-
The new B5TV.COM is here. We've replaced our 16 year old software with flashy new XenForo install. Registration is open again. Password resets will work again. More info here.
It was, perhaps, inevitable...
- Thread starter KoshFan
- Start date
GaribaldisHair
Regular
Sorry, without wanting to take this too seriously, I just have to tweak your nose for this one ... it is grossly unfair to make a direct comparison of B5's 1994 vintage CGI with Firefly's 2004 (or whenever) version. You would expect Firefly to win that one hands down - personally I think S1 of B5 still looks great. Limited by 2005 standards but still great.
Likewise, B5 did re-use a fair number of its establishing shots of the station, but let's be realistic. This is a space station that remains in one place above (or below) the same planet - there is a limit to how many different establishing shots you can create without them starting to look forced. I am hard pushed to think of any actual footage they directly re-used from one episode to another, though.
Plus, I would wager that Firefly reuses many of its standard/establishing shots using simple tricks, such as rotating the camera to view the same shot from another POV, to make them look different. Nothing wrong with that.
And as for "fuzzy", are you taking that from the stretched DVD version of the CGI shots, or the original 4:3 ratio versions as originally broadcast?
KoshFan
Regular
My gripe about B5 establishing shots is that we saw the same transport docking with the station exactly the same way around 50 times. The process definitely got better as the series progressed and they had more "footage" to use, however. I'm also well aware that contrasting two shows made ten years apart is monstrously unfair to the older one.
GKE, I'm aware that Firefly is a gimmicky show (so were all of Whedon's other shows as well). And the characterization is clearly the strongest element. But what I can't understand is why people don't see how beautifully written this show was. And I'm not just talking about the humor, although that's the lion's share of it. I'm talking about foreshadowing and echoing that works brilliantly. I'm talking about episodes that start incredibly hilarious and then turn deadly serious. I'm talking about characters that are so brilliantly created and realized that seem entirely real, and you'd love to meet them. I'm talking about writing that was so continuously good that there was not one bad episode. Ever. Admittedly they didn't have a lot, but most shows could manage to produce an inferior episode in 14 tries.
Seriously. What are people's objections to the writing? I open my thread to debate.
GKE, I'm aware that Firefly is a gimmicky show (so were all of Whedon's other shows as well). And the characterization is clearly the strongest element. But what I can't understand is why people don't see how beautifully written this show was. And I'm not just talking about the humor, although that's the lion's share of it. I'm talking about foreshadowing and echoing that works brilliantly. I'm talking about episodes that start incredibly hilarious and then turn deadly serious. I'm talking about characters that are so brilliantly created and realized that seem entirely real, and you'd love to meet them. I'm talking about writing that was so continuously good that there was not one bad episode. Ever. Admittedly they didn't have a lot, but most shows could manage to produce an inferior episode in 14 tries.
Seriously. What are people's objections to the writing? I open my thread to debate.
GKarsEye
Regular
Are you trying to convince a board full of fans to like a show we already like even more? It's just hard to work up passionate enthusiasm for a quickly canceled show. I don't know how some did it for Crusade, either. Yes, both had poteential, yes I would have loved to see them played out, but it can't possibly have a fraction of the weight of a completed story.
Well I can't speak for Whedon's other shows. I remember trying to watch an episode or two of Buffy and thinking it was extremely stupid. But I love B5 and Rangers sucked; point being that I don't feel the need to look at someone's entire body of work to judge one of them. Otherwise I wouldn't enjoy old Rolling Stones music.
I have no objections to the writing. It's just all a matter of style. The gimmick becomes the crutch upon which to do some of the writing, for better and worse.
One of my favorite visual moments was when Reynolds got into a bar fight and was tossed out the saloon window. Instead of the expected shattering of glass, we see the flicker of a hologram. Funny and cute and a bit self-deprecating. Part of the style, very entertaining. But if I think about it for too long I get pissed- why the fuck do space settlers make everything in the style of the old west? Ugh.
Ok, the more important stuff- the foreshadowing and whatnot. Obviously the x-factor in the show, the one who would have taken the show to more focused and bigger places is River. But it was clear that she was some super power, plus her craziness, that nothing she would have done would have surprised me, really hit me over the head. If there was an episode where, say, out of nowhere she just blinked and 7 planets exploded, I wouldn't be shocked. She's crazy and ultra-powerful, ok got it.
Contrast this to G'Kar becoming a religious figure. You won't see that one coming, but in retrospect it makes perfect sense. So when he's exasperated by the foolishness of his followers, it's not just a reaction to clownishness, it comes from a people that were ravaged, and a man that went through hell and back, and it's funny and tragic and just amazing, and I just don't think Firefly would have room for that because it's not that kind of show, which is fine because B5 just has such a bigger scope.
Characters- Firefly characters were cool, but they were always archetypes. Maybe B5 characters are also archetypes, but they're much much more interesting archetypes. How often do you see the troubled leader who is protective of his crew? Every show. How often do you see the aging washout living off nostalgia, making him vulnerable to the influence of evil? Not too much, I think, at least not on TV.
Firefly's characters except for River generally fit into roles that everyone can dig upon simple description: badass captain, warrior babe, doofy pilot, tight-ass doctor, engineer prodigy, etc. Now explain Delenn to someone. Not so easy. "Undercover-for-some-reason high ranking religious/political leader who's arrogant and brilliant and into boring ceremonies." Not easily translated by a non-viewer. And that's just in the beginning of the series.
Even Ivanova, who I would call the B5 equivalent of Zoe, though starting off as an archetype, was going to be given something amazing had she stayed on to season 5. Besides arguing with her captain and splitting with her husband, what could have happened to Zoe really?
Given the very nature of the shows, I just can't imagine Firefly reaching the heights of B5. Yes the 13 episodes were consistently high quality, but its ambitions were smaller- which is fine, it just renders comparison between the two shows useless. Michael Crichton makes very engaging and entertaiing books and is consistent, but he's no Dostoyevksy, who reached way higher, and it's absurd to compare them.
So you can say "well who knows where Firefly could have gone?" Even if they got ambitious and tried to do empires fall kind of stuff, it would be effected, like Farscape's. Did anyone really care about the fates of the Sebaceans? No, only about our heroes. But with B5, I actually do care about the Narn or whoever, because the big stuff is crucial to the show and the basic motivators of the characters. It "matters" in B5 and DS9 and no where else.
Well I can't speak for Whedon's other shows. I remember trying to watch an episode or two of Buffy and thinking it was extremely stupid. But I love B5 and Rangers sucked; point being that I don't feel the need to look at someone's entire body of work to judge one of them. Otherwise I wouldn't enjoy old Rolling Stones music.
I have no objections to the writing. It's just all a matter of style. The gimmick becomes the crutch upon which to do some of the writing, for better and worse.
One of my favorite visual moments was when Reynolds got into a bar fight and was tossed out the saloon window. Instead of the expected shattering of glass, we see the flicker of a hologram. Funny and cute and a bit self-deprecating. Part of the style, very entertaining. But if I think about it for too long I get pissed- why the fuck do space settlers make everything in the style of the old west? Ugh.
Ok, the more important stuff- the foreshadowing and whatnot. Obviously the x-factor in the show, the one who would have taken the show to more focused and bigger places is River. But it was clear that she was some super power, plus her craziness, that nothing she would have done would have surprised me, really hit me over the head. If there was an episode where, say, out of nowhere she just blinked and 7 planets exploded, I wouldn't be shocked. She's crazy and ultra-powerful, ok got it.
Contrast this to G'Kar becoming a religious figure. You won't see that one coming, but in retrospect it makes perfect sense. So when he's exasperated by the foolishness of his followers, it's not just a reaction to clownishness, it comes from a people that were ravaged, and a man that went through hell and back, and it's funny and tragic and just amazing, and I just don't think Firefly would have room for that because it's not that kind of show, which is fine because B5 just has such a bigger scope.
Characters- Firefly characters were cool, but they were always archetypes. Maybe B5 characters are also archetypes, but they're much much more interesting archetypes. How often do you see the troubled leader who is protective of his crew? Every show. How often do you see the aging washout living off nostalgia, making him vulnerable to the influence of evil? Not too much, I think, at least not on TV.
Firefly's characters except for River generally fit into roles that everyone can dig upon simple description: badass captain, warrior babe, doofy pilot, tight-ass doctor, engineer prodigy, etc. Now explain Delenn to someone. Not so easy. "Undercover-for-some-reason high ranking religious/political leader who's arrogant and brilliant and into boring ceremonies." Not easily translated by a non-viewer. And that's just in the beginning of the series.
Even Ivanova, who I would call the B5 equivalent of Zoe, though starting off as an archetype, was going to be given something amazing had she stayed on to season 5. Besides arguing with her captain and splitting with her husband, what could have happened to Zoe really?
Given the very nature of the shows, I just can't imagine Firefly reaching the heights of B5. Yes the 13 episodes were consistently high quality, but its ambitions were smaller- which is fine, it just renders comparison between the two shows useless. Michael Crichton makes very engaging and entertaiing books and is consistent, but he's no Dostoyevksy, who reached way higher, and it's absurd to compare them.
So you can say "well who knows where Firefly could have gone?" Even if they got ambitious and tried to do empires fall kind of stuff, it would be effected, like Farscape's. Did anyone really care about the fates of the Sebaceans? No, only about our heroes. But with B5, I actually do care about the Narn or whoever, because the big stuff is crucial to the show and the basic motivators of the characters. It "matters" in B5 and DS9 and no where else.
Chilli
High Treason Prevention Officer
I really can't see where the "debate" is coming from .. not one person in this thread has said that Firefly is not a great show. You might be verging a bit into fanaticism if you have to fight everyone else in spite of them all bloody agreeing with you in principle. All you'll do with that is alienate people towards Firefly. Hell, if I hadn't loved the series as much as I did, I would have lost interest in Serenity through your crusade as a mater of principle
Noone's saying Firefly isn't great. Just that to me - and most other here it seems - the idea of comparing these two shows, no matter which one one personally prefers, is fucking absurd. And it is really, though I don't have to go into detail there, GKE did a very good job of explaining that.
And aside from that, regarding the first 14 episodes .. you also have to consider that JMS had never run a TV show when he took over B5 whereas Joss Whedon had run two TV shows throughout their entire lives. The First season of Buffy, as much as I enjoyed it as a set of loose stand-alone "fun" episodes was hardly steady in the way later seasons of Buffy or Firefly was. Later JMS shows on the other hand, cancelled as they might have been, had a WAY steadier start than B5 had. Jeremiah (baring the Sam Egan episodes) has a quite steady and good first season compared to B5 .. And Crusade definitely seemed steady enough in the episodes shot before TNT started monkeying around with the show. Experience is a factor there too, and B5 went up quite a bit once JMS started having that. Which wouldn't have happened to Firelfly.
Also, Joss Whedon seems to have better skills at delegating work and writing to other people and have other (good) writers submit scripts to his shows in a way that works. JMS never seemed like a person that could share work efficiently to me. Which was fine though when he stopped sharing the work of writing B5 in the second season though and started doing the writing all by himself. That he shared the writings with other authors definitely was an unsteadiness factor in Season 1. Most JMS episodes in season 1 were bloody awesome IMHO - Parliament of Dreams, Midnight on the Firing Line, Mind War, Signs and Potents, Chrysallis, all among my personal favorites. It took JMS three seasons to write a truely bad episode IMHO. And Buffy had a non-perfect episode once in three years too, yes
As for your sig .. Firefly being the next Star Wars .. I really, really hope not
.. in matters of popularity, highly unlikely .. in matters of story and arcs, SO uncomparable. From an objectionate point of view, Star Wars, popular as it is, it's a "cute" fairy tale in space that managed to touch people in a very special way, if you look past the Sci-Fi. It revolutionized Science Fiction on film, given .. but as you said yourself, Firefly's strenghts lie in the characterizations and in the dialogue. NOT in the Science Fiction. Saying Firefly is the next Star Wars is like saying that IPods are the new Dali paintings 
admiraldave
Regular
Now, I'm a Firefly fan, but I don't think Firefly was a perfectly written series. There were some problems that I had.
The big fight in "The Message" was annoyingly needless. At any time, Mal had only to reassure Tracy that they had a plan to save him and they wouldn't have had to kill him. Tracy's death was robbed of any poignance (despite a great musical score), because he died due to stupidity on his and Mal's part.
Other episodes suffered from some twisted logic, I fail to see what will prevent the villians from "Heart of Gold" from trying to kill the whores again. Or the whole Reaver bit in "Bushwhacked", both the guy suddenly being a Reaver-wannabe, to the logic of him returning to Serenity to hunt.
Then there was the sloppy phrasing that caused some annoying debates when the show was first aired. There was an opening narration by Book and some ambiguous terms lead to a debate on whether Firefly took place in a single star system or not. A new narration was added, for the main reason of clarifying that.
Other elements of the universe were underexplained, which, yes, can be attributed to the fact the show didn't even last a full season, but I wonder about things like the Companions. How did they gain such stature? We learn that some planets won't even let you dock there if you don't have a Companion on board yet we never saw one, and we were never given much explanation of why or how things came to be that way. Inara never really gave Serenity's crew the "aura of respectability" that she was supposed to, instead she stuck out like a sore thumb. The idea that a Companion blacklisting in "Shindig" was such a big deal seems laughable to me.
My problem isn't the style, it's trying to figure out why a bar in the middle of nowhere would bother with holographic windows, as opposed to simpler technology. The same thing with the holographic pool table in "Shindig". Why?
On the whole, I like Firefly's take on technology. It makes sense to me that the poorer planets have to rely on less advanced technologies, even going back to horses. I like that the technology has a crude, useable element to it, I have gotten heartily sick of the Trekkian magic wands that do everything from surgery and repairing mechanical devices to chopping vegetables and mending dresses.
Don't get me wrong, I love Firefly. I think "Out of Gas" and "Objects in Space" are amongst the finest episodes of sci-fi I've ever seen, and I wish Firefly was still on the air, but I wouldn't give Firefly the status of shows like Babylon 5 or Farscape.
PillowRock
Regular
This one is personal taste / preference thing. To some people (doubtless Mal and Zoe among them) Tracy's death is more painful because it was so unnecessary, and therefore actually more poignant.
I can see how one would could see it your way, though.
Those two lines, taken together, are actually funny.
As much as I love Farscape, they were the kings of twisted logic. They also periodically had plot / logic holes so big that you could use them as a Leviathan race track.
There's nothing to stop them. There is nothing to stop the general population of any town from attacking any local bordello.
On the other hand, there is absolutely no reason to think that they will. That group attacked that bordello *entirely* because of the efforts of one rich leader who had his own personal motivations for doing so. By the end of the episode that person is dead. The reason for everyone else there perticipating in that attack died with him.
Here you're getting into the psychology underlieing such things as Stockholm Syndrome. We would have to find someone who has a stronger background in that area to tell us whether the actions depicted in that episode would be likely.
I don't know much about abnormal or post-traumatic psychology. The one thing that I do know is that logic, in the forms that we normally apply it, doesn't really apply.
Who knows? But it's hardly unprecedented. Geishas in feudal Japan had a respectability and stature much closer to Firefly Companions than to present day American hookers/streetwalkers/whores. The question "Why not?" seems equally valid to me.
Undoubtedly, you could argue that is more of the sloopy phrasing that you alluded to, but ......
I never took that to mean what you seem to state here.
I remember them things along the lines of Inara's presense could get them accepted at ports where they wouldn't be otherwise. I never took that to mean that there were any planets that had rules along the lines of "every ship coming into port must have a Companion" (which is how your statement reads to me). I understood their statements to mean that Inara's presense (and the implicit possibility of the local big shot becoming a client) could get them a birth in a port when they otherwise didn't have enough to pay or barter for it (or at planets that were a bit xenophobic and generally only allowed in ships carrying cargos that *they* wanted; Inara could count as such a cargo).
GKarsEye
Regular
I can imagine a world where holographic technology is cheaper and certainly more portable than the real thing. They just need to acquire it, not build it from scratch. 50 years ago only government facilities and the biggest corporations could have any computing technology that took up acres of space. Now you can get the equivalent power for 50 cents at your local Radio Shack. (analogy not to scale)
Pobman
Regular
darth_librarian
Regular
I finally saw half an episode of this (firefly) last night on UK sci fi after working late and in between arguments with my girlfriend.
There was a brothel in space with hookers and some badguys, and some constantly wise-cracking stock Wheldon types were trying to defend the hookers. It had a cheesy western 'geetar' soundtrack, a naff hover-car thing and some weak CGI. And a woman gave birth, I think she was a hooker too.
The hookers were great. The southern accents were not so.
It may be the frame of mind I was in, or I saw a lame episode, but it was somewhat, dare I say it, sucky??
I'll try and see some more before I reach any conclusion though.
One thing is for sure, this did certainly not grab me in the way B5, Farscape or even the new BSG did. It also seemed very different from the kick ass movie trailer I watched a week or so ago...
There was a brothel in space with hookers and some badguys, and some constantly wise-cracking stock Wheldon types were trying to defend the hookers. It had a cheesy western 'geetar' soundtrack, a naff hover-car thing and some weak CGI. And a woman gave birth, I think she was a hooker too.
The hookers were great. The southern accents were not so.
It may be the frame of mind I was in, or I saw a lame episode, but it was somewhat, dare I say it, sucky??
I'll try and see some more before I reach any conclusion though.
One thing is for sure, this did certainly not grab me in the way B5, Farscape or even the new BSG did. It also seemed very different from the kick ass movie trailer I watched a week or so ago...
KoshFan
Regular
Okay, maybe I am borderline obsessive by this point -- but I hasten to add that I am not alone in my insanity. Some friends of mine (the ones who introduced me to Babylon 5 and have seen just about every sci-fi show TV has ever produced) feel that Firefly is the best science fiction ever on television. There are some glitches, I'll admit that -- no show is 100% perfect. But to me it remains incredibly solid.
And yet I see people like Jade who say that he felt no episode of Firefly surpassed B5's mediocre eps. I see darth_librarian dubious of "Heart of Gold" -- which I have to admit is pretty basic, only vital if you're into the Mal/Inara relationship. I see a lot of people who say that the western thing is just too strange for them to deal with. Hence my defensiveness.
And yet I see people like Jade who say that he felt no episode of Firefly surpassed B5's mediocre eps. I see darth_librarian dubious of "Heart of Gold" -- which I have to admit is pretty basic, only vital if you're into the Mal/Inara relationship. I see a lot of people who say that the western thing is just too strange for them to deal with. Hence my defensiveness.
2aMageing
Regular
What Firefly might have become if it continued, I don't know. But I do know that the best ep of Firefly I saw wasn't nearly as good as an average ep of B5. And, there is absolutely no comparison between the writing. B5 wins hands down. But then, I DO prefer epic...
If I were to compare Firefly to something in the B5 universe, I think Crusade would be a more fitting comparison, since both are unfulfilled, and had rather slow starts...
On the topic of best Firefly episodes not being better then an average episode of B5 (momentarily mimicing all those being OVERLY critical of the topic of the thread and knocking IT instead of having a fun discussion of the two shows, in the way it was OBVIOUSLY ment) you are comparing Firefly season 1 (season 1 OFTEN being the weakest in entertainment value of most any series) to a fully developed B5. I would argue that at least a handful of B5 season episodes are WELL CHALLENGED by any number of Firefly episodes. But to argue entertainment value is a bit like argueing how many narns can fit on the head of a pin, unless you are having fun with it and not using almost every point-counter point to insert a statement of how dumb the comparison is.
-----More Generally---------
I can see the criticism of KoshFan via his choice of topic QUITE clearly and it's very sad. And to call him an over zealous fan of Firefly for noting such is only worse.
Many of the people who have posted in this thread need to get laid more or SOMETHING if the two here getting IT least can see where the value of such a topic lies. Or perhaps there are too many ZEALOT B5 fans here to play with such a comparison without getting nitpicky and aggresive about the thing.
For me, I think JMS's writing was good entertainment writing, only crossing into the overly corny once in a while. Yet, he became rather formulaic in his dialogue and this is bore out in other TV series he followed up B5 with. He is very very good, but not really UNDEBATABLY great.
And while Firefly was only just emerging, I think it's writing showed enough promise to DEFFINATELY challange JMS in a head to head comparison of writing skill.But people PLEASE, get over the fact that KoshFan stretched out to compare two popular series and widen your vision to see that it was done in fun and with a likely intent to talk about two of his favorite shows with a group of people he thought he could share his appreciation with.
I WILL be seeing the movie, BTW. For me, the quality and boldness of the show is even further enhanced by its tie ins with a fav anime series of mine, Outlaw Star. The chance to see some of its moment brought into life by Firefly is too cool. The movie is even named after the ship.
KoshFan
Regular
Whoa, let's not get too worked up, and bringing up people's sex lives never really promotes rational thought... although I appreciate your support, 2aM.
This whole thing was, at most, half-serious, and probably a good deal less than that. And to be honest, investing any seriousness into the comparison runs the risk of dividing us and polarizing, when we should be looking at both shows and saying, "Hey, these are fun!"
Yet I remain curious as to people's opinions and reasons, be they Firefly fans, detractors, or simply those who are no more than mildly interested.
This whole thing was, at most, half-serious, and probably a good deal less than that. And to be honest, investing any seriousness into the comparison runs the risk of dividing us and polarizing, when we should be looking at both shows and saying, "Hey, these are fun!"
Yet I remain curious as to people's opinions and reasons, be they Firefly fans, detractors, or simply those who are no more than mildly interested.
Pobman
Regular
Hey I wasn't judging. I only saw the show because my friend had similar feelings to you about the show and lent me the DVDs. Just because I can't see why people love the show so much, doesn't mean I'm going to rag on those that do.
As to the best Firefly episodes being "better" than the worst B5 episodes. I must admit I think I must have enjoyed some Firefly episodes more than some B5 episodes, but I still thought it was only OK overall.
2aMageing
Regular
Personally, I am surprised that fans of Sci Fi find the mix of space and cowboy as hard to accept as many have. I can understand it, but still. I always kind of thought that was Sci Fis great gift, to be able to display the things that do not fit neatly in our conventional experience. But indeed, I can see how it takes some getting used to. I had reached a point where I enjoyed a set of anime that mixed the themes, yet I still had to give FIrefly time to grow on me, likely due to the mix being presented in a more real live action format. But as has been mentioned, once you get hooked on the characters, the show is beautiful. In a way not unlike the Buffy series. The basic concept was rather bizzare, cheerleader turned vampire hunter, but the characters sold the show. And the drama was not lacking in either as well.
GaribaldisHair
Regular
Probably not "hard to accept" as you put it, more that it just doesn't work for them. Personally I hate Westerns. Full stop. The only one I have ever seen that has even mildly entertained me was Blazing Saddles, and that is a spoof.
I may give Firefly a go, simply because so many people say that it is great. However, I have never really got into any of Whedon's TV stuff. To me, Buffy was OK (but only OK) until she died and came back the second time, after which I really couldn't be bothered any more. Angel was also OK until Cordelia disappeared (which probably says more about why I watched it than anything else). Neither of them were ever on my "mustn't miss" list.
However, all of that is purely my own subjective viewpoint.
I also know people who think that ST:TNG is the greatest TVSF in history ... each to their own.
GKarsEye
Regular
I didn't hate or not "accept" the mixed themes, I just made fun of it. If you look at my thread about my impressions watching the series, my first reaction was that of a the many amateur stories floating around out there that mix vampires and robots and ninjas and whatnot.
I actually love great westerns very much.
It's just that it always pulls me out of being engrossed in the story. Though B5 is arguably more absurd in its setup, it's easier for me to suspend disbelief by telling myself, "Well they're aliens so they could look like that" and move on (even though I know that the chances of all intelligent lifeform being approximately at our level of development and similarly configured physically is next to nil and blah blah blah). But In Firefly, at the most intense moment someone pulls out a six-shooter and I'm like WTF? It's kinda cool but kinda silly.
I think in time I would have embraced it more. Like when I first saw the ship fly off to the twangy guitar and fiddle soundtrack, I laughed at it. But then a few eps in I dug that a lot. But then I may be the only member of this board to not completely hate country music.
I actually love great westerns very much.
It's just that it always pulls me out of being engrossed in the story. Though B5 is arguably more absurd in its setup, it's easier for me to suspend disbelief by telling myself, "Well they're aliens so they could look like that" and move on (even though I know that the chances of all intelligent lifeform being approximately at our level of development and similarly configured physically is next to nil and blah blah blah). But In Firefly, at the most intense moment someone pulls out a six-shooter and I'm like WTF? It's kinda cool but kinda silly.
I think in time I would have embraced it more. Like when I first saw the ship fly off to the twangy guitar and fiddle soundtrack, I laughed at it. But then a few eps in I dug that a lot. But then I may be the only member of this board to not completely hate country music.
