# Firefly: A latecomer wonders what Fox was smoking



## Tarrasque Wrangler (Jul 30, 2004)

Long story short: I wasn't really blown away by the previews of Firefly I saw in 2002.  I read more than a couple of reviews that basically said "Nice, but Joss should go back to Buffy already."  Coupled with the fact that Fox dumped this on Friday nights when I wouldn't be caught dead on the couch ensured that I had no idea what you people have been raving about for the last year.

 Well, on a trip to get some gift DVDs last night we saw Firefly on sale.  I was kinda blase, but my girlfriend was interested so we picked it up.  We went home and put the pilot episode on.

 I understand you could hear the sound of my jaw hitting the floor several doors down.

 What a completely, totally and utterly AMAZING show!  I was a little gunshy when I saw the size of the cast over the opening credits, but each character was fully fleshed out, and even the most unlikeable ones were fascinating.  And Nathan Fillion, what a find.  Mal is the most awesome badass character I've seen outside of a Preacher comic.  Shoot a horse?  Sure.  Cap the lawman who's holding a hostage without breaking stride?  Sure.  And the straight-faced prank he pulled on the doc?  Classic Joss moment.  My girlfriend was actually heard to say that it was the best show she'd ever seen.

 Then I took a look at the liner notes, and saw that this episode, which sets up all the characters, conflicts, motivations, and backdrop for the whole series _aired last_.  *WTF!  *Were the Fox programmers for this show using crack, shrooms, or perhaps some sort of opiate?  Toad-licking maybe?  Because, uh, it didn't exactly look like a cheap show to produce.  So they drop a big chunk of change making this show, promote the hell out of it, generate some good reviews, dump it on a night no one watches TV and even geeks like me have better things to do during, chop up the continuity, and refuse to air 3 of the episodes.  Insanity.

 So I just wanted to say that *you were all right.  *MEG Hal, Crothian, John Crichton, and everyone else.


----------



## EricNoah (Jul 30, 2004)

By contrast, this show is one of those things that I never really did "get."  I tried watching it a couple of times but it just never clicked with me.  Should add that I didn't find Buffy to be a show I was interested in either.  Ah well, in a few years when I need something to watch I can have Netflix send me a disc and see if it's any better than I remembered it to be.


----------



## Crothian (Jul 30, 2004)

Tarrasque Wrangler said:
			
		

> So I just wanted to say that *you were all right.  *MEG Hal, Crothian, John Crichton, and everyone else.




Remember that next time I say something  

I understand why it was canceled, no one watched it.  It was like My So Called Life.  It had a small yet rabid fan base, but it just wasn't enough for the execs.   Its great though that its out on DVD and we are getting a movie.


----------



## Tarrasque Wrangler (Jul 30, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Remember that next time I say something



 Hey, 20000+ posts.  A few of them have gotta be worth reading.  Law of Averages and all.



> I understand why it was canceled, no one watched it. It was like My So Called Life. It had a small yet rabid fan base, but it just wasn't enough for the execs. Its great though that its out on DVD and we are getting a movie.



 Oh, I get why it was cancelled. I just don't get why Fox seemed to shoot the show in the foot right from the start. It's one thing to give a show every possible chance. It's quite another to drop it in a deadzone time slot, butcher the continuity (could you imagine a season of Buffy or Angel being shown out of order?), and dump it unceremoniously without even finishing out the run of episodes that they probably ponied up quite a sum of money to make.

 At least they seemed to have learned their lesson somewhat.  Arrested Development, a show my family and I love, was very much on the bubble its whole first season, and Fox has taken a gamble and renewed it.


----------



## Wolf72 (Jul 30, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> ... It was like My So Called Life.  ...




like ya know, ya know like, it's like ... well like, you just don't like understand ... like ya know!

good cast, decent show, ... the dialog almost gave me an anurism (sp)


----------



## Umbran (Jul 30, 2004)

Tarrasque Wrangler said:
			
		

> I just don't get why Fox seemed to shoot the show in the foot right from the start.




Likely because they think they know what is good for a show's ratings.  Unfortunately, they don't.  Not really.  They guess, just like everyone else.  And they guess wrong about half the time.


----------



## DonAdam (Jul 30, 2004)

I really don't like Buffy or Angel, but when I watched Firefly I thought it was easily the best TV show I've ever seen.


----------



## Crothian (Jul 30, 2004)

Tarrasque Wrangler said:
			
		

> Oh, I get why it was cancelled. I just don't get why Fox seemed to shoot the show in the foot right from the start.




Listen to the communtary.  It does talk a bit about what happened and why.


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 30, 2004)

Tarrasque Wrangler said:
			
		

> So I just wanted to say that *you were all right. *MEG Hal, Crothian, John Crichton, and everyone else.



The cool thing for you:  The show rocks and the re-watch factor is very high.

The bad thing:  You suffer with the cancellation with the rest of us.  

However, now you have a movie to look forward to next year.  

I do think that it is one of the best shows ever put to film.  From the first ep (well, the first ep FOX broadcast) there was something so damn alluring about it.  I've liked Nathan Fillon since his Two Guys and a Girl days.  But you are right, he is badass and pretty unique for a sci-fi leading man.

The rest of the cast just clicks and each consecutive show got better and better.  The one-off as well as the main plotlines were fun and intriguing to watch.  I can only hope that the motion picture does well enough to get the show back on the air...


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 30, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Listen to the communtary.  It does talk a bit about what happened and why.



 This man speaks the truth.  There is much to be learned from the commentaries.  Not least of which is how much the creators and talent loved working on the show.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 30, 2004)

I saw the Firefly panel at ComicCon last week.  Joss was the lead speaker, and all of the actors were there.

It does sound like Fox decided to kill the show before they even put it on the air.  Someone high up decided they didn't like it, put it in a bad time slot intentionally, moved it around and changed the time, all with the intent of killing it.

That was not the opinion of everyone at Fox, just someone high up.

Now that the movie is coming out (and it looks really really good), Joss thinks it is not unlikely that we will see a lot more of this "show" in the future - either as a movie franchise or back on the air on a different channel.

For the record, almost none of the actors have committed to anything beyond the movie, and those who have committed have done it for short term projects (except the actor who plays Book, who has a long term committment to a museum that would not interfere with filming).  They pretty clearly all intend to continue filming beyond the movie, if it's possible.

And, all of the actors really, really like each other and don't want the team ever broken up, if they can help it.


----------



## Krug (Jul 30, 2004)

I loved *Buffy*, but haven't quite found *Firefly* to my liking. Still making my way through the series with about 3 more eps to go. I think there's actually TOO many characters, and some of them get underused.


----------



## Shadowdancer (Jul 30, 2004)

Last month I did a Firefly marathon, watching an episode, then immediately watching it again with the commentary track playing. It was very educational, and very fascinating. I'm disappointed that not all of the episodes have commentary tracks, however.

The original poster is right in wondering why the pilot episode wasn't shown first. There are so many things set up in the pilot that are returned to in later episodes. Some things reoccur throughout several episodes. This happens so rarely in television.

What amazed me was that when they found out Fox wanted another first episode rather than the pilot, Joss came up with -- in one weekend -- a pretty good episode that introduced all the characters, set up the relationships, etc. -- all the things done in the pilot -- that was watchable, enjoyable, and didn't make you feel lost. It didn't have the depth of the pilot, but it served well in a pinch. Which is what it had to do.

And the show was clearly getting better with each episode. The actors were getting into their characters, the writers and directors were getting a feel for the characters and the actors. This break-in period happens on all series. Why Fox couldn't at least commit to a full season, give it a chance to fully develop and find an audience -- who knows.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 30, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I understand why it was canceled, no one watched it.  It was like My So Called Life.  It had a small yet rabid fan base, but it just wasn't enough for the execs.   Its great though that its out on DVD and we are getting a movie.




Time for some trivia from your friendly neighborhood rodent. 

The above statement, while widely believed, _isn't actually accurate_. The fact is that, at its height--assuming a show that was canceled after half a season can be said to have a "height"--Firelfy was drawing more weekly viewers than Buffy was during the same season.

Go back and read that again. It's not a typo. _Firefly was drawing more viewers than Buffy was during the same season._

It's just that Fox--in addition to the previously mentioned fact that someone(s) in the network wanted it dead--has a different metric for what makes a show "a success" than do either the WB or UPN. It's a sad and frustrating fact that had Firefly been on either of those two networks, there's a very good chance it wouldn't have been canned.


----------



## trancejeremy (Jul 30, 2004)

Besides Fox being on a slightly different tier than WB or UPN (though not quite on par with the old 3), the show cost a lot more to make, special effects, a cast of what seems like 1000s, complex sets, etc.

COPS and America's Most Wanted get lousy ratings, but Fox doesn't care, they cost squat to make.

Firefly apparently cost a lot to make, that coupled with the lousy ratings (from what I've seen, 4th in its timeslot), spelled its doom. 

Same basic thing that doomed the first Battlestar Galactica, which actually got decent ratings (for a real network). But those Cylons didn't work cheap.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 30, 2004)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> Firefly apparently cost a lot to make, that coupled with the lousy ratings (from what I've seen, 4th in its timeslot), spelled its doom.




And here is the problem.  Requiring a show to be 3rd place or better within just a few episodes is stupid.  As noted, it was doing better than other genre shows that season (though such comparisons have their weaknesses - comparing shows on different days is touchy).


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jul 30, 2004)

And FOX showed the show out of order too!  

Friday is just a bad night but FOX could have also put in on in the off season, had better ratings and built a following.


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Jul 30, 2004)

My understanding was that FOX OK'd the show, spent a ton of money, then took a look at the pilot and said "oh crap".

I kinda don't blame them.  _Firefly_ is at its best when seen through a second time.  There's the little things like Badger peeling an apple.  It's supposed to show that he's rich enough to afford fruit and throw away the peel.  But you don't really pick up on how rare fresh fruit is until the fourth or fifth episiode.  Telling a network executive that it's going to take six shows for people to pick up on an expensive TV show is the kiss of death.

Incidentally, for more fun, watch the _Firefly_ pilot next to the _Star Trek: Next Generation_ one.  _Firefly_ does a much better job of showing us how the characters feel but manages to reveal less about them, so their backgrounds and motivations are slowly revealed to us.  Compare that to, say, Geordi LaForge's character development or even Riker's.


----------



## Pants (Jul 30, 2004)

Tarrasque Wrangler said:
			
		

> Were the Fox programmers for this show using crack, shrooms, or perhaps some sort of opiate?



I don't if it's possible to use those substances when their heads are jammed far up their arses.
Fox did it TWO other popular shows (both starting with F as well...), Family Guy and Futurama, both of which pulled in some heavy dough and ratings due to CN and DVD sales.  



			
				BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> My understanding was that FOX OK'd the show, spent a ton of money, then took a look at the pilot and said "oh crap".



I dunno... I was hooked with _Firefly_ from the pilot, and by all accounts, it is probably one of the better pilots I've seen.


----------



## Krug (Jul 30, 2004)

Just finished the DVD. Last episode was pretty weak, I thought. There were some gems but never really got involved in the characters the way I did with Buffy. I also can't stand the Chinese. Argh. It really bought me out of the show. Just skip it.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 30, 2004)

Krug said:
			
		

> Just finished the DVD. Last episode was pretty weak, I thought. There were some gems but never really got involved in the characters the way I did with Buffy. I also can't stand the Chinese. Argh. It really bought me out of the show. Just skip it.




Hmm... I loved the characters, though it's true we knew more about most of the characters on Buffy after the first half-season than we did about these guys. And I also liked the Chinese. 

But then, there's pretty much next to nothing about Firefly I _didn't_ like.


----------



## takyris (Jul 30, 2004)

Kinda reminds me of the line from Kevin Smith on the *Clerks* cartoon DVD:  "F___ the brass ring."  (This was, as I recall, after they had UPN offering them a full season, guaranteed, and they decided to go with ABC because, hey, *A-B-C*, man!  ABC was the brass ring, the big-time, the real shebang.  And then it aired two eps out of order and cancelled the whole thing -- and not, in my mind, unjustifiably.  It was a *horrible* show in terms of fitting with the rest of ABC's niche at the time -- friendly family programming and reality shows.  But at UPN, it would have had a full season to build a following, and UPN would've accepted far lower ratings as a success.)

In the future-potential in which I someday have a chance to make my own SF/F TV show, I don't wanna be on NBC or FOX.  I want SciFi channel or WB, man.  It's not that they *won't* screw over shows -- all networks will screw over some good show at some point, since human beings are in charge of them and human beings inevitably get their egos wrapped around making the network look like they want it to look, even if that means dropping a strong lineup without a good replacement.  It's just that you're probably going to get more freedom and a less-demanding standard at the little stations, so you don't have to put in a hot chick who uses "cybersexual neuromagic" to satisfy the network execs, who think it'll help you beat "According to Jim" in your timeslot.


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Jul 30, 2004)

Pants said:
			
		

> Fox did it TWO other popular shows (both starting with F as well...), Family Guy and Futurama, both of which pulled in some heavy dough and ratings due to CN and DVD sales.




And _Wonderfalls_ which I never saw, but was apparently supposed to be a pretty good chick show.  The heroine had little animals and whatnot coming to life and telling her to help people.  The twist was that she didn't want to do any of that and didn't like helping people.  Neat twist.  But the show's lifespan was measured with a stopwatch.



> I dunno... I was hooked with _Firefly_ from the pilot, and by all accounts, it is probably one of the better pilots I've seen.




IIRC: 
[FOX EXEC]
The beginning is depressing and there's no action in most of the episode.  What's with all the talking?
[/FOX EXEC]

I'm not sure I agree with that either, but it isn't like I'm the guy spending the money.


----------



## Elodan (Jul 30, 2004)

Krug said:
			
		

> Just finished the DVD. Last episode was pretty weak, I thought. There were some gems but never really got involved in the characters the way I did with Buffy. I also can't stand the Chinese. Argh. It really bought me out of the show. Just skip it.



   I feel like the Anti-Krug (but this just proves we all have different tastes in our Sci-Fi and Fantasy).  Couldn't get into Buffy so I passed on Firefly when it was actually on TV (plus Friday is/was our game night).  Got the first DVD from Netflix watched it about two weeks ago and bought the DVD set the next day.  Found the Chinese cussing hilarious and thought the last episode was one of the best.

 I'm lucky that my wait for the movie will only be about a year long while some of you have been pining for more of the show for a lot longer.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 30, 2004)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> ...though it's true we knew more about most of the characters on Buffy after the first half-season than we did about these guys.




Yes and no.  Most of the characters on Buffy were high school students.  There wasn't anything to know, really.  They generally didn't have much in the way of relevant history that needed revealing.  You get their general outlook on life, and you know all there is about them.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 30, 2004)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Yes and no.  Most of the characters on Buffy were high school students.  There wasn't anything to know, really.  They generally didn't have much in the way of relevant history that needed revealing.  You get their general outlook on life, and you know all there is about them.




Well, yeah. The characters on Firefly were certainly a much deeper, more secretive lot (Giles notwithstanding.)

Which was the point, of course.


----------



## Aaron2 (Jul 30, 2004)

Tarrasque Wrangler said:
			
		

> I was a little gunshy when I saw the size of the cast over the opening credits, but each character was fully fleshed out, and even the most unlikeable ones were fascinating.




When Buffy started, it had four main character. Angel had three. Firefly was written as if it were the fourth season of a show rather than the first. When I was watching the first episode I kept thinking that I had missed something. Same with the second. I only saw a few episodes after that. 

What's with fruit being rare? The planets I saw seems pretty sparcely populated.


Aaron


----------



## Umbran (Jul 30, 2004)

Aaron2 said:
			
		

> What's with fruit being rare? The planets I saw seems pretty sparcely populated.




The populatuions were not high for a reason - the colony worlds were haphazardly developed.  Basically, they drop some people, animals, and seed on a planet and let 'em go.  Animals self-replicate, machines don't.  So, these planets are pretty low on technology - thus the horses.  In addition, most of these colonies are not exactly lush tropical paradises.  They seem to tend to be arid.  

All together, that means fresh produce is at a bit of a premium.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 31, 2004)

Aaron2 said:
			
		

> Firefly was written as if it were the fourth season of a show rather than the first.




I'd mofe say that Firefly was written as if they expected you to learn about the characters over time, instead of all at once.  This made some sense, since the characters seemed to have reasons to have secrets, and not all of them knew each other well at the start of the show.


----------



## Aaron2 (Jul 31, 2004)

Umbran said:
			
		

> They seem to tend to be arid.




Those planets didn't seem that bad. They all looked a little like California to me. 


Aaron


----------



## Shadowdancer (Jul 31, 2004)

Firefly was written as if the viewer had intelligence and patience. It rewarded both.

Appartenty, the FOX execs have neither.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 31, 2004)

Aaron2 said:
			
		

> When Buffy started, it had four main character. Angel had three. Firefly was written as if it were the fourth season of a show rather than the first. When I was watching the first episode I kept thinking that I had missed something. Same with the second. I only saw a few episodes after that.
> 
> What's with fruit being rare? The planets I saw seems pretty sparcely populated.
> 
> ...




Also, keep in mind that if you watched when Fox aired it (as opposed to watching it on DVD), then you didn't actually _see_ the first episode. Fox aired 'em out of order.  :\


----------



## Umbran (Jul 31, 2004)

Aaron2 said:
			
		

> Those planets didn't seem that bad. They all looked a little like California to me.




Large parts, if not most, of California isn't particularly good for agriculture without large-scale irrigation.


----------



## Holy Bovine (Jul 31, 2004)

Aaron2 said:
			
		

> When Buffy started, it had four main character. Angel had three. Firefly was written as if it were the fourth season of a show rather than the first. When I was watching the first episode I kept thinking that I had missed something. Same with the second. I only saw a few episodes after that.
> 
> What's with fruit being rare? The planets I saw seems pretty sparcely populated.
> 
> ...




You did miss something.  The real first episode that actually introduced the characters slowly and deliberately.  I'm not even sure if the real pilot was actually aired or not (and if it was it would have 10X more confusing as suddenly the crew would have been just meeting each other!).

My hat of OFX know no limit.

You are right though - of the 10 planets or so we see over all the espisodes about 4 of them are pretty lush (on is Earth itself).  But for the most part they are awfully dry and desert0llooking (Whitefall and the planet with the train robbery come to mind.  Also the whorehouse planet and the planet they recuit Jayne on - heck the planet Jayne is famous on is a giant mudball!)


----------



## Ranger REG (Jul 31, 2004)

Krug said:
			
		

> Just finished the DVD. Last episode was pretty weak, I thought. There were some gems but never really got involved in the characters the way I did with Buffy. I also can't stand the Chinese. Argh. It really bought me out of the show. Just skip it.



Actually, I like the Chinese words here and there. It brings the dominant English language down a peg (probably the official language of the Empire, I mean Alliance).

I wouldn't skip it. It's space western without the rehashed cheese factor.


----------



## Krug (Jul 31, 2004)

I guess it's because I know Mandarin (not well), and it all sounds really awkward. Most of the time I can't even make out what they're saying. It MIGHT have been more interesting if some of them used other Chinese dialects (Cantonese etc), but like I said, the bad Mandarin just snaps me out of the show and makes me realise I'm watching a tv series.


----------



## Easy_Tiger (Jul 31, 2004)

We still havent got firefly over here so i really have no idea what you are talking about , hell voyager is still playing over here and we havent even gotten to the last season yet. But i didnt really dig buffy i loved angel until it came back from the hosts home dimension then it went all silly but thats just me. Seasons 3 and 4 of b5 is still some of the best sci-fi tv i have ever seen oh that and "double the fist" any aussie who watches late night abc tv might know that show


----------



## Ranger REG (Jul 31, 2004)

Easy_Tiger said:
			
		

> We still havent got firefly over here so i really have no idea what you are talking about , hell voyager is still playing over here and we havent even gotten to the last season yet.



Allow me to spoil you right now and tell you how _VOYAGER_ ended.



Spoiler



Future Janeway helped Present Janeway to ride the Borg's transwarp conduit to reach home. Yes, a typical Braga-written episode. Blech!


----------



## Easy_Tiger (Jul 31, 2004)

oh i caught the final epsisode a few years back voyager never really grabbed me always wanted to see janeway bargin with the shadows teehee


----------



## Pielorinho (Jul 31, 2004)

*Krug*, did you watch the commentary on _Objects in Space_?  It's astonishing--everything from the little bits, in which Joss explains the significance of a shot of River's feet (the actress is a ballet dancer whose feet express great character  ) to the big bits, in which Joss ruminates on the show's existential themes, and the episode's nods to Jean Paul Sartre.

I've not seen such a good commentary before or since.

Daniel


----------



## Orius (Aug 1, 2004)

Tarrasque Wrangler said:
			
		

> Oh, I get why it was cancelled. I just don't get why Fox seemed to shoot the show in the foot right from the start. It's one thing to give a show every possible chance. It's quite another to drop it in a deadzone time slot, butcher the continuity (could you imagine a season of Buffy or Angel being shown out of order?), and dump it unceremoniously without even finishing out the run of episodes that they probably ponied up quite a sum of money to make.



 It's quite simple. Network executives are idiots, and often idiots who don't get sci-fi to begin with. The X-files is one of the only sci-fi show I can think of off the top of my head that really had any success on network tv, and I always thought that show was lame as hell.  The other one is Quantum Leap.


----------



## Orius (Aug 1, 2004)

Shadowdancer said:
			
		

> Why Fox couldn't at least commit to a full season, give it a chance to fully develop and find an audience -- who knows.



 Because networks have far too much competition these days to be patient.  For them a show has to be a smash hit on like the first few weeks, or it gets pulled by November sweeps.  It is stupid thinking though, because some shows do need time to build up a fan base, something you can't expect in about 5 weeks or so.


----------



## Orius (Aug 1, 2004)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> And FOX showed the show out of order too!
> 
> Friday is just a bad night but FOX could have also put in on in the off season, had better ratings and built a following.



 True, they could have made it a summer show (some good shows have been on during the summer mothns when everything is repeats, and some good shows even get picked up for regular time slots), or put it on in like January to replace a show the got dumped from the beginning of the season.

 Ah, well it's not like I care much.  I never saw the show, don't really care about it either.  I've pretty much given up on good television anyway, I've been burned by retarded network execs too many times already.


----------



## Orius (Aug 1, 2004)

BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> Incidentally, for more fun, watch the _Firefly_ pilot next to the _Star Trek: Next Generation_ one.  _Firefly_ does a much better job of showing us how the characters feel but manages to reveal less about them, so their backgrounds and motivations are slowly revealed to us. Compare that to, say, Geordi LaForge's character development or even Riker's.



 But TNG was Star Trek, and thus already had a huge ready-made audience.


----------



## John Crichton (Aug 1, 2004)

It's really a shame that the show ended up on Fox.  Were it on FX, UPN, WB or Sci-Fi it probably would have at least gotten a full season.  In the case of FX, the 13 eps would have been a full season.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Aug 1, 2004)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> ...I've liked Nathan Fillon since his Two Guys and a Girl days...




*THAT'S WHO THAT GUY IS!  *  

Thank God! I knew I knew him from somewhere!


----------



## Viking Bastard (Aug 1, 2004)

Yeah, he played Johnny, Sharon's love interest.

 He was also in Saving Private Ryan.


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 1, 2004)

Nathan? He was on a daytime soap opera, _One Life to Live._

Many good stars got their starts on soap, from Demi Moore to Meg Ryan.


----------



## John Crichton (Aug 1, 2004)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> *THAT'S WHO THAT GUY IS!  *
> 
> Thank God! I knew I knew him from somewhere!



 Yeah, it was really odd to see him be such a badass when all I knew him from was a sitcom.

On a similar note, I can't wait to see how Ryan Reynolds is in Blade: Trinity.  Silly, frat-boy comic actor in an action flick...


----------



## Klaus (Aug 1, 2004)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> ... River's feet (the actress is a ballet dancer whose feet express great character  ) ...




BTW, Summer Glau (who plays River) played the cursed ballet dancer in an episode of Angel.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 1, 2004)

BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> Incidentally, for more fun, watch the _Firefly_ pilot next to the _Star Trek: Next Generation_ one.




When we do this, we have to be very, very careful to take into account the passage of time.

If I recall my dates correctly, ST:TNG came out in 1987.  Quantum Leap in 1989.  The X Files and DS9 in 1993.  The B5 series started 1994.  Buffy in 1997.  

Firefly only comes along in 2002, after 15 years of growth of the genre.  And ST:TNG was the forefront of this wave.  So, yes, we should _expect_ Firefly to have a better pilot than TNG had.   Firefly had the benefit of learning form TNG and the others.   Ready made fanbase or not, TNG's success in a world that hadn't had much good sci-fi TV is pretty darned impressive.


----------



## Tarrasque Wrangler (Aug 1, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Nathan? He was on a daytime soap opera, _One Life to Live._
> 
> Many good stars got their starts on soap, from Demi Moore to Meg Ryan.



 Alas, I knew him from OLTL.  What can I say, I had a lot of time to hang out with my mom on summer vacations in the early 90s...

 (takes a look at Fillion's IMDB profile) Oh crap, he was the "Wrong Pvt. Ryan" guy in Saving Private Ryan!  That scene was messed up!


----------



## ShadowX (Aug 2, 2004)

Just saw the pilot last night, and I can safely say that it is the best pilot I have ever seen.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Aug 2, 2004)

ShadowX said:
			
		

> Just saw the pilot last night, and I can safely say that it is the best pilot I have ever seen.




Wash is pretty good, huh? I love the way he flips those three switches...

Oh, wait! You didn't mean Serenity's pilot... Whoops! 

(BTW, I think one of the funniest scenes is one when Wash, Mal, and Zoe are in the cockpit, and Wash is "piloting" Serenity, but if you look closely, he has no steering stick- whatever you call it- in his hand! There apparently wasn't enough room to fit all of them into the scene, so he had to move away from the helm in order to be on camera with them, and he "mimed" piloting the ship. It's like the Stormtrooper hitting his head in ANH; if you don't know it's coming, you'll miss it, but once you've seen it, you can't help but see it all the time. Alan Tudyk mentions it on the commentary to "War Stories" and it's funny as heck. That is one heck of a pilot- flying by telekinesis!)


----------



## mafisto (Aug 2, 2004)

I'm 100% with TW.  My wife and I just started watching the series a few weeks ago (via Netflix) and have been completely blown away.  I had no expectations going in, even though I'm a big Angel/Buffy fan, primarily because the genre is usually cheesy.  Aside from X-Files, I've never liked an SF television show.  My wife HATES sci-fi.  But here we are, jonesing for the next DVD and despairing that we only have three more episodes to go.

 In any case, I find this all very depressing.  The early loss of Angel was sad (Buffy was ready to go at seven seasons, IMO), but this is an f-ing tragedy.  Hopefully the movie does well enough next year to completely humiliate the execs responsible for canning the show.

 Question about television economics for those who know (or think they do): could a show be financed completely by DVD and VHS sales?  I'm curious, because the consensus is that all of JW's shows do okay on television but absolutely kill on the DVD format.  Couldn't he continue Firefly by creating new episodes for DVD?  Or is that simply not possible, aside from any contractual obligations?


----------



## Umbran (Aug 2, 2004)

mafisto said:
			
		

> Question about television economics for those who know (or think they do): could a show be financed completely by DVD and VHS sales?




Well, let's do the math...

Consider a DVD set of 15 episodes, akin to the Firefly set.  List price $50.  That's $3.33 per episode.  Let's say that a whole $2 per episode of that goes back to the producers. 

IIRC, Firefly took $2 million per episode to produce.  You'd need to sell a million copies of the DVD in order to cover production costs.  The DVD sets sell well, but this would be asking a lot.

Now, $2 per episode on the DVD going back to the producers is probably terribly naive, so that million sets is a bare minimum esitmate.  You'd probably have to sell more than that.


----------



## Orius (Aug 2, 2004)

mafisto said:
			
		

> Question about television economics for those who know (or think they do): could a show be financed completely by DVD and VHS sales? I'm curious, because the consensus is that all of JW's shows do okay on television but absolutely kill on the DVD format. Couldn't he continue Firefly by creating new episodes for DVD? Or is that simply not possible, aside from any contractual obligations?



  I'm not sure.

 This is sort of how the model currently works: networks pay the studios to produce shows. The networks get their money from advertising. Advertisers buy advertising slots depending on the ratings the shows pull in: networks can demand more money from a higher rated show, since the ads will reach a larger audience, and thus advertisers will pay more, while low rated show won't draw as many advertisers, since the advertisers want to advertise to as many people as possible. Thus sci-fi often gets screwed on network tv, because it tends to get low ratings, and is expensive to produce (though computer-generated effects have brought some of the costs down). Also network execs have their favorite programs, and they tend to be more generous with though programs, while programs they don't like or don't understand tent to get the axe more quickly. This accounts for some of the success of _Quantum Leap_, for I've read that the NBC execs liked the show. Given that it generally took place in America of the 60's and 70's, and was light on the technobabble, it wasn't a show that didn't really confuse the hell out of them.

 Now the thing is, how exactly are you going to pay for a show on DVD? Producing enough episodes to fill a DVD is going to cost money, you got to pay the actors, the writers, and the production staff, anmd there's production costs involved. Presumably, you got to depend on DVD sales to fund it. But if you got a new show no one's heard about, sale at first will be slow. If you've got a great show, it may spread by word of mouth, but just starting it out will be a fairly risky proposition. Small studios might not be able to afford the cost, and a larger studio is generally going to follow conventional wisdom and continue to produce for networks and cable, because they know the format works.

 However, with the proliferation of VCRS, DVD players, video game consoles, and the Internet, television ratings have taken a massive nosedive. This is one reason the networks are falling over themselves to produce those loathesome "reality" shows. They're cheap, and they manage to pull decent ratings. However, ratings are becoming even harder to measure with stuff like Tivos. When people can simple record live tv, watch it whenever they want and skip commercials, it makes the old ratings system a little obsolete. I've read that some companies are considering going back to doing thing like they were done in the early days of television and plugging products on the show itself, since people aren't watching the commercials (though this wouldn't work very well with sci-fi or period shows). Perhaps someone might actually explore the idea of direct-to-DVD television as the system continues to break down. Who knows? With television, computers and telecommunications merging, who can say what things will be 20-30 years from now?


----------



## DanMcS (Aug 2, 2004)

Viking Bastard said:
			
		

> Yeah, he played Johnny, Sharon's love interest.
> 
> He was also in Saving Private Ryan.




And you can watch Brenden Fraser beat him up in Blast from the Past.  Funny movie.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Aug 2, 2004)

Yeah. I remember that, too.


----------



## Olive (Aug 4, 2004)

Because it was cheaper than I expected it to be and my local video shop had never even heard of it, I did something I never, ever do last night, and bought a DVD.

And having liked a few sci-fi shows in the past (DS9, Farscape) I can honestly say, on the back of the pilot and 3 episodes so far, that this is the only one I have ever absolutely, freakin' loved.

It's great. I like everything about it, even the stuff I was expecting to not like (the western stuff). 

I like it so much I'm almost wishing I wasn't playing DnD tonight, just so I could watch more.


----------



## Tarrasque Wrangler (Aug 4, 2004)

We just finished watching "War Stories" so we're a little over halfway through the series.  _This show is so effing good._  My girlfriend (who is a Buffy and Angel fan) said this show was better than Buffy and Angel put together, and she's not generally one for flowery statements like that.

 As I watch the series, I love the way this show keeps turning heroic conventions on their ear, such as when Mal's grappling with Niska's goon on that catwalk-thingy and Zoe stops everyone else from interfering, saying something like "No wait. The Captain has to take care of this himself".  Every cheesy show has a cheesy scene just like this one.  And what does Mal say?  "No I don't!  Kill him!"  And they blow the goon away.  Classic.

 And the "stock" Western characters and themes rule.  The "hooker with a heart of gold" is the only respectable one on the ship.  Shepherd Book is straight-up Clint Eastwood in "Pale Rider".  They've got grizzled veterans, a sawbones, and scary savages out on the frontier.  And they have Mandarin slang instead of Spanish.

 What I want made* right now*:

 1. The Serenity movie.
 2. HBO to resurrect the show.  Put the Mandarin cursing in subtitles.
 3. A Firefly RPG.  D20 Future sourcebook, maybe?  Alternity conversion?
 4. A Preacher movie with Nathan Fillion as Jesse Custer.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 4, 2004)

Tarrasque Wrangler said:
			
		

> 3. A Firefly RPG.  D20 Future sourcebook, maybe?  Alternity conversion?




You find me a publisher willing to put it out (and with the ability to acquire the license), and I'll damn well make room on my schedule to write it. Seriously.


----------



## Olive (Aug 4, 2004)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> You find me a publisher willing to put it out (and with the ability to acquire the license), and I'll damn well make room on my schedule to write it. Seriously.




I'll help.

I do think that when d20F comes out we should work on a fan conversion...


----------



## Holy Bovine (Aug 4, 2004)

Olive said:
			
		

> Because it was cheaper than I expected it to be and my local video shop had never even heard of it, I did something I never, ever do last night, and bought a DVD.
> 
> And having liked a few sci-fi shows in the past (DS9, Farscape) I can honestly say, on the back of the pilot and 3 episodes so far, that this is the only one I have ever absolutely, freakin' loved.
> 
> ...




My wife and I have about 100 DVDs (Tv series and movies) and buy 2-10 per month (depending on how finances are).  We love collecting the series' (like Firefly, Bab5, Samurai Jack, Ronin Warriors and about 1/2 dozen others).   It has basically removed our need to have cable TV.  What we don't own we rent.


----------



## Olive (Aug 4, 2004)

Holy Bovine said:
			
		

> My wife and I have about 100 DVDs (Tv series and movies) and buy 2-10 per month (depending on how finances are).  We love collecting the series' (like Firefly, Bab5, Samurai Jack, Ronin Warriors and about 1/2 dozen others).   It has basically removed our need to have cable TV.  What we don't own we rent.




Wow. That's a lot of DVDs. Can I ask a question: how often do you re-watch those? The reasons I never buy is because I don't rewatch a lot these days.

Anyway, on Firefly, one of the things that seperates it from other sci fi shows is that they barely mention the tech. And that's kinda cool. But at the same time, I have no idea how they get from one planet to another. They're obviously not all around the same star, but they do mention that lots of them are moons so maybe they are?

does this all get explained later? I don't want the answers particularly, just if I do get answers later.


----------



## Shadowdancer (Aug 4, 2004)

No, it never gets explained.

When the series aired on US TV, it originally had a couple of voiceovers during the opening credits, prior to the theme song starting. The first voiceover was done by Book; later it was replaced by one done by Mal. Anyway, in Book's voiceover, he made it sound like all of the planets, moons, etc., were in one solar system.

For that reason, I have always felt it was one system, that and the fact that there is no mention of faster-than-light travel or tech. But others claims such a system is impossible, even with terraforming, and that the planets must be spread throughout several systems.


----------



## Ao the Overkitty (Aug 4, 2004)

Tarrasque Wrangler said:
			
		

> What I want made* right now*:
> 3. A Firefly RPG.




Well.. right now it kind of exists in the first issue of Eden Studios Presents.  They're the company that does the Buffy RPG and the Angel RPG.  It is a short article, but uses the Unisystem.


----------



## qstor (Aug 4, 2004)

I don't care for Buffy or Angel but I love Firefly. I borrowed a friends DVD set and loved the show. I'm a huge fan of westerns that's probably why. I can't wait for the movie.

Mike


----------



## Holy Bovine (Aug 4, 2004)

Olive said:
			
		

> Wow. That's a lot of DVDs. Can I ask a question: how often do you re-watch those? The reasons I never buy is because I don't rewatch a lot these days.




Pretty much everyday one or the other (sometimes both) of us will watch one of our DVDs.  Like right now I'm watching Firefly 




> Anyway, on Firefly, one of the things that seperates it from other sci fi shows is that they barely mention the tech. And that's kinda cool. But at the same time, I have no idea how they get from one planet to another. They're obviously not all around the same star, but they do mention that lots of them are moons so maybe they are?
> 
> does this all get explained later? I don't want the answers particularly, just if I do get answers later.




Nope they never do answer the questions of how the tech works (like those guns - six shooters?  But they sound weird - like laser guns).  I assume they are star hopping for the most part 



Spoiler



(after all they do come to earth - and earth doesn't have any planets named Whitefall as far as I know)


----------



## Vocenoctum (Aug 4, 2004)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> By contrast, this show is one of those things that I never really did "get."  I tried watching it a couple of times but it just never clicked with me.  Should add that I didn't find Buffy to be a show I was interested in either.



I watched Buffy and Angel, and loved the first 3 Buffy seasons and most of Angel. I just didn't like Firefly. Didn't see any appeal to the stuff I cought and didn't try to catch the rest.


----------



## Welverin (Aug 4, 2004)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> By contrast, this show is one of those things that I never really did "get."  I tried watching it a couple of times but it just never clicked with me.




I found it grew on me as it went out, intially I just stuck with it because it was on before John Doe.* Once I got the dvd set watching all of the episodes in order increased my appreciation quite a bit as well.

*Which was easier to get into right away.


----------



## Pielorinho (Aug 4, 2004)

There's a little bit of explanation for their ship's travel:  at some point, Kaylee makes a passing reference to the ship's "gravity drive."  I took this to mean that their ship generated a gravity field that pulled the ship along; this is a pretty standard trick in SF for achieving close to light speed travel.

But yeah, the de-emphasis of tech is one of the fun bits about the show.

Daniel


----------



## Klaus (Aug 4, 2004)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> You find me a publisher willing to put it out (and with the ability to acquire the license), and I'll damn well make room on my schedule to write it. Seriously.



 And I'll open up a space in my schedule to illustrate it!

Heck, I might just make a Firefly cast gallery just for the kicks of it...


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Aug 5, 2004)

Holy Bovine said:
			
		

> Nope they never do answer the questions of how the tech works (like those guns - six shooters?  But they sound weird - like laser guns).  I assume they are star hopping for the most part
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Don't know that this is a spoiler or not, but I'll spoil it anyway: 



Spoiler



Earth doesn't exist anymore. There are a couple of references over the course of the series to "Earth That Was", but most notably during "Heart of Gold", in the scene in with the shadow puppets, where a reenactment of Earth That Was being destroyed- nuclear war, seems like- and the colonists ships leaving in the wake of the destruction is shown.


----------



## argo (Aug 5, 2004)

Tarrasque Wrangler said:
			
		

> What I want made* right now*:
> 
> 4. A Preacher movie with Nathan Fillion as Jesse Custer.




Oh... hell... yes


----------



## Tarrasque Wrangler (Aug 5, 2004)

argo said:
			
		

> Oh... hell... yes



 When I first started reading Preacher years ago, and rumors abounded of a possible movie, I tried to put together a dream cast.  Funny enough, but the hardest part to cast was Jesse.  You need someone who can be tough as nails, intelligent, won't fight like a sissy, etc.  Gotta be able to sell a good quip too.  

 Moment I saw Mal put Niska's first goon through the engine I thought, "That's Jesse Custer."


----------



## mafisto (Aug 5, 2004)

*Netflix?*



			
				Holy Bovine said:
			
		

> My wife and I have about 100 DVDs (Tv series and movies) and buy 2-10 per month (depending on how finances are). We love collecting the series' (like Firefly, Bab5, Samurai Jack, Ronin Warriors and about 1/2 dozen others). It has basically removed our need to have cable TV. What we don't own we rent.



 We're going that route now, too, but we're using Netflix to supply us with our DVD needs.  Not sure if you've looked into it (or are in an area that has it) but getting a dozen DVDs a month for $20 is a pretty good deal.  We still buy box sets occassionally - we're actually going to buy the Firefly set - but only if we're really turned on by a show after renting it.  

 The most positive side effect is the fact that we no longer watch 'TV'.  Nothing live, ever, so we never have to suffer through commercials and aren't chained to network schedules.  Thought it would near kill me, but now I don't miss it a bit


----------



## Nuclear Platypus (Aug 8, 2004)

I'm not really surprised about Firefly's demise. 

I remember the 'Save Brisco!' campaign way back when the Adventures of Brisco County Jr. was going to be canned by The Powers That Be. IIRC, TV Guide had it as their top pick for shows to save (as voted by the readers apparently). Heck, there isn't even the first season on DVD yet there's one for Married... With Children, which probably was their 'flagship' show for the longest time. 

Even more recently was Sci Fi's decision to replace good shows with that 'reality' show and Tremors: the Series. Blech. I really hope that the Farscape miniseries will get massive ratings like Family Guy and Futurama did on Cartoon Network.


----------



## MEG Hal (Aug 8, 2004)

Simply put _Firefly_ was one of the best shows not watched...the dvd set is great, the commentaries are fun and insightfull overall one of the best purchases I have made.

More info on the movie here:

<a href="http://browncoats.serenitymovie.com/serenity/?u=Halg"><img src="http://browncoats.serenitymovie.com/serenity/gallery/banners/serenity_banner_1.jpg" border="0"></a>


----------



## Tarrasque Wrangler (Aug 8, 2004)

I finished the last 4 episodes in a one-night binge.  In terms of entertainment value-to-dollars spent, *this is the best DVD purchase I've ever made.*  Now I just have to watch all the commentaries.


----------



## MEG Hal (Aug 8, 2004)

Tarrasque Wrangler said:
			
		

> I finished the last 4 episodes in a one-night binge.  In terms of entertainment value-to-dollars spent, *this is the best DVD purchase I've ever made.*  Now I just have to watch all the commentaries.




You will be twice as thrilled with it after the commentary, a good mix of actors and writers etc....nice insight and humor throughout.

Joss's comments on Objects in Space is amazing.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Aug 9, 2004)

MEG Hal said:
			
		

> Joss's comments on Objects in Space is amazing.




Much as I loved Joss' comments on OiS, I think my favorite commentary track is Nathan Fillion and Alan Tudyk on "War Stories."

It is just so obvious how much love for the project (not to mention the fans) that the cast and crew have. One of the things that endears this show to me, and it comes across so well in everything- performances, production. 

Also, as long as we're posting links, a good site to visit is Firefly Movie


----------



## John Crichton (Aug 9, 2004)

Tarrasque Wrangler said:
			
		

> I finished the last 4 episodes in a one-night binge. In terms of entertainment value-to-dollars spent, *this is the best DVD purchase I've ever made.* Now I just have to watch all the commentaries.



I've watched all the eps at least 3-4 times and there is something still to find in each one.  And as was said, the commentaries and extra are great.  Some are just the folks cracking jokes but even that is still entertaining and fun.  After watching all the eps then seeing the extras you'll want to go back and watch the series again just to catch all the stuff they mentioned.

This ranks very high on my list of DVD purchases.  Maybe only behind Fight Club and some of the Buffy sets.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 9, 2004)

I still haven't picked it up yet. One of my friends owns it so I'll have to steal his soon one day. The price of DVD boxed sets just seems to creep up around here for some reason.


----------



## John Crichton (Aug 10, 2004)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> I still haven't picked it up yet. One of my friends owns it so I'll have to steal his soon one day. The price of DVD boxed sets just seems to creep up around here for some reason.



 That's what deepdiscountdvd.com and amazon.com are for.


----------



## The Human Target (Aug 10, 2004)

Man, Firefly was so freaking great. When I heard there was going to be a movie I danced a jig. Nathan Fillion would be perfect to play Jesse Custer. Hopefully the show/movie can live on in some form or other after the first film.


----------



## RaceBannon42 (Aug 10, 2004)

*just got mine*

My set from Amazon showed up Friday just before I was heading out of town for the weekend. I was busy last night and only got to watch the first episode. WOW!  I was duly impressed. I remeber watching the Train Robbery when the series premiered and thinking it was ok, but the timeslot wasnt  the best for me and I don't think I watched any of the other episodes and then it was cancelled before I knew it. I had never been  a Buffy fan, watched it  on occasion but never got into it,and I never watched Angel, but firefly seemed like a neat idea, a space western.  I wish I would have watched it when it was on now. I think the dvd's were a solid investment for me.


----------



## MEG Hal (Aug 10, 2004)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> Much as I loved Joss' comments on OiS, I think my favorite commentary track is Nathan Fillion and Alan Tudyk on "War Stories."
> [/URL]




I agree with you but as for insight into a concpet and episode etc..OiS is #1, War Stories is my fav as well, I laugh with those two talking, especially 



Spoiler



when Alan talks about his small gun that Joss made him use during his "tough line".


----------



## Pielorinho (Aug 10, 2004)

Yeah--_War Stories_ commentary is hi-larious.  Still, _OiS_ wins out for me, because I already knew Joss Whedon was a riot, but I'd never quite realized how deep were the philosophical underpinnings of the show, nor how deliberate was every aesthetic decision.  It kind of blew me away.

Daniel


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Aug 10, 2004)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> Yeah--_War Stories_ commentary is hi-larious.  Still, _OiS_ wins out for me, because I already knew Joss Whedon was a riot, but I'd never quite realized how deep were the philosophical underpinnings of the show, nor how deliberate was every aesthetic decision.  It kind of blew me away.




The thing that I most love about Joss as a director is how he takes so many "oners"- single, extended shots of a scene. Not only is this amazing from a sheer difficulty standpoint (I can't imagine how many takes it took to do the street scene with Giles, Xander, and Anya in "Once More With Feeling" from Buffy Season 6), but to me, it is so much more "real" and animated than constant cutting to close ups of the actors. You get to see the geniune performance and the way the actors play off of one another, rather than an after the fact edited job of many different takes. Joss does this a lot, especially in Firefly, which is just amazing seeing him tracking across the ship from one set of actors to another.

(As an example of the other sort of shooting- I can't tell you how disgusted I  got with 24 this past season because of the constant jump cuts. Here's David Palmer's head; here's Sherry Palmer's head; back to David; whoah, here's Sherry again; David; Sherry; AUUGHH!

Of course, some of that might have been me projecting my disgust at how the entire season was just so... bad.)


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 11, 2004)

Well, I ordered it from Amazon. I hope this isn't some type of conspiracy. "Well, we all got sucked into this crap. Let's talk about how great it is so that others can go buy it!"


----------



## John Crichton (Aug 11, 2004)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Well, I ordered it from Amazon. I hope this isn't some type of conspiracy. "Well, we all got sucked into this crap. Let's talk about how great it is so that others can go buy it!"



 He's on to us!

Burn the discs!!


----------



## Krieg (Aug 12, 2004)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Well, I ordered it from Amazon. I hope this isn't some type of conspiracy. "Well, we all got sucked into this crap. Let's talk about how great it is so that others can go buy it!"



Joe there have only been two only non-animated series I have watched with interest in the last 10 years. Babylon 5 & Firefly.

I like Firefly more.


----------



## Staffan (Aug 12, 2004)

Krieg said:
			
		

> Joe there have only been two only non-animated series I have watched with interest in the last 10 years. Babylon 5 & Firefly.
> 
> I like Firefly more.



I still think B5 is better overall, but it does have an unfair advantage in having gotten the full five seasons, leaving more room for it to grow. The first 13 episodes of Firefly certainly are better than the first 13 episodes of B5, though.


----------



## Krieg (Aug 12, 2004)

Notice I didn't say Firefly was "better", just that I liked it more.

I agree with Steffan's points, it's just that Firefly appealed to me a bit more.


----------



## PhoenixDarkDirk (Aug 17, 2004)

Tarrasque Wrangler said:
			
		

> 3. A Firefly RPG.  D20 Future sourcebook, maybe?  Alternity conversion?




One guy put D20 Modern stats for the main characters here.


----------



## Lazybones (Aug 28, 2004)

I just got it, based in no small part on the gushing recommendations I've read here and elsewhere. Have watched the first DVD thus far. 

I really enjoyed the pilot once it got past the initial war scene, and thought that "The Train Job" was fairly good as well.  I laughed out loud at the scene in the latter ep when the captain "handled" the captive who swore to hunt them down when they let him go... I didn't like "Bushwhacked" as much, but I'm certainly looking forward to the other eps. 

LB


----------



## Tarrasque Wrangler (Aug 28, 2004)

Lazybones said:
			
		

> I just got it, based in no small part on the gushing recommendations I've read here and elsewhere. Have watched the first DVD thus far.
> 
> I really enjoyed the pilot once it got past the initial war scene, and thought that "The Train Job" was fairly good as well.  I laughed out loud at the scene in the latter ep when the captain "handled" the captive who swore to hunt them down when they let him go... I didn't like "Bushwhacked" as much, but I'm certainly looking forward to the other eps.
> 
> LB



 You will love it, Lazybones, if you liked the first few eps.  It only gets better, and they really start to get into the various characters personalities.  Even a goon like Jayne becomes downright multifaceted over time.  The last disc, in particular, has the best episodes of the bunch IMO.

Warning: it will leave you WANTING (in a good way).  This series had truckloads of promise, and enough unresolved plot threads to make a quilt.  And they never really got into Book, who seemed like he could have turned out to be the most interesting character on the ship in some ways.


----------

