Yes, it was an awesome series. Arguably the best of all times, or at least right up there with the very best. And every few years there's talk or rumors, or even wistful discussion of doing a reboot, or continuing the story, and how in hell could that be accomplished, what with the way the movie Serenity ended. Sure, it tied it all together, but at the cost of several major characters, characters that would be sorely missed in a continuation of the series. It just wouldn't be the same without Wash and Book, and everyone goram knows it.

So what's the solution? I propose we throw the movie out. Call Serenity simply an alternate reality ending to the story and pick it right back up where Episode 14 left off. Pretend for the remainder of the series that the movie never happened.

What say you? Pathetic and horrible way to do a reboot? Good way to do it? Best way? Only way?

I loved that show, but the movie is cannon. You can't ignore the deaths of Wash and Book. Book I can live without, Wash is harder to replace. But if you're going to bring that show back it would have to be one of two things.

1- Bring it back with the dead characters still dead.

2-Bring back that exact same universe but base the new show around a different cast and crew with the occasional cameo by the original cast to give it legs.

I'll take either one.

Book was the more likable character, no doubt about it. Far more likable. But his story was completely transparent. He was a hotshot pilot that played it a little loose and fast, and won the job on the Serenity by being good at what he did. His story intertwines with Zoe's, but her story is lacking only if you leave out Mal's story from hers, not Wash's. And his is obvious.

Book was the one with the story line. Book was the more complex character. He was a simple monk on a journey to find convents, but yet you knew goram well he wasn't. Not with an ID that made the federation boys step and fetch like they were late for an inspection by the Grand Poobah of Federation Inspections. And every time you turned around, he was subtly asserting himself, easing into a role of authority that came far too easily for just a simple preacher man. He knew just a little too much, had just a bit more knowledge of things that a man of the cloth had no business knowing. Book had a history longer than any of the others aboard that ship, and it was all intriguing.

That, to me, is reason enough to set aside the canon of the movie. Sure, it was a great movie. Tied the whole story together. But set it aside, backtrack a bit to before we took that detour, and continue on down the road. There's no way you can satisfy all the most intriguing story lines by continuing the story where Serenity left off. The only way to do that is if you reboot from the end of Episode 14, or if you completely start over with new characters. And if you start over with completely new characters, that to most would be worse than leaving it rest in peace.

What's so sacred about the movie that you can't allow it to stand as an alternate ending and move on without it?

One of my favorite shows of all time, shame it didn't get picked up for way more seasons. Joss Whedon is the man! Met Summer Glau at last years Comic Con, she's one of the nicest people I've ever met.


I liked the movie for what it was, but it kind of pinned the show into a hole if it were to get picked up again. Mainly due to the loss Book.


Man, I miss this show.

You can't pick it up from the last episode because, as Whedon said, the movie essentially covered the rest of the TV journey
that he had planned for those characters. You'd have to carry on without Wash and Book.

and the word is "canon" not "cannon"

Yes, it bothers me so much that I had to mention it.

Who says that you have to pick it up after the movie? Just keep it logical enough that "Serenity" is the finale. The series could simply fill in the blanks in-between.

I know it's canon and not cannon, but auto-correct fucked me there. The problem with making the show the "in between" is that all of the actors have form much older since then, it would be obvious.

I don't get the hype. I've tried to get into it, but just can't. The acting is mediocre to bad, the scripting is bad and the plots are silly. I don't like any of the characters and the excessive tropes from both the western and sci-fi genres really annoy me. I've watched 9 episodes and not a one of them really interested me.

peachesenregalia wrote:I don't get the hype. I've tried to get into it, but just can't. The acting is mediocre to bad, the scripting is bad and the plots are silly. I don't like any of the characters and the excessive tropes from both the western and sci-fi genres really annoy me. I've watched 9 episodes and not a one of them really interested me.

You're the worst person ever

SacHawk2.0 wrote:

peachesenregalia wrote:I don't get the hype. I've tried to get into it, but just can't. The acting is mediocre to bad, the scripting is bad and the plots are silly. I don't like any of the characters and the excessive tropes from both the western and sci-fi genres really annoy me. I've watched 9 episodes and not a one of them really interested me.

You're the worst person ever

Concur.

love Firefly. Own the dvd and movie and worn them all out. All the characters were awesome, Joss is good at what he does. Dont understand what peaches is saying, acting and cast were superb. I think its been too long to do an original cast reunion, unless its like the ST movies and everyone is older with new storylines. I also like how Castle has Firefly easter eggs once in awhile.

Seahawk Sailor wrote:

SacHawk2.0 wrote:

peachesenregalia wrote:I don't get the hype. I've tried to get into it, but just can't. The acting is mediocre to bad, the scripting is bad and the plots are silly. I don't like any of the characters and the excessive tropes from both the western and sci-fi genres really annoy me. I've watched 9 episodes and not a one of them really interested me.

You're the worst person ever

Concur.

Whatever guys, sorry. Just didn't like it. And I enjoy sci fi very much usually. I just hated the interplay between the characters, and aside from Alan Tudyk and Nathan fillion, all of the other actors were garbage. None of the characters did anything for me. Just didn't strike the right chord with me, sorry.

Riley12 wrote:You can't pick it up from the last episode because, as Whedon said, the movie essentially covered the rest of the TV journey
that he had planned for those characters. You'd have to carry on without Wash and Book.

Sure, it covered the rest of the journey for those characters, but doing that has worked for Star Trek and other shows. No reason it couldn't work for Firefly - just makes Serenity a little side trip oddity, an adventure in a possible alternate (and sad) ending. Having a strange little alternate spur of the story sticking out there as a movie is simply a mute tribute to the travesty of cancelling the program in the first place, like a little memorial to the decade of silence between episodes 14 and 15.

The problem in my opinion (and yea, I keep picking on this a bit) is that you can't really do justice to the story carrying on without Wash and Book. Wash maybe, but arguably Alan Tudyk is a vital component of the crew's dynamic, and it would be severely lacking without it. Also introducing another character to provide that comedic part of the dynamic would feel contrived, forced. You don't do that with a story if you want to see it succeed. I don't have a problem with killing such a character off if that's the whole story, but it's not. Seeing it out to the end, with a continuation of things as the series told it makes more sense. Wash can still die at the end, or even up to a year or two before the final season. That makes sense. But not so early as to leave a void in the dynamics of crew for so long, to simply see him as a footnote in a longer series.

Book, though, I'd argue is vital to the overarching story line. While I don't pretend to know Whedon's plans for the direction of the story, it's fairly easy to imagine Book has an integral part in it, is a key to the whole thing. His past is important, even as we still don't know what it is. We know enough to know that he's far more of a badass than he claims as a "simple man of the cloth". He's comfortable with weaponry, he takes command in contingency circumstances, and he has federation credentials that make one think twice about who he really is. There's a lot more to him than meets the eye. The only aspect of the story that's bigger, in my estimation, is River's back story with the men with Hands of Blue. And Book may just well be tied into that too. As an author, I'd at least consider that angle very carefully.

And there are a lot of aspects to the story that were not explored fully in Serenity, aside from those. Mal and Inara are far more than the uneasy mutual attraction that ended with a sputter in the movie. I'd argue Inara is at least as critical to the rest of Mal's story as any other character, including Zoe. Probably more. We know most of the relationship between Mal and Zoe. That was addressed in the series well.

And Inara herself has a lot of unanswered questions. She's a lot more than what appearances show. Her back story was not told in its entirety, and was really only hinted at. She left a lucrative career and a promising life on one of the main planets behind, but we know goram well it wasn't because of a sense of adventure. She's not scared to go back, but there are definitely areas about it that she won't go into. I'd guess it's more than just man trouble, or a falling out with the guild. There's a lot of potential left there.

So really, there are three or four of the major subplots still left unexplored in the story. The bulk of the subplots, really, and the most interesting of them. That's why Firefly fans continue to clamor for a reboot, and why it makes sense to set the movie aside and continue from the end of the series, rather than include the movie as part of the overall story. It's been done before, series-wise. And story-wise, it's the only way to really address all the story lines, keep the character dynamics in place, and not cheat outrageously doing it.

As much as I'd love to dive back into the world, the 'sensible' part of me knows that whatever comes next would only like serve to diminish the series at this point. The momentum is gone from the show, and it's actually kind of nice to imagine what could have been rather than what was. *cough* Lost finale *cough*

Killing off Wash and Book was Joss Whedon's statement that he was walking away. Bringing the show back without those two would be a massive downer.

And am I the only one who's annoyed by the fact that EVERY character in Whedon's shows seems to have the same genius pop-culture-informed snark personality? It just kind of screams "THERE'S A DIRECTOR SOMEWHERE IN HERE".

Seahawk Sailor wrote:That's why Firefly fans continue to clamor for a reboot, and why it makes sense to set the movie aside and continue from the end of the series, rather than include the movie as part of the overall story. It's been done before, series-wise. And story-wise, it's the only way to really address all the story lines, keep the character dynamics in place, and not cheat outrageously doing it.

I'd be fine with that. Wouldn't bother me at all.

MontanaHawk05 wrote:And am I the only one who's annoyed by the fact that EVERY character in Whedon's shows seems to have the same genius pop-culture-informed snark personality? It just kind of screams "THERE'S A DIRECTOR SOMEWHERE IN HERE".

Every main character, maybe. But Firefly especially was good with secondary characters being not that way. Book, River, Simon, Jayne, Kaylee all were decently different. Dollhouse also had a few characters not that way.

Jayne was the best

MontanaHawk05 wrote:Killing off Wash and Book was Joss Whedon's statement that he was walking away. Bringing the show back without those two would be a massive downer.

And am I the only one who's annoyed by the fact that EVERY character in Whedon's shows seems to have the same genius pop-culture-informed snark personality? It just kind of screams "THERE'S A DIRECTOR SOMEWHERE IN HERE".

You're just mad because no one ever mentions dilithium crystals.

Seahawk Sailor wrote:

MontanaHawk05 wrote:And am I the only one who's annoyed by the fact that EVERY character in Whedon's shows seems to have the same genius pop-culture-informed snark personality? It just kind of screams "THERE'S A DIRECTOR SOMEWHERE IN HERE".

Every main character, maybe. But Firefly especially was good with secondary characters being not that way. Book, River, Simon, Jayne, Kaylee all were decently different.

Simon, Jayne, and Kaylee all got handed the same Whedonspeak dictionary at some point. They had personalities, but it was wery noticeable (especially in Serenity) the way they'd always wind up with the same style of snark.

Don't get me wrong, though, Whedon is easily in the top half of moviemenschs as far as I'm concerned, way above Abrams. Excellent writing. Dollhouse was awesome. And he did a great job in Avengers of staying true to his tones of the characters and movies that had come before him. By far his least attention-grabbing work.

I think most writers fall into the trap of creating similar voice for all their characters. Stephen King's characters are that way. David Eddings's characters were too. Anne Rice's, Terry Pratchett, the list goes on. Hell, I've noticed it in my own writing, and it bugs the shit out of me. I constantly struggle to give each character a voice of their own, while still remaining true to my style and voice. It's because the author is so much a part of each character, you can't help but have some of your own personality and voice creep into theirs. Whedon does as well as any in that aspect, and believe me, it ain't easy!

And to those saying that bringing back the show would be a tremendous letdown because all the momentum went out of the series at the end, I'd say that as a series with some of the most loudly voiced calls for a return, it'd do just fine. They'd stir up a huge frenzy of excitement over a reboot, and as long as they picked right back up where they left off, kept the plot moving as it was in the series, and continued Whedon's original vision for it, they'd be just fine. There wouldn't be a letdown as long as they stayed the same course the original series was on, and the only way for that to happen is by setting the movie aside.

I think they'd have to start the series several years after the end of the movie, after the central planets have been weakened some by the revelation of what happened with the Reavers.

You could re-boot the series and have a theme of a second revolution/civil war and the outer planets fighting for independence again.

That would be awesome.

I watched this series and I'm a Sci-Phi buff but couldn't get interested in it. Did however like the movie.

I thought Babylon 5 was a much better weekly show than Firefly.

Babylon 5 was a much longer lasting series too. But Firefly spiraled to me more, especially Morena Baccarin.

Seahawk Sailor wrote:I think most writers fall into the trap of creating similar voice for all their characters. Stephen King's characters are that way. David Eddings's characters were too. Anne Rice's, Terry Pratchett, the list goes on. Hell, I've noticed it in my own writing, and it bugs the shit out of me. I constantly struggle to give each character a voice of their own, while still remaining true to my style and voice. It's because the author is so much a part of each character, you can't help but have some of your own personality and voice creep into theirs. Whedon does as well as any in that aspect, and believe me, it ain't easy!

That's a fair point. I shouldn't knock it if I haven't tried it, eh?

I feel this is pertinent to this discussion:

^I'm still pretty sure that Christina Hendricks appearance in Firefly made me a man.

Sarlacc83 wrote:^I'm still pretty sure that Christina Hendricks appearance in Firefly made me a man.

I'm pretty sure she could make anybody a man.

I'm pretty skeptical when someone says a one-season show is a candidate for greatest show ever. I've never seen Firefly, but I've been meaning to; I have no preconceived notions about it, I've simply heard it's really good from a few people over the years. Your proclamation does make me want to watch it sooner rather than later though, Sailor.

Get on it now, mate!

Roland, I'm shocked you haven't watched the series yet. Definitely do so sooner than later. You can stream it from netflix then watch Serenity.

Yeah, I know it's on Netflix; just haven't gotten around to it, yet. I've only got a couple episodes left of season 9 of The X-Files, which has taken me quite a while to get through, (and dear God, I had forgotten how bad most of the final season was...ugh) so I'll watch Firefly next. I'll probably start it tomorrow morning before I have some friends over for BBQ ribs.

Roland, prepare to be disappointed.

I still have to finish 24, Dollhouse, and now Fringe. Sheesh, it's like I have a life or something.

MontanaHawk05 wrote:I still have to finish 24, Dollhouse, and now Fringe. Sheesh, it's like I have a life or something.

I'd rate those Dollhouse, Fringe, then 24. Of the three, the first two are completely awesome, the third well done, but eh...

Oh Montana, you're such a kidder. You live in Montana. We know you don't have a life.

@Sailor: Don't impugn 24, it's not Kiefer Sutherland's fault the writing went to crap after season 4-ish. That show's first few seasons were awesome, and the format of the show was very refreshing.

@Roland, true. It was well done. I enjoyed it. Just wasn't the same caliber of Firefly, Dollhouse, and Fringe. Of course, hard to find any show that is.

RolandDeschain wrote:I'm pretty skeptical when someone says a one-season show is a candidate for greatest show ever. I've never seen Firefly, but I've been meaning to; I have no preconceived notions about it, I've simply heard it's really good from a few people over the years. Your proclamation does make me want to watch it sooner rather than later though, Sailor.

I had to admit to never having seen the TV show. Our youngest and her hubby sent us the movie Serenity and I liked it. So tried to watch the TV show after that and it just didn't zing to me. For some reason not the same.

I loved Battlestar Gallactica in its original form. So when the new version came along with a couple of actors I really like, Mary McConnel & Edward Olmos I was sure I'd like it. But I missed the beginning weeks and never could get with that program.

So kind of like Roland says, just because someone else likes it doesn't mean I will. And no offense either. My wife loves Burn Notice, me? Bores me to tears. And I don't care what anyone says Fi is not gorgeous, or even pretty as far as I'm concerned. lol

Funy how disparate ladys will get my attention. Kenzie in NCIS LA could share a nights fantasy with me anytime. Same with Lucy Liu in Elementary. Now if there are 2 entirely different types of ladys they would be them.

Never watched the series, but any low-budget sci-fi which gets critical acclaim, I'll watch. Loved the movie.

My daughter's name is River after all.

Speaking of the new Battlestar Galactica which was one of my favorite sci-fi series of all time, they should just do a reimagining of Firefly. Not a radical change because what's the point of that? But they're going to need new actors, etc. so why not just start all over? a new telling altogether.

I loved all the characters and how they interacted together. Adam Baldwin was awesome in both Firefly and Chuck (also a great show). By the way, if you want a Morena Baccarin nudity fix, watch Homeland, which is a great show also haha. Claire Danes is a CIA agent who suspects a soldier POW released after 8 years in terrorist captivity has turned, and is plotting a terrorist attack on American soil. Baccarin plays his wife.

She gets nekkid on tv?

Yup, multiple times. It is a cable TV show after all! HBO or Showtime, I forget which. Just google image search "morena baccarin homeland" or something similar if you don't believe me haha.

Firefly was a lot of fun. Wish I had seen it when it was on, but I was a bandwagon hop-on a couple years ago.

I would vote "no" to a re-boot. Too tough to replace those characters, and actors like Nathan Fillion just made the characters who they are. Another actor in some of those roles (or even just new characters filling out the cast) just wouldn't feel right.

I think the movie wrapped things up really nicely and gave some closure.

I say yes if its a movie the quality of Serenity. Itd have to be a movie beacause Nathan Fillion and Gina Torres are series regulars on other shows. Alternate reality reboot won't work because the show was so short run. Continue after serenity with th opertunity to instal new characters. I'm sure they didn't cover all of Joshs ideas. Two by two, hands of blue.

Shy

I was just reading the trivia section of Serenity on imdb and Whedon revealed that all the characters were originally suposed to survive but because the actors couldn't commit to a sequel they were killed off. He also said there was a strong possibility they would return if a sequel was to be made but he has to figure out a way that the audience would buy.

Shy