Honestly, I see him as a mixture of both. I suspect the main reason he was compared to Han Solo on the show was because he is the bigger pop culture icon and therefore more likely to be talked about among non-sci-fi fans thirty years in the future. And I did say in my first post I wasn't holding Firefly up on a pedestal of originality. I realize it didn't create any of this stuff, but the similarity is still there regardless. Besides, in science fiction in general there has been a lot of Firefly emulating in recent years. I read a novel series a couple of years ago where the author actually promoted it as "Firefly inspired" though aside from being about a crew of scavengers, there wasn't much similarity. So I've tended to assume if it's similar to Firefly, it probably is inspired by it. Ironic, really. For a show cancelled after a little over a dozen episodes with a movie which didn't really smash any records at the box office, it sure generated a lot of imitators.
Or maybe they're both inspired by the same classic westerns, instead of Westerns inspiring Firefly, which in turn inspires Defiance. And, honestly, sci-fi has been riffing off Westerns since the pulp era. The original definition of a "space opera," in fact, was a sci-fi story that was basically just a western with ray-guns instead of six-shooters. See PLANET STORIES, etc. There's a reason they call it "the final frontier" . . .. And then, of course, there's BATTLE BEYOND THE STARS which was a sci-fi retread of THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN, which was a remake of THE SEVEN SAMURAI. Or OUTLAND which was blatantly a sci-fi take on HIGH NOON. None of this stuff is new.
I'm on the 5th episode, and while I like a good deal of it, it's just so cliched on every level. Some cliches are fine, but others drive me up the wall. I want to like the characters, but the cliched behavior turns me off every time I start to warm up to them. In fact, my only actual favorite character is the Android. She cracks me the hell up. They've got so much potential in this show. I love the look, the feel, and the actors do a decent job, but I know the ending of the story before it starts, it's like a paint-by-numbers in every way. The best thing lately was when Two was in the casino and was detained for card counting. When she attacked them (which I knew was coming), I *was* surprised when she actually killed several of them! I went "oh shit!" when she stabbed the guy in the neck. That caught me off guard, and for a brief moment, I was loving the direction change, but then it went back to the way it was moments later. *sigh*
But Malcolm Reynolds IS Han Solo. Just like Jayne is Animal Mother. They may not be a straight carbon copies, but it's pretty obvious where Whedon got his inspiration from.
I just decided to start watching this show tonight, and my very first instinct was, "This show is like if Stargate: Universe and Firefly had a baby." Episode 2 was basically "The Train Job," complete with Alliance soldiers. I just finished episode 4, and the next episode is described as a salvage mission to ship full of zombies...so, Reavers. I'm enjoying it, though. The Android cracks me up. I haven't really read any spoilers, so I don't know what's coming. I just hope it doesn't spend too much time spinning its wheels with the mystery. I don't really have the patience for that kind of stuff anymore. Let's get the story moving.
Sometimes, a show will gel in a way that it is more than the sum of its parts. Trek would be another example.
Is Dark Matter a ripoff of Firefly? No. Does Dark Matter share some similarities with Firefly that were perhaps inspired by the earlier show? Yes. What I don't understand is how so many people consider it a bad thing when they compare something to Firefly. And maybe it is, after all Firefly was cancelled. But given Firefly's postmortem popularity (just Google "best sci-fi shows all time), it seems to me like it should be a complement. Critics like to use the word "derivative" for shows they don't like as a lazy excuse for not liking it, "I've seen this before." But almost everything on television is derivative of something else. There is always at least one sitcom airing about a group of young single people, and how many police procedurals or medical dramas have there been? Back in the 60's, most shows on TV were westerns. Being derivative has nothing to do with if a show is good or not. The Walking Dead isn't the first fictional zombie apocalypse, Lost wasn't the first show about people stranded on a tropical island, and Game of Thrones didn't create dragons, war or betrayal. What's important is the execution; the writing, acting and directing of the show, and a bigger budget doesn't hurt either.
Sorry for thread necro but I just started watching this and am liking it a lot. Only does One's twin ever get found out?
Well that's good at least. Zombie episode was fun though why the hell every fricking show has to do a zombie episode, it grinds my gears sometimes. That and they filmed on an actual historical ship.
Joss Whedon claims not to have seen Blake's 7 before he did Firefly but its hard to deny the similarities in the concepts.
Yes, it's a lot of fun. Unfortunately it got cancelled after 3 seasons, ending on a cliffhanger we'll never see resolved. Up to you if you want to invest in 3 seasons with no resolution, but it IS 3 seasons of fun.
Man I really hate that. When I become ultimate dictator of the universe I'm going to establish a law that says that any network that cancels a show has to allow the creators to make a final episode to resolve any cliffhangers.
Of course. I'll be repealing the laws of time so they can go back and make seasons 2 through 10 of Firefly too.
I wasn't questioning your remarks, I was just playing off your "grinds my gears" comment because of Peter's opinion segment of the same name on the news.