It's not a hate message, I just don't get why is it a 9.2 show. I love sci-fi and I had all the good intentions to watch it but after 3 episodes I stopped it. So, I honestly don't get why the rating is so high. I mean no disrespect towards the fans, the creators and all the crew, I just want an answer why do you guys think it's so good that it deserves a 9.2 rating.
Also sorry for my english.
I agree that based on just the series it probably shouldn't be rated as high as it is, but I think part of the reason it's rated so high is that even though it only had around half of a season worth of episodes it had some much potential to be awesome. There's easily enough material left unexplained that you could make several more seasons of the show based solely on what little we know about this universe. The reavers were explained pretty quickly in the movie, but that could have easily been stretched out into atleast a full season. We know almost nothing about River. There are indications that Book isn't as innocent as he seems. We don't even know why they left Earth beyond resources were used up. We also don't know why people rebelled against the Alliance. I figure the Reavers thing would have played out a lot differently if it was done over the course of a season. Considering some of the things from other Joss Wheadon shows. I could imagine the series explanation for the Reavers being ordinary people that travelled to the edge of known space and saw something so terrifying that it turned them into the vicious monsters that they are being a really good future storyline.
As a warrior and as a man, I will leave my mark upon the world! Marguilus
I saw the entire first season as well as the movie-finale, Serenity, and I still don't see the big deal with this show.
I didn't think it was terrible, and by no means was it Joss Whedon's worst show (that honor goes to Doll House), but I found the humor forced at times, the acting was alright, and the action was weak. Not bad, but definitely over-rated.
Back in my day, we didn't have that thing you had.share
How the hell should I know?!? I just like it!
shareBecause those who voted were usually the ones that liked it and went through the pain of watching it out of order, knowing it had been cancelled, etc. Just look at the top 250. Most people vote for things they love or hate, or as a reaction to other people's opinions. Meh doesn't even get them to come to Imdb. That said...
I hated Buffy and Angel. I loved Stargate Universe. I found the movie ending better than the comic's in Watchmen. I hated Gladiator. Endured 300.
I personally find this show absolutely outstanding. I give it 10 not because it's perfect, but because it's such a remarkable feat of skill and talent. It's really hard to: create so many unique characters and without letting any of them fall flat most of the time; keep the dialog fresh and witty without overdoing it; come up with different ingenious ways for the characters to solve their problems every episode; incorporate action at a realistic pace, not overrushed or overshiny; to create a setting where disparaged things blend easily, yet what's unusual still comes across through the characters' reactions; cast and direct so that any viewer will always have 2 or 3 favourite characters; have the courage not to overexplain things to people who might not be paying attention.
This last bit really got me going. This show does not forgive attention slips, since a short 10 seconds scene might give you the whole tone or plot for an episode. If you look away, you miss something: a joke, an action, a look, an innuendo, an explanation, things that add to make it a dense, no fillers series. This, to me, is a priceless virtue in film and TV.
I watched the show in the worst possible order: as my friends recorded whatever they caught on air in VHS and showed me weeks later in their order of preference. This did not detract a single bit from the quality of the show, since so many episodes function well as stand-alones.
My reaction to it may be explained by the fact that I'm completely comfortable with Asian storytelling. The characters can have a whole live beyond what's happening on screen, but you do NOT show that if it's not relevant to the plot just to "create empathy", as US storytelling so often does (and I love when it doesn't, like in 12 Angry Men and Reservoir Dogs, for example). You only need to tell or show something once over the course of an entire film or series (that the captain thinks the Macross is a high tech POS, that Jhuge Liang and Zhou Yu were willing to kill each other for the future threat the other would pose to their lords, that only people trained in Wu Dan can take effortless flying leaps, that the villain's wife cheated on him with a Shao Lin ex-monk, that the pacifist-naive-silly-always-well-meaning protagonist is a kenpo black belt and the best cyclist of all times, etc).
Firefly does just that. You don't really know who Jayne is but for half a dozen lines scattered across a couple episodes, but those lines are more than enough for what's relevant to the series. You know Book is obviously more than he lets people see, and that's the whole point! You don't need to know Gandalf is Olorin the maia of wisdom to appreciate his appearances in Tolkien's books, and Book is an interesting character precisely because of his unknown past. Etc. Firefly is in the details. If you don't appreciate the details, then the series is not for you.
In the end, me and my friends labelled Firefly as "the show that was cancelled for being so good most people couldn't understand it." Today I prefer to put it as "the show that was cancelled for being too dense and uncompromising for the viewer's comfort." And that's what makes me love it.
Yesterday I watched the series for a second time. It's a very good series, but not "great". I'd give it an eight. (If you'd like to see my four-star-of-five Amazon review, look for a 2/13/2015 posting.)
The reason people like it so much is that it subverts/inverts so much popular science fiction. Star Trek is built around the highly implausible assumption that human beings will eventually stop acting like immoral, greedy, self-destructive idiots.
Here you have thoroughly imperfect people, which allows a much-wider range of storytelling. Of course, there's nothing particularly "uplifting" about these stories, nothing that might encourage people to work toward a better future.
Given that the Blue Sun people are a far worse threat than the Alliance, it would have been interesting to see how Whedon played out the Tams' story.
I love this show but I hate how its fanboys ignore REAL facts. 'Firefly' clearly stole many ideas from other shows and I don't talk about Star Trek. I'm talking about 'Starhunter', 'Farscape', 'Space: Above and Beyond', 'Babylon 5', 'Space Rangers', 'Andromeda'.
Firefly is great but nowhere near unique
I disagree but in a friendly way, as you have made it a point to be supportive of Firefly while disagreeing with the "fanboys". What makes the show unique is that it, to my opinion, only steals from those great examples you quoted the concept of being in outer space.
What Joss really stole was Johnny Reb, Clint Eastwood, and mostly Steve McQueen from "Dead or Alive." I know you are too young to remember these icons of American television but Joss so pulled them all together that the result stunned audiences.
Cowboys in space, "Hehe, it reminds me of the Muppets "Pigs in space'. Anyway my point is that Joss took the best of SF, combined it with the best of westerns and came up with Firefly.
..or we could call it: Millennium Falcon turned into a bug like spacecraft with a bit more crew/passenger space. Including a 'Han' similar captain?
PS. Thank the gods it was made in widescreen and that the CGI was above tv standard!(not normal for the US in early 00's;-)
Firefly' clearly stole many ideas from other shows and I don't talk about Star Trek. I'm talking about 'Starhunter', 'Farscape', 'Space: Above and Beyond', 'Babylon 5', 'Space Rangers', 'Andromeda'.
Firefly is great but nowhere near unique
To Love and win is the best thing. To Love and lose, the next best.share
It's difficult to come up with anything truly original. Almost all stories are based on something done before.
Star Trek was partly inspired by Forbidden Planet (a film from which much "pop" science fiction borrows -- including Firefly), and even Gunsmoke (Roddenberry liked the "family grouping" of its principals). Heck, Brokeback Mountain borrows from The Epic of Gilgamesh.
What's offensive is when the copying is devoid of wit or imagination -- eg, Guardians of the Galaxy. You can't plug tab A into slot B and expect to tell engaging stories.
You don't even need to cast that wide of a net, you just really need to look as Cowboy Bebop and Outlaw Star. There's also the western bits of Star Wars, mostly with two of the characters being like different versions of Han Solo. Maybe even Starcraft with how how the Terran's both are and talk. Although unlike almost every other space western, Whedon made the mind boggling move of making every *beep* thing look like a western...besides some cartoons, space westerns don't usually look like a normal western but with spaceships.
shareWhedon made the mind boggling move of making every *beep* thing look like a western
But it's still done. For some reason living out in the outer planets has made people go back to old west style building, clothing, weapons, speech, and horses. I mean Jesus Christ, break up the western stuff somewhat, give the people solar power vehicles, sh!t they're in a desert environment, switch out the horse for camels, change that sh!t up. The Tatooine stuff in Star Wars is western, but they didn't dress everyone up like cowboys, put them on horses, drop them on a western set, and have everyone talk like they're in a western. Characters in Firefly sound like they're parodies of westerns, there are western movies and tv shows that don't lean on it as much as Firefly does.
There's other stuff in that show where people look like they're dressed for a western time period too. The episode where they go to a ball looks like an old timey southern ball.
I think you're missing the point of the whole "Space Western" motif.
For some reason living out in the outer planets has made people go back to old west style building, clothing, weapons, speech, and horses.
sh!t they're in a desert environment, switch out the horse for camels,
there are western movies and tv shows that don't lean on it as much as Firefly does.
There's other stuff in that show where people look like they're dressed for a western time period too. The episode where they go to a ball looks like an old timey southern ball.
by PreachCaleb » 4 hours ago (Wed Mar 4 2015 06:24:33)
IMDb member since December 2003
I think you're missing the point of the whole "Space Western" motif.
That was explained in the show. The alliance just drops of some settlers on a new world with little more than some farming equipment and a herd or two.
Wrong kind of desert. You can't just throw camels where ever there's a desert. Unless you think there's camels all over New Mexico and Arizona?
Star Wars wasn't meant to be a space western. Sure, it had some influence, particularly the Han Solo character, but it was a mish mash of genres, including samurai films such as The Hidden Fortress, and sci-fi movies like Metropolis.
That's a shame.
I'm not missing the point of it. It's not like Firefly was the first space western, and Firefly clearly isn't meant to be a parody.
That does not explain why people in our future started dressing like it's the 1860s. Or why they're buildings looks like they're from a western...like, I don't know, maybe those people thought it was a cute idea? It also doesn't explain why people in 2517 are using weapons from 1892. I mean I know why she's using a Mare's Leg, it's (likely) because Steve McQueen used one in Wanted: Dead or Alive; but you would think if they were using old timey guns they would be things from now like an AA-12 or something, not guns from the 1800s.
They're also more well suited for the environment then horses given they can go long without both food and water.
It would make more sense to give these new frontiersman something like camels or solar powered vehicles and machines more than it would horses.
But the point with Star Wars is that when you're in the western part of it, it doesn't look like they're on the set of Bonanza. Firefly on the other hand beats you over the head with the westernness.
Not really, they're all way better.
And Star Trek was actually described as a space western before Star Wars.That's not exactly true.
True. But it does maintain some of that in the premise. Traveling to new worlds, meeting new people. Even the original Klingon's had a sort of Chinese western motif.
But I get what you're saying.
Can't stop the signal.
Clearly, you are if you want them to ease up on it. That's part of why he made the show. It's a western first, then a space show.
Because they don't have the technology. Unless you think the poor developing countries on our planet all have fancy tractors and irrigation systems. They're still pretty much just using ancient technology and techniques to survive too.
In any case, did you miss the guy with the laser gun?
Horses survived just fine in the American desert, which is what the deserts on Firefly most resemble. Plus, camels are not part of the western motif.
Not at all. If you're only given a few machines, then that's it. What happens when one breaks down and you don't have the parts? If the settlers are given a herd of horses and cows, then those animals can multiply.
[That's the point. Without it, Firefly is just another sci-fi show. Firefly isn't meant to be an symbolic of or an homage to Westerns. It's meant to be a western. It's meant to be Wagon Train. It's meant to be Bonanza.
This is like saying Lost should get rid of the Island. You want to do away with a crucial part of the show's entire existence.
And Star Trek was actually described as a space western before Star Wars. /quote]
If your taking western themes and concept and playing them within the setting of a sci-fi show it wouldn't have just been another sci-fi show. I also don't think there was another sci-fi show on network tv at that time, at least not any space opera type thing.
It's not meant to be Wagon Train, anyone that's seen Wagon Train would know Firefly plays nothing at all like Wagon Train. Wagon Train is also a very different kind of western than Bonanza. Bonanza also happen to be a very different kind of thing than Firefly. Firefly is about a group of outlaws doing Han Sole stuff, it seems to draw very much from the character of Han Sole, Outlaw Star, and Cowboy Bebop. Bananza is a western about a very wealthy ranching family.
No, Star Trek is said to have be pitched as "Wagon Train to the stars", and that's only in so far as each week the cast would run into some new group or whatever. The actual show doesn't bear any resemblance to Wagon Train, the crew of the Enterprise is nothing like the group you follow in Wagon Train, and the stuff they deal with isn't really anything alike at all. On the other hand you could take the stuff that happens on Tatooine in Star Wars and make a normal western out of it.
Your Lost analogy makes no sense, you didn't really attach it to anything, or say in any way how that's actually the same.
[quote]Some are. Some are inferior.
The unstated question simbob4000 is asking is (I think)... Why wouldn't these colonies have a more-developed technology?
Assuming natural resources were available, the desire to exploit them would be overwhelming. Unless there was a desire to keep these societies "simple" or "undeveloped", it would make sense to send along the tools and hardware needed. Even the Kilchers have heavy machinery.
The reason these societies are stuck in the American West is because that's what Josh Whedon wanted.
Note that The Adventures of Brisco County Jr is (very, very roughly) Firefly in reverse,
The unstated question simbob4000 is asking is (I think)... Why wouldn't these colonies have a more-developed technology?
Yes, but... Why? Given that people generally prefer advanced technology, why not support its development?
Whedon's "answer" to that question doesn't negate the validity of the question.
I think the answer to this question is: Because. There isn't any answer to the question that doesn't just raise further questions. The show wants to be taken seriously, but at the same time it doesn't want you thinking about the "why" of it's world any more than you would the world of BraveStarr. Or maybe these future people were given nothing but old west stuff and started making old west towns because they knew third parties would be watching them and they thought we might enjoy that...I don't know.
shareDidn't say it wasn't valid. Just that it was answered.
Can't stop the signal.
Have you ever seen any space westerns besides Firefly. A space western is meant to take western conventions and play them within the sci-fi setting. But the western aspect should be masked somewhat.
As long as they weren't blasted back to the Stone Age, I would think the poor developing places of 2517 would have all kinds of things that would blow our minds.
Who cares if they aren't part of the western motif, space ships aren't part of the western motif either.
I know laser guns show up at some point, but I don't think I saw them in the episodes I watched.
What happens if all the animals die, or you don't have the needed food or water to feed them?
the idea that these people couldn't get some spare parts for things seems beyond stupid.
Now I'm sure there would be poor people that couldn't get those things, but they're not getting cows and horses either.
I would be hard pressed to name a western that's actually worse than Firefly.
Why is this considered THAT good?
*Get the Firefly DVD set
*Watch all the episodes
*if you are not hooked and still don't understand why 'We' consider it That Good,
*Go back and watch all the Commentaries and The Special Features.
•••Then you might have a different understanding and appreciation of what went into making Firefly such a Special Series.
*Then - Watch Serenity.......
There are many things in life that catch your eye but only a few will catch your heart-pursue those
If one does need to watch DVD commentaries to think series is good, it is actually not a good series.
IMO Firefly is solid 7 (That is a good rating given by me, it's in best quadrant), but definitely not 9. IMO for example most items in IMDB top-250 list are over rated.
YOU said "need to watch DVD commentaries" - mot I...
I said "you might...
"•••Then you might have a different understanding and appreciation of what went into making Firefly such a Special Series. "
If you didn't get it, that's OK... Really.
A Lot of us Got it right away... from the beginning.
**You can't take the sky from me
"There are many things in life that catch your eye but only a few will catch your heart-pursue those"
YOU said "need to watch DVD commentaries" - not I...
I said "you might...
"•••Then you might have a different understanding and appreciation of what went into making Firefly such a Special Series. "
If you didn't get it, that's OK... Really.
A Lot of us Got it right away... from the beginning.
**You can't take the sky from me
"There are many things in life that catch your eye but only a few will catch your heart-pursue those"
Overrated is an overrated term.
Let's be bad guys.
The 9.2 is fanboys upvoting it. And yes the show is overrated on and off IMDB, but that is because it was so good and so short-lived and everyone involved went on to bigger and better things, like "21 Jump Street" (the original TV show) only better. "Firefly" is a seminal show.
"Ass to ass. Ha ha ha ha. ASS TO ASS!" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa5z77EI8y0