What's so great about Firefly?

[infinix]

It's no worse than people tuning in and raving over a short lived series about some pointy eared guy from Vulcanis and
is shirt tearing, Horatio Hornblower Captain.

GASP!!!!

Are you suggesting that we'll get a Firefly:The Next Generation in 20 years?

I would love to see that.

 

[Amaris]

Do you understand what fun is? I'm not sure you do.

At any rate, I don't see BSG being any more profound than Firefly and running multiple seasons isn't an indicator of quality. How long has 2 and a Half Men been running?

Also, you're on a Trek message board - Trek isn't exactly loaded with brilliance and profundity but it's still pretty damn good.

The thing is, I am not a fan of Westerns in general, but Firefly managed to fuse two themes that brought me to enjoy them. I was watching a Western, but with spaceships, and I loved it. For me, Firefly captured the frontier of the West and of space, and it brought me to care about the people I traveled with, and what they wanted; that being personal freedom to live their lives free of oppressive control.

For me, the acting, the story, the dialogue, the environment and the thematic elements all came together and gave me something I didn't know I wanted, until I realized that I did.

It's no worse than people tuning in and raving over a short lived series about some pointy eared guy from Vulcanis and
is shirt tearing, Horatio Hornblower Captain.

GASP!!!!

Are you suggesting that we'll get a Firefly:The Next Generation in 20 years?

I would love to see that.

I'd be up to give it a try.

 

[23skidoo]

I thought I'd give this show a shot some five or six years ago, watched a pilot (on TV), and didn't really find it engaging enough to tune in again the week after...

A few months ago I decided to give it another shot. So many people praised it, I figured I must have missed something first time around. So I watched the pilot again... And AGAIN I didn't find it engaging enough to continue watching.

I didn't find it bad or anything, just... I don't know, that pilot left me completely apathetic. Twice.

Same here. By rights I should love this show, if for no other reason than the cast - Nathan Fillion is great, and the show features no less than three of my ALL TIME favorite TV actress: Jewel Staite, Summer Glau and Morena Baccarin. And Gina Torres is no slouch, either. Plus it has Ron Glass from Barney Miller for heaven's sake. Not to mention Christina Hendricks in one of the episodes (so make that FOUR of my favorite actresses). I've never been a Whedon fan - I found Buffy pretentious and Angel derivative (though I liked the cast and the muppet episode was cool) - but I had no hate-on for the guy, so it never colored my view.

Yet ... try as I might, and I own the show on DVD, so I have given it the effort, I just find it unwatchable. Maybe it's the dialogue. Maybe I've been spoiled by some of the over the top reactions I've seen on the Internet from fans going bat-frell on people who criticize it.

I've enjoyed individual scenes involving the actors mentioned above. The blooper reels for both the TV show and Serenity are the funniest I've ever seen of that particular sub-genre of entertainment (the good ornament joke from the Serenity one is just as funny on the 100th play). And there are aspects of both Firefly and Serenity that by rights I should love. But I just don't. I know part of it was the "Avatar" effect - I found myself cataloging the pastiche as I watched the first episode (Oblivion, Galaxina, Dark Star, Andromeda - yes, really - and a few others I've forgotten; certainly enough for me to scoff at the whole "genre-defining" accolade - and to be fair to Firefly I called B.S. when that term was applied to nuBSG too). But even that shouldn't have been enough to not only turn me off the show, but never turn me on to it in the first place. And I can't blame the pilot or any sucky first episode-on-Fox scenario.

Alex

 

[Greg Cox]

Requiring a "social or philosophical significance" card to gain entry into a "best sci-fi series ever" discussion seems rather counterproductive. There are plenty of reasons why I don't think Firefly is the "best sci-fi show ever" but none of them have to do with its social or philosophical significance. If anything the enduring, almost rabid, popularity the show continues to enjoy shows that, clearly, the characters and stories are, somehow, resonating with viewers. That speaks to a fundamental social significance.

This.

It's probably a measure of the show's success that we're still debating it years later. I don't see a lot of threads about Threshold, Flashforward, or any number of other one-season wonders.

There also seems to be an odd conversational drift going on. Someone starts out complaining that he can't root for Mal and the gang unless they're fighting a truly evil Alliance. This somehow morphs into the argument that they needed a grand cause or goal to be worth watching. And now FF needs to have "philosophical significance" to be taken seriously?

It's a fun show that connected with a lot of fans.

Works for me.

 

[Amaris]

Requiring a "social or philosophical significance" card to gain entry into a "best sci-fi series ever" discussion seems rather counterproductive. There are plenty of reasons why I don't think Firefly is the "best sci-fi show ever" but none of them have to do with its social or philosophical significance. If anything the enduring, almost rabid, popularity the show continues to enjoy shows that, clearly, the characters and stories are, somehow, resonating with viewers. That speaks to a fundamental social significance.

This.

It's probably a measure of the show's success that we're still debating it years later. I don't see a lot of threads about Threshold, Flashforward, or any number of other one-season wonders.

There also seems to be an odd conversational drift going on. Someone starts out complaining that he can't root for Mal and the gang unless they're fighting a truly evil Alliance. This somehow morphs into the argument that they needed a grand cause or goal to be worth watching. And now FF needs to have "philosophical significance" to be taken seriously?

It's a fun show that connected with a lot of fans.

Works for me.

Exactly so.

 

[Vulpes]

I'm not disputing that it is, for many people, a fun show. But I don't think it is genre-defining or wildly innovative or extremely influential or deep and profound—and I think to be called the "best", a show should have at least some of those things.

 

[Amaris]

I'm not disputing that it is, for many people, a fun show. But I don't think it is genre-defining or wildly innovative or extremely influential or deep and profound—and I think to be called the "best", a show should have at least some of those things.

I like it because it has a good story, good characters, interesting situations, good dialogue and they have good chemistry, and that it all works together for me. I don't care if it's genre defining or deep and profound, even though I have found a solid level of profundity in the show.

Star Trek was a western in space, as was Firefly. The difference is that for Star Trek, the western was allegorical, while Firefly made it literal. Aside from that, the two are the same on many levels.

 

[Vulpes]

Again, I'm not saying you shouldn't like it, just that more than entertainment value is required to be the best.

 

[Greg Cox]

I'm not disputing that it is, for many people, a fun show. But I don't think it is genre-defining or wildly innovative or extremely influential or deep and profound—and I think to be called the "best", a show should have at least some of those things.

Well, I notice that the thread is titled "What's so great about Firefly?", not "Is Firefly the best sf show ever?"

(That would be the Twilight Zone, of course! )

And people have explained that it has engaging characters, snappy dialogue, etcetera.

Then somehow we got onto this debate on whether tv shows need to have grand crusades or deep thoughts to be considered great . . . .

(The answer being, IMHO, "Of course not.")

 

[Vulpes]

If you consider TTZ sci-fi, I guess I can see that.

And a show doesn't need those things to be great entertainment, but I think it does to be great art.

 

[Neroon]

I think I'm getting dizzy from the circles in which we seem to be moving........

 

[Amaris]

If you consider TTZ sci-fi, I guess I can see that.

And a show doesn't need those things to be great entertainment, but I think it does to be great art.

So now we're onto it's qualifications as art? Come on, now.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

If you consider TTZ sci-fi, I guess I can see that.

And a show doesn't need those things to be great entertainment, but I think it does to be great art.

Wow. Just ... wow.

 

[Greg Cox]

If you consider TTZ sci-fi, I guess I can see that.

And a show doesn't need those things to be great entertainment, but I think it does to be great art.

So now we're onto it's qualifications as art? Come on, now.

Yeah, I thought we were talking about a tv space opera?

Seriously, if someone asks me if FIREFLY is a great show, I'm not sure I'm going to pause thoughtfully and go, "Well, you know, I'm not sure it qualifies as great art . . . ."

Who thinks like that?

(And if the Twilight Zone doesn't qualify as a classic science fiction series, I'm not sure what does!)

 

[Bishop76]

^ Yeah, exactly.

 

[Forbin]

Today, I had my sandwich on a round roll.

Firefly is still better.

 

[Vulpes]

Yeah, I thought we were talking about a tv space opera?

Seriously, if someone asks me if FIREFLY is a great show, I'm not sure I'm going to pause thoughtfully and go, "Well, you know, I'm not sure it qualifies as great art . . . ."

Who thinks like that?

Well, I do. But I'm weird, so whatever.

 

[Mistral]

If you consider TTZ sci-fi, I guess I can see that.

What do you consider it-romance? Action-adventure?

And a show doesn't need those things to be great entertainment, but I think it does to be great art.

Ok, now your pretentiousness is truly showing. ART?
Firefly is rude, dirty, smelly and uncouth and would never be allowed in the hallowed halls in which you apparently walk. That said, its got people confessing undying loyalty to it because so many of us look at the characters and see-people. A guy you can have a beer with. A favorite cousin. The girl next door. The archetypes portrayed may not be Kings ruling vast Empires but they are people we can appreciate. As for it's status in the rarefied air, might I point out that a guy who wrote common and vulgar little tales for penny news sheets is revered today as a great writer? even an artist in his field? I refer to Charles Dickens, of course.
Or that a tv show about a rude, uneducated bigot became one of the most renowned series in the last 50 years of television history? Held up as an example of how to do great tv? So, if a show like All In the Family can earn such praise-why not Firefly? I'm not calling it art-but I've been to galleries and I wouldn't call some of the stuff I see there art, either. It's all about perception, and the perception is that Firefly is pretty damned good. A flash in the pan that lingers on years later. I'm actually feeling sorry for you-you don't get it and are denied the pleasure so many of us have found in it.
Whether it's the greatest scifi show ever is open to debate, however, it has something going for it-which is all any ART ever started with....

 

[Vulpes]

Wait, are you saying Firefly isn't art? I'd disagree with that, too.

 

[Amaris]

Wait, are you saying Firefly isn't art? I'd disagree with that, too.

So it's art, just not great art. Yeah, those goalposts are flying all over the place.