Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television Media The Media

Firefly: A Special Feature 239

Posted by Hemos from the looking-into-the-minds-of-people dept.
Philip B. Gaines writes "Philip B. Gaines announces the completion of an independent multimedia commentary project, "Firefly: A Special Feature", a DVD based on the FOX television series created by Joss Whedon. A free examination copy of the project is available for those willing to provide feedback about this media experiment. "Firefly: A Special Feature" is a 3.5 hour multi-module review of Whedon's innovative space western series. The interactive review features a variety of interpretive and analytical components--all intended to further discussion of this seriously underappreciated show. The bottom line of the project is dialogue, not promotion. If you have seen "Firefly" before and found it intriguing--or even if you haven't--this project will make you think, argue, and perhaps even learn a bit. For "Firefly: A Special Feature", I have acted as writer, video/sound editor, and media producer, working with complete independence from the producers of the show or anyone else whose influence might bias the analysis. Plans are underway to do this kind of project again, so I would appreciate feedback on all levels. See the website for a formal description of the project Email pbgaines@pbgaines.com for a copy of the DVD."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Firefly: A Special Feature More

Firefly: A Special Feature

Comments Filter:

  • It wasn't a good fit for FOX (Score:5, Funny)

    by EvilAlien ( 133134 ) on Monday November 24, 2003 @12:51PM (#7548567) Journal
    I liked Firefly a lot, and was pretty pissed off at the mental midgets at FOX for replacing it with that vacuous teen cop show. Admittedly, the teen cop show is a better fit for FOX and their viewers...

    ... don't get me wrong, I have nothing against the drooling mindless masses.

    • Re:It wasn't a good fit for FOX (Score:5, Interesting)

      by BLKMGK ( 34057 ) <{morejunk4me} {at} {hotmail.com}> on Monday November 24, 2003 @01:01PM (#7548669) Homepage Journal
      I liked it too and don't even recall what replaced it . It wasn't a perfect show but I thought it had potential. A shame it was shot down after just a few shows. :-(
    • I liked Firefly a lot, and was pretty pissed off at the mental midgets at FOX for replacing it with that vacuous teen cop show.

      You apparently haven't been wathcing Fox for that long then. These are the same folks who canceled Married With Children (probably the best satire of the American family ever on TV) becuase it wasn't "family-friendly" but who think that 7th Heaven and similar shows reflect actual American families.

      • Re:Why were you surprised? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Enry ( 630 ) <enry@@@wayga...net> on Monday November 24, 2003 @01:16PM (#7548797) Journal
        Uhm...I'm not sure what you mean by that but:

        1) Fox doesn't show 7th Heaven. That's WB
        2) MWC ran for 10 years, which is a long time for any show. Not sure if it was cancelled or they just ended the series.
        3) Fox also shows the Simpsons, which is decidedly not family-friendly.
        4) Temptation Island, Joe Millionaire, "When X Attack!", "Strangest X ever caught on tape!"

        • Re:Why were you surprised? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Jeff DeMaagd ( 2015 ) on Monday November 24, 2003 @01:26PM (#7548858) Homepage Journal
          I thought MWC lasted 12 years. Either way, it is an eon in TV years. Few shows last more than one season, far fewer last five years, and fewer still last twelve years, it is a a statistical outlier at that point. By many accounts MWC simply got old.
        • Fox also shows the Simpsons, which is decidedly not family-friendly

          How is the Simpsons not family-friendly?

        • MWC ran for 10 years, which is a long time for any show. Not sure if it was cancelled or they just ended the series.

          It was cancelled abruptly (somewhat obnoxiously for a show that was so crucial for Fox) which is why the ending (Kelly's non-wedding) seemed odd.

          Temptation Island, Joe Millionaire, "When X Attack!", "Strangest X ever caught on tape!"

          "World's Scariest X" ... and Paradise Hotel! "Well, if that's the way she's going to the game, then that's the way I'm going to start playing the game!" God, I

        • Married with Children was just cancelled. It suffered from out living the executives that put it on the air. Those who were in charge of the network at the time it was cancelled were 2 generations of executives removed. The new executives were trying to kill the show and started moving it around and the just randomly said there was no longer a viewership and axed it in between the seasons without warning. A number of the main actors found out over the radio and not from Fox its self.
        • Well, I bet when one of the main characters decided to "correct" the bible, that pissed off one of the conservative upper management types at FOX.

      • Re:Why were you surprised? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Otter ( 3800 ) on Monday November 24, 2003 @01:21PM (#7548825) Journal
        1) At the time of its demise, Married With Children was by far the longest running sitcom on the air at the time. I'm a huge fan (I own a NO MA'AM t-shirt, for crying out loud) but even I would never contend they didn't keep that show on way, way past its prime.

        2) 7th Heaven is on WB.

        I think you need to watch more television!

    • Sci-fi never does well on TV (Score:4, Insightful)

      by hellfire ( 86129 ) <deviladv.gmail@com> on Monday November 24, 2003 @04:10PM (#7550251) Homepage
      Sci-fi is relegated to too much of a niche compared to other forms of entertainment. Movies can afford fantasy and sci-fi special effects but even there most "sci-fi" is a glorified action or war movie which people can relate to.

      People want to relate to what they are watching. A sci-fi movie or TV show can do well if you manage to explain the technology and the world without bogging down the plot and by creating a plot and characters people can get into.

      Firefly was too good. It created a whole new world, but it tried to make it familiar by throwing in a very very clever wild west element. It was so subtle it didn't seem camp, just a light seasoning that made me believe "hey, its possible!"

      The problem was it was centuries in the future, there is no America, no Russia, no islamic fundamentalists, and no cute teens agonizing over frivolous issues. Not enough people in the US like sci fi enough to make it successful beyond UPN or the sci-fi channel. It's a demand thing, and it sucks.

      And to be honest, its not because people are frivolous or stupid or just want the same old thing. It's quite simply because perfectly nice and reasonable people just don't relate to sci-fi.
      • I would wager people would strt to watch it, if it was given a chance.
        Look at buffy, not exactly main stream.
        Everybody I know that like buffy(which I did not) enjoyed firefly. They all wanted to watch it again, but it kept changing time slots.
        The only reason I got them to watch it, was to show them a tape. I was a fan, and I couldn't figure out when it was on next.
        • I have no doubt people would enjoy firefly. The problem with things like this is that its not about getting enough ratings to keep it on the air, its really about getting enough ratings to beat the competition. The problem with network TV is that its always about getting more market share than the other stations.

          There's plenty of demand for a lot of shows, but I have an opinion that if Firefly was pitched to Sci-fi, it would probably still be on the air because you don't need as much of a ratings share t

  • At warp speed... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    What was the last thing that went through the firefly's mind when he hit the spaceship's windshield?

  • From fan fiction.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by xinit ( 6477 ) <rmurray@@@foo...ca> on Monday November 24, 2003 @12:59PM (#7548644) Homepage
    I mean, I'm glad that this isn't a DVD with fan fiction style sex scenes and unplausible dialogue, but fan documentary? Is that any better?

    • Re:From fan fiction.... (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Oh, come on. Some fan-fictions are actually quite good. Consider, if you will, that every single Star Wars book is a 'fan-fiction'. The entire Thrawn cycle, all of the New Republic books, Shadows Of The Empire, ALL OF IT. The only official Star Wars stories are the ones that George Lucas puts out.

      Now, as for 'fan-documentaries', I haven't seen this yet, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was quite a good documentary. Who better to write about a show than one of the people who loved it?
      • Not really valid for star wars stuff. In order to legally use the star wars name and sell your book/story etc, it has to go through Lucas who ok's it. Which is totally different from fan fiction.
      • Oh, come on. Some pederasts are actually quite good people. Consider, if you will, famous music stars, movie actors, and big name politicians who have sex with kids.

        Seriously, though, I'm no fan of your referenced proof of talent existing in the fan fiction world. As far as I'm concerned, I have yet to see anything well written that's fan authored. The Star Wars world books are hardly proof... they're poor writing that is deemed as official by the head Jedi... They're STILL poorly written.

  • Congrats! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by FortKnox ( 169099 ) on Monday November 24, 2003 @01:00PM (#7548661) Homepage Journal
    Congrats on working with a great series that should have had a bit longer time on the air for people to get used to it.

    And congrats on the free ad space ;-P

  • Dear slashdot editors... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 24, 2003 @01:04PM (#7548694)
    How many angry readers will you censor by modding them down until you realized that you placed a disguised advert as an article?
    .

  • Firefly (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bigjnsa500 ( 575392 ) <bigjnsa500@yPERIODahoo.com minus punct> on Monday November 24, 2003 @01:14PM (#7548779) Homepage Journal
    There were actually 13 episodes. The first 10 were aired in the states, while the last 3 were in the UK. Fox has to be blamed for its low Neilsen ratings since it aired the episodes out of order which probably confused the audience.
    • Actually, if you consider the pilot as 2 episodes "Serenity, Part 1" and "Serenity, Part 2", there are 15 episodes in total. Fox aired 12. The final 3 episodes aired elsewhere.

      • Re:Firefly (Score:5, Informative)

        by bigjnsa500 ( 575392 ) <bigjnsa500@yPERIODahoo.com minus punct> on Monday November 24, 2003 @01:26PM (#7548861) Homepage Journal
        Well 14 if you consider Serenity as 2 episodes, which Fox aired as 2 episodes. If there is a 15th episode, I don't know about it.

        Check this out:

        In the USA and Canada, starting on September 20, 2002, Fox broadcast the episodes on Fridays at 20:00 (except for the second hour of the pilot which was shown at 21:00). The order was 2-3, 6; 7-8, 4-5, 9; 10, 14, 1; with 11-13 still unaired.

        The lucky English:
        In the United Kingdom, starting on May 12, 2003, Sci-fi broadcast the episodes on Mondays at 21:00 (except for the first hour of the pilot which was shown at 20:00). The altered episodes of the first season were shown in the originally intended order.

        Source: NationMaster.com [nationmaster.com]

    • It also doesn't help that the show aired in a Friday night timeslot... which is pretty well the death knell for any new show.

    • Re:Firefly (Score:2, Troll)

      by Zed2K ( 313037 )
      It also doesn't help that the show was downright boring. I honestly gave it a shot and watched 3 episodes, but I was asleep after the first one. Chalked it up to just being tired and watched another episode. Found it just as dry as the first one but figured, hey...why not give it a 3rd try, 3 strikes kind of thing.

      By the 3rd episode I saw I said to myself, this thing is gonna be cancelled. Which sucks because I was looking forward to it. I didn't have any expectations except for it to be an entertaini
      • It also doesn't help that the show was downright boring.

        I have to agree with you. The show had great premises, but poor execution. Usually by the end of the first 15 minutes I was bored and ended up reading a magazine or surfing the web and half paying attention to the show's audio in case something came up.

        Still, it's a shame it was cancelled. The show could have been improved, the actors/actresses were fine and you could grow to like the chars. Maybe a change of writer or director or somesuch (I k

      • Re:Firefly (Score:2, Insightful)

        by aknodle ( 316355 )
        I thought the show was slow until I watched about 4 or 5 episodes. My husband was really into it, so I was "forced" into watching it.

        What I really liked about the show (once I understood the characters and their motivations) was the rhythm that developed between the plot, dialogue and action. I had to become invested in the story in order to appreciate the speed of delivery.

  • Hands down, one of the best... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by humandoing ( 237262 ) on Monday November 24, 2003 @01:24PM (#7548851) Homepage
    ...Science Fiction shows ever put on television (imho). At first, I didn't think I could get use to the "space cowboy" feel, but this show was absolutely fantastic. It was a much more realistic look at what a potential "space wandering" humanity could become (when comparing to something like Star Trek). The cast and acting was great, the episodes, plots, and storyline, all very intriguing. It still completely shocks me that Fox took it off the air. Several friends of mine and myself still wallow in frustration as to why it ever got taken off the air.

    I highly recommend picking the series up on DVD, available at Amazon Dec.9.

  • The linked article is interesting but Mr. Gaines writes that his target date for completion is July 2003. Wonder if he intended that to read 2004?

  • FOX also canceled... (Score:5, Informative)

    by cnelzie ( 451984 ) on Monday November 24, 2003 @01:31PM (#7548916) Homepage
    'Space Above and Beyond', which was quite an excellent SciFi show, it lasted something like one and a half to two and a half seasons before having the plug pulled on it.

    It used revolutionary (for television) special effects for the space scenes. If I am not mistaken, I believe that it was the first to use computer generated graphics for the entirety of the space scenes, from the large cruiser/carrier the space marines were using to the sleek starfighters that that marines were using...

    The stories were rather compelling as well. Especially with the whole back history of the clone warriors and the human-looking androids. It's to bad that they ended the whole show as it was beginning to really grow... (I feel that most shows take a good two to three seasons to really get their legs and start running...)
    • I love SAAB too, but they didn't stretch out the story for another year. Just like BattleStar Gallactica. Only on for 2 years because once they got to Earth, the storyline got boring.
      • BG never "got to Earth." The show was cancelled, then resumed as Galactica 1980 or something, which was set on & above Earth, and 20 years in the putative future, but had only one of the original cast members, Lorne Grene. BG was canceled because it was too expensive to produce; the 1980 version had very cheap effects.
    • It used revolutionary (for television) special effects for the space scenes. If I am not mistaken, I believe that it was the first to use computer generated graphics for the entirety of the space scenes, from the large cruiser/carrier the space marines were using to the sleek starfighters that that marines were using... I think you're mistaken, because Babylon 5 predates Space: Above and Beyond.

    • Re:FOX also canceled... (Score:3, Informative)

      by Ewan ( 5533 )
      It was also obscenely expensive, I read something like $2million an episode, just because of the special effects - the actors certainly weren't getting paid for it.

      Because of the high cost, you need a high viewing figure to support it, unfortunately a sci-fi show isn't going to get these kind of numbers.

      I guess today, 7 years later, the cost of all those effects would be much less, but I don't suppose there's any chance of it being picked up again.

      Ewan
    • I loved that show too. I wish they had a DVD collecting the whole thing like Firefly - The Complete Series [amazon.com].
    • "Passport users? Oh, you mean everyone who uses XP because of that annoying bubble that keeps pestering you to sign-up until you do."

      Eh I don't think SAaB holds that trophy. But arguably it was the first show with CG effects that made model photography look like it was on its way out.

    • A few corrections to your post:

      1. Space Above and Beyond ran for 1 season (24 episodes)
      2. The Babylon 5 production crew were the ones that revoutionised SciFi special effects arena
      (it had been running a FULL two years before SA&B). They showed EVERYONE that you
      could make an episode using computer graphics without the $1Million price tag that star trek
      espiodes cost then.

      Space Above and Beyond was merely following in Babylon 5's LARGE footsteps.
      • 2. The Babylon 5 production crew were the ones that revoutionised SciFi special effects arena (it had been running a FULL two years before SA&B). They showed EVERYONE that you could make an episode using computer graphics without the $1Million price tag that star trek
        espiodes cost then.

        Not if you wanted it to look good.

        The CGI for B5 blew very large, stinky goats. Yes, it was amazing that these people pulled the wool over some people's eyes, but the plain truth is that the CGI sucked (I was a big T
    • <redundant>Babylon 5 was the first TV show to make extensive, regular use of CGI.</redundant> It was mostly geeks in garages/basements fooling around with Lightwave, too. ;)

      In addition to all the space sequences, a great number of interior sets were also virtual, such as docking bays, the observation dome, and the main station length "outdoors" expanse. (Let's not talk about the transport shuttle tracks)

      Around this time, Star Trek was saying they'd never use CGI and would stick with their mo

  • WTF? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The commentary lasts longer than the actual television series! I thought Firefly was actually an OK show. Not great, but not trash either. It's definately better than "The OC" though. What a crock of shit.
    I don't get why all you geeks ejaculate for Firefly. I'll admit it was an interesting show, but not nearly as good as you all make it out to be. Personally, I think Andy Richter's show was 100 times better. On a scale of "The OC" to "The Family Guy", I would give Firefly about .2 * "The Family Guy".
    • You called us all geeks while simultaneously making up a logarithmic scale to rate your favorite TV shows. Brilliant.

      But hey, all name-calling aside, I just liked the show. Opinions are opinions, though-- so I won't bother justifying it anymore than I would try to convince you to adopt my favorite color as your own.

  • I liked the show , and thought that the dialogue alone was head and shoulders above ANY show (not just scifi or western) previously or currently broadcast, but that isn't relevant.
    Isn't the topic here the interactive multimedia approach to the show's episodes ? No one has commented on that yet.

  • Nothin but Trash on TV tonight! (Score:4, Informative)

    by Doodleman3 ( 409554 ) on Monday November 24, 2003 @01:44PM (#7549024)
    One of the unaired episodes of Fire Fly is on Space tonight at 8pm EST it's called Trash.

    Space is a Canadian Si-Fi\Fantasy Station.
  • ...so that I don't have to read about this dead sci-fi show every week on Slashdot. That's what imdb.com is for.

  • What's this spaceship stuff? (Score:4, Funny)

    by RomulusNR ( 29439 ) on Monday November 24, 2003 @02:01PM (#7549174) Homepage
    Oh damn. I was hoping for a documentary that exposed brain-dead MIT Media Lab dotcom ventures [firefly.net].

  • It wasn't THAT good (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Servo ( 9177 ) <dstringf@NospAM.tutanota.com> on Monday November 24, 2003 @02:02PM (#7549181) Journal
    Call me crazy, but I felt the whole space cowboy theme was a little much. I watched it, but I don't feel the angst that so many fellow slashdotters feel for its removal. What I do share is the angst of what they replaced it with. They went from mediocre to just plain crap.

    Now when they pulled Greg The Bunny, that really pissed me off!
  • I'm a huge Firefly fan, and was pretty eager to see what this project would be like. Sadly, if the "What is Firefly" multimedia project that's available on the website is any indication, the project is going to be little more than a revisiting of a fan's favourite clips along with a voiceover filled with harsh invective and "woe is the world for the cancellation of Firefly!" mopings.

    The show was, IMHO, very unique. It took me a while to get around the mix of high and low tech, and I think it took the write

  • A point about Whedon's writing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dionwr ( 542835 ) on Monday November 24, 2003 @02:39PM (#7549510)
    It is too bad about "Firefly" not receiving the support it needed from Fox, because I've noticed something about ALL of Whedon's series. The first season is just the setup.

    If there had only been one season of "Buffy," no one would remember it now. The first season has some good lines and is solidly done, but what made the show special was how Whedon developed the characters and situations he'd established in that first year.

    "Angel" was much the same. The first season set the ground rules, and then he started to screw with them.

    I enjoyed the episodes we saw of "Firefly," but what I really miss is seeing how it would get fiddled with, as the series progressed.
    • absolutly.
      The same goes with the Simpsons. the first season was alright, but not great.
      If Fox was the same company it was when it started, Firefly would stil be on the air.

      No surprise really. Once they got football, their whole attitude changed. I wish one of the other broacasting companies would get the damn sports, so fox could go back to taking chances.
    • It is too bad about "Firefly" not receiving the support it needed from Fox, because I've noticed something about ALL of Whedon's series. The first season is just the setup.

      Absolutely. But I heard a rumour that he'd got funding to make a movie of it. So we might at least see some of where he wanted to go with it...

  • Philip's Work Is Worth Whatever's He's Asking (Score:5, Interesting)

    by superultra ( 670002 ) on Monday November 24, 2003 @03:10PM (#7549789) Homepage
    Philip was kind enough to send me a copy of his DVD project a week and a half ago, and while I have yet to finish watching what is unarguably a massive project, everything I've watched so far is fantastic commentary. He exhibits extremely strong character analysis (essential for any discussion of Firefly) and is acutely aware of a plethora of layered subtleties in the show that I somehow completely missed, even having rewatched the episodes time and time again. Pay (if he's asking for money at all) whatever he's asking for material and/or S&H, because the project is well worth it. What I've watched of the DVD I've walked away from having an even greater appreciation for Firefly, and I didn't think that was possible.

    Hopefully someone "up there" (that is to say, Whedon) will notice Philip's exemplary work and integrate it into the mythos somehow, because it deserves nothing less. Highly recommended.

  • DVDTracks: Also inspired by Ebert (Score:4, Informative)

    by Robotech_Master ( 14247 ) * on Monday November 24, 2003 @03:25PM (#7549919) Homepage Journal
    You know, you don't have to do a DVD of your own to put in your own commentaries on films. The guy's site mentions he was inspired by Ebert's Dark City track--well, another idea Ebert had, and one that's even been covered by Slashdot in the distant past though I lack the time to dig up the URL for the story, is DVDTracks [dvdtracks.com], a site that hosts do-it-yourself commentaries recorded as MP3s, meant to be downloaded and played simultaneously with the DVDs. I've even done one myself, for the Miyazaki movie Lupin III: Castle of Cagliostro [dvdtracks.com], and it was great fun.

    There's a lot of other great stuff there, too. Check it out.
  • ...is to "roll my own" and run a Firefly-based rpg. Notes available here [docbrown.net].

    • Not too familiar with the Fudge rules, but there is a "western"-like space faring rpg in various incarnations:

      Classic Traveller at http://www.farfuture.net/
      GURPS Traveller at http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/traveller/
      d20 Traveller at http://www.travellerrpg.com/T20/

      easy framework to mod and expand on; lot's of material, fan based and commerical. my fave is Classic, 'cause I already have the little black books. two d6 is all ya need for Classic! ;)
  • I don't care if Firefly was innovative. It was boring. I watched two weeks in a row and was so bored, I fell asleep. Why? The story sucked. Tell me a story. Keep me engaged. I will watch it. Drone on and on and do silly things like have cowboys in space WITH OUT REASON and I will turn away.

Slashdot Top Deals

One man's constant is another man's variable. -- A.J. Perlis

Close