This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Whedonesque - a community weblog about Joss Whedon
"How's it sit? Pretty cunning, don'tchya think?"
11945 members | you are not logged in | 24 November 2014




Tweet







December 09 2009

Fox Axing "Firefly" One of the Top Ten Sci-Fi Disappointments of the Decade. io9 considers Fox's decision to end "Firefly" (among other short-lived quality shows on the network) one of the top ten most disappointing moments of the aughts.

I'm leaning towards the 00's or two-thousands instead of aughts.
Yeah, that one still makes my blood broil.
I still prefer the "naught-ies." :-)
I like the first decade.
As a Warren Ellis nerd, I call them the Zeroes. It has a certain bleak quality that amuses me.
Wow, this list is heavily comic-weighted. I don't have a problem with comics, but seems a bit narrowly focused for a list like this. Afterall, there have been plenty of other SciFi disappointments this decade :)
Down among the zeroes ... Yeah, that works.

'Aught' has (to me) only really started cropping up in the last few months which seems strange given that we're almost out of them (I thought Book's usage was either newly coined or an obsolete "old west" term). And 'naught' feels more natural this side of the pond anyway.

As to the actual article, don't agree about 'Superman Returns' or 'Watchmen' (the film ending was more coherent to me though I accept it maybe lacked urgency but that's surely partly cos fans already knew it, at least approximately ?) and only partly about the BSG finale. Spot on about the Matrix sequels and 'Heroes' and can't argue much over "The Dark Knight Strikes Again" though it struck me as partly parodying DKR's slew of keep-upping-the-gritty-violence imitators and it was at least an angry book (but it felt middle-aged-reactionary angry rather than boldly-calling-to-arms angry. Muddled too, not a patch on Returns). Basically Miller didn't just get older, he got old. Pity.
I heard "aughts" bandied about around the beginning of the year 2000 (along with "naughts", "zeroes", etc.). But it didn't seem to be the popular terminology. And now it pops up again ten years later.

I think the 1900's were possibly referred to as the "aughts" during the early part of the twentieth century. It does have a very old fashioned feel to it imo.
Think I said this another thread, but I hadn't come across aughts until the past couple of weeks. Even those times have only just come from links on here. I thought it may have been an American expression, although I do think it sounds a little old fashioned too, JossIzBoss. The expression I usually hear is "the noughties", which I find fairly cringe-worthy.

Firefly's cancellation is definitely up there as the biggest entertainment disappointments this decade, let alone just in the sci-fi/fantasy genre. I only saw it on DVD, so I knew what I was getting into from the start, but it was still a massive shame.

Can't disagree with them on The Matrix neither. Although teenage me didn't mind the action in the new ones, early twenties me has no interest in going back to them; the DVDs sit on my shelf staring at me right now, untouched for a few years.

I have to disagree with Superman Returns though. The main story was pretty novel and, although heavy handed, the Christian imagery was woven well into the tale of father, sons and abandonment. Some of the action sequences felt a bit tacked on, particularly the plane, and it could have done with some of its running time shaved off, but I really enjoyed it on the two or three occasions I've watched it. I would say Spiderman 3 was a much bigger disappointment, which was fairly enjoyable, but was a major drop in quality from the previous films.
Watched Firefly..I want those hours back, Joss, please.

EDIT: I like Heroes. :D

[ edited by Frick on 2009-12-09 17:51 ]
You know, I remember being very disappointed with the first Matrix sequel, so I never bothered with the third. I recently sat down and re-watched them all to give them another chance.

You know what? The second two are just as good as the first. I'm not saying they're great, but the first wasn't great either, just fun. And the second two are fun too. Actually, I think the third was my favorite in the series. I think it suffered from Bitter Angry Geek Syndrome...where the sequels aren't *exactly* what we wanted at the time, so they MUST be bad. I had the same problem with the Resident Evil movies...I wanted it to be a dark, creepy zombie film rather than a sci-fi action horror film. Watching it again, well, the first two are more fun than good, but there's a place in this world for fun movies. And I seriously loved the third.

I think Heroes suffers from the same thing. I personally think that it's gotten better and better as time passed. There are things I would have written differently, but it really is the same show it started out being. It's a comic book, in terms of pacing and characters, and taking comic books too seriously is a bigger problem than fans (myself included) want to admit!

I do miss Firefly way too much though :-(
Watched Firefly..I want those hours back, Joss, please.

In 7 years you might well be the first person i've ever come across that's seen 'Firefly' and not at least enjoyed it (even if it ranked below all other Whedon shows). Kudos Frick (sort of ;).

Think I said this another thread, but I hadn't come across aughts until the past couple of weeks.

As I say above, yeah you had Vandelay, you'd just forgotten ;).

(Book talks about having flown in a pre "aught-three" Firefly class ship in 'Serenity Pt 1'. Bumpier ride apparently, no extenders)

[ edited by Saje on 2009-12-09 18:11 ]
I'm not an etymologist but I am an English grad and I'm finding all this recent 'aughties' stuff weird. And I definitely haven't just forgotten the term being used before the recent spate of list frenzy - it's a new one on me. Maybe it's just a two-continents-separated-by-a-common-language thing.

As far as I know (or, at least, believed):
aught = anything (roughly)
naught = contraction of not anything = nothing (roughly)
nought = specifically refers to the number 0 and would, therefore, be more appropriate in this context. Unless the writer is trying to convey that this is the decade of anything and/or nothing, which would be worth thinking about...

Any elucidation welcome!

Back on-topic, my expectations of sci-fi are probably not as high as those of some people around these parts, so the only one that really hurts is Firefly. But that's just me.
'Owt' is anything to me (from Yorkshire). So is "aught" technically but before Book I don't think i'd heard it used in the UK. Likewise i've heard of the naught/nought distinction but again, not in common usage in my experience.

And yep fair enough, if you haven't seen 'Firefly' (specifically 'Serenity Pt 1') then you couldn't possibly have forgotten it from there. In which case, I highly recommend you check out 'Firefly' BizarroGirl, it's brill ;).
I feel like a bad fan for not knowing aught is said in Firefly. Guess this means I will have to re-watch them.
Sorry Frick but simple math dictates:

Firefly > Heroes
narse said:
"I think Heroes suffers from the same thing. I personally think that it's gotten better and better as time passed. There are things I would have written differently, but it really is the same show it started out being. It's a comic book, in terms of pacing and characters, and taking comic books too seriously is a bigger problem than fans (myself included) want to admit!"

Heroes ignores its own continuity/established sci-fi "facts", often without any proper cover-up (fan-wankery), or when it bothers, without adequate explanation. I haven't taken it seriously since the first half of Season 3 (well...even before that, Hiro's immense potential and no one seeming to know that he could fix most problems/deaths in the show, especially during the few times he was in full control of his powers and not dying, was a glaring error. The high risk of having easily-accessed time travel elements in a long-running series, without clever writers to make it work). Even if you take it as light, kill-an-hour, disposable entertainment though, it's hard to ignore all the inconsistencies (and some of the character inconsistencies are sometimes worse crimes against the audience than the continuity of plot/details) when you've experienced much better TV shows in the past with overwhelmingly more capable writers. Also, often, some of the dialogue in Heroes is just awful, or at the very least kinda clunky overall (I've noticed it less lately, but I'm not sure if that's because I'm used to it, if they got different writers aside from Tim Kring, or if Bryan Fuller maybe had a good effect on some of them when he returned briefly for the second half of Season 3--or maybe he's still involved, as he was listed as a Consulting Producer for a while there in Season 4).

I watch because there're still a few characters worth sticking around for, it's occasionally nicely shot, and I'm still curious enough to see how it'll end (I did allow myself to hope, just a little, that Fuller was in the midst of fixing things--as much as that was possible, at least--in the latter half of Season 3, but then he got development deals and wisely jumped ship).

The biggest problem with the show currently (and for a long while now) has to do with their unwillingness to dispose of Sylar permanently. Think Zachary Quinto's great regardless, but I won't miss that character.
(well...even before that, Hiro's immense potential and no one seeming to know that he could fix most problems/deaths in the show, especially during the few times he was in full control of his powers and not dying, was a glaring error. The high risk of having easily-accessed time travel elements in a long-running series, without clever writers to make it work)

Time-travel can kill stories absolutely stone dead unless, as you say Kris, it's a one-off OR the writers know exactly what they're doing (with the late and very lamented 'Journeyman' for instance, the fact that Dan could make a single change and destroy his entire [future] life was used as a source of suspense). It's like magic in that sense - when your hero can do anything then where's the peril ? 'Heroes' seemed to start out understanding that (i.e. that you have to explain why they would/wouldn't use time-jumping to save the day within the story) and then conveniently forgot to bother somewhere along the line.

All superpowers need limits otherwise there's no conflict, nothing to overcome, no story (even when he could move planets Superman still had Kryptonite - of various shades - to keep him on his toes).

I feel like a bad fan for not knowing aught is said in Firefly.

In fairness, he says "an aught three", maybe you heard it as "a nought three" ?

Guess this means I will have to re-watch them.

You're welcome in that case ;).

(it's when Book first boards the ship, as he's negotiating with Kaylee)

[ edited by Saje on 2009-12-10 11:45 ]
Definition of 'aught' on dictionary.com. Scroll down to number 2.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/aught

You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.



joss speaks back home back home back home back home back home