What's so great about Firefly?

[Greg Cox]

Trying to get by, in it of itself, is not a valiant goal. That's not to say it isn't a worthwhile goal, but it still won't change the lives of millions, enhance our understanding of the universe, or have profound philosophical implications.

).

Whoa there. A character is only worth watching if he's going to "change the lives of millions" . . . ?

Okay, you've just eliminated pretty much ninety percent of all fiction. Since when does a series have to be about saving the entire universe to be worth watching? Or that every show has to be about valiant heroes doing great things?

(Says the guy who is currently hard at work on a book about a rebel princess fighting an evil empire.)

And what does that have to do with FIREFLY, which is specifically a show that's all about disreputable, slightly shady rogues and outlaws. There's a whole tradition of stories about crooks and con men and vamps who entertain us by breaking all the rules . . . .

 

[Sindatur]

His ship is his Castle.

I see what you did there!

Heh, actually, I didn't, I've never watched Castle, but, yea, LOL

 

[Vulpes]

By that standard, we would have to dismiss about 99.99999% of the entire population. Most people are just trying to do right by those they love and provide for those in their care. This is what Mal is trying to do. Not everyone gets to be presidents or Nobel Laureates or great philosophers.

Well, yeah. Most people are not great people. As Thoreau said, "the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation".

Whoa there. A character is only worth watching if he's going to "change the lives of millions" . . . ?

Okay, you've just eliminated pretty much ninety percent of all fiction. Since when does a series have to be about saving the entire universe to be worth watching? Or that every show has to be about valiant heroes doing great things?

No, no, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that a work of the fiction is only worth the kind of accolades that Firefly receives if it has some sort of social or philosophical significance. A show that lacks those things can still be an entertaining show. Firefly could certainly be entertaining to some (many) people (although not to me). But people are acting like it's The Great Gatsby.

 

[Amaris]

No, no, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that a work of the fiction is only worth the kind of accolades that Firefly receives if it has some sort of social or philosophical significance. A show that lacks those things can still be an entertaining show. Firefly could certainly be entertaining to some (many) people (although not to me). But people are acting like it's The Great Gatsby.

So your problem is that people like it a lot more than you think they should.

 

[Vulpes]

Well, yeah. "The World's Best Space Sci-Fi Ever"? Please. If they had said, say, Battlestar Galactica, I could understand (though not agree with) that, even though I don't like BSG. But Firefly? Really?

 

[Greg Cox]

By that standard, we would have to dismiss about 99.99999% of the entire population. Most people are just trying to do right by those they love and provide for those in their care. This is what Mal is trying to do. Not everyone gets to be presidents or Nobel Laureates or great philosophers.

Well, yeah. Most people are not great people. As Thoreau said, "the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation".

Whoa there. A character is only worth watching if he's going to "change the lives of millions" . . . ?

Okay, you've just eliminated pretty much ninety percent of all fiction. Since when does a series have to be about saving the entire universe to be worth watching? Or that every show has to be about valiant heroes doing great things?

No, no, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that a work of the fiction is only worth the kind of accolades that Firefly receives if it has some sort of social or philosophical significance. A show that lacks those things can still be an entertaining show. Firefly could certainly be entertaining to some (many) people (although not to me). But people are acting like it's The Great Gatsby.

Really. I'm not seeing that. I'm seeing lots of people missing the show because they thought it was a whole lot of fun and had great characters and dialogue.

Which is more than enough, IMHO. Since when does a work of fiction need to have "social or philosophical significance" to be considered a classic worthy of accolades?

SINGIN' IN THE RAIN is one of the greatest movies ever made, but it would be silly to read any deep message into it. Ditto for STAR WARS, RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, THE TERMINATOR, GOLDFINGER, DUCK SOUP, and pretty much every Alfred Hitchcock movie ever made . . . .

 

[Amaris]

Well, yeah. "The World's Best Space Sci-Fi Ever"? Please.

You realize, of course, that it's merely opinion. Some people will consider it the best thing since sliced bread (Forbin), others not so much. That doesn't change the high production quality or snappy dialogue delivered by competent actors. You don't have to like it, but your reasons for not liking it seem to stem from rather unrealistic standards which negate 99.9% of all entertainment and as such, you simply can't be pleased by the show's offerings. Move on.

 

[Vulpes]

Read the rest of my post. It's not just a matter of me not liking it.

 

[Amaris]

Read the rest of my post. It's not just a matter of me not liking it.

I would have gladly read it had it existed when I posted my response. That said:

If they had said, say, Battlestar Galactica, I could understand (though not agree with) that, even though I don't like BSG. But Firefly? Really?

And? You're saying the same thing here. It cannot meet your excessively high standards of entertainment.

 

[Vulpes]

But neither does BSG, and I still would have at least understood choosing that.

 

[Bishop76]

Does your head fit through doors in your house or have you had them enlarged? Thoreau, Gatsby, and self-righteousness all in one post. Pretentious win!

Why is BSG more understandable than Firefly? That makes no sense.

 

[Amaris]

But neither does BSG, and I still would have at least understood choosing that.

From an objective standpoint, the show has high production values, quality writing and competent acting.

The problem seems to be with your perceptions of how it should be. Because you don't like it, because you don't understand it, you don't get why other people give it such high praise. Once more, you do realize this is all just opinion, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, et al, and no one is forcing you to like it or even watch it. You can't please everyone. It just doesn't happen.

People enjoy this show, and I am one of them, but I don't go around asking why people think BSG is good (I'm not a fan). I understand that everyone values something different in their entertainment. This is not a difficult concept to grasp.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

No, no, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that a work of the fiction is only worth the kind of accolades that Firefly receives if it has some sort of social or philosophical significance. A show that lacks those things can still be an entertaining show. Firefly could certainly be entertaining to some (many) people (although not to me). But people are acting like it's The Great Gatsby.

You're fast losing even me ... and I'm one of those that thinks FF tends to be overrated on sci-fi message boards.

Then again. One could delve into an analysis of how the story Firefly is of social significance -- namely the quest for independence in a society (the Alliance) that values order and obedience. Because let's face it. While The Great Gatsby is a book that is remarkable for its social commentary, none of its main characters are seemingly worthy of remembrance by anyone outside their closest relations.

 

[Vulpes]

@Bishop: Because it actually had more than one season? Because it had some semblance of depth? Because it had a smattering of philosophical value? Take your pick. I just think saying that FF is the greatest space sci-fi is like saying Harry Potter is the greatest work of literature.

I'm certainly not saying that the show is technically flawed. I'm also not saying it was incompetently made. Nor am I saying that it's inexplicable that anyone likes it. I'm not even saying that it shouldn't be anyone's favorite show. I'm saying that it's unrealistic to treat it as the best sci-fi ever. It lacks the profundity for that.

 

[infinix]

Read the rest of my post. It's not just a matter of me not liking it.

Vulpes, I agree that Firefly is not some philosophically significant or genre defining or ground breaking fiction, and I don't think anyone here is advocating that. Its just a show that a lot of people happen to like. Some may have the opinion that Firefly was the greatest Science Fiction show ever, and that would be entirely their opinion.

Value is assigned by people. What is considered great typically change with time. Many of the artists we have come to regard as great masters died broke and unappreciated. I'm not comparing Whedon to Gaugiun or van Gogh. I'm simply pointing out how people value art differently as time goes on.

 

[Amaris]

@Bishop: Because it actually had more than one season? Because it had some semblance of depth? Because it had a smattering of philosophical value? Take your pick. I just think saying that FF is the greatest space sci-fi is like saying Harry Potter is the greatest work of literature.

I'm certainly not saying that the show is technically flawed. I'm also not saying it was incompetently made. Nor am I saying that it's inexplicable that anyone likes it. I'm not even saying that it shouldn't be anyone's favorite show. I'm saying that it's unrealistic to treat it as the best sci-fi ever.

Star Trek had three seasons. It is an international phenomenon. Kirk and Spock are recognized and understood throughout the world. There are science fiction shows that have lasted 3 times as long and have never reached that level of notoriety.

So far, your standards are:

* Must have a long term goal that affects millions/the universe.
* Must be a show or series of considerable length.

And that production quality has nothing to do with it.

I'd be remiss if I didn't say that those reasons sound tailor made just for Firefly.

 

[Vulpes]

Again, I'm not saying that people shouldn't enjoy it. But hear the Science Channel call it genre-defining (or possibly genre-defying... well, either way) is annoying.

All I'm saying is that it's overrated. Not bad, necessarily. Just overrated.

@J. Allen: I'm not saying any one of those things are required (except maybe profundity), but they certainly don't hurt.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

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.

 

[Amaris]

Again, I'm not saying that people shouldn't enjoy it. But hear the Science Channel call it genre-defining (or possibly genre-defying... well, either way) is annoying.

All I'm saying is that it's overrated. Not bad, necessarily. Just overrated.

@J. Allen: I'm not saying any one of those things are required (except maybe profundity), but they certainly don't hurt.

Then you need to accept that people like the show, some adore the show. It's no worse than people tuning in and raving over a short lived series about some pointy eared guy from Vulcanis and his shirt tearing, Horatio Hornblower Captain.

 

[Bishop76]

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.