Mass Effect this generation's Star trek article

[HotRod]

I love Firefly, don't get me wrong, but it's done. It had not one, but two chances to try and strike a chord with mainstream audiences, and it failed. The world is alot different then it was when Star Trek built it's audience. Namely the fact that there was alot less choice. As much as I love Firefly, I see it as becoming a a forgotten franchise in the future. Known only to those "few" devoted fans. Again, I am one of those fans, but Firefly is dead. the show was cancelled after only 14 episodes, not all of which even aired, and a movie that failed to achieve mainstream success. It's dead. Main characters are dead and cast members are not getting any younger. Even Joss has seemingly moved on. There is NO momentum. Enjoy what we had, for we will always have it. But don't hold your breath for more. It was a stroke of pure luck we got the film.

Mass Effect on the other hand, while being no where near as known as Star Trek or Star Wars, has alot of good things going for it right now. The two games are considered by most to be masterpieces of gaming, creating HUGE buzz for the 3rd. They have been very successful in everything they set out to due and in only a few short years have propelled Commander Shepard into the same league as Master Chief and other well known gaming characters who had many more years on the scene. Most will also agree that Bioware has created one of the most fleshed out universes ever seen in fiction and definitely in the same league as Trek or Star Wars. And they did this in only 2 games. And even after all this success, the future is wide open for Mass Effect with the 3rd game coming out in 8 months, a feature motion picture in the works with a pretty good creative staff behind it, and even an animated film on the way. Mass effect in nowhere near as known as ST or SW, but it's future is very bright, who knows what the next few years will bring.

 

[I Grok Spock]

The same thing happened to ST after it was cancelled (the first time). Like I said it took several syndication runs before ST reached the popularity it's well known for.

Well, Trek had 80 hours that were often stripped five days a week on one of four to seven available channels in just about every market. That exposure isn't going to happen to Firefly.

I think the show's great, but I don't see anyone throwing big bucks at it again.

 

[Yminale]

Well, Trek had 80 hours that were often stripped five days a week on one of four to seven available channels in just about every market. That exposure isn't going to happen to Firefly.

I think the show's great, but I don't see anyone throwing big bucks at it again.

True but Firefly has the internet and DVD. Look at the Green Hornet, it had a smaller following and it got a major movie (it sucked but at least it was given a chance). Hollywood is making movies based on Battleship and Space Invaders. Give it time is all I'm saying.

 

[HotRod]

Yes, and Firefly got it's movie, and failed. It's sad, but it failed and failed hard. No studio is going to throw money at a franchise that failed not once, but twice.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Well, Trek had 80 hours that were often stripped five days a week on one of four to seven available channels in just about every market. That exposure isn't going to happen to Firefly.

I think the show's great, but I don't see anyone throwing big bucks at it again.

True but Firefly has the internet and DVD. Look at the Green Hornet, it had a smaller following and it got a major movie (it sucked but at least it was given a chance). Hollywood is making movies based on Battleship and Space Invaders. Give it time is all I'm saying.

No.

This is nothing like Star Trek, which had an audience of tens of millions of kids the day that NBC cancelled it. The times were very different.

The studios took their shot with Firefly - they released a good theatrical film, which unfortunately bombed. There may be a follow-on to it in some form, someday, but it ain't gonna be on the big screen.

 

[Yminale]

Yes, and Firefly got it's movie, and failed. It's sad, but it failed and failed hard. No studio is going to throw money at a franchise that failed not once, but twice.

First Firefly made back it's money so you can't say it failed. "Browncoats" has become part of the geek Lexicon so you can't claim it's dead.

Second every Marvel comic movie failed until "Blade" (of all superheroes). Then X-men and Spider-man went big and now there is an Avengers movie. Good ideas don't die in Hollywood (bad ideas don't die in Hollywood either but
that's another thread).

All I'm saying is give it time. Remember it took 18 years for ST to come back on TV (from TOS to TNG not counting TAS).
It took 16 years for Doctor Who to come back on TV.

 

[HotRod]

In the world of film production, breaking even....means it failed. Plus, it didn't break even, it made back it's production cost. Universal spent a shit yon on marketing, and it lost all that money. Firefly is dead.

 

[Yminale]

No.

This is nothing like Star Trek, which had an audience of tens of millions of kids the day that NBC cancelled it. The times were very different.

Is it? It was 18 years from TOS to TNG. 13 years from TOS to the TMP. That's a long time in anybody's term. I agree with everybody that Firefly/Serenity is on the back burner in the near future ( I mean Joss has this little project called "The Avengers" to work on) but I'm hopeful that it will come back (hopefully as a TV show).

 

[Yminale]

In the world of film production, breaking even....means it failed. Plus, it didn't break even, it made back it's production cost. Universal spent a shit yon on marketing, and it lost all that money. Firefly is dead.

No idea is truly dead until it's forgotten. Firefly is nowhere near there. It'll be back. May take a decade or two but it'll be back.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

No.

This is nothing like Star Trek, which had an audience of tens of millions of kids the day that NBC cancelled it. The times were very different.

Is it? It was 18 years from TOS to TNG. 13 years from TOS to the TMP.

Uh, it was ten years from TOS to TMP (with production on the movie actually starting, of course, two years earlier with decisions on the show's future consequently being made even earlier), which is the one that counts. TOS was playing in reruns to audiences in the tens of millions (there are those numbers, again) and the audience grew throughout most of the 1970s (tailing off toward the end). Paramount was making good money from Trek merchandise, and ST:TMP eventually made them a lot of money as well.

There's not much similarity between the two situations.

 

[Agenda]

Get back to me when Mass Effect has been turned into a billion dollar movie and television franchise. Until then, it'll only be a known in the gaming community, which will quickly dispose of it when the next shiny thing comes along.

 

[Yminale]

There's not much similarity between the two situations.

I'm not arguing that. My point is that Firefly/Serenity has the potential to become an obscure geek favorite that becomes a pop culture icon like ST. I know people will argue how obscure ST was but the large issue is that the popularity of ST only grew under the radar after it was cancelled is why I bring up Firefly/Serenity.

Unlike some of you cynics, I think Firefly's popularity is growing slowly as well. You can call it dead all you want but as long as people keep talking about it, it's not dead.

BTW I think Mass Effect will also become an obscure geek favorite that becomes a pop culture icon like ST.

And Please don't ask about ME in a mall or you'll get an earful of "I'm Commander Shepard and this is my favorite store" routines

 

[Mike Farley]

I loved Firefly, but you have to accept, that outside of its small, vocal fanbase, no-one cares about it. No-one. The show didn't even last one season. They made a movie, mostly because they were courting Joss Whedon and that's the movie he wanted to make. Then no-one went to see the movie.

There may be the occasional comic series or novel, but for the most part Firefly is done.

The comparison with Trek isn't apt. In the 18 years between TOS and TNG there was a successful syndicated run, an animated series, and a very successful movie franchise.

 

[Yminale]

I loved Firefly, but you have to accept, that outside of its small, vocal fanbase, no-one cares about it.

Have a little faith. Firefly is a relatively new franchise compared to ST. I've seen plenty of franchise that people declared dead come back to life. Will Firefly be as big as ST. I have no clue but my point is that the POTENTIAL is there. This thread is about FUTURE possibilities. If you only look for sure bets then you're going to be surprised a lot.

 

[SPCTRE]

It's not a generation's Trek - to get into the collective consciousness something has to be there free-to-air, that you're likely to stumble across and see regularly, not something you have to seek out and buy...

This.

Mass Effect does have the depth and scope required for a new TV and/or movie franchise, though. BioWare managed to create a truly unique, high quality IP - part of that process was lending heavily from and mashing up popular sci-fi universes.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

It's not a generation's Trek - to get into the collective consciousness something has to be there free-to-air, that you're likely to stumble across and see regularly, not something you have to seek out and buy...

This.

Like Harry Potter, which has never been legally a freebie in any significant format?

Or, for that matter, any major comic book character? Cheap-to-read, years ago, yep - but free? Uh-uh.

Granted, to really catch on Mass Effect probably has to jump to a medium which is a little more open to non-participants than videogaming - but a movie would be one of the most obvious.

The questions that matter, of course, are those concerning the creative team behind it. Haters can hate, but Ron Moore would be an obvious good choice for some kind of involvement - his sensibilities and enthusiasms bridge four decades of mass entertainment, he's been most successful working with other peoples' source material and he's still young enough to "get it." Anyone launching into some autopilot lament about how he'd "go all dark and depressing with it" is to be discounted.

And Warners ought to look at this - their "Franchise future" at the movies is pretty dim right now.

 

[Yminale]

The questions that matter, of course, are those concerning the creative team behind it.

Bioware already has a strong creative team lead by Drew Karpyshyn. A movie script would be a walk in the park compared to the average amount of dialogue written for an RPG.

What you need is a good director willing to follow someone else guidelines. Jon Favreau and Matthew Vaughn seem to be especially good at adopting other people's IP.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

If you have the "creative team" from the game in a film project as anything other than consultants you're fucked. No studio and especially no director should agree to anything more than that.

Rowling, at least, is a writer of actual narrative fiction and she's not a multi-headed beast - she's one human being, completely in command of and a single authority for all facets of Harry Potter...which is probably the only reason that marriage worked.

Letting gamers construct or wield authority over your movie...well, if you luck out you may get a Bayformers type of thing out of that, but if you're looking for anything more ambitious in terms of narrative and character you're fucked.

 

[HotRod]

Agreed. I love them, but making a game and making a movie are two very different things.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

You need people who understand that storytelling is not a matter of plot logic. Logic is a tool in the kit, and not the most versatile; it's good mainly for tightening bolts.