# Firefly Discussion (Merged)



## Tsyr (Sep 21, 2002)

*[Quasi Spoiler, sorta] Firefly*

It's Outlaw Star/Cowboy Bebop live action!


----------



## WizarDru (Sep 21, 2002)

*Re: [Quasi Spoiler, sorta] Firefly*



			
				Tsyr said:
			
		

> *It's Outlaw Star/Cowboy Bebop live action! *




You forgot Trigun. 


Wonder why they all speak Chinese fragments?  Liking it a lot, so far.


----------



## WizarDru (Sep 21, 2002)

*OMFG!

He kicked him into the TURBINE!!!!*


ROFLMAO!!!!!!


----------



## Tsyr (Sep 21, 2002)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> *OMFG!
> 
> He kicked him into the TURBINE!!!!
> 
> ...




LOL, I know. I couldn't stop laughing there.


----------



## CrusaderX (Sep 21, 2002)

It definitely has an Outlaw Star feel to it.  And Westerns rock, so I'm glad they're using that genre as a big influence.

I didn't like the oh-so-wise prostitute, though.  She seems forced and too "kewl".  If she continues to spout philosophical lines, I'm just going to laugh at the character and not take her seriously at all.   But the other characters were pretty good, especially the other female leads. 

IMO, the premier wasn't as good as the premiers of such recent shows like _Smallville, Alias,_ and _24_.  But I don't get the Sci-Fi channel or UPN, so _Space: Above and Beyond_ was the last sci-fi TV show I followed (let's hope _FireFly_ doesn't share the same fate).  So I'll still tune in next week for my sci-fi fix.


----------



## JohnBrown (Sep 21, 2002)

So far all I can say is:

*shrug*

So far I give it 7 out of 10.   I was going to rate a 6 out of 10, but that turbine/engine scene at the end was great.  That alone was worth a one-point bump.     I am glad I am not the only one who was reminded of Outlaw Star while watching it.   The show does have potential.   The first episode, however, didn’t really provide the twist on the genre that I was expecting.   I know, I know, it is only the first episode…  

I actually like the show John Doe, which premiered right after Firefly, a lot more, but I can see John Doe running out of gas by the second season….

< Raises glass >

Here’s to both shows continuing to improve.


----------



## Uller (Sep 21, 2002)

Yeah.  6 or 7 out of 10 seems about right.  The kick him into the turbine thing was cool.  Right before he kicked him I was thinking:  "If I was the Captain, I'd just kill him and be done with it...Why do these shows always let the bad guys live?  If it were my players' PCs, they'd just cut that dumb mother f&%*er's head off and be done with it..."  Then *kick*! Into the engine he goes!

That made me laugh.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 21, 2002)

I go 5 out of 10.  It was okay.  I didn't find anything too great or too terrible.  But judgement should be held until at least week five to give it a chance to do whatever it's going to do.


----------



## Agamon (Sep 21, 2002)

Meh.  I wasn't too impressed.  No more than a 5 from me.  The characters seem sorta cardboard cut-out.  I'll check it out the next few weeks and see if it gets any better.


----------



## Heretic Apostate (Sep 21, 2002)

The show annoyed the heck out of me.  But for very unusual reasons.

Understand, when I was a kid, I suffered through a bad ear infection.  I have about a 10% overall loss of hearing in my right ear, and about 40% in my left.  But that's the average.  The problem is, I have a hard time hearing certain bands of frequencies.  My mother's voice falls in one band.  And the voice of the actor playing the captain falls in another band.

So, I couldn't understand what he was saying half the time.  It was all very muffled.  Very annoying.  It's times like that when I turn the volume up all the way, in hopes of being able to follow the dialogue.

But aside from that, it was okay.  Since we're having trouble pulling in UPN (I just managed to fix the problem that was keeping us from getting CBS, and we've completely lost NBC due to the affiliate, KRON4 out of San Francisco, having its affiliation yanked by NBC), I'm happy to get SOMETHING....

Personally, though, I liked John Doe better.  It's more of a Pretender-clone.  I liked the way he figured out horse racing, built up a huge sum of money... and lost it when a horse tripped.


----------



## Femerus the Gnecro (Sep 21, 2002)

I really enjoyed it as an episode, but as a pilot I think it was lacklustre.

I nearly died laughing with the turbine bit though... that was classic.  

Overall, I think it has the potential to be a very good show, but they need to do some explaining pretty quick about the origins of some of the characters.  

-F


----------



## Umbran (Sep 21, 2002)

Patience.

They need to do some explaining pretty quick? Why?  What's the bloody rush?  

The show's only had one episode.  If we count the comercials that soemthig like 40 to 45 minutes of program.  Of course the characters seem cardboard cutout. How real can they make 'em when on average each one has had, what, 5 minutes of screen time?  Really - how many actual people get across much personality within 5 minutes of meeting them?


----------



## Ashtal (Sep 21, 2002)

Loved the turbine!

I gasped when he did it, then laughed hysterically when he brought up #2 Bad Guy Messenger and repeated what he said.  That is destined to become a classic.

I find all the characters intriguing so far - very mysterious, with their little wants and needs interacting.  Intriguing. 

Also, this pilot was modified to suit the suits . . . I wonder if we will ever see the original.


----------



## Tsyr (Sep 21, 2002)

For the record, John Doe rocked too!

Wasn't sure I was going to like that show, but so far, very impressed.


----------



## John Crichton (Sep 21, 2002)

I thought it was a very effective and entertaining pilot.  We got to know all the characters and their basic roles.  The acting was good, the dialogue well written and delivered and the action (for a TV show) was decently paced.

I loved the visual feel.  The show looks distinctly different from just about any other scifi show out there right now.  The FX were seemless which certainly helped.  I like the direction they are going in.  The only other show that looks as original in the same genre is Farscape, IMO.  I'm certainly looking forward to what else the Firefly team can pull off.  

My main problem with the show was actually with the costumes.  The crew members all looked cool and distinct.  The same cannot be said for the Alliance officers (they all look like morose train conductors! LOL).  And the Alliance "Feds" were straight outta Starship Troopers (a bad movie, IMHO).  This is an area that needs a little work because if the "bad guys" look silly than the show loses alot.

I, too, want to see the original pilot (I'm sure it's on the net somewhere).  2 hours is always better than just the one.

For a one hour pilot, I was VERY entertained.  The only better one in recent memory was the *Alias* premiere.  For an arbitrary number score, I'll give it a *8.5 out of 10* for _pure entertainment value_ (dilogue and feel) and the most important thing:  _I'll be back next week for the next episode_.  

P.S.  We need Farscape to stay on the air so fridays can be filled year-round with scifi goodness.


----------



## Tsyr (Sep 21, 2002)

> And the Alliance "Feds" were straight outta Starship Troopers (a bad movie, IMHO).




Ok, here's my little mini-rant on the Starship Troopers movie.

When I first saw it, I nearly stormed out of the theater in revultion. How dare they call that action-packed tripe Starship Troopers. It wasn't 1/100th the story the book was.

And I still agree with that, to an extent, BUT...

Someone got me the DVD of it for my birthday not long after the movie was released... I watched it again... and something hit me. 

Don't take it for Starship Troopers, the book.

Yes, I wish they had called it something else, to not degrade the name of Starship Troopers... But if you take it just as what it IS... a slightly campy over-the-top gore and special effects action movie, it's actualy pretty good, with a semblance of a plot thrown in too. As an f/x and gore showcase movie, it's certainly above, IMO, more modern contenders such as Pitch Black, etc. And it has JUST enough of the cool elements from the book to make it fun... The portable nukes (even if they were a bit different in the book), the lashing scene, etc. I just wish they had kept the power-armour and the original deployment method


----------



## WizarDru (Sep 21, 2002)

I would easily give the show an arbitrary 8 out of 10.  The pilot was solid...it introduced the characters without a deluge of exposition, put forth a lot of concepts, and delivered a solid, entertaining space opera.  Lots of character hooks and hints dropped, and plenty of potential for the characters to grow.  Nice to see Ron Glass' Sheperd character, for example...I suspect the priest has quite a checkered past, as we'll discover.

Did we actually establish that Irana was a prostitute?  I know she's referred to as a 'Companion', and that apparently it's a position...but did they establish what she does?  I didn't quite catch all of the captain and her dialogue early on.  She's obviously not poor, having her own shuttlecraft.

Only time will tell how good the execution is, but so far I think it's off to a solid start.


As for John Doe, I took a pass.  I just saw the Bourne Identity.   Seriously, I just don't see them being able to maintain such a concept for too long, and frankly the 'I know everything _except who I AM! (startled Gasp!)_' things has been done a few too many times for my taste.  It might be a good show...but I just can't generate any enthusiasm for it.  If I hear enough good things about it, maybe I'll check it out.


----------



## Tsyr (Sep 21, 2002)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> *As for John Doe, I took a pass.  I just saw the Bourne Identity.   Seriously, I just don't see them being able to maintain such a concept for too long, and frankly the 'I know everything except who I AM! (startled Gasp!)' things has been done a few too many times for my taste.  It might be a good show...but I just can't generate any enthusiasm for it.  If I hear enough good things about it, maybe I'll check it out. *




I'm sorta in the same mindset... I'm not sure how long that schtick can keep interest, sadly. Actualy, when the pilot ended, I thought to myself... "That was a good movie".

As for the companion thing... I think its a LITTLE more than just being a prostitute, but I gather that is part of the job. It seems to be a recognized and guilded proffesion, though, not just something for... well... yeah.


----------



## Femerus the Gnecro (Sep 21, 2002)

Ashtal said:
			
		

> *Also, this pilot was modified to suit the suits . . . I wonder if we will ever see the original. *




From what I've heard, the original pilot was in desperate, aching need of a rewrite anyways, and could only have improved from some judicious cutting.  

I think we probably saw the better version last night.  

-F


----------



## Uruush (Sep 21, 2002)

*(OT) Firefly*

Who watched it last night?  I thought it was pretty good.  I hope it can last more than a season in that time slot.  If anyone can pull it off, it'll be Whedon.  Looks like he's put together a good ensemble cast, but time will tell if the characters develop into something truly interesting.  I laughed my head off when Malcolm kicked that baddie into the engine intake - a nice character revealing moment...


----------



## Staffan (Sep 21, 2002)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> *Did we actually establish that Irana was a prostitute?  I know she's referred to as a 'Companion', and that apparently it's a position...but did they establish what she does?  I didn't quite catch all of the captain and her dialogue early on.  She's obviously not poor, having her own shuttlecraft.*



As I understand it, a Companion is more of a geisha than a hooker. They only serve the clients they want to, in the way they want to. There's apparently also a "Companion's guild" around that provides respectability.


----------



## Rpjunkie (Sep 21, 2002)

Personally I liked it. I think the first show could have been better, but I like all Sci-fi. I personally liked the John doe Show that came after it better, but I hope it survives the first year..


RPJ


----------



## Hand of Evil (Sep 21, 2002)

*Re: (OT) Firefly*



			
				Matthew Gagan said:
			
		

> *Who watched it last night?  I thought it was pretty good.  I hope it can last more than a season in that time slot.  If anyone can pull it off, it'll be Whedon.  Looks like he's put together a good ensemble cast, but time will tell if the characters develop into something truly interesting.  I laughed my head off when Malcolm kicked that baddie into the engine intake - a nice character revealing moment... *




I enjoyed it.  Thought some of the charaters were rough but that will improve as the show continues.  Wish it was on a different network, Fox does not have a good rep dealing with Sci-Fi and ratings.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 21, 2002)

Rpjunkie said:
			
		

> *Personally I liked it. I think the first show could have been better, but I like all Sci-fi. I personally liked the John doe Show that came after it better, but I hope it survives the first year..
> 
> 
> RPJ *




I found Firefly average at best.  I will be tuning in for the next couple of weeks at least to give it a chance.  

John Doe was the better show last night.  If either survives past the first year, I'll be surprised though.


----------



## Hatchling Dragon (Sep 21, 2002)

What, that was _last_ night?  Nooo.... Damn me and my generosity!  That's what I get for treating my roomate and Dad out to dinner on pay-day.  Phoey!

Hatchling Dragon


----------



## Ashtal (Sep 21, 2002)

Wrong forum.  Boing!  And merge!


----------



## Wolf72 (Sep 21, 2002)

loved the kick into the engine ...then pulled the same exact line with the next guy 

and yah, I tried to distance starship troopers (movie) from the book as much as possible too.

ej


----------



## Xeriar (Sep 21, 2002)

Staffan said:
			
		

> *
> As I understand it, a Companion is more of a geisha than a hooker. They only serve the clients they want to, in the way they want to. There's apparently also a "Companion's guild" around that provides respectability. *




A long time ago 'prostitution' fell into two different categories.  One was the Courtesan/Geisha/whatever (I forget the Hebrew term) level, and then there was just plain whore.

The former were entertainers first, in many cases asking to sleep with one was considered an insult, though in some cases sex was indeed involved.

I liked it - the show has a serious blend of 'past, present  and future' to it.


----------



## Radiating Gnome (Sep 21, 2002)

Well, I liked it a lot.  Probably 8 out of ten -- I'm very excited about the series.  I want to see the other characters develop a bit, but you can't do everything at once.  As a pilot, it worked for me -- it set up the basic conflicts the show is going to deal with -- outlaw goodguys on the fringes.

The Turbine scene was good.  I like Jane especially drugged to the gills and talking out of the slack side of his mouth.  I like the guy playing the pilot -- one real bright spot from that damn MTV Jousting movie.  It's good to see Ron Glass working again, but of all the characters on the ship he's the one I'm least interested in.

I'll be watching, that's for sure.  I hope it doesn't disappear.

-rg


----------



## Kibo (Sep 21, 2002)

Agamon said:
			
		

> *Meh.  I wasn't too impressed.  No more than a 5 from me.  The characters seem sorta cardboard cut-out.  I'll check it out the next few weeks and see if it gets any better. *




I was gonna give it a 4 or 5, but then I noticed if I squinted it sometimes looked like it might be spaceballs, so it gets a solid 4 or 5.


----------



## John Crichton (Sep 21, 2002)

Tsyr said:
			
		

> * Ok, here's my little mini-rant on the Starship Troopers movie.
> 
> When I first saw it, I nearly stormed out of the theater in revultion. How dare they call that action-packed tripe Starship Troopers. It wasn't 1/100th the story the book was.
> 
> ...



Not a bad way to look at it.  I can certainly see your point.  I've never read Starship Troopers (been meaning to).  I was just expecting more from Verhoven.  That and the movie just wasn't that fun for me.  There were some entertaining parts, for sure, but not enough to make it a good flim.


----------



## Ranger REG (Sep 22, 2002)

*IMHO...*

The show was ... interesting.

You got a captain ("Mal") that looks too young to be a leader, too young even by Kirk's standard (_Star Trek_ has put him to be the youngest Captain in Starfleet). No offense but he has that "baby face" look that one could easily enter into high school should he wishes to be a narc. Apparently he displayed a little of the _Buffy_ mannerism, courtesy of Joss Whedon.

The lady soldier Zoe can rough it up with the boys (actress Gina Torres have starred in _Hercules, Xena, Cleopatra: 2025,_ and recently in _Alias_) and yet she seem so classy. Is it because she's a married woman (to a pilot)? At least I know who will always be on top.   

The pilot Wash is ... well, a pilot. Hopefully his character will develop outside of the helm station. He does have a bit of that Texas accent.

The mercenary scoundrel Jayne (actor Adam Baldwin last seen as the super-soldier in _The X-Files_) is simply a big jack(bleep!). But I have a funny feeling that it is just a facade. He should maintain that persona though.

The ship's engineer Kaylee is pretty. But that's all I got from the first episode.

The on-board medic Simon seems to be conflicting with the ship's captain, while hiding himself and his sister River from the Alliance and the Academy where she was housed until she escaped with her brother's help. River's character will probably be the central focus of a story arc and hope we know more about this young psychic. ("Two by Two, Hands of Blue...")

The Companion Inari is an enigma. I mean obviously, with her looks she can fetch a very high price for her service in any town or city she choose to live in. Why would she be mixed up with the crew of _Serenity_ puzzles me. Intriguing.

Finally, the moral center of _Serenity_'s crew, "Shepherd." In almost every Joss Whedon show he created you always have one who is supposed to be a mentor to the cast, offering wisdom when needed or not needed.

So in this first episode, they got a job to steal some merchandise from a train... very western. Finds out, the merchandise is medicine that is badly needed at the town the train pulled in. Suddenly, Mal let his conscience swayed him. With the help of Inari, Mal and Zoe made it back to their ship in hiding and called the job off. Enter Crow and the goons. A little gunfight, a little knife-throwing, the Mal & Co. eventually defeated them. He tried to convince the tied-up Crow that he no longer wants the job the boss, Crow said something stupid, and he got pushed into the ship's engine intake. One of the goons got smart and complied.

Mal and Zoe tried to sneak in the medicine without notice but was spotted by the town's sheriff and his deputies who decided to let the matter go.

Very western. Very interesting.

I think I'll watch further.

OBTW, that show _John Doe_ took me by surprise. I thought the show's format isn't that interesting but I got hooked instantly. I am looking forward to FOX's Friday Night.


----------



## Psychotic Dreamer (Sep 22, 2002)

I was quite impressed with both Firelfy and John Doe.

Firefly is a wonderful mix of SciFi and Western (which I'm thinking of stealing for my Wild West Buffy game, but thats neither here nor there).  The characters are interesting.  I like that things are not rosey between everyone.  Conflict is a good thing.  I'm going to be taping this show.  Granted I don't think it will survive...  Mainly because it's on Fox and they do not seem to kind of Genre shows other than the X-Files.

John Doe was quite a suprise.  I had planned to tune in and watch it, but didn't expect to really care for it too much.  However I tuned in and... it was fun.  I'm not sure how long they will be able to keep up the general idea, but I will keep watching to see.


----------



## Staffan (Sep 22, 2002)

*Re: IMHO...*



			
				Ranger REG said:
			
		

> *You got a captain ("Mal") that looks too young to be a leader, too young even by Kirk's standard (Star Trek has put him to be the youngest Captain in Starfleet). No offense but he has that "baby face" look that one could easily enter into high school should he wishes to be a narc. Apparently he displayed a little of the Buffy mannerism, courtesy of Joss Whedon.
> *



On the other hand, Serenity isn't exactly a big honkin' warship like the Enterprise - they mentioned that it isn't even armed. I don't doubt that a rather young person could find himself "in command" of a small freight ship with a total crew of five people, himself included (plus four passengers).


----------



## Agamon (Sep 22, 2002)

Ashtal said:
			
		

> *Also, this pilot was modified to suit the suits . . . I wonder if we will ever see the original. *




Gah, let's hope not...seen the unaired pilot of Buffy?  

('course that's kind of an apples and oranges comparison, the Buffy pilot was never meant to air)


----------



## Hand of Evil (Sep 22, 2002)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> *OMFG!
> 
> He kicked him into the TURBINE!!!!
> 
> ...




And he was bound when he did it too!


----------



## BadMojo (Sep 22, 2002)

*Re: Re: IMHO...*



			
				Staffan said:
			
		

> *
> On the other hand, Serenity isn't exactly a big honkin' warship like the Enterprise - they mentioned that it isn't even armed. I don't doubt that a rather young person could find himself "in command" of a small freight ship with a total crew of five people, himself included (plus four passengers). *




Yeah, I really didn't have a problem with the age of the Captain.  As Staffan, mentions, the Serenity certainly doesn't look that impressive, and it seems plausible enough that Mal could be the owner of the thing.

I would like to see how he got the ship.  I wonder if that was in the pilot episode that was scrapped (delayed)?  Maybe he stole the Serenity or inherited it?


----------



## GreyOne (Sep 22, 2002)

Enjoyed it a bunch.  The turbine scene is classic.  To me, the captain easily seemed in his thirties.


----------



## Femerus the Gnecro (Sep 22, 2002)

Agamon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Gah, let's hope not...seen the unaired pilot of Buffy?  *




Oh man... how awful.  Thank god they changed it.

"we've secretly replaced chunky/ugly willow with flame-tressed gorgeous willow!  let's see if our viewers appreciate it!"

-F


----------



## Mallus (Sep 23, 2002)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> *Not a bad way to look at it.  I can certainly see your point.  I've never read Starship Troopers (been meaning to).  I was just expecting more from Verhoven.  That and the movie just wasn't that fun for me.  There were some entertaining parts, for sure, but not enough to make it a good flim.   *




Ok, so I missed the premier of Firefly {but I have it on tape, plus the original 2 hour version can be downloaded from some newgroup or other...}

But, on the subject of Starship Troopers... I've read the book and I love the film. While the movie certainly isn't the book, it really is meant to seen in context of it; its more a highly stylized, ironized take on that novel, and Heinlien's work of that period in general. Consider it a parody of the original work.

The films is a black comedy. An indictment and celebration of the fascist underpinnings of action-filled war movies. And I personally believe its also a swipe on the portrayal of youth/beauty culture in Hollywood films. Its not be accident that it sends what could be a Nazi-fied version of the 90210 cast into space to fight alien bugs. It has fewer obvious jokes because its that seemless {airless?} kind of comedy where the whole thing seems like a joke, but no one inside the film acknowledges it. The closest it comes are those wonderful WW2 era newsreel parodies.

Besides, how can you not love a film that puts a psychic Doogie Howser in full SS drag?? As one of the heroes...


----------



## Ranger REG (Sep 24, 2002)

*Re: Re: IMHO...*



			
				Staffan said:
			
		

> *
> On the other hand, Serenity isn't exactly a big honkin' warship like the Enterprise - they mentioned that it isn't even armed. I don't doubt that a rather young person could find himself "in command" of a small freight ship with a total crew of five people, himself included (plus four passengers). *



I know that. But he looks too young to be a veteran of a war between the Alliance and the Independents. But I'm sure he is wise beyond his years. A war could do that to ya.

I just got to get used to his "baby face" look, is all. Come on, guys. I did say the show was interesting. Looking forward to seeing the next episode.


----------



## John Crichton (Sep 24, 2002)

*my last hijack, I swear...*



			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> *The films is a black comedy. An indictment and celebration of the fascist underpinnings of action-filled war movies. And I personally believe its also a swipe on the portrayal of youth/beauty culture in Hollywood films. Its not be accident that it sends what could be a Nazi-fied version of the 90210 cast into space to fight alien bugs. It has fewer obvious jokes because its that seemless {airless?} kind of comedy where the whole thing seems like a joke, but no one inside the film acknowledges it. The closest it comes are those wonderful WW2 era newsreel parodies.
> *



If it's a black comedy, it wasn't done very well at all.  Recent movies like *Fargo* and *Drop Dead Gorgeous* are good examples of a true black comedy.  If it is supposed to mock and celebrate fascism in action/war movie, shouldn't it also be entertaining and have some kind of soul?  Honestly, considering the source material (from what I have read) was mean for teenage boys I can't see it being a true black comedy.  Maybe that was what Verhoven was shooting for but the movie seemed awefully brainless considering the rest of his work.

Yeah, there was a ton of pointless shooting, there was a token bad guy with "motivation" and there were the heroes that win in the end, but this does not make a good satire.  But I like my movies a little more ambitious than that.

It's been years since I last saw the film so all this is an old opinion.  I may feel different after either reading the book or seeing it again.    And I know the movie has its fans, I'm just not one of them. Heck, a friend of mine had a religious experience watching the movie.  heheh

But I digress... 



			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> *Besides, how can you not love a film that puts a psychic Doogie Howser in full SS drag?? As one of the heroes... *



Well, that was entertaining in a "wink wink" kind of way.  

*Concerning Firefly*:  I think the visual feel of Starship Troopers was good and I don't mind them borrowing the costumes for the soldiers.  I hope that's all they swipe from that movie...

*::  edited to make sense ::*


----------



## WizarDru (Sep 24, 2002)

The funny thing is, I looked at their uniforms, and thought they stole them from either Space: Above and Beyond or Babylon 5...I forgot how similar they looked to the starship troopers outfits.  Ultimately, I don't much care...combat fatigues is combat fatigues.  They could be a little more stylized...but that's really not the focus of the show, so I can deal.  The 'imperial' look of the alliance officers, though....that I'm not as keen on.

Regretably, the show's ratings were pretty weak (and it's not a strong slot to begin with).  Whether it will get a 'x-files' treatment, a 'dark angel' treatment or  4-and-done treatment remains to be seen.


----------



## Tsyr (Sep 24, 2002)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> *The 'imperial' look of the alliance officers, though....that I'm not as keen on. *




I think they are trying to set us up to hate the Alliance... Hence, the dark, imperialistic overtones... But frankly, considering the world as a whole seems to love the Alliance... there has to be a dark side the pilot didn't show.


----------



## WizarDru (Sep 24, 2002)

Tsyr said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I think they are trying to set us up to hate the Alliance... Hence, the dark, imperialistic overtones... But frankly, considering the world as a whole seems to love the Alliance... there has to be a dark side the pilot didn't show. *




Well, I'm not sure the Alliance has to be evil, or even very dark.  One thing is clear: they keep the trains running on time.  The impression I get is most of the inhabitants of the Alliance don't really care either way, as long as things are running smoothly and no one's in their face.  But if you step out of line, they can probably be VERY oppresive.  It'll be interesting to see how they play it out.

I just hope they get the chance to explore it, before Fox does something unpleasant.  Buffy started out slow, too, IIRC.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Sep 24, 2002)

My feelings on the Alliance is that we are going to eventually find that a vast majority of it is Lawful Neutral in attitude with small smatterings of Lawful Good and Lawful Evil (the two guys from the Academy I bet fall in this alignment).


----------



## Staffan (Sep 24, 2002)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> *Well, I'm not sure the Alliance has to be evil, or even very dark.*



I read an excerpt from an interview with Joss Whedon over at rpg.net. He said something like "The Alliance is a lot like USA. Sometimes it's the USA in Vietnam. Other times it's like the USA in Nazi Germany. Since Mal was one of the Vietnamese, he can't see that part however."


----------



## Villano (Sep 24, 2002)

From what I saw of the show (while babysitting a 15 year old dog with a weak bladder who needs to be let outside every two minutes), I really enjoyed it.

Part of the reason I did is due to the fact that I wasn't really expecting much.  Nothing in the commercials made me want to watch it.

In fact, the only reason that I turned it on was due to my finding out that Gina "The sexiest woman in the world" Torres was in it.

God, I love her. 

Where was I?  Oh, yes, the show!

Anyway, like I said, I missed parts of it, so I didn't see the "girl in the box" from the commercials.  Who was she and what was the deal with her?

BTW, I don't feel the Outlaw Star/Cowboy Bebop comparisons are really fair.  The sci-fi western concept is actually quite old.  There was even an old serial called The Phantom Empire in which Gene Autry fought some underground kingdom (yes, Gene Autry, the singing cowboy).

And does anyone else remember the '80's cartoon, Galaxy Rangers?  That was a space western.  Aside from being aimed at kids (i.e., occassional dumb comedy and the fact that no one really gets hurt), it was pretty good.  Well, I enjoyed it as a kid, at least.

BTW, not to long ago, I stumbled across a website which credited Jerry "Law & Order" Orbach as a voice actor on that show.


----------



## Krug (Sep 25, 2002)

Great article on Joss Whedon here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/22/magazine/22WHEDON.html?pagewanted=1

Excerpt:
_As technicians nudge a glowing white spaceship into the sky, Whedon talks about his frustration with those who mistake his creations for guilty pleasures. ''I hate it when people talk about 'Buffy' as being campy,'' he says, scarfing takeout chicken with a plastic fork. ''I hate camp. I don't enjoy dumb TV. I believe Aaron Spelling has single-handedly lowered SAT scores.'' But despite these inevitable misreadings, Whedon's heart will always be with genre fiction. Like Buffy herself, genre fiction is easily undervalued, seen as powerless fluff. But Whedon finds it uniquely forceful: using its vivid strokes, you can be speculative, philosophical -- and create stories that are not merely true to life but are metaphors for a deeper level of human experience. ''It's better to be a spy in the house of love, you know?'' he jokes. ''If I made 'Buffy the Lesbian Separatist,' a series of lectures on PBS on why there should be feminism, no one would be coming to the party, and it would be boring. The idea of changing culture is important to me, and it can only be done in a popular medium.'' 
_


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Sep 25, 2002)

Well him and I agree on at least one point. Personally I think mr Spelling is the Anti-Christ. But then again I absolutely despise ALL sitcoms.




			
				Krug said:
			
		

> *Great article on Joss Whedon here:
> 
> I believe Aaron Spelling has single-handedly lowered SAT scores.''
> [/i] *


----------



## RatPunk (Sep 25, 2002)

Villano said:
			
		

> *Anyway, like I said, I missed parts of it, so I didn't see the "girl in the box" from the commercials.  Who was she and what was the deal with her?*




Nobody else saw her either as it wasn't in this episode.

Possible spoilers about the Girl in the Box...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
My understanding is that the Girl in the Box is actually River, the doctor's crazy sister. He smuggles her on board the Serenity in a box in the original pilot episode. We should get to see that episode sometime in December, if what I've heard is correct...


----------



## Ranger REG (Sep 26, 2002)

Bad move on Joss Whedon's part. Never insult Aaron Spelling. I like his stuff.

He should spend more time concentrating on his TV projects and less time voicing his opinion. That's the reason why I used to like Prince so much: talk less, sing more.

I will watch Friday's episode, but it have to better than the last one.


----------



## WizarDru (Sep 26, 2002)

Aaron's a big boy, he can handle it.  I'm sure he can dry his tears with some dollar bills.  And for every "7th Heaven" that Spelling's been involved with, there's been five "Love Boat: The Next Wave".  

I mean, you are trying to defend the man responsible for giving us "T. J. Hooker: Bloodsport", "Hart to Hart", "Satan's School for Girls",  "Massarati and the Brain" and "The Return of the Mod Squad".

Has he produced some good shows?  I'd say he's made some good middle of the road material, often due more to the people on the show than him.  Spelling's body of work, however, is indicative of everything that's been wrong with TV and Movies for decades, IMHO.


----------



## Nightfall (Sep 28, 2002)

Spoilage about tonight episode.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Man those Reavers MUST be the biggest psychopaths since Hannibal Lector strapped on the mask. Anyway, not a bad espisode. I like the name too. Course I'd make them great devotes to the TRUE Reaver, Vangal, if I ever used in an fantasy RPG setting. 

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*


----------



## BadMojo (Sep 28, 2002)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> *I mean, you are trying to defend the man responsible for giving us "T. J. Hooker: Bloodsport", "Hart to Hart", "Satan's School for Girls",  "Massarati and the Brain" and "The Return of the Mod Squad".
> *




I think Aaron Spelling's oeuvre speaks for itself.  I just took a look at his entry on IMDB and now my soul hurts.  Thanks alot Spelling!

As for Firefly, I'm really enjoying the show, but I don't have high hopes for its longevity.  Friday nights on Fox are like sci fi poison.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 28, 2002)

Okay, saw the episode.  Still not sold on the series.  What is the deal with the Reapers?  I heard them expolained I just don't get what happens to make them go all crzy like that.  Also, it seemed to indicate the reavers work together, but the way they act it doesn't seem they should.  It confused me.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Sep 28, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: IMHO...*



			
				Ranger REG said:
			
		

> *
> I know that. But he looks too young to be a veteran of a war between the Alliance and the Independents. But I'm sure he is wise beyond his years. A war could do that to ya.
> 
> I just got to get used to his "baby face" look, is all. Come on, guys. I did say the show was interesting. Looking forward to seeing the next episode. *




I dunno if this'll help shed some light on anything, but...I did some research on US fleet submarines of World War II. I did some interviews with ex-submariners, and was told that at that time the navy wanted men in their mid-thirties as sub skippers. Younger than that, they were too reckless; older than that, they were too conservative.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Sep 28, 2002)

By the way, this was the first episode I've seen of this show. I really liked it quite a bit, much more than I thought I would.


----------



## Horacio (Sep 28, 2002)

I've just received a copy of the firt episode from a friend, I'm very excited , going to wathch it now!


----------



## Hand of Evil (Sep 28, 2002)

Crothian said:
			
		

> *Okay, saw the episode.  Still not sold on the series.  What is the deal with the Reapers?  I heard them expolained I just don't get what happens to make them go all crzy like that.  Also, it seemed to indicate the reavers work together, but the way they act it doesn't seem they should.  It confused me. *




It is kill or be killed, it is facing death and letting go of rational thought.  It is not really that easy to be brutal but once you accepted it your mind shuts down.  It has been seen and documented from men coming back from war, nightmares, wife beatings, bar fights.  In a way it is a form of brainwashing.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Sep 28, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: IMHO...*



			
				ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I dunno if this'll help shed some light on anything, but...I did some research on US fleet submarines of World War II. I did some interviews with ex-submariners, and was told that at that time the navy wanted men in their mid-thirties as sub skippers. Younger than that, they were too reckless; older than that, they were too conservative. *




Well we find out that he only had the rank of sargent in the war and it appears he was ground force.


----------



## Nightfall (Sep 28, 2002)

I think the deal is a kind of space madness. After all while, being out deep space and not having much human contact, they go a little nutso. Sort of like what happens to be people in a sensory deprivation tank. Reavers are guys that lose their humanity BECAUSE they don't have anyway other than artificial things to help adjust to the lonely life. Think of them as part Viking raiders, part madmen.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 28, 2002)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> *I think the deal is a kind of space madness. After all while, being out deep space and not having much human contact, they go a little nutso. Sort of like what happens to be people in a sensory deprivation tank. Reavers are guys that lose their humanity BECAUSE they don't have anyway other than artificial things to help adjust to the lonely life. Think of them as part Viking raiders, part madmen. *




Didn't they indicate that reavers work together?  It seemed they were worried of them coming back for instance.  It just didn't seem that well explained to me.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Sep 28, 2002)

Crothian said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Didn't they indicate that reavers work together?  It seemed they were worried of them coming back for instance.  It just didn't seem that well explained to me. *




Have a feeling that Reavers are going to be the big bad and we will be seeing them pop up evey now and then.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 28, 2002)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Have a feeling that Reavers are going to be the big bad and we will be seeing them pop up evey now and then. *




That would be good.  They definatly foreshadowed them as being something to truely fear.


----------



## Nightfall (Sep 28, 2002)

Well considering what they did to that NORMAL guy, I'm already impressed. Hell I'm considering making them a Pr-class for the Scarred Lands. (Change the name though) Chosen of  Reaver.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Sep 28, 2002)

Crothian said:
			
		

> *
> 
> That would be good.  They definatly foreshadowed them as being something to truely fear. *




I think it was Frank Herbert (may have been someone else) that wrote of taking men and removing emotions and rational thought from them to make a killing machines.


----------



## Dark Psion (Sep 29, 2002)

There is more to the Reavers than presented here. Psycho Cannibals would not be smart enougth to set that booby trap.

Liked the Alliance "Office Complex" class ship and the silent destruction of the colony transport.

Any idea when we will see the real pilot??


----------



## Crothian (Sep 29, 2002)

Dark Psion said:
			
		

> *Any idea when we will see the real pilot?? *




I've heard decemeber but it's hard to say.  We get one new epsiode next week, then Fox starts covering MLB postseason.


----------



## Black Omega (Sep 29, 2002)

I'll have to sit down and try to watch the 9/27 ep again.  I taped it and got started on it but it really didn't hold my interest even a little.  I have no problem with the cowboys in space thing, I'm an old school fan of Battlestar Galactica.  But Firefly made BG's cowboy theme seem subtle by comparison and that got annoying fast.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Sep 30, 2002)

Did anyone else wonder why the Reavers attacked the transport?

They killed all the people but one and they left all of the cargo. Serenities engineer was also able to scrounge valuable plarts so the Reavers didnt take those either.

So what was the point of the attack? It would have made sense if they had at least taken some of the cargo.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Sep 30, 2002)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> *Did anyone else wonder why the Reavers attacked the transport?
> 
> They killed all the people but one and they left all of the cargo. Serenities engineer was also able to scrounge valuable plarts so the Reavers didnt take those either.
> 
> So what was the point of the attack? It would have made sense if they had at least taken some of the cargo. *




No point at all unless it was 'no trespassing' and they became the sign.  I don't they they have to have a reason, they see, they attack.


----------



## WizarDru (Sep 30, 2002)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> *
> 
> No point at all unless it was 'no trespassing' and they became the sign.  I don't they they have to have a reason, they see, they attack. *




Or quite possibly, there is a reason, but it's not something easily comprehended by an outsider.  It's obvious the fear of the Reavers has risen to the almost supernatural amongst the average Alliance member, seen either as 'bogeymen' or as a very real threat that is neither human nor easily comprehended.  I'm gald we didn't actually see any Reavers in this episode...it would've removed the tension from them too quickly.

I suspect that Hand of Evil has the right idea: it may have just been a terror attack.  The Reavers appear to be a completely unknowable enemy to the characters, and the horror of the derelict helped reinforce it.  There may have been another motive, but if so, we won't learn it for a while.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 30, 2002)

*About Reavers...*

While I thought this came through in the episode, here's a bit from an interview Joss Whedon had recently with SciFi magazine...

"On the other side he has mindless savages called Reavers, which are a lot less complicated. You see them and you run. They're not monsters. What they are, are people who went out into space, saw the extraordinary nothingness and went completely out of their heads. They've become cannibalistic marauding savages. They're kind of like the Comanche in the old movies except without playing it as a racial thing at all, or even a cultural thing. It's a very personal thing. These are men who just gave up on the concept of humanity and are the scariest, worst, most awful serial-killing pirates who ever sailed around in burnt out ships in space. Everybody is terrified of them — Yeah, they're really fun [laughs]."


----------



## Whodat (Oct 1, 2002)

*A bumpy ride*

The Nielsen ratings for the week of September 16-22 are in, and the numbers for Firefly don’t look very promising. The premier (the train robbery episode) scored a 4.0, and was tied for #66 with two other shows.

In contrast, John Doe received a 6.0 rating and was tied with two other shows for #35.

According to the site that tracks these numbers, one ratings point represents 1,022,000 households.

I think it’s too early to project anything definite, but (with the exception of the Fox Movie of the Week) Firefly was the lowest listed Fox program on the list for that week.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 1, 2002)

What teh ratings mean probably depends on Fox's expectations.  While 4.0 may be poor for a Fox show in general, it's actually pretty good for a sci-fi genre show.  Also, it's on Friday, and Fridays are notoriously hard on ratings.  Given that, it's showing may not be considered so bad.


----------



## WizarDru (Oct 1, 2002)

Well, there's the rub, eh?  X-files took a while to garner a following, but then became a powerhouse, and it was on Friday nights, once upon a time.  Dark Angel had a good following, but Fox found that if they swapped in a rerun of something else, it did about as well, so they decided to can it.

Fox has shown, in general, to have no logical or discernable long range goals or plan.  They continually shoot from the hip, particularly in the realm of program direction.

My suspicion is, despite my feelings otherwise, is that Firefly will be this seasons Brisco County Jr. (which I loved by the way).  They'll show all or most of it, maybe hold some back for a later date when they need to trot something out (vis a vis Family Guy, for example), but unless Fox is uncharacteristically generous, it's sinking fast.  This is the network that cancels shows after two episodes, after all.


----------



## RatPunk (Oct 1, 2002)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> *Fox has shown, in general, to have no logical or discernable long range goals or plan.  They continually shoot from the hip, particularly in the realm of program direction.
> 
> - - - - -
> 
> This is the network that cancels shows after two episodes, after all.    *




Welcome to the wonderful world of Network Programming.

Don't just single out Fox, though. Both of these statements apply equally to every other network on American television. In fact, I have yet to see a network that DOESN'T operate like that.


----------



## WizarDru (Oct 1, 2002)

RatPunk said:
			
		

> *Welcome to the wonderful world of Network Programming.
> 
> Don't just single out Fox, though. Both of these statements apply equally to every other network on American television. In fact, I have yet to see a network that DOESN'T operate like that. *




Agreed, but Fox has actually cancelled shows literally before the neilsens for the second episode have arrived.  That's a new record.  If a show is underperforming that badly, you shouldn't have paid money for it in the first place.


----------



## DanMcS (Oct 1, 2002)

I think, even if it were cancelled (which is sadly likely, given the Fox Friday Timeslot of Doom), Joss Whedon has enough experience to work something out.  They're probably rather ahead in the shooting, if they're working the way they do for buffy and angel, so at least the 2 hour original pilot, the two eps we've seen, the one for this week, and a couple more already have been filmed.

I would hope he worked the contract so that he gets control of the show if fox drops it, and he can DVD what has been done, perhaps even enough to be like the short Buffy first season, which was only 12 hour-episodes (more like 9 hours of film).  I'd would buy it.  Or maybe hawk it to another network, or SciFi.


----------



## Whodat (Oct 3, 2002)

Okay, I know that I just posted about this, but here’s an update for anyone who’s interested.

The ratings for the week of September 23-29 are in. Firefly’s ratings are down from last week. The show has slipped from #66 to #78 in overall viewership.  The rating for Firefly (the Reavers episode) was 3.6 – down from 4.0.

I noticed that Firefly did score higher than last week’s episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer (another show that I watch). Buffy was at #83 this week, and scored a 3.1. 
But before anybody out there jumps to any conclusions, keep in mind that UPN (the network which airs BtVS) airs on far fewer stations nationwide than does FOX.


----------



## WizarDru (Oct 3, 2002)

Interesting, I didn't know UPN had a significantly smaller base of stations.  Any idea how much smaller their markets are?

As for the ratings, particularly for Buffy:  pure neilsens don't tell the story.  Two other factors are important: demographics and expectations.  A show can do poorly in the neilsens, but if it's still hitting a large percentage of the targeted demographic (which is who retailers are after), then it doesn't matter as much.  Second, if a network doesn't expect bang-up numbers initially, the threat is much reduced of cancellation.  

A better comparison would be: how does Buffy this year compare to Buffy last year?


----------



## Crothian (Oct 5, 2002)

This week's episode I think has so far been the best of the three and it's not even half way done.  Maybe this show does have a chance of lasting.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 5, 2002)

God Dam (&^(&(*&(*&$#%$# Baseball playoffs were on instead of Firefly here in Los Angeles! 

Baseball! The sport that is almost as dead as the Buffy the Vampire Slayer show!


----------



## Crothian (Oct 5, 2002)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> *God Dam (&^(&(*&(*&$#%$# Baseball playoffs were on instead of Firefly here in Los Angeles!
> 
> Baseball! The sport that is almost as dead as the Buffy the Vampire Slayer show! *




Firefly gets preempted for us next week cause of the playoffs.  Who knows, maybe it'll air for you then.

And the Buffy show is very much alive and doing great this season.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 5, 2002)

Crothian said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Firefly gets preempted for us next week cause of the playoffs.  Who knows, maybe it'll air for you then.
> 
> And the Buffy show is very much alive and doing great this season.   *




Oh! It's on now! They are playing it at 11pm! Lucky thing I am a Simpsons fan, or I never would have known!

And Buffy is dying as a show.  You know it, I know it, we all know it.  It's ratings are sinking, and that is for a long running show with an established audience.  AND the lead actress is making noise about ending it.   It's got no more than one season after this one...maybe then I will watch it all at once


----------



## Richards (Oct 5, 2002)

Here's something odd I just noticed: if you listen during the opening sequence of the show, it seems that the whole series is taking place in a single solar system with literally hundreds of planets.  That's a rather interesting setup; no "warp drive" or "hyperspace engines" necessary for the spacecraft, and enough different planets available (I'm assuming the majority of them support life) to last the show for years.  I don't think I've ever seen a show with a setup like this, although it seems to me I've read a novel by (memory failing me now...A. E. van Vogt?) with a hundred planets or so all in a single system.

I love the theme song, too.  "You can't take the sky from me" - what a great line.

Johnathan


----------



## Villano (Oct 5, 2002)

*Crap!*

There was a baseball game on here.  After that, the news was scheduled, although I didn't stick around to see if it aired after (I taped The Serpent And The Rainbow on AMC).

On the east coast, did it air early (before the game)?  I like the series and I'd hate to think I missed an episode (especially if the series is cancelled, since I doubt that they'd show them in reruns).

If it didn't air here, does anyone know if it's been rescheduled?


----------



## Crothian (Oct 5, 2002)

*Re: Crap!*



			
				Villano said:
			
		

> *On the east coast, did it air early (before the game)?  I like the series and I'd hate to think I missed an episode (especially if the series is cancelled, since I doubt that they'd show them in reruns).
> *




Here, Fox didn't carry a Baseball game so it was on in its normal time slot.


----------



## GreyOne (Oct 5, 2002)

Yeah, I was wondering about the whole "single Solar System" angle too.  Don't like it much.

The third episode was damn good though!


----------



## Villano (Oct 6, 2002)

*Aaargh!*

According to Scifi.com:

"The Matrix star Laurence Fishburne wed Firefly actress Gina Torres last weekend. The couple exchanged vows in New York City on Sept. 29."

No, not the woman I love! 

Oh, well, at least she married someone cool.

Sigh.  She still has the most perfect face I've ever seen.


----------



## Villano (Oct 6, 2002)

*Re: Crap!*



			
				Villano said:
			
		

> *On the east coast, did it air early (before the game)?  I like the series and I'd hate to think I missed an episode (especially if the series is cancelled, since I doubt that they'd show them in reruns).
> 
> If it didn't air here, does anyone know if it's been rescheduled? *




If you had a baseball game on Fox instead of the show Friday night, check Fox now;  in my area Firefly is showing.

It's listed as being from 5pm to 6, but I turned it on right at 5:00 and it looks like it's been on for a while (it might have started at 4:30).

I wonder if this is a one-shot deal or if they'll be doing reruns on Sundays (I recall a few other shows doing that in the past).


----------



## Villano (Oct 6, 2002)

*Re: Re: Crap!*



			
				Villano said:
			
		

> *
> 
> If you had a baseball game on Fox instead of the show Friday night, check Fox now;  in my area Firefly is showing.
> 
> ...




Argh!  It looks like it aired from 4:15 to 5:15.  Good job getting that schedule right, Direct TV.  You were only off by 45 minutes.

There was a commercial for the next Firefly "in two weeks", but I didn't catch if they were advertising it for a Friday night or Sunday afternoon.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Oct 6, 2002)

The only thing I can think of is the show is set in a stelar cluster of stars. That or they recycled the writers from Battlestar Galactica.





			
				Richards said:
			
		

> *Here's something odd I just noticed: if you listen during the opening sequence of the show, it seems that the whole series is taking place in a single solar system with literally hundreds of planets.  That's a rather interesting setup; no "warp drive" or "hyperspace engines" necessary for the spacecraft, and enough different planets available (I'm assuming the majority of them support life) to last the show for years.  I don't think I've ever seen a show with a setup like this, although it seems to me I've read a novel by (memory failing me now...A. E. van Vogt?) with a hundred planets or so all in a single system.
> 
> I love the theme song, too.  "You can't take the sky from me" - what a great line.
> 
> Johnathan *


----------



## Whodat (Oct 7, 2002)

*Production numbers*

Looking at the production numbers listed in the episode guide, it appears that FOX is showing the episodes out of sequence. Not yet having seen these episodes, I’m wondering why they are airing some before others. I’m also wondering if we’ll ever get to see the two-hour pilot.

In the U.S. a television show typically has between 22 and 24 episodes in a season. So far it seems that only the first seven episodes have even been filmed. (To ensure a spoiler-free post, I didn’t list the names of the episodes that have not yet aired.)

1.	“The Train Job” (Series Premier)  - Episode 1AGE01
2.	“Bushwacked”  - Episode 1AGE02
3.	“Our Mrs. Reynolds”  - Episode 1AGE05
4.	1AGE06
5.	1AGE07
6.	1AGE03
7.	1AGE04
8.	(Untitled)  1AGE08 
9.	(Untitled)  1AGE09
10.	(Untitled)  1AGE10
11.	(Untitled)  1AGE11

An interesting footnote:
	Episode #3 “Our Mrs. Reynolds”, which generally is considered the best episode so far, was written by Joss Whedon.

And just in case anybody is wondering, I have no idea why the production numbers for these episodes have the “1AGE” prefix. Perhaps 1 is the season number. That is speculation on my part, however.


----------



## Whodat (Oct 10, 2002)

The Nielsen ratings for the week of September 30 – October 6 are in…

Firefly, this week:
	Overall rating:  3.3
	Rank: # 89

*sigh*  I wish I had some good news to report. Believe it or not, I actually like this show. But I’m afraid that if its numbers keep slipping, it may not be too long before they pull the plug.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 11, 2002)

Whodat said:
			
		

> *The Nielsen ratings for the week of September 30 – October 6 are in…
> 
> Firefly, this week:
> Overall rating:  3.3
> ...




Is there some way to see the entire nielsen ratings each week? I'm curious what shows are on the air still that are doing worse than FireFly.


----------



## Villano (Oct 11, 2002)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Is there some way to see the entire nielsen ratings each week? I'm curious what shows are on the air still that are doing worse than FireFly. *




http://www.sfgate.com/tvradio/nielsens/

FireFly did better than Buffy and Angel.  Unfortunately, it looks like it's still Fox's lowest rated show. 

Push, Nevada and That Was Then have been put on hiatus, so it looks like the time when networks start axing shows has rolled around.  I guess we'll be finding out FireFly's fate soon.

With FireFly, I'm reminded of both The Flash and Brisco County, Jr, two shows which got their legs cut off before being given a real chance.

Flash was put up against The Simpsons and The Cosby Show, then bounced around so much it rarely aired twice in the same time slot.  On top of that, the Gulf War interrupted several episodes.

As a result, the ratings looked bad and it was canned.  

If it was given a 2nd season and a regular time slot, I'm sure it would've succeeded and lasted a few more seasons.

And Brisco outdrew SeaQuest (at a time when Fox had much less stations than the other networks) and was cancelled while SeaQuest lumbered on for another season or two.

Brisco was replaced by M.A.N.T.I.S., the superhero show that Sam Raimi produced, which then went on to finish dead last in the ratings week after week.

M.A.N.T.I.S. also holds the record as having the stupidest finale ever.  He battles an invisible dinosaur and blows himself up to kill it (taking his girlfriend with him...great superheroing there, chief  ). 

And, remember, kids, whenever you see a tv show in which the villain is invisible and it takes place in the woods, it means they ran out of money two episodes ago.

Fox probably wished that they gave Brisco a 2nd season since it literally couldn't have done worse than its replacement.

I hope they keep that in mind when reviewing FireFly.


----------



## Whodat (Oct 11, 2002)

> Is there some way to see the entire nielsen ratings each week? I'm curious what shows are on the air still that are doing worse than FireFly.




Or try this:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/tv/

Silly name, but it is a pretty good site.

Come to think of it... I should have been using it to track Farscape's ratings.  D'oh!


----------



## Heretic Apostate (Oct 11, 2002)

Villano said:
			
		

> *With FireFly, I'm reminded of both The Flash and Brisco County, Jr, two shows which got their legs cut off before being given a real chance.
> 
> Flash was put up against The Simpsons and The Cosby Show, then bounced around so much it rarely aired twice in the same time slot.  On top of that, the Gulf War interrupted several episodes.
> 
> ...




I don't remember the Flash.  Was it THE Flash?  As in, the fastest man alive?  Or some other guy?

As for Brisco, I LOVED that show.  Brisco and Lord Bowler, they were great!  I seem to remember some woman, as well.  But when it got all techno-temporal, it started going downhill.

I was enjoying the anachronistic western feel of it, but when you start in time travel and stuff, that's a bit too weird.

Are you sure it was only one season?


----------



## Crothian (Oct 11, 2002)

Heretic Apostate said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I don't remember the Flash.  Was it THE Flash?  As in, the fastest man alive?  Or some other guy?
> *




The Flash as in the DC super hero.  It was a good show, but dies fast it seemed.  Sci fi ran the reruns a while back, so they might run them again.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 11, 2002)

Don't forget The Tick.

Never forget The Tick!

Thanks for the nielsen sites.


----------



## Heretic Apostate (Oct 11, 2002)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> *Don't forget The Tick.
> 
> Never forget The Tick!
> 
> Thanks for the nielsen sites. *




I LOVED The Tick!  Both the cartoon series and the play-action series!

I loved the Tick's rambling.  It was so great.  And Patrick Warburton's acting shows he can be a good actor.  (Better than Mr. Putty in Seinfeld and the one-hit-wonder sidekick in MIB2.)

Now, if I can just find a .wav of the Mad Bomber's monologue from the Tick cartoon....


----------



## Villano (Oct 12, 2002)

Heretic Apostate said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I don't remember the Flash.  Was it THE Flash?  As in, the fastest man alive?  Or some other guy?*




The Flash was a great series.  You should check it out if you can find it (if you live in an area that has comic cons, you should be able to find tapes of the episodes).

Actually, the pilot movie was released on video years ago, and the two Trickster episodes where released theatrically in Europe as The Flash 2 (I think it was subtitled "Revenge of the Trickster" or something like that).  

I'm not sure if the "sequel" ever made it to video in the US, though.

It's really a shame that there wasn't a 2nd season.  According to Mark Hamil, who played the Trickster, the season premiere was going to feature a team-up of the comic villains who appeared in the first season (Trickster, Captain Cold, and Mirror Master).

Hamil also said that he wrote or was writing a script for Gorilla Grodd or Vandal Savage (who would be such an easy villain to do...his only superpower is immortality).



			
				Heretic Apostate said:
			
		

> *As for Brisco, I LOVED that show.  Brisco and Lord Bowler, they were great!  I seem to remember some woman, as well.  But when it got all techno-temporal, it started going downhill.
> 
> I was enjoying the anachronistic western feel of it, but when you start in time travel and stuff, that's a bit too weird.
> 
> Are you sure it was only one season? *





Brisco is tied with Nero Wolfe as my favorite series of all time.

The woman in question was Dixie Cousins.  Here's something interesting about the actress from the imbd.com:

"Kelly Rutherford has been and still is a famous celebrity in Turkey. Her role in the short-lived, but highly acclaimed, TV series, "Generations", made an impression in the cultural psyche of the Turkish people so much so that allusions to "Sam," her character, are commonly applied in daily life and if you ask the devout fans they'll readily attribute the success of the drama entirely to her presence. She followed her fame by recording various commercials for the Turkish market, and even appeared in a nationally broadcast music festival. Rutherford's kindness has very much endeared her to the Turkish people."

I wonder if she puts "big in Turkey" on her resume? 

BTW, I, personally, like the Schwenky (sp?) Sisters.  Do you remember them?  They were the buff, German blacksmiths.  

One of them was portrayed by the woman who played the buff warrior woman who had a crush on Hercules back on his series (I think her name was Atalana).

She eventually ended up as the girlfriend of Prof. Wickwire (John "Gomez Addams" Astin), and doing oiled up blacksmithing stage show with her sister.

How come they never told us about this stuff in our American History classes?  The education system in this country is a disgrace!


----------



## Ranger REG (Oct 12, 2002)

*THE FLASH TV series*

Funnily enough, the actor who portrayed The Flash (John Wesley Shipp) also appeared on _Dawson's Creek_ as Mr. Mitch Leery, Dawson's dad.

Damn, I'm old.


----------



## Whodat (Oct 16, 2002)

At last!  I think I may have a glimmer of good news regarding Firefly!

You may have heard that ABC has announced the first round of shows to be axed for this season. 

Despite this announcement, it looks as though Firefly is still in production. Episode #8 now has a title, a writer for the script and director. This is a good indication that the show may be going back into production now that the season’s first break is over.


----------



## Ranger REG (Oct 16, 2002)

That depends. Did the network publicly announced that they ordered up the full season of _Firefly_?


----------



## Whodat (Oct 17, 2002)

I was surfing a Firefly fan site, when I ran across some exciting news. At least I thought it was exciting, but apparently not everyone thought so.

I have clipped two separate quotes from fireflyfans.net

First, the good news. 

Quote:

According to figures posted on The Futon Critic website, Firefly is currently ranked 59th out of 119 shows in generated income at $2,592,000 per episode. FOX's other series, John Doe, which appears on the same night as Firefly, is ranked 38th with an average income of $3,275,200. The much FOX Exec touted Fastlane is ranked 24th, generating an average income of $4,264,672. It's rumored that Firefly cost an estimated $1.3 million to produce. If that's the case, Firefly generates about $1.3 million in profit for FOX per episode.

Here is where Firefly stands against other genre series.

21. Alias - $4,636,480
34. Smallville - $3,566,048
38. John Doe - $3,275,200
46. Push, Nevada - $3,065,984
59. Firefly - $2,592,000
65. Enterprise - $2,284,256
72. That Was Then - $2,091,808
81. Dinotopia - $1,921,216
82. Buffy the Vampire Slayer - $1,889,024
85. Birds of Prey - $1,837,440
87. Angel - $1,779,488
92. Charmed - $1,557,504
97. Touched by an Angel - $1,354,944
103. Twilight zone - $915,616
104. Haunted - $908,800
111. Sabrina, the Teenage Witch - $721,792
118. Do Over - $534,880

It's interesting to note that Push Nevada and That Was Then have both been cancelled.

End Quote

I read this and I thought – Woo Hoo! FOX is making money on Firefly!
Then I read a little further down the page.
Someone else wrote a response to the previous post. And not just any "someone else".

Quote:

You're interpreting the numbers incorrectly here. The ad income minus the license fee does not equal the profit FOX makes per episode on the show. That ad income of $2.59 million per episode is contigent on "Firefly" meeting its pre-determined ratings guarantee to advertisers, that is what FOX assures advertisers a show will do in the ratings. If a show doesn't meet this guarantee (generally the average rating of its time slot for the previous season), FOX has to issue "make goods" or free ads that make up for the show not making its guarantee. So while FOX may take in $2.59 million for an episode, if it doesn't meet its guarantee, FOX ends up paying back money to the advertisers in the form of refunds or free ads, i.e. the show starts losing money for FOX, not making it. 

So while it would be nice to think FOX automatically makes money each time it airs "Firefly," that's not the case. And considering FOX averaged just shy of 6 million viewers in the Friday, 8 p.m. eastern time slot last season and the last episode of "Firefly" was only seen by 4.9 million viewers, FOX is already going to have to issue make goods or refunds for the show as it is.

Furthermore, while its nice to say that "Firefly" makes more than "Buffy" or "Enterprise," FOX is seen by 97% of households in the U.S. while UPN only 88% of all U.S. households - FOX shows generally should be doing better than UPN shows.

While I appreciate your enthusiasm for hyping "Firefly" (we're big fans here at the site too), it's also important when talking about things like this to lay out the facts correctly.

Brian Ford Sullivan
Editor-In-Chief
The Futon Critic
http://www.thefutoncritic.com

End Quote:

It sounds like he's saying that depending on FOX's agreement with advertisers, determines whether FOX is making or losing money on a show at any given time.

So is this good news or not? Maybe not terrific news, but it doesn't sound like bad new either, right?

I'm confused. At least, I think I'm confused.

And does anyone remember what show Mr. Sullivan is referring to? What show was FOX airing at 8pm on Friday nights last year that was netting 6 million viewers?


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 17, 2002)

Whodat said:
			
		

> *And does anyone remember what show Mr. Sullivan is referring to? What show was FOX airing at 8pm on Friday nights last year that was netting 6 million viewers? *




X-files? Dark Angel?


----------



## WizarDru (Oct 17, 2002)

Well, the thing to remember here is that production cost is only one of a host of factors to indicate whether or not a series continues or not.  Network expectations, reasonable or otherwise, play a large part, as do target demographics.  If a show gets good ratings, but not the audience the network's advertisers want, then it may still fail.

Of course, sometimes a network decides to try and build an audience for a show, as well.  Shows like say, 'Hill Street Blues', 'X-files' and yes, 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer'.   So really, the only way to find out is to wait and see.  Irritating, I know, but without a real insider, that's all we can do.


----------



## Whodat (Oct 18, 2002)

More good news as far as episode production!

Episode #9 now has a title, a writer for the script and a director. This means that the show is still in production.

Also, word-of-mouth has it (as in "rumor unconfirmed by FOX") that FOX is intending to stick with Firefly at least through the "sweeps".

*Whew*... maybe.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 19, 2002)

Yesterday I came in at the tail end of some stupid entertainment show (something like Hollywood insider or E! or something) and they had the Firefly crew on live.  They were filming yesterday (and the ship bridge set was behind them).  So, the show is still in production.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 19, 2002)

Well, last night's episode was pretty good.  I like the whole folk hero thing and the character relationships are really starting to shape nicely.


----------



## Whodat (Oct 20, 2002)

Yes, I like how the characters and their relationships are progressing. However, if Joss Whedon’s past productions (“Buffy the Vampire Slayer” and “Angel”) are any indication of where this series is headed, it’s a safe bet that he will throw some curves at his characters as the series progresses. Whedon understands that happy relationships make for poor drama. His characters will mature, change, and as a result their relationships will be put through the proverbial wringer. Good stuff! (So watch out Wash and Zoe!)

Simon and Kaylee? I guess I could see that happening – Kaylee seems boy-crazy, while Simon probably likes the attention, but he isn’t sure what to do with it. Will it last? Hmm. At least until something better comes along for Kaylee. Simon isn’t going to be the one to break it off, and he seems like the kind of guy that women like having as their “best male friend”, if you know what I mean.

I hope Joss doesn’t rush too fast with the “Malcolm and Inara” romance. I like the way they play off of each other. In the previous episode it appears that Mal doesn’t know that he has her in his grasp, and Inara isn’t sure how Mal feels about her – nor does it seem that Inara is comfortable about feeling the way she does. That whole “sexual tension” thing…That’s good drama – so far.

The biggest problem that I have with the show so far is that, unlike Joss’ other programs, Firefly is a little too episodic. Plot consequences are wrapped up cleanly at the end of the episode. There doesn’t seem to be a grand story-arc, or a recurring menace – but I can deal with it.

Bottom line: four episodes into the series, and I like it. I’m still watching.


----------



## Chun-tzu (Oct 26, 2002)

No comments yet on last night's show? It blew me away, easily the best of the entire series to this point. It was a little confusing at first, with them jumping around between 3 separate times (the present, with the Captain alone on the ship, and his flashbacks to events leading up to this point, and the prequel flashbacks).

This show's got definite potential, although I don't think it's going to get any more of a boost at this point from Buffy fans willing to check out the show. I feel like it's another Babylon 5: Crusade (good show, creator has a fanbase and experience to build on, but didn't survive without support from the network).


----------



## kreynolds (Oct 26, 2002)

Chun-tzu said:
			
		

> *No comments yet on last night's show? It blew me away, easily the best of the entire series to this point. *




Oh hell yeah! This episode was great! Crap. I sound like a groupie...

Anyways, I loved the flashbacks to when Reynolds first bought the ship, and I absolutely loved how they introduced Kaylee! I tell ya', that little intro alone added so much frickin' depth to her character that I can't wait to see her evolve on-screen. Although, it's kinda wierd that her sex drive is no longer fueled by engines and grease, but gauze and needles instead. Hmm. Go figure.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 26, 2002)

Whodat said:
			
		

> *The biggest problem that I have with the show so far is that, unlike Joss’ other programs, Firefly is a little too episodic. Plot consequences are wrapped up cleanly at the end of the episode. There doesn’t seem to be a grand story-arc, or a recurring menace – but I can deal with it.*




That's by design, an intentional choice.  He's already done two series that had tighter story arcs.  A more episodic show is a place to tell slightly different stories.  Plus, when you've got _four_ TV shows in production, you don't want them all to have tight arcs. That way lies madness...


----------



## Chun-tzu (Oct 26, 2002)

Umbran said:
			
		

> *Plus, when you've got four TV shows in production, you don't want them all to have tight arcs. That way lies madness...  *




Four? Buffy, Angel, Firefly...

Are you referring to the Buffy animated series? Or the spin-off for Giles? Or am I totally forgetting something?


----------



## GreyOne (Oct 26, 2002)

SPOILERS








Last night's episode, I hafta agree, was easily the best.  They're adding very cool depth to the characters.   I liked the final flashback of Mal and the salesman in the derelict ship yard.

I wonder if those ship jackers will return in another episode.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 26, 2002)

Chun-tzu said:
			
		

> *Are you referring to the Buffy animated series? Or the spin-off for Giles? Or am I totally forgetting something? *




The animated series is also in production, enough at least tob e counted as being on Joss' plate.

Last I heard, the Watcher/Ripper series would probably be given over to a producer in Britain.  One of the reasons it's not in production is that Joss has not yet found someone he trusts implicitly like Marti Noxon or Tim Minear to work with him there.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Oct 28, 2002)

Very cool episode. Gives nice background on several of the characters. I love how they gained their merc, bought him out litterally while under the gun.

I noticed that the show is making sure to be very non Star Trek. The ship works and I am fairly sure we will never see our cute little engineer realigning the dilithium crystals or anything else techno-babble related.

As for the show being very episodic right now. I am sure that is intentional. STNG was that way the first seasion, as was Babylon 5. Basically you use unrelated episode format to let people get to know the main characters and to let them learn a bit about the world they exist in.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 28, 2002)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> *I noticed that the show is making sure to be very non Star Trek. The ship works and I am fairly sure we will never see our cute little engineer realigning the dilithium crystals or anything else techno-babble related.*




Huh?  The main plot device was an engineering problem.  A widget broke, the ship was doomed if it didn't get fixed.  The whole episode revolved around a ship's technical problem.  How is that not technobabble?


----------



## John Crichton (Oct 28, 2002)

Umbran said:
			
		

> *Huh?  The main plot device was an engineering problem.  A widget broke, the ship was doomed if it didn't get fixed.  The whole episode revolved around a ship's technical problem.  How is that not technobabble? *



I can see what the Doc means.  The episode did revolve around a techincal problem but because it was something that we could actually see rather than mostly hear about (very Trek, something that no one has ever heard of braking or "going out of phase/alignment").  The widget was very much like a car part and while still in the vein of "tech issue" it wasn't very Trek-ish.  More like a car breaking down which is easier to relate to.  IMHO, of course.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 28, 2002)

BTW that last episode was originally going to be the series premiere.  However they decided it was too low on action, and to high on character development, to be the premiere. So they pushed it back.  I think it was a good decision, since we care about the characters more now, and actually want to know how they joined the crew.  Great episode.


----------



## Chun-tzu (Oct 28, 2002)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> *BTW that last episode was originally going to be the series premiere.  However they decided it was too low on action, and to high on character development, to be the premiere.  *




Yes and no. The unaired pilot is a two-parter called 'Serenity' (I've seen part 1) and it wasn't anything like this episode 'Out of Gas,' but this one does incorporate parts of the unaired pilot.

BTW, I notice this episode was written by Tim Minear, as was the episode about the Reavers (the best two episodes of the season).


----------



## Whodat (Oct 31, 2002)

*Firefly is still alive!*

The second round of cancellations have been announced, and it looks as though FOX is sticking to its guns regarding Firefly!

Cancellations thus far:
ABC has cancelled Push, Nevada (ranked #90, 2.9 rating); That Was Then (no rating, already cancelled)

CBS has cancelled Bram & Alice (ranked #73, 5.0 rating)

NBC has cancelled Providence (ranked #39, 7.5 rating … and the show is being cancelled?!)

FOX has cancelled Girls Club after only two episodes. (ranked #82, 4.1 rating)

WB has cancelled Off Centre (ranked #113, 1.5 rating)


Shows whose fates have yet to be determined:
ABC: MDs

CBS: Presidio Med; Robbery Homicide Division

NBC: In-Laws; 

FOX: Cedric the Entertainer Presents; Fastlane; John Doe; and Firefly

WB: Birds of Prey;

UPN: Haunted

PAX: Body & Soul; Just Cause


And a little more good news:
This week's ratings for Firefly are actually up!  (ranked #90, 2.9 rating)

Unfortunately this also means that the show is still in the "danger zone", but up is good.  More up-ness!


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 31, 2002)

*Re: Firefly is still alive!*



			
				Whodat said:
			
		

> *And a little more good news:
> This week's ratings for Firefly are actually up!  (ranked #90, 2.9 rating)
> 
> Unfortunately this also means that the show is still in the "danger zone", but up is good.  More up-ness! *




I thought the last ratings period had them at a 3.3.

2.9 is BAD. It's below UPN shows like Buffy.  It's below cancelled shows on the same network like Girl's Club! This is bad.  It's such a great show!


----------



## Umbran (Oct 31, 2002)

*Re: Re: Firefly is still alive!*



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> *2.9 is BAD. It's below UPN shows like Buffy.  It's below cancelled shows on the same network like Girl's Club! This is bad.  It's such a great show! *




2.9 is bad... depending on your expectations, and context.

For one thing, Friday prime-time just isn't a good slot.  People go out on Fridays, so the networks expect lower ratings on Friday than they do on Tuesday.  And nobody sane expects a freshman show to hit the same ratings as a many-year veteranshow like Buffy.

Perhaps it'd be better to compare current Firefly performance with first season Buffy ratings.  Not that they have exactly the same target audience, or are on the same night, but if you need to compare, you gotta start somewhere.  Anyone got those numbers?


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 1, 2002)

It would be a mistake on FOX to cancel _John Doe_ which is actually a surprise hit among mainstream audience. Even I didn't think it would take until I watched the first episode after _Firefly._ I'm sure it has already gained a cult following. I wouldn't be surprised if the talk around the water cooler is trying to piece _John Doe_ personal information, like who are his friends, what food he like or dislike, hobbies, etc.


----------



## Whodat (Nov 1, 2002)

> I thought the last ratings period had them at a 3.3.




Yes and no. 

The ratings for many television programs (Firefly included) are posted weekly.

The last time that I posted ratings information about Firefly, the show was ranked  #89 with an overall rating of 3.3. Unfortunately, those were ratings for the week of September 30 – October 6.

I haven’t posted any updates recently because, frankly, Firefly was relentlessly sliding in the ratings – and I honestly don’t like posting negative information.

But to update those of you who are curious, this is what has been happening since October 6.

Firefly did not air for the week of October 7 – 13. The show was preempted in many markets because of baseball.

For the week of October 14 – 20 (Episode: Jaynestown) Firefly took a HUGE dive. The shows overall ranking was #98 (just shy of falling out of the top 100), and the show scored a 2.7 rating.

Which brings us up to October 21 – 28. (Episode: Out of Gas) As I reported in the previous post, the show has rebounded somewhat to a #90 ranking, with a rating of 2.9.

Sorry for any confusion.


----------



## BadMojo (Nov 1, 2002)

*Re: Firefly is still alive!*



			
				Whodat said:
			
		

> *
> FOX: Cedric the Entertainer Presents; Fastlane; John Doe; and Firefly
> 
> WB: Birds of Prey;
> ...




John Doe, Firefly and Haunted are three of my favorites among the new shows this season.  As arrogant as it sounds, I've come to the conclusion that the viewing public in general really does prefer to see the same stupid, boring sitcoms rehashed over and over.

Gee, I wonder if something wacky will happen on Friends this week?


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 1, 2002)

Unfortunately, the mainstream viewing public (and potential consumers of products advertised during commercial timeslots) dwarfs the cult TV viewers like us. Then again, I'd rather watch _Friends_ than _Survivor_ on Thursday nights (although once in a while I take a peek to see if Erin is wearing a bikini).


----------



## Crothian (Nov 2, 2002)

Tonight's episode was okay.  I really liked after he hit the dude he said "Now, it's my type of party."  I really liked the mechanic woman, what's her name, in this one.  Very good job by here.  Overall plot was interesting, but not great.


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 4, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Firefly is still alive!*



			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 2.9 is bad... depending on your expectations, and context.
> 
> ...




Umm, up until then, it HAD been getting better ratings than Buffy! In fact, if you look at the rest of this thread, you will see people making all kinds of justifications for why it was doing better than Buffy. Now you are making justifications for why it is doing worse than Buffy?


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 5, 2002)

Actually, I'm one of the people on this thread who can't factually justify _Firefly._ I can only speak from personal preference. It had a good start (albeit not a very good start as the follow-up show, _John Doe_) and I had hope that it will continue to improve and attract more audience. But the nostalgia wore off a little and I find it hard to see if it could attract the mainstream.

Still, I am hoping, but Joss Whedon have got to do something. The good thing about it, is that _Firefly_ is a new TV series that has yet to establish certain canon, unlike long-running _Star Trek_ series who has many previous episodes from previous series (as well as films) that have already established a lot of canon.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 6, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Firefly is still alive!*



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> *Umm, up until then, it HAD been getting better ratings than Buffy! In fact, if you look at the rest of this thread, you will see people making all kinds of justifications for why it was doing better than Buffy. Now you are making justifications for why it is doing worse than Buffy? *




Ah.  Right.  I forgot.  Someone else had an opinion on the matter, so mine is now forfeit.  

What I said is still true.  Friday is traditionally not a good time slot.  And whether or not it was doing better, I don't think any sane network exec would _expect_ such performance.  

Look at the network's actions to guage it's expectations - did they see they had a bigger hit than _Buffy_ and suddenly order a full season?  No.  They are guarded, and only ordered three more episodes.  It was a good enough showing to merit further exploration, but not good enough to really commit.  That doesn't sound like expecting it to hold on to high ratings to me.  Hoping, perhaps, but not expecting.


----------



## Villano (Nov 6, 2002)

The original hype for the show was totally wrong (that whole "Oh, yeah.  It's out there.").  I think it turned off sci-fi (and western) fans would have watched, and the people expecting comedy saw that it wasn't and never came back. 

In fact, if I didn't catch a brief glimpse of Gina Torres in a commercial (Anyone else notice that she was the only character not shown in those original ads?), I never would have turned it on.

I hope that Fox has the sense to realize that they dropped the ball on the series launch and is trying to give it time to let word of mouth (and the internet) draw in the viewers who passed it over before.

I'm also hoping that Fox realizes that the premptions of a few episode affects the ratings.  After all, if a show isn't around for a couple of weeks, a lot of people will assume that it's been cancelled and not look for it again (part of the reason The Flash got canned).

I think that Fox is holding out hope.  No network wants a show to fail.  After all, they invest considerable money into it.

But, if it does come back next season, the ratings would really need to show a marked improvement or else it'll be cancelled as soon as it starts.  I can see Fox giving the show a 2nd chance, but not a 3rd.  

Personally, this is one of the few shows I look forward to each week.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Nov 6, 2002)

I love the show, but even if I didn't I'd watch it just for Gina Torres.  I just find her absurdly hot.  I 1st saw her in that cleopatra show, and I kept on watching just becaue of her.

Well hopefully the ratings will pick up.(why is it all the shows I like the ratings suck for)  Because I love the show, and I get to see more of Gina Torres.


----------



## Whodat (Nov 7, 2002)

*Here comes that old sinking feeling...*

The Nielsen ratings for the week of October 28 – November 3 are in.

Bad news, I’m afraid. For those of you with weak stomachs, there are receptacles near the exits. For those of you with strong stomachs… read on.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

Firefly’s ratings took another large drop, but this one was especially bad because it forced the show out of the top 100 for the first time. This week the show sank from #90 to #101, while the show scored a 2.8 in the ratings.

Now for the bad news… This was the first week of the November sweeps. Yep, this one really hurt.


Already the critics are trying to reach “minimum safe distance” from the blast zone. Futon Critic just released a list of 10 series whose fates still hang in the balance.

Number 4 is Firefly (of course).
Here’s what they had to say. 
Quote:

Firefly (Fox)
The good: "Firefly" has only lost 1.8 million viewers since its premiere and has increased its viewership by 100,000 in the past week.

The bad: This show doesn't hold a candle to "Dark Angel" in the ratings last season. In its first five weeks this season, "Firefly" has trailed "Dark Angel" on average by 1.78 million viewers in year-to-year comparisons (that's a drop of 27% on average). Even "Dark Angel's" series low last season (3.3/6, 5.0 million viewers, 12/14/01) is above three of "Firefly's" five broadcasts this season. Considering that FOX sent the James Cameron series packing for this one, this definitely is not a good thing.

The bottom line: The next couple of weeks will undoubtedly decide the show's fate and while we remain optimistic (we enjoy the show here) one can't help but see its days are numbered especially with midseason cop drama (and likely better "John Doe" fit) "Keen Eddie" looking over its shoulder.

End quote.
The full article can be found here…
http://www.thefutoncritic.com/cgi/gofuton.cgi?action=thisdayintv&id=20021101


----------



## Buddha the DM (Nov 10, 2002)

It was suggested by *Crothian*, that I point you all towards that character conversions that I have done of the Serenity's Crew for the SWRPG.

You can see the characters here:
http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29976


----------



## Villano (Nov 11, 2002)

I just did a little checking and it seems that Firefly scored a 2.9 on the overnights, which is up from last week.

It did say that the rating weren't final, yet.  However, whenever I've seen the overnights reported, they tend to go up when it's all finalized, so it may even have done a 3.  I guess we'll have to wait until the weekly ratings come in to see (I think they're announced on Tuesdays).


----------



## Whodat (Nov 12, 2002)

Schedule update.

Episode #8 will air on schedule: Nov 15

Episode #9 looks like it will be preempted… for three weeks. According to the FOX page, they have had a break scheduled for a while now. This episode is scheduled to air Dec 6.

Episode #10 will air on Dec 13

Episode #11 will air Dec 20. 
It looks like we will get to see the un-aired two-hour pilot after all!


Okay, now speculation… (all of which is IMO)

First off, the three-week break probably is not a sign of Firefly getting cancelled.
1)	The hiatus has been planned for several weeks.  
2)	FOX is showing a movie in this time slot which also affects John Doe. So, unless John Doe gets moved to a new timeslot, it would have to be a double cancellation.
3)	All indicators are that FOX still has faith in this show. There are rumors (and let me emphasize that they are RUMORS) that FOX is considering moving Firefly out of the Friday-night timeslot of death. Preliminary talk says Wednesday, or Monday nights.


Okay, now commentary… 

Regardless of the schedule, I think the plan stinks. In fact, it couldn’t come at a worse time. Firefly needs to get its ratings up. That means getting viewers. Pre-empting the show is only going to make it harder to find.


----------



## Villano (Nov 12, 2002)

The official ratings have come in and Firefly scored a 2.9, a slight gain from last week.

However, what makes it interesting is the huge bump it made in the weekly rankings.  It rose roughly 10 places to 89th (doing better than Futurama's premiere).  

As of Nov. 1st, Fox has order 3 more scripts beyond its original comitment, so that seems to indicate that it wants to stand by the series.  Hopefully, if it continues gaining viewers, Fox will bring it back for another season *fingers crossed*.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Nov 13, 2002)

Villano said:
			
		

> *
> However, what makes it interesting is the huge bump it made in the weekly rankings.  It rose roughly 10 places to 89th (doing better than Futurama's premiere).
> *




I'm glad it wen't up, but as for it doing better than Futurama that is still debateable. I was one of I'm sure several markets that did bot get to see Futurama because it was preempted for football overrun.


----------



## Villano (Nov 13, 2002)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I'm glad it wen't up, but as for it doing better than Futurama that is still debateable. I was one of I'm sure several markets that did bot get to see Futurama because it was preempted for football overrun. *




Actually...maybe not.

Granted, my knowledge of the rating system is limited, but from my understanding, this is somehow taken into account in the weekly ratings.

And I learned all this from wrestling. 

Well, I should explain that.  While I don't watch it anymore, I still check out the wrestling news online.  Some of these website lists the ratings for the shows.

Now, here's what I've picked up.  There are times where a show gets prempted in a certain area.  When they list the overnight ratings, these sites usually add a comment about how these ratings will change because the show wasn't available in certain markets.

Sooo...it might just be good news for Firefly (and bad news for Futurama...although I hear that this is the last season for that show anyway  ).


----------



## Chun-tzu (Nov 13, 2002)

Villano said:
			
		

> *Sooo...it might just be good news for Firefly (and bad news for Futurama...although I hear that this is the last season for that show anyway  ). *




It is true that they have stopped producing new episodes (BOO!!!) but IIRC, I think they have two seasons worth of episodes in the can (probably from it being pre-empted all the stinking time by football running overtime).


----------



## Villano (Nov 13, 2002)

Chun-tzu said:
			
		

> *
> 
> It is true that they have stopped producing new episodes (BOO!!!) but IIRC, I think they have two seasons worth of episodes in the can (probably from it being pre-empted all the stinking time by football running overtime). *





On the plus side, I've heard that Cartoon Network will be showing the reruns after the series ends (on Adult Swim, IIRC).


----------



## Pielorinho (Nov 13, 2002)

Why Mondays or Wednesdays?  It seems to me that the very best time slots would be Sunday at 8 (to catch the pre-Angel crowd), or Tuesday at 9 (to catch the post-Buffy crowd).

Daniel


----------



## Villano (Nov 19, 2002)

I was surfing around looking for last week's rating numbers, when I found something pretty intriguing. 



> 'Firefly' Takes Two
> Mon, Nov 18, 2002 02:32 PM PDT
> by Kate O'Hare
> Zap2it
> ...




Interesting. This means that there will be at least 15 episodes this season. 

What makes it more interesting is that the decision to film 2 more episodes beyond Fox's original commitment comes after the ratings of last Friday's episode, a 2.9. 

A 2.9 isn't great, but it's the same as the previous week's, which means that the series is holding, at least. 

So, Fox is aware that the series is averaging around a 3 (like I said, not a great rating for a major network), yet they want more episodes. Obviously, this shows that the network has some faith in it. 

The decision to order more shows shot would seem to indicate that they have longterm plans. However, such plans don't usually involve shows with a 2.9. This seems to point to Fox believing that the ratings will rise.

On the other hand, it's been holding at around 3 for a few weeks now. I can't believe that they think that ratings will suddenly increase. Obviously, hopes that there will be a boost lie in another timeslot. 

And, with the series being preempted for a few weeks, what better time for a new timeslot than when it returns?


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 19, 2002)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> *Why Mondays or Wednesdays?  It seems to me that the very best time slots would be Sunday at 8 (to catch the pre-Angel crowd), or Tuesday at 9 (to catch the post-Buffy crowd).
> 
> Daniel *





Tuesday at 9pm is 24, one of the highest rated "newer" shows.  I for one love Firefly, but I would dump it in a second for 24.  In fact, not only is 24 highly rated, but even the repeat of 24 that shows every week is more highly rated than Firefly right now.  It would not be a great move.

Sundays at 8 is Simpsons.  That's a switch I might make, however many people won't.  Simpsons is still one of the highest rated shows out there, and has a lot of cross-over audience to Firefly.  It would make a great lead in to Alias on that night however (which is a FAR better show than Angel, and also decently rated).

In addition, Firefly is currently garnering better ratings in its crappy time slot than Angel, which at a 2.4 and nearly out of the top 100, stands itself the risk of being cancelled.

My thinking is that Monday's at 9 might work.  Yes, it would have massive competition from Everybody Loves Raymond, but I am not sure how much cross-over interference there would be.  Everybody does love Raymond, but few feel that the show is a must see.  It's more one of those shows people will watch if it is on and nothing else is on that is better (which is currently the case), but they might be willing to try new things.  

This would also put it just after Boston Public, which is doing quite well for Fox (though again not much cross-over for the show).

Could try it Saturday night, but that might be an even worse slot than Friday night.

Or could just leave it right where it is.  Not a great time slot, but not the worst slot either, in such a tight TV market.  Next year might be better, as some aging (but still higly rated shows) finally go off the air for lack of interest on the part of the actors.


----------



## John Crichton (Nov 20, 2002)

Tuesday @ 9 is a BAD spot to be in right now.  As mentioned, it would be going against *24* and *Smallville*.  Not good.  Sundays are a bad night to be on because 9 is a deadly slot as mentioned because of *Alias* & *Angel*.

*Mistwell* makes an interesting point about Mondays @ 9.  Personally, I think that would work.  However it is going against *E.L. Raymond* & *Monday Night Football* for the entire fall season.  MNF is a good draw but Mondays are pretty dead when January rolls around.  Wednesdays @ 9 could work.  I hear *Fastlane* is crap plus they'd be going after *Enterprise* (which is not a bad lead-in).  Their competition would be the new *Twilight Zone* (YMMV) and the soon-to-be-canned *Birds of Prey*.

Thursdays @ 9 could work, too.  Forget 8, that night.  You'd be going against *Survivor* & *Friends*.  The only 9pm shows are *20/20* (not something most Firefly folks I think would watch) & *Will & Grace* which has a decent following.  Saturdays are murder.  That's basically saying they don't care about the show.  Honestly, the 8pm Friday night slot isn't great but I tape it anyway as do most I assume.  Nothing else is on that hour so it works for now.

If I had to choose a different night, I'd say Monday night would be the best.


----------



## Villano (Nov 20, 2002)

*Crap*

While still holding at 2.9, the show dropped from 89th place to 103rd.  

I guess that the ranking ultimately doesn't matter, but it's interesting to see how wildly it can vary with the exact same rating.

Still, I think most people would rather say they were 89th than 103rd.


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 20, 2002)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> * I hear Fastlane is crap plus they'd be going after Enterprise (which is not a bad lead-in).  Their competition would be the new Twilight Zone (YMMV) and the soon-to-be-canned Birds of Prey.
> 
> Thursdays @ 9 could work, too.  Forget 8, that night.  You'd be going against Survivor & Friends.  The only 9pm shows are 20/20 (not something most Firefly folks I think would watch) & Will & Grace which has a decent following.  Saturdays are murder.  That's basically saying they don't care about the show.  Honestly, the 8pm Friday night slot isn't great but I tape it anyway as do most I assume.  Nothing else is on that hour so it works for now.
> *




Wed at 9 is West Wing, one of the higher rated shows.  A tough slot, but doable perhaps.  I would have to tape one and watch the other (well, now that I have a dual-Tivo, I would Tivo both and watch them on the weekend anyway).

Thursday at 9 is CSI, THE highest rated show on the air.  Even if there is little crossover, that is asking a lot of people, since Friends at 8 is the second highest rated show, and has been the anchor for shows at 9 since Cosby practically.


----------



## John Crichton (Nov 20, 2002)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> *Wed at 9 is West Wing, one of the higher rated shows.  A tough slot, but doable perhaps.  I would have to tape one and watch the other (well, now that I have a dual-Tivo, I would Tivo both and watch them on the weekend anyway).*



*Oops, forgot about that one.


			
				Mistwell said:
			
		


Thursday at 9 is CSI, THE highest rated show on the air.  Even if there is little crossover, that is asking a lot of people, since Friends at 8 is the second highest rated show, and has been the anchor for shows at 9 since Cosby practically. 

Click to expand...


Mmm, I never watched CSI.  I knew it was popular but I assumed a good amount of that crowd is carry-over from Survivor.  Either way, you're probably right about that time slot not being too good.

BTW, I have a TiVo and it is great.  Is the dual really worth it for the price?  And what kind of feed do you have if you don't mind me asking:  Cable or Satellite?*


----------



## Pielorinho (Nov 20, 2002)

Teach me to stick my nose into something I know nothing about, why don' t you? 

Seriously, I watch Angel, Buffy, and Firefly, and just about nothing else, so I'm pretty clueless as to what other shows come on at what time, or how good they are.

Daniel
Joss will provide


----------



## RatPunk (Nov 20, 2002)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> *Tuesday @ 9 is a BAD spot to be in right now.  As mentioned, it would be going against 24.
> *




Actually, Firefly would never have to worry about going against 24 since they're on the same network...


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 20, 2002)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> *Oops, forgot about that one.
> Mmm, I never watched CSI.  I knew it was popular but I assumed a good amount of that crowd is carry-over from Survivor.  Either way, you're probably right about that time slot not being too good.
> 
> BTW, I have a TiVo and it is great.  Is the dual really worth it for the price?  And what kind of feed do you have if you don't mind me asking:  Cable or Satellite? *




I've only recently gotten a DirectTV sat feed with a combined DTV/Tivo box.  I don't know if the dual costs more, since I had no choice (it was required for use of this particular Sat dish, which is a combined dish for my entire condo building).  It is nice to record two things on at the same time, which happens often with things like smallville and 24.


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 20, 2002)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> *Teach me to stick my nose into something I know nothing about, why don' t you?
> 
> Seriously, I watch Angel, Buffy, and Firefly, and just about nothing else, so I'm pretty clueless as to what other shows come on at what time, or how good they are.
> 
> ...




You should give Alias a try.  I've never known anyone who liked Joss shows, and disliked Alias.

Then again, I've never known anyone who disliked Alias!


----------



## John Crichton (Nov 20, 2002)

RatPunk said:
			
		

> *Actually, Firefly would never have to worry about going against 24 since they're on the same network...   *



Right you are!  Doh!


----------



## John Crichton (Nov 20, 2002)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> *I've only recently gotten a DirectTV sat feed with a combined DTV/Tivo box.  I don't know if the dual costs more, since I had no choice (it was required for use of this particular Sat dish, which is a combined dish for my entire condo building).  It is nice to record two things on at the same time, which happens often with things like smallville and 24. *



Mmmmm, sounds cool.  I may pick up a dual so I can throw away my VCR.  We just picked up DirecTV, so I'm still getting used to it.




			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> *You should give Alias a try. I've never known anyone who liked Joss shows, and disliked Alias.
> 
> Then again, I've never known anyone who disliked Alias!*



I couldn't agree more.  On a week-by-week basis, Alias is the best show on TV right now, IMO.

However, Firefly has the most potential.  I believe its best episodes are still to come.


----------



## Black Omega (Nov 22, 2002)

Hmm, so Firefly is still around?  I've been reading elsewhere from fans that the show was basiclly going to finish it's run this season and be done.

I can't watch Firefly myself but it's good to keep Sci-fi on TV, even more with Farscape gone at least for now.


----------



## Pielorinho (Nov 22, 2002)

I just found out Alias is on Sunday nights at nine.  What are they thinking?!  Don't they know I gotta have my Angel?  

(Sadly, my poor broken-down VCR no longer Rs:  something happened, and now it's only a VCP).

Daniel


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 22, 2002)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> *I just found out Alias is on Sunday nights at nine.  What are they thinking?!  Don't they know I gotta have my Angel?
> 
> (Sadly, my poor broken-down VCR no longer Rs:  something happened, and now it's only a VCP).
> 
> Daniel *




With Angel's ratings below shows already set to be cancelled, I am pretty sure you won't have this conflict to worry about next season


----------



## Henry (Nov 22, 2002)

Current ratings actually show it GAINING poularity, not losing it. I recall some very low ratings for the first few shows, but that has changed for about two weeks now, according to nielsens.


----------



## RatPunk (Nov 22, 2002)

Plus, it was stipulated in the contracts (or so I heard) when Buffy moved to UPN that, should WB ever cancel Angel, UPN WILL pick it up for at least a season.


----------

