for long-running shows. But whether you consider a show "uneven" from season to season, or because it didn't get to choose its ending (so much rarer than a lot of people seem to realize), I think it's fair to look at each season as a mostly compartmentalized work. Sure, that season might plant seeds for the future, and the best ones pull from past seasons, but imagine working on season four a show and thinking, Ah, none of this really matters unless we get to seven seasons, and also that last season somehow pleases everyone enough to not retroactively dump on the entire series.

Also, this business about needing a proper end to a show to assess it veers into some sketchy territory, equating artistic quality with commercial success. Good luck making that case with countless classic novels, or even movies like Blade Runner.


----------



## TwoSix (Jun 3, 2021)

Maxperson said:


> It really shows the opposite.  It shows that since the vast majority of shows are not allowed to finish, are forced to finish quickly and badly, or have their finishes interfered with by studio execs, the lack of or bad finish should not be held against the show.  If you exclude them, you don't end up with a list of the best.  You end up with a list of the lucky.



It's not exactly analogous, but baseball analytical types use a score called JAWS to help sort candidates for the baseball Hall of Fame; JAWS averages out a player's overall WAR score (which measures how much a player contributed to winning) with his peak WAR score for his best seven seasons.  It's a way to factor in both production due to longevity and superstar peak production.

To extrapolate that to TV shows, you'd want to give acknowledgement to long-running shows that also nail their ending, but you want to recognize shows that had pantheon-level seasons or arcs as well.


----------



## Ryujin (Jun 3, 2021)

The "hurry up ending" thing has me thinking about an otherwise great series, "Sense8", which got cancelled and then was given the chance to run an abbreviated season to wrap things up due to public outcry. By necessity it wasn't as good as the series had otherwise been, but it at least wrapped things up fairly well. It was a SciFi show with a rather novel premise and had one of the hottest scenes I can remember in TV/streaming, that involved the entire main cast. And by "hot" I mean exactly that, not exploititively sexual for the purpose of showing skin (I'm looking at YOU, GoT).


----------



## billd91 (Jun 3, 2021)

Ryujin said:


> The "hurry up ending" thing has me thinking about an otherwise great series, "Sense8", which got cancelled and then was given the chance to run an abbreviated season to wrap things up due to public outcry. By necessity it wasn't as good as the series had otherwise been, but it at least wrapped things up fairly well. It was a show with a SciFi show with a rather novel premise and had one of the hottest scenes I can remember in TV/streaming, that involved the entire main cast. And by "hot" I mean exactly that, not exploititively sexual for the purpose of showing skin (I'm looking at YOU, GoT).



Sense8 was fantastic and illustrates the problem with only considering shows that come to a conclusion. Had the producers not negotiated a final capstone episode to close the story, Sense8 would have been out of luck for consideration for HoF status if HoF criteria required the story to have a conclusion. It consistently got high reviews, it had a passionate fanbase, but it was deemed too small a fanbase to warrant the *very *high expense of the show (shot on multiple locations across the globe) by Netflix. And that would be a *terrible* reason to disqualify a series from HoF consideration.


----------



## Ryujin (Jun 3, 2021)

billd91 said:


> Sense8 was fantastic and illustrates the problem with only considering shows that come to a conclusion. Had the producers not negotiated a final capstone episode to close the story, Sense8 would have been out of luck for consideration for HoF status if HoF criteria required the story to have a conclusion. It consistently got high reviews, it had a passionate fanbase, but it was deemed too small a fanbase to warrant the *very *high expense of the show (shot on multiple locations across the globe) by Netflix. And that would be a *terrible* reason to disqualify a series from HoF consideration.



I agree completely. It's also a show that seems to have gotten even more traction after the cancellation was announced. At least I started to notice people who had never commented on it, previously, suddenly doing so in rather high numbers.


----------



## payn (Jun 3, 2021)

Sense8 was a fresh and interesting take for a show. Though, several of the Sense8s were rather one dimensional and the writing was at times pretty bad. It had weak points, but a damn good premise, and yeap, it was _hawt_. 

I thought Peacock's take on A Brave New World was one of the best takes i've seen on the story. They really did a good job of hitting the nature vs nurture argument. Also, made a post apocalypse sci-fi world seem believable from a tech perspective. Its a damn shame it got dropped by Peacock (which with it's astronomical price tag wasn't surprising) because it was set up for a rather potentially interesting and great second season. Oh, and it's super _hawt_.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 3, 2021)

Ryujin said:


> And by "hot" I mean exactly that, not exploititively sexual for the purpose of showing skin (I'm looking at YOU, GoT).




I have a number of folks I know who watched it not for the novel premise, plot, or characters, but because it was "hot".  Since not all scenes mean the same thing to all people, I don't think we can flatly say that it wasn't "for the purpose of showing skin".  There's an argument that it was unnecessary.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jun 3, 2021)

Maxperson said:


> It shows that since the vast majority of shows are not allowed to finish, are forced to finish quickly and badly, or have their finishes interfered with by studio execs, the lack of or bad finish should not be held against the show.



So this is a strong statement, lets break it down for a moment.

The assumption here for our debate is that the *vast majority* of Hall of Fame worthy shows (because we are talking hall of fame, no one cares about the shows that were garbage to begin with). The shows either

Were cancelled before they ended, aka no ending.
Were cancelled after the last season started (meaning the team did not have a chance to set the last season as the finale season)
Had corporate interference in a way that was _not typical for that show. _(aka if the suits have been "interfering" in the hall of fame worthy show previously....we could consider their interference part of why the show is hall of fame worthy)
Number 2 is probably the most divisive statement... is it fair to say that a TV creative team should always be able to end a show given a full season? I personally think the answer is yes, as others have mentioned most teams work on a season at a time, so if you know ahead of time your ending....a season should be sufficient time to wrap up your current plotlines and indicate the fate of your characters. It may not be the original ending, but it can still be a good one.

The problem is....if we go with the idea of "the show got to go on as long as the creators intended".... well, the problem there is the majority of creators don't have a set end time, Babylon 5 was a unicorn in that from its conception it had a fully planned out arc. If we allow for this, many shows might have "needed" 2, 3, or even 4 seasons to end....and you have to call the ball at some point.


----------



## payn (Jun 3, 2021)

Umbran said:


> I have a number of folks I know who watched it not for the novel premise, plot, or characters, but because it was "hot".  Since not all scenes mean the same thing to all people, I don't think we can flatly say that it wasn't "for the purpose of showign skin".  There's an argument that it was unnecessary.



Anything thats got _nekid_ folks is going to get attention. Could they have told a story about 8 folks around the world being connected without any nudity? Sure, but in this case it was relevant. Sexuality, romance, and connection was a main theme of Sense8. I think it was used in a relevant and generally tasteful way. There were no random leaving a bathroom or exposition in a brothel "just because" scenes.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jun 3, 2021)

Grendel_Khan said:


> This is an unreasonably fiddly proposal, but I've always thought that we should judge a lot of shows on a per-season basis.



I think there is something to be said, for creating a Hall of Fame of the "greatest seasons of TV"...actually that sounds fun let me make a thread.


----------



## dragoner (Jun 3, 2021)

Grendel_Khan said:


> I truly loved SGU, and couldn't get through even a single episode of SG-1 (I don't think I even knew that Atlantis had existed). SGU felt like a real show, more like prestige TV in terms of complexity and emotional realism. The fact that it went down in flames so quickly, and that so many SG-1 fans lobbied and cheered for its cancellation was the first time I fully realized that there's a version of genre fandom that I'll never understand. Just a huge gulf there, in terms of what we want out of narratives. Kind of a sad moment for me, to be honest, like losing your tribe.



SG1 is royalty of sci-fi, it had a who's who of actors from Outer Limits, Star Trek, X-Files, etc.; SGU was simply doomed if it could not get those fan groups on board, and as far as I know, it died for people not watching it. I know I signed off after getting attacked in the fan groups after noting as most here have is that the characters were unsympathetic, and as one found out about them, the less one liked them. A lot of the SG1 & Atlantis actors went on into Defiance, and Dark Matter, later to appear in the Expanse. It is funny that Atlantis has Aquaman himself in it as Ronon. Once the middle ground was gone with SGU, I just ignored it, I remember trying to watch an episode, not getting what was going on, and turning it to something else. The writing was awful, it did the wunderkind thing at the exact same time as the big alien invasion show that was on. I watched it again later, and it was funny to notice that never do any of the characters really gel with each other, and some, such as with Ming Na Wren, she was sidelined, just so the unknown girl that was kidnapped by aliens could come back with amazing powers


----------



## payn (Jun 3, 2021)

SG:U did try to make a Dr Baltar out of Carlye's character. I know many folks absolutely hate that type of character, but I love them. The bigger mistake was making the unskilled politician's daughter into some kind of destined savior character. Sometimes its nice to get Sci-Fi without all the fated destiny crap thats so common amongst the genre.


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Jun 3, 2021)

Ryujin said:


> The "hurry up ending" thing has me thinking about an otherwise great series, "Sense8", which got cancelled and then was given the chance to run an abbreviated season to wrap things up due to public outcry. By necessity it wasn't as good as the series had otherwise been, but it at least wrapped things up fairly well. It was a SciFi show with a rather novel premise and had one of the hottest scenes I can remember in TV/streaming, that involved the entire main cast. And by "hot" I mean exactly that, not exploititively sexual for the purpose of showing skin (I'm looking at YOU, GoT).



Not a very related response but the “What’s Going On?” sequence, where they’re all singing it together in different places, is one of the most beautiful things I’ve seen in any show. I dropped the show toward the end, but I love a big swing, and that gonzo-wonderful moment alone—and everything that built up to making it so powerful—puts Sense8 into the stratosphere for me.

I’m getting misty just writing about it!


----------



## MarkB (Jun 3, 2021)

Stalker0 said:


> Number 2 is probably the most divisive statement... is it fair to say that a TV creative team should always be able to end a show given a full season? I personally think the answer is yes, as others have mentioned most teams work on a season at a time, so if you know ahead of time your ending....a season should be sufficient time to wrap up your current plotlines and indicate the fate of your characters. It may not be the original ending, but it can still be a good one.



Some of that can depend upon how you're structuring the writing and filming. I don't know if it's still the case, but for early seasons of the new Doctor Who, a lot of episodes and even individual scenes in episodes were filmed vastly out of order, so even if you know early on in production that you need to change direction, that doesn't mean that you've only been working on the first couple of episodes so far, and can start making your changes from mid-season onwards. You may already have shot scenes for the finale, or at least finalised scripts, and if major changes need to be made, that means getting the writers back in and paying them for re-writes - and if the show's been cancelled, you certainly don't have extra budget to spend on re-writes.


----------



## dragoner (Jun 3, 2021)

payn said:


> SG:U did try to make a Dr Baltar out of Carlye's character. I know many folks absolutely hate that type of character, but I love them. The bigger mistake was making the unskilled politician's daughter into some kind of destined savior character. Sometimes its nice to get Sci-Fi without all the fated destiny crap thats so common amongst the genre.



 That is what I am saying, she came back from the aliens as some sort of wunderkind. Rush might have worked as half Baltar, but full Baltar with the weird hallucinations, it was difficult to figure out just what was going on. Young was awful too, forcing himself on Huffman and she has a baby and it dies? He's married too. The the the computer whiz kid, his mother dies, and he tries going back with the stones and she dies without recognizing him. Then the weird space mafia teleport in. 

One episode starts with Camile (Wren) saying Rush and Young are at it again, which describes a lot of episodes.


----------



## MarkB (Jun 3, 2021)

dragoner said:


> That is what I am saying, she came back from the aliens as some sort of wunderkind. Rush might have worked as half Baltar, but full Baltar with the weird hallucinations, it was difficult to figure out just what was going on. Young was awful too, forcing himself on Huffman and she has a baby and it dies? He's married too. The the the computer whiz kid, his mother dies, and he tries going back with the stones and she dies without recognizing him. Then the weird space mafia teleport in.
> 
> One episode starts with Camile (Wren) saying Rush and Young are at it again, which describes a lot of episodes.



I felt like the stones were the biggest error in the series. The whole body-swap concept was icky enough in the first place, and the way it was used seemed to mostly just introduce soap-opera elements to the show, and dilute the sense of isolation and a mismatched crew all pulling together.


----------



## dragoner (Jun 3, 2021)

MarkB said:


> I felt like the stones were the biggest error in the series. The whole body-swap concept was icky enough in the first place, and the way it was used seemed to mostly just introduce soap-opera elements to the show, and dilute the sense of isolation and a mismatched crew all pulling together.



Yes, except not just those, a whole shuttle full of main characters die, and then it comes back and they are alive, and I don't think that was explained. Then they are alive, even the baby who died on some planet as a colony, the super AI drones attack, and they go into stasis to warp to another galaxy.


----------



## Ryujin (Jun 3, 2021)

Umbran said:


> I have a number of folks I know who watched it not for the novel premise, plot, or characters, but because it was "hot".  Since not all scenes mean the same thing to all people, I don't think we can flatly say that it wasn't "for the purpose of showing skin".  There's an argument that it was unnecessary.



Perhaps, but I don't know of any other way to so completely and totally show that the people involved shared the same experiences. GoT tossed in completely unnecessary nudity in order to capture the audience. With Sense8 it felt, to me at least, to just be a natural outgrowth of the initial premise. Whether the viewer picked up on it that way or not would be on the viewer.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jun 3, 2021)

dragoner said:


> Young was awful too, forcing himself on Huffman and she has a baby and it dies?



The baby was the absolute low point of the show for me. Remember when SG-1 did a parody of itself, and part of that parody was Carter (the female lead) shouting "I'm pregnant"....because its so cliche?

Yeah....than they actually did that in SGU.....ug.


----------



## Ryujin (Jun 3, 2021)

MarkB said:


> Some of that can depend upon how you're structuring the writing and filming. I don't know if it's still the case, but for early seasons of the new Doctor Who, a lot of episodes and even individual scenes in episodes were filmed vastly out of order, so even if you know early on in production that you need to change direction, that doesn't mean that you've only been working on the first couple of episodes so far, and can start making your changes from mid-season onwards. You may already have shot scenes for the finale, or at least finalised scripts, and if major changes need to be made, that means getting the writers back in and paying them for re-writes - and if the show's been cancelled, you certainly don't have extra budget to spend on re-writes.



That makes me wonder another thing about the original premise for this thread: Rather than the early termination of a show resulting in an "it might have been" mindset, could it also create a dislike in others because of the unresolved story lines? That would be no less of a bias than projecting how good something might have been.


----------



## dragoner (Jun 3, 2021)

Stalker0 said:


> The baby was the absolute low point of the show for me. Remember when SG-1 did a parody of itself, and part of that parody was Carter (the female lead) shouting "I'm pregnant"....because its so cliche?
> 
> Yeah....than they actually did that in SGU.....ug.



The baby thing was terrible, and it just kept coming back because she was hallucinating memories of it growing up. Everyone kept dying and coming back, with the only explanation was that it was the aliens. 

SG1 sets the tone in the first episode with talking about macgyvering something. They all play off each other great though, and it is cool to watch and guess who is the guest star.


----------



## Ryujin (Jun 3, 2021)

dragoner said:


> The baby thing was terrible, and it just kept coming back because she was hallucinating memories of it growing up. Everyone kept dying and coming back, with the only explanation was that it was the aliens.
> 
> SG1 sets the tone in the first episode with talking about macgyvering something. They all play off each other great though, and it is cool to watch and guess who is the guest star.



I don't think that the cause of the dead returning was ever resolved beyond, "it was that alien tower on the planet." My memory is hazy, because the show didn't really hold my interest. On the other hand the baby... 



Spoiler



was a hallucination projected by the ship, in the same way that Rush was seeing a hallucination of himself (his wife? don't remember), because the ship saw her as being integral to the group's survival and was trying to keep her functional.


----------



## dragoner (Jun 3, 2021)

Ryujin said:


> I don't think that the cause of the dead returning was ever resolved beyond, "it was that alien tower on the planet." My memory is hazy, because the show didn't really hold my interest. On the other hand the baby...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, I don't know as much even after watching it a second or third time. The problem with Rush's hallucinations compared to Baltar's is that one knew they were real/unreal with Baltar, where with Rush, they could be someone from the ship or his wife that died? Too much was confusing, and forget about asking in the fan groups because that was like stalingrad, with the opposing sides battling it out in the rubble of the franchise. The baby thing I knew was going to go bad, they always do bringing kids into shows, just to jerk you around by the heart strings. It was worse that Falling Skies was doing it at the same time. 

Something about Fox and Firefly, it was not as big as a surprise, because they also did a similar cancellation of Space: Above and Beyond, which started out good, then turned into a sort of romance, soap.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jun 3, 2021)

Ryujin said:


> That makes me wonder another thing about the original premise for this thread: ... (snip)




So a brief note here.

The orginal premise of the thread was two-fold; first, that Firefly is overrated. I mean, I'm sure that's the kind of reasonable and unobjectionable opinion that is unlikely to get anyone all angered up under the collar.

Second, and more importantly, when considering things that are "all time greats" (as in "Hall of Fame") longevity, sustained excellence, matters. It's not the end-all, be-all. Gayle Sayers, for example, is in Canton (that's the Pro Football Hall of Fame) despite playing only 4 full and most of one more season (call it 4 and 2/3 seasons).

But you want to know something funny? Bo Jackson (brought up by, for example @Maxperson ) is NOT in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Not because he wasn't amazing (he was- one of the best I ever saw). But because he just didn't do it long enough. There was no sustained excellence.

And that's where it circles back to this thread, and the cannoli thread-








						Consider the Cannoli: Subjective Preferences and Conversations about Geek Media
					

He did declare the entire concept of fried pastry with a soft filling to be fundamentally flawed, though. Which, as someone who has never experienced cannoli, but has risked many a burned tongue on a fast food fried apple pie, I take issue with.  aye, there is that.   I just don't know what to...




					www.enworld.org
				




If someone enjoys Firefly, that's great! I am not going to come to their home and slap their Firefly DVDs out of their hands. If someone wants to say that Firefly is one of their favorite ever shows, that's cool too. I mean, I am sure that there is someone, somewhere, that is still mourning the loss of Shasta McNasty (yes, I'm talking about you Busey). Subjective taste is a heckuva thing. You like opera, I like free jazz, Chad likes atonal industrial, and Jed likes Ariana Grande; it's all good.

But when someone (like me) is trying to put together different lists of "great" shows, or so-called HoF shows, you can't just put individualistic criteria as your guide. You need to start looking at something other than, "Firefly is awesome because I really really like it."

And when I look at it, what I see in its favor is an amazing cast. Truly- one thing the Whedon-verse was great at was assembling killer casts, and this might have been the best. But what else is ... memorable about it? What makes it a HOF show?

Start with the basics-
1. Did it achieve sustained excellence? No. We've been over that.

2. Was it visually inventive? Some shows (think of the Kubrick-ian Mr. Robot, or Legion) have taken the standard TV fare in new and exciting visual directions with cinema-like directing and cinematography. Firefly ... doesn't.

3. Was it groundbreaking/influential in any way? Buffy codified familiar concepts like the season-long arc and the "Big Bad." Curb Your Enthusiasm and Arrested Development laid the groundwork for the single-camera sitcom and lack of laughtrack that killed off the hegemony of the traditional sitcom. The Honemooners was one of the first realistic (kinda) despictions of working class Americans on TV. And so on. Was Firefly groundbreaking or massively influential? Not really, no.

4. Was it insanely popular?  M.A.S.H. or Friends are two incredibly popular shows. Firefly was shown out-of-order and had rating that were so bad that three of the episodes weren't even aired.

5. Did it at least have a single episode that resonates throughout time? Star Trek (TOS) has quite a few, but how about City on the Edge of Forever? Mad Men and the Suitcase? Seinfeld's The Contest? Buffy and Once More With Feeling (or the Body..._sob_)? Soprano's Pine Barren? X-File's Clyde Bruckman's Final Repose? The Office and Dinner Party? Breaking Bad and Ozymandias?

.... Game of Thrones and The Rains of Castamere? Just listing these names ... you know what I mean. What episode of Firefly ... what _single episode of Firefly_, is that type of all-time great?


I am sure that people could come up with some other criteria, but ... that's what gets me. Not that someone wouldn't rank it as one of their favorites, but that so many people seem insistent that it's one of the best ever. Which is truly baffling to me. It's a _serialized_ show that never got to tell even a single season's arc. Quite literally, it failed at doing its one job. No fault of its own, but still.

That people love it ... that's great. The characters are lovable. I wish they had done more. Just like I wish that Bo Jackson hadn't suffered that freak injury. But at some point, assuming it's not your personal and idiosyncratic best of, comparisons have to be made.

Is it more HOF worthy than Star Trek (TOS)? TNG? Doctor Who? BSG? Buffy? Angel? Mr. Robot? The Expanse? Twilight Zone? Black Mirror? Red Dwarf? Babylon 5? Fringe? Lost? Legion? The Prisoner? X-Files?

At what point do the various strengths of other shows begin to matter? I don't have the answer, but I do think that for whatever reason, the anger at the early cancelation of Firefly has benefitted it in outsized proportion to its actual quality. IMO, YMMV, etc.


----------



## payn (Jun 3, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> .... Game of Thrones and The Rains of Castamere? Just listing these names ... you know what I mean. What episode of Firefly ... what _single episode of Firefly_, is that type of all-time great?



There is only one episode I distinctly remember from firefly. That episode was Jaynestown. This episode was clever, funny, and has some hard hitting moments while being a basic ship in a bottle episode. I think it is as model television as you can get with Firefly.

The rest are hilarious moments like Mal kicking dude into engine or great characters like Saffron or Jubal Early. Though none of the episodes really reach that all time great like Jaynestown.


----------



## Ryujin (Jun 3, 2021)

dragoner said:


> Yes, I don't know as much even after watching it a second or third time. The problem with Rush's hallucinations compared to Baltar's is that one knew they were real/unreal with Baltar, where with Rush, they could be someone from the ship or his wife that died? Too much was confusing, and forget about asking in the fan groups because that was like stalingrad, with the opposing sides battling it out in the rubble of the franchise. The baby thing I knew was going to go bad, they always do bringing kids into shows, just to jerk you around by the heart strings. It was worse that Falling Skies was doing it at the same time.
> 
> Something about Fox and Firefly, it was not as big as a surprise, because they also did a similar cancellation of Space: Above and Beyond, which started out good, then turned into a sort of romance, soap.



Every time that someone mentioned "Falling Skies", which I haven't seen, my brain converts it to "Dark Skies", the late '90s SciFi alien invasion TV series.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jun 3, 2021)

Its Out of Gas for me. Part intense character drama, part origin story....just a really well put together episode. Great acting from Nathan on that one.


----------



## Shades of Eternity (Jun 3, 2021)

it's great in a way Heroes wasn't.

by getting cut down in it's prime, it never had a chance to fall in quality.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jun 3, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> 3. Was it groundbreaking/influential in any way?
> 
> 4. Was it insanely popular?
> 
> 5. Did it at least have a single episode that resonates throughout time?



I think these go back to the question others posed....how much does success have to do the quality of a show?

Some could argue that Firefly would have been more influential and in the "culture Zeitgeist" if it had been more popular. I mean certainly it has been hugely influential at dragoncon's and comic cons and the like.

So does a show have to be popular to be considered HoF status? Honestly I'm torn, I can see it both ways on that one.


----------



## payn (Jun 3, 2021)

Shades of Eternity said:


> it's great in a way Heroes wasn't.
> 
> by getting cut down in it's prime, it never had a chance to fall in quality.



Heroes had a great and complete first season. It was cut down by the writers guild strike and just all around bad decisions. Firefly (at least shown from season 1) was a show that wasnt going to have great seasons, just a handful of great episodes each season at best.


----------



## payn (Jun 3, 2021)

Stalker0 said:


> I think these go back to the question others posed....how much does success have to do the quality of a show?
> 
> Some could argue that Firefly would have been more influential and in the "culture Zeitgeist" if it had been more popular. I mean certainly it has been hugely influential at dragoncon's and comic cons and the like.
> 
> So does a show have to be popular to be considered HoF status? Honestly I'm torn, I can see it both ways on that one.



I was just thinking about this. Pitchers in the MLB dont get into the hall of fame for their batting. However, some players do get into the hall of fame for smashing the record in a one trick way. Others, get into the hall of fame by being above average in many categories. So I'd argue being popular isn't a requirement, but just one of many ways into the greatest discussion.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jun 3, 2021)

Stalker0 said:


> So does a show have to be popular to be considered HoF status? Honestly I'm torn, I can see it both ways on that one.




It doesn't have to be popular. That's just one of the things I listed.

But it has to have something, right? What quality does Firefly have that would make it a HoF show? Other shows that are short-lived are, at least, massively influential or groundbreaking. And when I say "short-lived," the other shows that people talk about being "short-lived" are usually three seasons (Arrested Development).

The closest comparator I can think of to Firefly in terms of length for a "great" show in the Honeymooners, which was only one season, but it was a 39 episode season and widely considered one of the truly groundbreaking and influential sitcoms ever made. 

Maybe ... the Prisoner? That was a run of 17 episodes, but it was fully realized (it had an ending) and it's widely considered one of the masterpieces of television.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 3, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> So a brief note here.
> 
> The orginal premise of the thread was two-fold; first, that Firefly is overrated. I mean, I'm sure that's the kind of reasonable and unobjectionable opinion that is unlikely to get anyone all angered up under the collar.




Well, dangit, now you made it sound like a challenge.

What does it mean to be "overrated"?  And how is that different from, "I personally, don't like it much"?  Because, I think it should be reasonable to say in some cases that, if millions of people like it, and you don't,  maybe it isn't really overrated.  It is just not to your tastes.  

Now, in some arenas, we can say a thing is really and truly and objectively overrated.  Like... Apple computer products, which are often priced and hyped far above what is justified by their actual performance characteristics in practical use.  But it is harder to say that with art/media given that there's little objective metric to turn to.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jun 3, 2021)

Umbran said:


> Well, dangit, now you made it sound like a challenge.
> 
> What does it mean to be "overrated"?












						The Best Sci-Fi Television Series Of All Time
					

Here is a list of the best sci-fi shows and best sci-fi series of all time, as ranked by hundreds of Ranker voters. This list includes long-running sci-fi TV shows like Doctor Who as well as some of the best canceled shows of the genre. Science fiction TV shows have been around for decades, and...




					www.ranker.com
				




That's what I mean. Really? #1 Sci-Fi Series ... of all time?


----------



## billd91 (Jun 3, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> But when someone (like me) is trying to put together different lists of "great" shows, or so-called HoF shows, you can't just put individualistic criteria as your guide. You need to start looking at something other than, "Firefly is awesome because I really really like it."



But *who* defines the criteria? Are your examples of criteria universally accepted standards, or are they your individualistic take on what should count as Hall of Fame-worthy?


----------



## Ryujin (Jun 3, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> It doesn't have to be popular. That's just one of the things I listed.
> 
> But it has to have something, right? What quality does Firefly have that would make it a HoF show? Other shows that are short-lived are, at least, massively influential or groundbreaking. And when I say "short-lived," the other shows that people talk about being "short-lived" are usually three seasons (Arrested Development).
> 
> ...



There's also the fact of of fan engagement, after the run has been completed. Firefly gained a lot of fans after its cancellation, possibly because the series' got screwed around and berried by Fox so much, that those fans didn't know it existed until it was already gone.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jun 3, 2021)

billd91 said:


> But *who* defines the criteria? Are your examples of criteria universally accepted standards, or are they your individualistic take on what should count as Hall of Fame-worthy?




Who shall guard the guards? 

It's an interesting question, and it really gets into the whole issue of objective standards, subjective standards, and those things that are a mixture of both. 

For example, when analyzing the pro football HOF, most people look at four categories for players:
The Position (QB > OL > K > Longsnapper)  (this may be unfair, but it's true)
The Peak Performance (how good the player was during their absolute best)
The Length of Career 
Average Value over Length

I picked a few things that I think are meaningful and that, IMO, most people would agree with assuming they were trying to come up with listings that were more impactful than "Things I like."


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jun 3, 2021)

Umbran said:


> Now, in some arenas, we can say a thing is really and truly and objectively overrated.  Like... Apple computer products, which are often priced and hyped far above what is justified by their actual performance characteristics in practical use.  But it is harder to say that with art/media given that there's little objective metric to turn to.




Really? You mean the same Apple Computer products that have their own in-house chips and run circles around the competition in terms of efficiency? Apple Computer products are *objectively* overrated? 

See what I mean. You have your own cannolis, my friend. We all do.


----------



## payn (Jun 3, 2021)

Its getting real cheug in here all of a sudden.


----------



## dragoner (Jun 3, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> The Best Sci-Fi Television Series Of All Time
> 
> 
> Here is a list of the best sci-fi shows and best sci-fi series of all time, as ranked by hundreds of Ranker voters. This list includes long-running sci-fi TV shows like Doctor Who as well as some of the best canceled shows of the genre. Science fiction TV shows have been around for decades, and...
> ...



Wow that list is something else, cool to just see a lot of those shows listed somewhere.



Ryujin said:


> Every time that someone mentioned "Falling Skies", which I haven't seen, my brain converts it to "Dark Skies", the late '90s SciFi alien invasion TV series.



Think post apocalypse alien invasion, started off good then went to eh. I only vaguely remember Dark Skies.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jun 3, 2021)

dragoner said:


> Wow that list is something else, cool to just see a lot of those shows listed somewhere.




Yeah, I know! Have to admit, Eureka was surprising!


----------



## dragoner (Jun 3, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Yeah, I know! Have to admit, Eureka was surprising!



It wasn't bad, Warehouse 13 was there and pretty good too, I wouldn't put Bewitched from the 60's in sci-fi, but okay ... Also looking at it one can see various timelines of watching those shows, I know some I have seen more as re-runs on comet tv or something. SyFy gets a bad rap, it is good for low-budget sci-fi though.

As everything, opinion counts for a lot, I'm not surprised Firefly is #1 even if that would not be my vote. A lot of sci-fi exists over-represented in the meme-o-sphere, Firefly is up there, same as the Next Generation, it's great, though I know people today who have recently watched it and wondered why it is so highly rated.  For memes, it is hugely popular.


----------



## Ryujin (Jun 3, 2021)

dragoner said:


> It wasn't bad, Warehouse 13 was there and pretty good too, I wouldn't put Bewitched from the 60's in sci-fi, but okay ... Also looking at it one can see various timelines of watching those shows, I know some I have seen more as re-runs on comet tv or something. SyFy gets a bad rap, it is good for low-budget sci-fi though.
> 
> As everything, opinion counts for a lot, I'm not surprised Firefly is #1 even if that would not be my vote. A lot of sci-fi exists over-represented in the meme-o-sphere, Firefly is up there, same as the Next Generation, it's great, though I know people today who have recently watched it and wondered why it is so highly rated.  For memes, it is hugely popular.



The Warehouse 13/Eureka tie-in shows were some of the very few such crossovers that I actually enjoyed.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jun 3, 2021)

dragoner said:


> A lot of sci-fi exists over-represented in the meme-o-sphere, Firefly is up there, same as the Next Generation, it's great, though I know people today who have recently watched it and wondered why it is so highly rated.  For memes, it is hugely popular.


----------



## dragoner (Jun 3, 2021)

Ryujin said:


> The Warehouse 13/Eureka tie-in shows were some of the very few such crossovers that I actually enjoyed.



It was good for mindless tv watching, light fare, not much in expectations to be more than what they were, I liked them.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 3, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> The Best Sci-Fi Television Series Of All Time
> 
> 
> Here is a list of the best sci-fi shows and best sci-fi series of all time, as ranked by hundreds of Ranker voters. This list includes long-running sci-fi TV shows like Doctor Who as well as some of the best canceled shows of the genre. Science fiction TV shows have been around for decades, and...
> ...



The Battlestar Galactica remake is at #3.

I weep for humanity.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 4, 2021)

Ryujin said:


> The "hurry up ending" thing has me thinking about an otherwise great series, "Sense8", which got cancelled and then was given the chance to run an abbreviated season to wrap things up due to public outcry. By necessity it wasn't as good as the series had otherwise been, but it at least wrapped things up fairly well. It was a SciFi show with a rather novel premise and had one of the hottest scenes I can remember in TV/streaming, that involved the entire main cast. And by "hot" I mean exactly that, not exploititively sexual for the purpose of showing skin (I'm looking at YOU, GoT).




 I thought sense 8 was great season one, season 2 wasn't as good.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 4, 2021)

Dausuul said:


> The Battlestar Galactica remake is at #3.
> 
> I weep for humanity.




 TNG is two idk if that would make my top ten let alone 5. TNG is vastly over rated IMHO. The best if it is great but two meh seasons and a lot of filler/meh episodes. 

 DS9  is better IMHO along with B5, Farscape, SG1/Atlantis off the top of my head. Along with the BSG remake which I rewatched recently and thought it was better than 1st time around.


----------



## Ryujin (Jun 4, 2021)

Zardnaar said:


> TNG is two idk if that would make my top ten let alone 5. TNG is vastly over rated IMHO. The best if it is great but two meh seasons and a lot of filler/meh episodes.
> 
> DS9  is better IMHO along with B5, Farscape, SG1/Atlantis off the top of my head. Along with the BSG remake which I rewatched recently and thought it was better than 1st time around.



It's pretty easy to think that the newer one is better that Disco Battlestar, when you didn't see it during it's initial release. Some things are really a product of their time


----------



## Stalker0 (Jun 4, 2021)

Yeah I personally would rank Farscape above Firefly in my book. I love firefly and weep that it was cancelled, but Farscape was a great show....did a lot of "out of the box" things, had a solid ending, and a pretty cool villain in Scorpius.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 4, 2021)

Stalker0 said:


> Yeah I personally would rank Farscape above Firefly in my book. I love firefly and weep that it was cancelled, but Farscape was a great show....did a lot of "out of the box" things, had a solid ending, and a pretty cool villain in Scorpius.




 Yeah I'm thinking Farscape might be one of the best. 

 It's also fairly consistent and no season is garbage.


----------



## payn (Jun 4, 2021)

Zardnaar said:


> Yeah I'm thinking Farscape might be one of the best.
> 
> It's also fairly consistent and no season is garbage.



That dog wont hunt. I dont deny that Farscape was innovative and truly felt alien which most sci-fi shows dont, but its full of bad effects, bad writing, and bad acting. Very inconsistent episode to episode too. Swap Farscape in the thread title and edit the cancelled too soon section and it fits this thread perfectly.


----------



## dragoner (Jun 4, 2021)

In twitter just now, two back to back memes are of SG1 and TNG, also interesting is how many extras they share between the shows. Best might need some sort of metric, except they were popular, that is for sure.


----------



## Jack Daniel (Jun 4, 2021)

payn said:


> That dog wont hunt. I dont deny that Farscape was innovative and truly felt alien which most sci-fi shows dont, but its full of bad effects, bad writing, and bad acting. Very inconsistent episode to episode too. Swap Farscape in the thread title and edit the cancelled too soon section and it fits this thread perfectly.



Nah. The practical effects and makeup weren't always perfect, but the alien puppetry remains fantastic, and even the dated CGI still holds up really well for the space scenes. I don't see how anyone can seriously call the writing or the acting on _Farscape_ bad unless they never watched past the first half of the first season. Once the show found its feet, both were stellar: the cast had chemistry and the show had an emotional core that I have _never_ seen the likes of anywhere else.


----------



## payn (Jun 4, 2021)

Jack Daniel said:


> Nah. The practical effects and makeup weren't always perfect, but the alien puppetry remains fantastic, and even the dated CGI still holds up really well for the space scenes. I don't see how anyone can seriously call the writing or the acting on _Farscape_ bad unless they never watched past the first half of the first season. Once the show found its feet, both were stellar: the cast had chemistry and the show had an emotional core that I have _never_ seen the likes of anywhere else.



The final episode is some of the worst acting. It was like watching a local LARP.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 4, 2021)

dragoner said:


> In twitter just now, two back to back memes are of SG1 and TNG, also interesting is how many extras they share between the shows. Best might need some sort of metric, except they were popular, that is for sure.




 It wasn't just those shows but multiple shows. The Canadian productions shared a lot of cast. 

 I would argue it predated SG1 as well. Obviously Trek was first out the gate but I recently did a rewatch of the Highlander TV show and a few familiar faces popped up. 

 It continued through to around 2010. Anything with Amanda Tapping and filmed in Canada with a Sci Fi vibe. 

 Continuum, Sanctuary, Warehouse 13 etc.


----------



## dragoner (Jun 4, 2021)

Zardnaar said:


> It wasn't just those shows but multiple shows. The Canadian productions shared a lot of cast.
> 
> I would argue it predated SG1 as well. Obviously Trek was first out the gate but I recently did a rewatch of the Highlander TV show and a few familiar faces popped up.
> 
> ...



Showtime stuff also, where outer limits was, and SG1 started; SG1 caused a stir over nudity in the pilot. Highlander was the same with the cast, and probably some of the last were Metal Hurlant Chronicles. Lexa Doig was on SG1, except meeting Michael Shanks, on Andromeda and marrying him.

Sci-fi seems to come in two waves, a flood of low budget, like the above, and fewer except more high profile like the Mandalorean, Picard, and ST Disco.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 4, 2021)

dragoner said:


> Showtime stuff also, where outer limits was, and SG1 started; SG1 caused a stir over nudity in the pilot. Highlander was the same with the cast, and probably some of the last were Metal Hurlant Chronicles. Lexa Doig was on SG1, except meeting Michael Shanks, on Andromeda and marrying him.
> 
> Sci-fi seems to come in two waves, a flood of low budget, like the above, and fewer except more high profile like the Mandalorean, Picard, and ST Disco.




 I think there was a golden age roughly 95-2005 or so. Or 93 to a similar date.


----------



## dragoner (Jun 4, 2021)

Zardnaar said:


> I think there was a golden age roughly 95-2005 or so. Or 93 to a similar date.



Zombies are probably the reason for the slow down in the last ten years, even though there has always been some sci-fi going on: Love, Death, and Robots; Black Mirror, West World, and so on. The Expanse had people from Defiance, and the CW type shows. I would not be surprised that if there were polls for #1 sci-fi right now, Mando, and the Expanse could very well be 1 & 2.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 4, 2021)

dragoner said:


> Zombies are probably the reason for the slow down in the last ten years, even though there has always been some sci-fi going on: Love, Death, and Robots; Black Mirror, West World, and so on. The Expanse had people from Defiance, and the CW type shows. I would not be surprised that if there were polls for #1 sci-fi right now, Mando, and the Expanse could very well be 1 & 2.




 Those two the only ones worth watching atm IMHO. 

 Sci Fi channel went off the rails years ago with reality TV.


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Jun 4, 2021)

payn said:


> That dog wont hunt. I dont deny that Farscape was innovative and truly felt alien which most sci-fi shows dont, but its full of bad effects, bad writing, and bad acting. Very inconsistent episode to episode too. Swap Farscape in the thread title and edit the cancelled too soon section and it fits this thread perfectly.



Apparently I’m a huge snob, since I agree completely, but I also couldn’t handle more than an episode of some of the stuff mentioned in this thread (Warehouse 13, Defiance, etc.).

Not great for me, to be honest. Like I wish I was into the massive amount of superhero stuff on now, but no matter how hard I try the CW shows just seem so smirky and low-rent to me. Not saying everything has to be prestige-style wiring and production, but sometimes I imagine a similar approach in a different genre, Like if the new Perry Mason had been all awful CGI cars and exteriors and the worst lighting you’ve ever seen. The way SGU was shot was a huge step up from SG-1 and other SF shows of its time (not to mention most SyFy and all CW shows since). But I don’t think that kind of filmmaking really matters to a lot of genre fans. Not saying that as a slam. It’s just how it is.


----------



## payn (Jun 4, 2021)

> Apparently I’m a huge snob, since I agree completely, but I also couldn’t handle more than an episode of some of the stuff mentioned in this thread (Warehouse 13, Defiance, etc.).



I dont think its snobbish at all. I _LOVE_ Farscape, but I can objectively step back and admit its bad in a lot of ways. Defiance had a lot of potential, but the writing was all over the place. 

I think Farscape and Defiance are more serial, and thus slightly more interesting than the barrage of monster of the week series like Warehouse 13 and Eureka. I never got into them so I cant speak to their quality or lack of.  


> Not great for me, to be honest. Like I wish I was into the massive amount of superhero stuff on now, but no matter how hard I try the CW shows just seem so smirky and low-rent to me. Not saying everything has to be prestige-style wiring and production, but sometimes I imagine a similar approach in a different genre, Like if the new Perry Mason had been all awful CGI cars and exteriors and the worst lighting you’ve ever seen. The way SGU was shot was a huge step up from SG-1 and other SF shows of its time (not to mention most SyFy and all CW shows since). But I don’t think that kind of filmmaking really matters to a lot of genre fans. Not saying that as a slam. It’s just how it is.



There are tiers of showmaking for sure. There are reasons you only hear about many of these new supers shows in little corners of the internets. They cater to specific audiences. Like Sci-FI, folks put up with it and learn to love it despite the quality because they are just glad to be getting the shows to begin with.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 4, 2021)

dragoner said:


> It wasn't bad, Warehouse 13 was there and pretty good too




I _really wanted_ to love Warehouse 13.  "High Weirdness of the week," quippy dialog, and Saul Rubinek? What could possible be bad?  

Latimer is what.  I  just could not get past Agent Latimer's misogyny and inappropriate sexual behavior.  His partner literally _punches him in the face_ for it in an early episode, but ha ha, it's all a joke and he doesn't stop.  Like, every 10 minutes he says something inappropriate.  Relentless manchild is not a good look.



dragoner said:


> ...the Next Generation, it's great, though I know people today who have recently watched it and wondered why it is so highly rated.




So many people forget that history matters.  It is so highly rated because it was groundbreaking _at the time it was made_.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 4, 2021)

dragoner said:


> It was good for mindless tv watching, light fare, not much in expectations to be more than what they were, I liked them.




Eureka has a few facets that make it stand out:
Rejection of cynicism as a guiding principle - contrasting with the grimdark popular in the early 2000s - Battlestar Galactica was the big sci-fi TV hit of the time.
Law enforcement that almost never draws a weapon, and leads with de-escalation.
Positive role models of male friendship, in which men of remarkably different backgrounds enjoy each other's company and _give each other emotional support_.  
Plots that resolve by having people talk to each other like mature adults.
Uber-nerd characters that grow into people who actually understand their fellow humans.


----------



## dragoner (Jun 4, 2021)

Umbran said:


> Latimer is what.



Try being the immigrant foreigner science nerd that was bullied by that type.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 4, 2021)

Zardnaar said:


> TNG is two idk if that would make my top ten let alone 5. TNG is vastly over rated IMHO. The best if it is great but two meh seasons and a lot of filler/meh episodes.
> 
> DS9  is better IMHO along with B5, Farscape, SG1/Atlantis off the top of my head. Along with the BSG remake which I rewatched recently and thought it was better than 1st time around.




As above - TNG is not overrated, because it laid the foundation on which _every one_ of those other shows you mention was based.

Next Gen is to modern genre TV as... Elvis and the Beatles are to modern music.  Today they may not be seen as the greatest examples, but it was _formative_ of everything that came afterwards.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 4, 2021)

dragoner said:


> Try being the immigrant foreigner science nerd that was bullied by that type.




It would have been awesome if, after he got punched in the face, he _learned something_.  It was a prime setup for character growth, but... no.


----------



## Ryujin (Jun 4, 2021)

Umbran said:


> Eureka has a few facets that make it stand out:
> Rejection of cynicism as a guiding principle - contrasting with the grimdark popular in the early 2000s - Battlestar Galactica was the big sci-fi TV hit of the time.
> Law enforcement that almost never draws a weapon, and leads with de-escalation.
> Positive role models of male friendship, in which men of remarkably different backgrounds enjoy each other's company and _give each other emotional support_.
> ...



The virtually unflagging positivity of Allison Scagliotti's character was a stand out for me. As a result when things were bad for her, you felt it that much more.

_EDIT_ - Sorry, meant to comment on your previous Warehouse 13 post.


----------



## Ryujin (Jun 4, 2021)

Umbran said:


> As above - TNG is not overrated, because it laid the foundation on which _every one_ of those other shows you mention was based.
> 
> Next Gen is to modern genre TV as... Elvis and the Beatles are to modern music.  Today they may not be seen as the greatest examples, but it was _formative_ of everything that came afterwards.



I would have said TOS, but otherwise agree


----------



## Umbran (Jun 4, 2021)

Ryujin said:


> I would have said TOS, but otherwise agree




Everyone stands on someone else's shoulders.  And, I think _modern_ TV probably owes more to Next Gen than to TOS directly.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 4, 2021)

Ryujin said:


> I would have said TOS, but otherwise agree



Fortunately, there's an easy adjustment here. TOS is Elvis - groundbreaking and important, but also highly episodic, there isn't as much of a perceivable progression as it goes along. TNG is more akin to the Beatles - a major evolution in the form of genre media, blending in more concepts from other styles (like the ongoing nighttime drama) and wedding them to the foundation laid by TOS (Elvis).

But that's probably really attenuating the analogy...


----------



## dragoner (Jun 4, 2021)

Ryujin said:


> The virtually unflagging positivity of Allison Scagliotti's character was a stand out for me. As a result when things were bad for her, you felt it that much more.
> 
> _EDIT_ - Sorry, meant to comment on your previous Warehouse 13 post.



Claudia was one of my favorite characters of the show. Aaron Ashmore's openly gay character Steve Jinks also drew a lot of criticism from the usual suspects. Their boss was a dignified Black woman. The show had a huge amount of detractors at the time for being too progressive.


----------



## Ryujin (Jun 4, 2021)

billd91 said:


> Fortunately, there's an easy adjustment here. TOS is Elvis - groundbreaking and important, but also highly episodic, there isn't as much of a perceivable progression as it goes along. TNG is more akin to the Beatles - a major evolution in the form of genre media, blending in more concepts from other styles (like the ongoing nighttime drama) and wedding them to the foundation laid by TOS (Elvis).
> 
> But that's probably really attenuating the analogy...



And then we'd have to get into where Elvis's influence came from, and...


----------



## payn (Jun 4, 2021)

Ryujin said:


> And then we'd have to get into where Elvis's influence came from, and...



Right, im seeing TOS being like little Richard now. Bringing a crazy multicultural approach to media...


----------



## Ryujin (Jun 4, 2021)

payn said:


> Right, im seeing TOS being like little Richard now. Bringing a crazy multicultural approach to media...



Bringing a White Russian guy into the mix was controversial enough, at the time, let alone a Black woman and an Asian man as bridge officers. Having lived through most of the '60s I've seen just how much of a revolution (evolution?) that was.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 4, 2021)

Umbran said:


> As above - TNG is not overrated, because it laid the foundation on which _every one_ of those other shows you mention was based.
> 
> Next Gen is to modern genre TV as... Elvis and the Beatles are to modern music.  Today they may not be seen as the greatest examples, but it was _formative_ of everything that came afterwards.




 Maybe but I suspect it's glided by on people being to scared to say anything bad about it due to it being a "classic". 

 Kind of like the various bands from the 60's and 70"s. TOS sure it's a product of it's time innovative etc. 

 TNG though has a lot of issues and even trekkues don't seem to like the first two seasons. 

 It's not terrible by any means but it is very hit or miss and there's a lot of sci Fi shows that are easier to watch. 

 That being said in 87-92 options were limited and late 90's thing improved a lot IMHO.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 4, 2021)

Zardnaar said:


> Maybe but I suspect it's glided by on people being to scared to say anything bad about it due to it being a "classic".




This is the internet.  Nobody gives a fetid dingo's kidney about the sensibilities of others.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jun 4, 2021)

Zardnaar said:


> TNG though has a lot of issues and even trekkues don't seem to like the first two seasons.



It is interesting that is TNG were to run today, there is a very solid chance it would have been cancelled....and honestly considering the poor quality of the first two seasons....I wouldn't have blamed them.

I am very glad they didn't and we got the baller ST of the latter seasons, but its a fair point that it took the show quite a while to hit its stride.


----------



## dragoner (Jun 4, 2021)

Stalker0 said:


> It is interesting that is TNG were to run today, there is a very solid chance it would have been cancelled....and honestly considering the poor quality of the first two seasons....I wouldn't have blamed them.



Patrick Stewart said they had him do a French accent and wear a wig in some of the early tests, imagine that, I doubt it would have survived.


----------



## Jack Daniel (Jun 4, 2021)

payn said:


> The final episode is some of the worst acting. It was like watching a local LARP.



Nah, fam.


----------



## Deset Gled (Jun 4, 2021)

dragoner said:


> Patrick Stewart said they had him do a French accent and wear a wig in some of the early tests, imagine that, I doubt it would have survived.



I want to see those test reels soooo much.


----------



## dragoner (Jun 4, 2021)

Deset Gled said:


> I want to see those test reels soooo much.



Same here, they would probably be hilarious. Stewart has a good sense of humor, I follow him on facebook,


----------



## Staffan (Jul 21, 2021)

Dausuul said:


> Season 5 got royally screwed by real life.
> 
> First, the network canceled the show midway through season 4. So the writers scrambled to jam in all of the important plot points in the last half of 4. Then the show was unexpectedly un-canceled, leaving them with very little to do for 5, so they had to gin up some kind of a plot to fill in the gaps. Thus the telepath rebellion.
> 
> And then, there was some kind of miscommunication which resulted in Claudia Christian leaving unexpectedly. No one seems real clear on exactly what happened, but it doesn't seem to have been what either Claudia or JMS would have wanted. However, it happened. Thus, Ivanova out, Lochley in.



Writer, not writers. Seasons 3 and 4 of Babylon 5 were all written solely by JMS, as was almost all of season 5 (with the exception of the episode Neil Gaiman wrote). As JMS tells it, the original plan was to end season 4 with Intersections in Real Time (the episode where he has been captured by Earthforce and they're trying to break him via interrogation), and to have the liberation of Earth happen in episode 6ish of season 5 (much like the Shadow War ended with episode 6 in season 4). This means that season 5 had to be extended by about six episodes to make up for that.

As for Ivanova, JMS's explanation at the time was that it went something like this: since the show had technically been canceled, so had the contracts. Time was of the essence, so they asked everyone to sign up again with the old contracts, and I'm assuming there was some automatic raise going into that as there usually is in TV. Christian was looking to get into more movies and/or other things, and wanted a contract for fewer episodes and/or a guarantee to be able to take some time off, but at the same time wanted to be paid the same. That wasn't acceptable, and because there really wasn't any time to negotiate they cut her out of season 5.

Originally, part of Lyta's season 5 arc would have been Ivanova's. She was the one who was supposed to fall in love with Byron, for example (perhaps spurred on by Marcus's sacrifice, as a "life's too short" thing).



dragoner said:


> I haven't heard of Intergalactic; another one that everyone wanted to go on longer was Stargate Universe, which I liked, except I see why it failed, as it was not the Stargate everyone was used too, much darker in tone, and a serial, not episodic.



Stargate Universe very much felt to me like someone had seen the BSG remake and went "Can't we do that, but in Stargate?"

As for serial versus episodic, I'm going to ask Loki what he thinks of that:





For me, the ideal structure is that we see in most of Babylon 5, as well as Stargate SG-1, Buffy, Angel, Farscape, and Deep Space 9: individual episodes that tell their own story to completion while also contributing to an overall narrative. For example, the season 1 Babylon 5 episode Mind War is about a telepath that's been enhanced to dangerous levels threatening the station with his uncontrollable abilities, and the episode ends with Sinclair letting the telepath go away in a shuttle or a Starfury and become some sort of energy being. But at the same time, it establishes the character of Bester, and Talia's abilities start increasing which will be relevant in later episodes. It also establishes Catherine Sakai as Sinclair's sometime love interest. We also see the Walkers at Sigma 957, and we get to see G'Kar rescuing Sakai from the aftereffects of their visit which shows that he's not all villain as he had been previously presented.

That's the kind of storytelling we rarely see anymore, because most shows have become *too* serialized. They all become a single narrative, with no opportunity for character development or for letting the plot breathe.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jul 21, 2021)

Staffan said:


> That's the kind of storytelling we rarely see anymore, because most shows have become *too* serialized. They all become a single narrative, with no opportunity for character development or for letting the plot breathe.




So true. There is something truly enjoyable about Buffy/B5 mode of combining serialized and standalone storied. Sort of a callback to the X-File "monster of the week" and "mythology." 

The closest you come today is probably the various DC-universe tv shows.

Finally, the other tragedy is that showrunners forget that making everything dark and dreary doesn't necessarily make it "better"- just because something is super serious doesn't mean it's good.


----------



## dragoner (Jul 21, 2021)

Staffan said:


> Stargate Universe very much felt to me like someone had seen the BSG remake and went "Can't we do that, but in Stargate?"



Pretty much.

Episodic vs serial is also a artifact of the way shows were watched, you might see them once or twice a week, unless you had tivo or something. Which meant that if you missed an episode, it took a whole season re-run to see it again. Now people binge on a service like roku or netflix. It also informs us as a viewer as to how we watch TV; and not really being an American, I go for days without watching TV because when I was a kid, there were only three channels anyways, and the TV was always dominated by siblings and my parents.

Writing is another thing, it has always been hit or miss, with B5, JMS did everything, which is pretty amazing. Sometimes it all just falls together, such as I was reading about Blade Runner, and Roy Batty's dying word was just "Crap" and he improvised the whole "Teardrops in the rain" speech, Deckard was supposed to shoot Rachel in the head, and say if he didn't do it someone would, the street scenes were done by going to Melrose ave and getting a bunch of local punk rock and new wavers as extras, and the whole "dark and smokey" was them experimenting with neo-noir, which in turn has lead probably to the dark and edgy of today's TV. Ridley Scott called it the perfect storm.


----------



## MGibster (Aug 3, 2021)

And in yet other news that I'm getting older; it's been 19 years since Firefly first and final season aired in 2002.  When I started watching Star Trek back in 1982 only 13 years had passed since it was cancelled.  Wow.  I didn't watch Firefly in 2002 because I had something better to do than watch television during whatever night it ran.  But a lot of my friends enjoyed it and I have to say it practically changed their lives.  They started hanging around "Brown Coats" and at least one woman I know decided her first tattoo would be a Firefly inspired tattoo.  For years afterward every time I'd get together with some of my friends the conversation would turn to Firefly and I'd feel left out.  (Queue sad music)  

I finally got around to watching it in 2005 before going to see the movie.  Did it change my life?  No, but I enjoyed it and I wish we got more episodes.  I wouldn't put it in the hall of fame though.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Aug 3, 2021)

MGibster said:


> And in yet other news that I'm getting older; it's been 19 years since Firefly first and final season aired in 2002.  When I started watching Star Trek back in 1982 only 13 years had passed since it was cancelled.  Wow.  I didn't watch Firefly in 2002 because I had something better to do than watch television during whatever night it ran.  But a lot of my friends enjoyed it and I have to say it practically changed their lives.  They started hanging around "Brown Coats" and at least one woman I know decided her first tattoo would be a Firefly inspired tattoo.  For years afterward every time I'd get together with some of my friends the conversation would turn to Firefly and I'd feel left out.  (Queue sad music)
> 
> I finally got around to watching it in 2005 before going to see the movie.  Did it change my life?  No, but I enjoyed it and I wish we got more episodes.  I wouldn't put it in the hall of fame though.




I still think it's a very good show, and not to reiterate the points that I put in the OP (and the comments), but it's just hard for me to enjoy with the whole Whedon stuff and Inara stuff and Lost Cause stuff.

And I get it makes me a hypocrite- I still love Buffy/Angel to death ... well, okay ... there are parts (Charisma Carpenter at the end of Angel ...) that I can't take ... but I can't unlearn things. I want to just forget and appreciate the great banter and amazing cast of Firefly, but it's hard.

Ahem.

Anyway, the main thrust of it is that anything that ir really good and gets cut short tends to benefit because it never has a chance to decline. Those rock stars that died early never had to hang around and make bad albums in their 40s. Those TV shows that were ended early didn't have to meander around for the last three seasons like the X-Files.

Even Buffy. I mean- I love Season 6 ... but that's a pretty idiosyncratic opinion. Almost every person (other than me) will tell you that the best two seasons of the show were 3 and 2.


EDIT- PS- yes, getting older sucks. Nothing worse than watching the Olympics and seeing athletes born well after Y2k.


----------



## Imaculata (Aug 3, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Even Buffy. I mean- I love Season 6 ... but that's a pretty idiosyncratic opinion. Almost every person (other than me) will tell you that the best two seasons of the show were 3 and 2.




As much as I love season 2 and 3 of Buffy, season 4 has some of the best one-off episodes, season 6 has the fantastic musical episode, and season 7 has an actual conclusion to the whole series.

I would have loved to see what Firefly could have become with a second and third season. Thanks to the movie Serenity, at least we know how it would have concluded. But we miss out on the greatness that most good shows only develop after their first season.


----------



## billd91 (Aug 3, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> Thanks to the movie Serenity, at least we know how it would have concluded.



We really don't. The screenplay was written after the cancellation of the series as a means of capping things off - there's no indication this is how things *would *have capped off had the series continued. It might have gone in a substantially different direction.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Aug 3, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> As much as I love season 2 and 3 of Buffy, season 4 has some of the best one-off episodes, season 5 has the fantastic musical episode, and season 6 has an actual conclusion to the whole series.




...Season 6 is the one with the amazing musical episode (_Once More With Feeling). _

Season 7 is ... not good. But it does have the conclusion. 

Season 4 has Hush, which is one of the best stand-alone episodes (after OMWF and the Body and maybe the conclusions to Seasons 2 and 3), but it is definitely the best Buffy-ish standalone episode, if you know what I mean.


----------



## Imaculata (Aug 3, 2021)

Ah, right you are. I've corrected it.

Yeah, Buffy's final season meanders quite a lot. It is one of my least favourite season of the show.
As for Firefly's conclusion... sure it could have gone in a whole different direction. But at least we got an answer to the Reavers and River's powers.


----------



## Janx (Aug 3, 2021)

billd91 said:


> We really don't. The screenplay was written after the cancellation of the series as a means of capping things off - there's no indication this is how things *would *have capped off had the series continued. It might have gone in a substantially different direction.



Two by Two with hands of blue.

Very different.


----------



## payn (Aug 3, 2021)

The nursery rhyme stuff was terrible. The operative in the movie was 1000X better


----------



## cmad1977 (Aug 3, 2021)

Serenity does a better job telling the Firefly story in the first 15 minutes than Firefly did.


----------



## Ryujin (Aug 3, 2021)

cmad1977 said:


> Serenity does a better job telling the Firefly story in the first 15 minutes than Firefly did.



That's at least partially because they thought that they had the time to do a slow reveal and character building, which never happened.


----------



## MGibster (Aug 4, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I still think it's a very good show, and not to reiterate the points that I put in the OP (and the comments), but it's just hard for me to enjoy with the whole Whedon stuff and Inara stuff and Lost Cause stuff.



The worst of the Inara stuff never actually made it on screen so far as I can remember and I'm not going to fault anyone for having a terrible idea that never made it past the drawing board.  Whedon's an naughty word but not so much so that I can't enjoy projects he's been a part of.  I can understand why that turns some people off though.  As for the Lost Cause thing, well, is it any worse than other works of fiction where the rebels are portrayed as the good guys?  Star Wars comes to mind.  



Snarf Zagyg said:


> Even Buffy. I mean- I love Season 6 ... but that's a pretty idiosyncratic opinion. Almost every person (other than me) will tell you that the best two seasons of the show were 3 and 2.



I thought 5 was pretty good and would have been an excellent place to end the series.  And the Mayor was my favorite Buffy villain.  So I'd go with 3 & 5 myself.  6 was terrible though the musical was good and season 7 was just horrible.


----------



## payn (Aug 4, 2021)

MGibster said:


> As for the Lost Cause thing, well, is it any worse than other works of fiction where the rebels are portrayed as the good guys?  Star Wars comes to mind.



There is a bucket of context that could fill the grand canyon on the differences here. I'll leave it at that.


----------



## Janx (Aug 4, 2021)

MGibster said:


> The worst of the Inara stuff never actually made it on screen so far as I can remember and I'm not going to fault anyone for having a terrible idea that never made it past the drawing board.  Whedon's an naughty word but not so much so that I can't enjoy projects he's been a part of.  I can understand why that turns some people off though.  As for the Lost Cause thing, well, is it any worse than other works of fiction where the rebels are portrayed as the good guys?  Star Wars comes to mind.



let's consider for a moment.  Rebels. Yes, we who hate racism and slavery know gosh dang well the Civil War was absolutely about the South seceding so they could have slaves. period.  It's been discussed as its own thread within these hallowed halls even.

So. Is every dang story that's got rebels or civil war in it going to get compared to the Lost Cause?  At some point, a body's got to look at why they were fighting.   Now it probably didn't help that Mal's side had southern accents, but I don't get the feeling Mal trafficked in slaves. The similarity was skin deep.

Continuing that line.  Notice how folks pick up on that for Star Wars and Firefly, and only like recently has anybody ever challenged the fact that all the vampires fought for the South. Twilight. Interview. Diaries.  All those sons of blood suckers fought for the south and kinda white-washed over the whole "didn't mind enslaving people" it was just the "drinking blood" they couldn't abide.

Throw rocks at people aligned with evil.  Not because of their southern accent.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Aug 4, 2021)

MGibster said:


> As for the Lost Cause thing, well, is it any worse than other works of fiction where the rebels are portrayed as the good guys?  Star Wars comes to mind.




Yes.

Look, I'm not going to pillory people who love it. I'm not going to say that it needs to be canceled, or that it is irredeemable, or anything like that. That's not me- after all, I would go to the mat to defend my enjoyment of Lovecraft, even though I fully acknowledge that he was a racist through and through. I think great art is great art- you can enjoy JoJo Rabbit even though it has Hitler. 

But I would say that _for me_, the specific Lost Cause allegories are so glaringly obvious that they take me out of the show.


----------



## Deset Gled (Aug 4, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> But I would say that _for me_, the specific Lost Cause allegories are so glaringly obvious that they take me out of the show.




For me, and possibly for others as well, this is one of those things that skirts by because the series ended young.  The references were fleeting enough that we don't really know the details of either side of the war.  If the show had gone on long enough, they would have eventually been forced into flushing the backstory out.  But because they never got there, we can be blissfully unaware of what direction they might have gone in.

Also, keep in mind that that 2002 was at a very peak time for a racially sanitized version of the Old West.  Movies like Wild Wild West and Shanghai Noon were some of the biggest western movies preceding Firefly, and they blatantly re-write the western backdrop to be much more racially friendly for the sake of telling a story.  The grittier, in-your-face western style that's currently vogue wouldn't take hold until years later, and would have been very out of place at the time.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Aug 4, 2021)

Deset Gled said:


> Also, keep in mind that that 2002 was at a very peak time for a racially sanitized version of the Old West.




I'm not going to yuck on your yum; but Westerns, as a genre, did not usually traffic in Lost Cause tropes. 

If you like it, that's great. For me, no can do. It detracts from my enjoyment, because periodically I have to say, "Wait, I'm rooting for the Confederacy? No thank you."


----------



## Thomas Shey (Aug 4, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Yes.
> 
> Look, I'm not going to pillory people who love it. I'm not going to say that it needs to be canceled, or that it is irredeemable, or anything like that. That's not me- after all, I would go to the mat to defend my enjoyment of Lovecraft, even though I fully acknowledge that he was a racist through and through. I think great art is great art- you can enjoy JoJo Rabbit even though it has Hitler.
> 
> But I would say that _for me_, the specific Lost Cause allegories are so glaringly obvious that they take me out of the show.




See, its just hard for me to do that when the reaction Mal has to the most "Southern Gentleman" type he ever runs into is he's scum of the first water, when they go out of their way to free a bunch of people who've been enslaved at one point, and where the second browncoat you ever see with any frequency is black.

Yeah, since they're fishing in some old Western tropes, some of those are going to evoke the Confederate South, as is any set of characters in that context where a civil war ended and their side lost.  But I think you have to ignore a hell of a lot of the presentation to see it as Lost Cause apologism.


----------



## dragoner (Aug 4, 2021)

Whedon said he based Firefly after The Killer Angels, which is a fictionalized account of Lee at Gettysburg.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Aug 4, 2021)

Thomas Shey said:


> Yeah, since they're fishing in some old Western tropes, some of those are going to evoke the Confederate South, as is any set of characters in that context where a civil war ended and their side lost.  But I think you have to ignore a hell of a lot of the presentation to see it as Lost Cause apologism.




Look, please stop. I've been being super nice about this. I keep saying that I don't like it. But please stop trotting out this whole, "What? How can anyone possibly not like this? It's just a Western!"

Whedon based it on a CIVIL WAR book. He has stated, on the record and before it became controversial, that _Killer Angers_ was the inspiration*. None of this is remotely in dispute. It's not just Western Tropes ... it's specific to the Civil War in America.

He has also repeatedly stated that he envisioned Firefly as having been modeled after the RECONSTRUCTION  era during the Civil War.

"I was taken with the idea of a civil war and rebuilding from the point of view of people who had lost the war."  -Whedon.

I mean- Browncoats. C'mon, man. Like what you like, but don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining. If I don't like something, then I don't like it, and telling me to ignore what I see with my eyes isn't going to change that.


EDIT- Kinja'd by @dragoner

EDIT 2- My footnote got chopped- I had put in that Killer Angels was actually a good book, and the basis of a good movie- Gettysburg. Just inarguable that it planted the seed to make this a post-US Civil War show.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Aug 4, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Look, please stop. I've been being super nice about this. I keep saying that I don't like it. But please stop trotting out this whole, "What? How can anyone possible not like this?"




You're going to like or not what you want.  But I've seen a bit too much claims that its "obvious" Lost Cause apologism to just let that go.  If its too close for you, it is, but that doesn't make your perceptions self-evident.



Snarf Zagyg said:


> Whedon based it on a CIVIL WAR book. He has stated, on the record and before it became controversial, that _Killer Angers_ was the inspiration*. None of this is remotely in dispute. It's not just Western Tropes ... it's specific to the Civil War in America.
> 
> He has also repeatedly stated that he envisioned Firefly as having been modeled after the RECONSTRUCTION  era during the Civil War.
> 
> ...




And ignoring the things that clearly point that, inspiration or not, that's not what he's doing doesn't make those go away.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Aug 4, 2021)

dragoner said:


> Whedon said he based Firefly after The Killer Angels, which is a fictionalized account of Lee at Gettysburg.




Still not seeing how that makes what he ended up with Lost Cause apologism.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Aug 4, 2021)

Thomas Shey said:


> You're going to like or not what you want.  But I've seen a bit too much claims that its "obvious" Lost Cause apologism to just let that go.  If its too close for you, it is, but that doesn't make your perceptions self-evident.




Author: I based this on the American Civil War. I specifically wanted to explore Reconstruction. From the losing side. The Confederates. Funny thing- I even named the main character's ancestor after a Confederate General. Funny, right! Oh, that's just the tip of the iceberg..... There's a lot to say about Reconstruction, and the nobility of the losing side of the Civil War, and the Gray Coats .... 

Thomas Shey: WUT? I CAN"T HEAR YOU!!!!! SHUT UP!


----------



## Thomas Shey (Aug 4, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Author: I based this on the American Civil War. I specifically wanted to explore Reconstruction. From the losing side. The Confederates. Funny thing- I even named the main character's ancestor after a Confederate General. Funny, right! Oh, that's just the tip of the iceberg..... There's a lot to say about Reconstruction, and the nobility of the losing side of the Civil War, and the Gray Coats ....
> 
> Thomas Shey: WUT? I CAN"T HEAR YOU!!!!! SHUT UP!




What part of "this was inspired by a novel about the Civil War but changed up for my purposes" is not comprehensible?  Like I said, did the color of the other browncoat, the story's reaction to slavery, and the episode with the Southern style elite vanish while I wasn't looking?  Or do the things that look like the Confederacy count while the things that don't look that way somehow not matter?

Let's not even get into how little the other side of the war looks nothing much like the North, because that might make this all less tidy.

Like I said, if its still too close for some people, it is; the Confederacy casts a long dark shadow.  But I've _seen_ Confderate apologism, and this doesn't look much like it at all once you zoom in in the least.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Aug 4, 2021)

Thomas Shey said:


> Like I said, if its still too close for some people, it is; the Confederacy casts a long dark shadow.  But I've _seen_ Confderate apologism, and this doesn't look much like it at all once you zoom in in the least.




What part of Whedon saying that this wasn't just modeled after the Civil War, but RECONSTRUCTION did you miss?

I started this by avoiding getting into the topic, given that (for those who care about it) it is fairly well-known. It was considered an issue when the show aired, and it's become more of an issue since then.

So I'm going to say this one more time- if it doesn't bother you, great. But you are either a) denying it's a show that is modeling American reconstruction, and glorifying the losing side; or b) admitting that, and saying that it isn't "Lost Cause" apologism because you just know it when you see it, and you're denying it. Of course, the majority of Lost Cause symbolism focused on ... Reconstruction, and on how it wasn't about slavery (it was just good ol' boys, protecting their freedom against the big bad gummint) and how the South was always doomed against the technologically superior North but the South had the better minds and the more gallant and dashing heroes. Chivalry- the gallant and dashing soldier? Yeah, that. Is this sounding familiar? At all? 

Maybe you missed it. Maybe this doesn't bother you. Maybe you're like, "I have no idea how anyone can mistake the Unification War with the purple bellies to bring in the Independent Faction with the War to Preserve the Union fought by the blue bellies to bring in the Confederacy."

Good. For. You.

But please stop with the whole, "This has nothing to do ... NOTHING AT ALL TO DO with the iconography of the Lost Cause." If you don't see it, or don't care, then enjoy.


----------



## payn (Aug 4, 2021)

It aint lost cause apologist; its lost cause romanticist.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Aug 4, 2021)

payn said:


> It aint lost cause apologist; its lost cause romanticist.




Eh, fair enough.


----------



## payn (Aug 4, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Eh, fair enough.



Im not saying that makes it ok.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Aug 4, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> But please stop with the whole, "This has nothing to do ... NOTHING AT ALL TO DO with the iconography of the Lost Cause." If you don't see it, or don't care, then enjoy.




I never said it had _nothing_ to do with it.  What I said is you can evoke some of it without being an apologist.  If you don't get the difference, I don't know what to tell you.


----------



## Rabulias (Aug 4, 2021)

_Firefly _seemed to intentionally invert or make mirror images of a number of traditional western (the genre) tropes. Look back at some western films or TV shows and while they don't present the Lost Cause narrative, former Confederate soldiers show up as sympathetic individuals from time to time (even as protagonists). The _ideas _of the Confederacy are not presented as sympathetic, of course. Many of these soldiers are shown to be troubled or conflicted about their service, and are often shown to have noble heroism within them. I believe this is paralleled in _Firefly _with Book's backstory - an Alliance agent/operative who regrets his service and feels he must atone for what he did during the war.

_Firefly_'s setting is based on this inversion. In Civil War terms, what if it was the Confederacy that had the economic and military power, and the free states tried to secede from the south -- and  lost? Yes, there is a Lost Cause parallel, but IMO, it's not whether you win or lose that makes you the good guy or the bad guy, it's what you stand for. _Firefly _makes it pretty clear that Mal and Zoe do not support anything akin to the Confederacy's abhorrent ideas.

Aside: My favorite inverted trope is Inara. In many westerns, the "soiled dove" prostitute is not the most respected person in town. In _Firefly, _she has the highest prestige and social standing of the crew!


----------



## Thomas Shey (Aug 4, 2021)

payn said:


> It aint lost cause apologist; its lost cause romanticist.




At least that I think has an argument.


----------



## dragoner (Aug 4, 2021)

Thomas Shey said:


> Still not seeing how that makes what he ended up with Lost Cause apologism.



IMO saying the "lost cause" business is an apologetic, 'cept I'm not from 'round these parts. Seriously though, imagine moving from the USSR to Texas, it was weird.


----------



## MGibster (Aug 4, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I mean- Browncoats. C'mon, man. Like what you like, but don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining. If I don't like something, then I don't like it, and telling me to ignore what I see with my eyes isn't going to change that.



What if we had it wear a silly hat and groove to a jaunty beat?


----------



## Thomas Shey (Aug 4, 2021)

dragoner said:


> IMO saying the "lost cause" business is an apologetic, 'cept I'm not from 'round these parts. Seriously though, imagine moving from the USSR to Texas, it was weird.




Well, the great truth is almost any story based on the losing side in a revolution or civil war that valorizes the losers is likely based at least in part on cherry picking what they decide to keep.  The Confederacy is particularly fraught because of how bluntly awful it was, but its true to one degree or another with virtually all of them (the Jacobin insurrection comes to mind, as anything using it or something based on it is probably going to be--selective--to say the least).  At best, most revolts are based on a mixture of legitimate grievances and really obnoxious prejudices, and you rarely see anyone want to deal with the latter part of that.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Aug 4, 2021)

Thomas Shey said:


> Well, the great truth is almost any story based on the losing side in a revolution or civil war that valorizes the losers is likely based at least in part on cherry picking what they decide to keep.  The Confederacy is particularly fraught because of how bluntly awful it was, but its true to one degree or another with virtually all of them (the Jacobin insurrection comes to mind, as anything using it or something based on it is probably going to be--selective--to say the least).  At best, most revolts are based on a mixture of legitimate grievances and really obnoxious prejudices, and you rarely see anyone want to deal with the latter part of that.




NO.

That is not it ... at all. That, right there, is the type of false equivalency that gives rise to Lost Cause narratives (call it Romanticism or Apology).

The reason that shows that traffic in Lost Cause Romanticism are so particularly fraught in the United States is because there was a concerted effort, for decades, to whitewash* history regarding the Confederacy and to romanticize everything about it. This not only ensured that people would not fully understand just how brutal and authoritarian the Confederacy was, but also caused so much suffering for decades afterwards. Lynchings, Jim Crow- this is all tied back to the failure of reconstruction and the Lost Cause narrative.

Imagine if the Germany, ever since WW2, had spent their time saying, "Do you know who the real villains were? The Allies! I mean, c'mon. They invaded us, and think about how terrible the suffering was when they came into Germany. Really, the plucky and resourceful German soldiers were the ones that we should be thinking about."

Oh wait, there are people that do that! The same people who traffic in Lost Cause BS. There's a reason that you find German WW2 (there's a term for it ... start's with an N) and Confederate memorabilia together.

So, yeah, there is a long tradition in the US of appreciating a rebellion- that's how the country was founded. But the very specific circumstances of the Lost Cause make it incredibly bad.

I can understand not liking Joss Whedon for other reasons; as much as I love Buffy and Angel, I have always had a lot of trouble with how Charisma Carpenter's exit was handled, and once I found out what happened (oh, that makes a sad amount of sense ...) I don't think I can watch it. I really enjoyed Dollhouse, but I don't know that I want to re-visit it right now.

But Firefly _always had those issues. _It was good- Whedon wrote great dialogue, and it had one of the best casts (if not the best) of any of his series. If you can't stand the Lost Cause stuff, though, it is painful to watch.

The only thing worse are the fans who rush in to deny it. I mean, what's next. "Lovecraft wasn't a racist ... he was _inverting the tropes of racism!" _Just brilliant.


*Yes, that term is deliberate.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Aug 4, 2021)

dragoner said:


> IMO saying the "lost cause" business is an apologetic, 'cept I'm not from 'round these parts. Seriously though, imagine moving from the USSR to Texas, it was weird.




I mean, at least the BBQ is better?


----------



## Thomas Shey (Aug 4, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> NO.
> 
> That is not it ... at all. That, right there, is the type of false equivalency that gives rise to Lost Cause narratives (call it Romanticism or Apology).




And this is a remarkable reading fail that you can see what I wrote and consider me not to have made the same distinction you're making.  Or did the phrase "because the Confederacy is so bluntly awful" not appear on your screen?

And again, if you think people using other failed revolts don't do their damned best to whitewash them, you don't have enough experience with how they're handled in other parts of the world.  Yes, the Confederate apologists are a standout case.  No, they're not unique.

I mean, hell, all you have to do to see that is note the way teaching about the U.S. Revolutionary War tends to elide over the part of it that was about not liking how the British weren't allowing the colonists to treat the native people's however the hell they wanted.  Its not as central to the whole thing as the American Civil War was about the South's desire to remain and expand its slave state status, but if you don't think people using it as a fictional basis for another revolution where the revolutionaries are supposed to be the heroes is going to ignore and and paper over it, I think you're being naive.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Aug 4, 2021)

Thomas Shey said:


> And again, if you think people using other failed revolts don't do their damned best to whitewash them, you don't have enough experience with how they're handled in other parts of the world.  Yes, the Confederate apologists are a standout case.  No, they're not unique.




I apologize. I understand it must seem ... weird ... that I would hold an American show filmed in America and written by an American and broadcast on an American network to an American audience to some standard when it came to invoking American Lost Cause imagery that had been used to subjugate so many Americans for so many scores of years after a war; and that this type of Lost Cause romanticism continues to resonate today and continue to cause schisms in America.

I apologize that I pointed out that it bothered me when I watched it, which caused you to come and defend your precious little TV show and make this a thing, after I repeatedly said I didn't want to get into it. Because apparently there is nothing more important than defending the honor of a TV show from people who are uncomfortable with the blithe way it trafficked in those tropes. And because you, who assured me repeatedly that it was okay because you just didn't see it, feel the need to keep arguing the point. 

But sure. Firefly fans ... it is what it is. Did you do a sufficient job defending the great honor of Firefly? Are you going to be untroubled the next time you cheer the Browncoats against the Purple Bellies, and appreciate Mal's chivalry as he fights off the overwhelming industrial and technological might of the Alliance because he was all about ... Planet's Rights? I hope so. I wouldn't want you to be troubled by any associations.


----------



## dragoner (Aug 4, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I mean, at least the BBQ is better?



Texas dirt floor BBQ shack, brisket, beans and an orange crush, best in the world.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Aug 4, 2021)

dragoner said:


> Texas dirt floor BBQ shack, brisket, beans and an orange crush, best in the world.




You are probably right, but the one thing I've learned is the quickest way to a fight is to assert the supremacy of BBQ. 

(The best BBQ I ever had was years ago at a rib place in Memphis, but the overall best is Texas. Although ... I know sauce is heresy, but Carolina sauce is good ...)


----------



## Thomas Shey (Aug 4, 2021)

Edit: You know what, Snarf, go ahead and have the last word.  Just don't expect me to take the blame because you can't walk away from an argument.


----------



## dragoner (Aug 4, 2021)

Thomas Shey said:


> Well, the great truth is almost any story based on the losing side in a revolution or civil war that valorizes the losers is likely based at least in part on cherry picking what they decide to keep.  The Confederacy is particularly fraught because of how bluntly awful it was, but its true to one degree or another with virtually all of them (the Jacobin insurrection comes to mind, as anything using it or something based on it is probably going to be--selective--to say the least).  At best, most revolts are based on a mixture of legitimate grievances and really obnoxious prejudices, and you rarely see anyone want to deal with the latter part of that.



Sure, and as an American, you do you. Though I should mention that using terms like Lost Cause and apologia to a European and their mind will likely come to rest on the Germans and WW2, which is a bad place to be. I mean context is king.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Aug 4, 2021)

Thomas Shey said:


> Its not _my_ obligation to walk away from a discussion because _you_ don't like it.




No. You've made your position quite clear. You don't walk away from anything. I'm done.


----------



## dragoner (Aug 4, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> You are probably right, but the one thing I've learned is the quickest way to a fight is to assert the supremacy of BBQ.
> 
> (The best BBQ I ever had was years ago at a rib place in Memphis, but the overall best is Texas. Although ... I know sauce is heresy, but Carolina sauce is good ...)



Truth though, the vinegar BBQ sauce is also a favorite of mine.


----------



## MGibster (Aug 4, 2021)

dragoner said:


> Truth though, the vinegar BBQ sauce is also a favorite of mine.



Boo!


----------



## Thomas Shey (Aug 4, 2021)

dragoner said:


> Sure, and as an American, you do you. Though I should mention that using terms like Lost Cause and apologia to a European and their mind will likely come to rest on the Germans and WW2, which is a bad place to be. I mean context is king.




Sure.  And its not an unfair comparison, honestly.  Attempts to justify the Southern Confederacy deserve every bit as much contempt as trying to justify Nazi Germany, and the one thing I'll agree with Snarf about here is that there's a history of trying to do that in the U.S. that rightly has some people have their tolerance mighty low.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Aug 4, 2021)

dragoner said:


> Truth though, the vinegar BBQ sauce is also a favorite of mine.




There is something almost magical about it! 

Since we're on a much better subject- you know what else is good? Burnt ends. I know it's all trendy and stuff now, but they are to die for! 

And going back to your first post- it's a truism that the fanciness of the BBQ place and the quality of the BBQ are inversely related, right?


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Aug 4, 2021)

MGibster said:


> Boo!




What?

Are you a BBQ purist (no sauce) or just that sauce?


----------



## MGibster (Aug 4, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Are you a BBQ purist (no sauce) or just that sauce?



A good BBQ doesn't _need_ sauce but a good sauce can compliment a good BBQ. I prefer the sweeter sauces for the most part.


----------



## payn (Aug 4, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> There is something almost magical about it!
> 
> Since we're on a much better subject- you know what else is good? Burnt ends. I know it's all trendy and stuff now, but they are to die for!
> 
> And going back to your first post- it's a truism that the fanciness of the BBQ place and the quality of the BBQ are inversely related, right?



Chicken Thighs are the poor mans ribs! Dont forget about em.

Also, Vinegar is bomb, molasses is nasty.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Aug 4, 2021)

MGibster said:


> A good BBQ doesn't _need_ sauce but a good sauce can compliment a good BBQ. I prefer the sweeter sauces for the most part.




Might as well just get yourself some McD's sweet & sour sauce! 

Snarf's Inarguable BBQ Sauce Rankings:

1. Carolina Vinegar Sauces (pork only)
2. Carolina Mustard Sauces (goes great on everything- pork, beef, more pork, ice cream)
3. KC Sauces (good on burnt ends, and even more burnt ends, and... the rest of the burnt ends)
4. Bama White Sauce (CHICKEN!)
4a. Cornell BBQ Sauce (Also Chicken)
5. Memphis/St. Louis Sauces (I would like all racks of ribs, please)
6. Florida Sauces (a little citrus-y, plus just a bit of meth)
7. Texas Sauces (We don't care about BBQ sauce- we're Texas)


----------



## Ryujin (Aug 4, 2021)

(Alabama pork ribs slow cooked in a former gas station, along Highway 72  )


----------



## dragoner (Aug 4, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> There is something almost magical about it!
> 
> Since we're on a much better subject- you know what else is good? Burnt ends. I know it's all trendy and stuff now, but they are to die for!
> 
> And going back to your first post- it's a truism that the fanciness of the BBQ place and the quality of the BBQ are inversely related, right?



Agreed on both accounts, that certain charred flesh crunchiness, is something else. Lack of pretense is an indicator that the BBQ joint has their priorities straight.


----------



## MGibster (Aug 4, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Carolina Vinegar Sauces (pork only)
> 2. Carolina Mustard Sauces (goes great on everything- pork, beef, more pork, ice cream)
> 3. KC Sauces (good on burnt ends, and even more burnt ends, and... the rest of the burnt ends)
> 4. Bama White Sauce (CHICKEN!)
> ...



I don't think I can be friends with you any more.


----------



## Zardnaar (Aug 4, 2021)

Even if it evokes lost cause stuff so what? Don't like it don't watch. 

 The rebels weren't the CSA while the baddies are the Allianced and even then it's not that clear. 

 Turns out Joss Whedons a piece of trash himself.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 4, 2021)

As a Brit Firefly got more episodes than The Office or Fawlty Towers. Black Mirror's first three seasons have fewer episodes between them. Life on Mars is 16 episodes.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Aug 4, 2021)

Neonchameleon said:


> As a Brit Firefly got more episodes than The Office or Fawlty Towers. Black Mirror's first three seasons have fewer episodes between them. Life on Mars is 16 episodes.




Life on Mars is so so so good. They tried to do an American version. It was terrible.

I was really fond of Ashes to Ashes too. 

Also… I heard there was going to be another series???


----------



## Thomas Shey (Aug 4, 2021)

Neonchameleon said:


> As a Brit Firefly got more episodes than The Office or Fawlty Towers. Black Mirror's first three seasons have fewer episodes between them. Life on Mars is 16 episodes.




While its clear a lot of British shows have less episode runs than U.S. ones, I also get the impression they tend to be longer per-episode; this may be based on my limited exposure though (mostly being Sherlock and The Musketeers).


----------



## dragoner (Aug 5, 2021)

Lousiana hot links, grilled until they are almost falling apart, then on a plate with dirty rice, greens, and drizzled with sauce is pretty durn good too.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Aug 5, 2021)

dragoner said:


> Lousiana hot links, grilled until they are almost falling apart, then on a plate with dirty rice, greens, and drizzled with sauce is pretty durn good too.




i am so loving this thread now. Although I am getting really really hungry. 

…. We may need to have a BBQ thread.


----------



## MGibster (Aug 5, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> i am so loving this thread now. Although I am getting really really hungry.



I own two smokers and three grills....just sayin'...


----------



## dragoner (Aug 5, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> i am so loving this thread now. Although I am getting really really hungry.
> 
> …. We may need to have a BBQ thread.



300 posts before thread drift is a great record! I mean Firefly is ok, BBQ is forever.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 5, 2021)

Wait vinegar bbq.... umm I would need to try cause my brain can only conjure bad.


----------



## dragoner (Sep 5, 2021)

So bad, it's good!


----------



## Deset Gled (Sep 5, 2021)

Garthanos said:


> Wait vinegar bbq.... umm I would need to try cause my brain can only conjure bad.




North Carolina style BBQ is vinegar based. Best when paired with coleslaw. It's really good, but nothing like Memphis or Texas style.


----------



## Ryujin (Sep 5, 2021)

Think tart/acidic instead of sweet. Quite good.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 5, 2021)

Deset Gled said:


> North Carolina style BBQ is vinegar based. Best when paired with coleslaw. It's really good, but nothing like Memphis or Texas style.



I have recently been going with dry rub, but Kansas City style is dark and sweet.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 5, 2021)

Now the show that I think was great and very underrated was Farscape


----------



## Ryujin (Sep 5, 2021)

Garthanos said:


> Now the show that I think was great and very underrated was Farscape



At least Farscape got enough love that it didn't receive a cancellation notification until season 4, and so got to do a lot of world building.


----------



## Cadence (Sep 5, 2021)

Deset Gled said:


> North Carolina style BBQ is vinegar based. Best when paired with coleslaw. It's really good, but nothing like Memphis or Texas style.



You mean vinegar based is one of the South Carolina styles.  ;-)  The other big one being mustard based.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 6, 2021)

Ryujin said:


> At least Farscape got enough love that it didn't receive a cancellation notification until season 4, and so got to do a lot of world building.



I will never forget how badly they ended it.... at first


----------



## Imaculata (Sep 6, 2021)

Atleast we got the Peacekeeper Wars, which was amazing.


----------

