In programming as in comedy, timing is everything.

sumogrip | January 13, 02:42 CET

Nostalgia is a safe bet these days.

Simon | January 13, 02:50 CET

Madden is a good guy. Top notch, really.

IrrationaliTV | January 13, 03:57 CET

Time for the whole internet to go crazy with "Firefly is coming back" rumors!

It's nice to hear Fox might be open to it now, though! Joss, you listening?

AnotherFireflyfan | January 13, 04:58 CET

I would have thought the internet would have gone crazier by now. I mean, isn't Fox saying they're interested what we've been waiting to hear for about 12 years now? I suppose we're holding off on that until Joss himself has a response.

batmarlowe | January 13, 05:44 CET

FOX is really only one component. 20th Century Fox TV would also have to be on board and then Joss (and Tim? who is very busy with all Ryan Murphy's shows), of course.

If you hear rumors of Joss taking a meeting with anyone TCFTV then I would get excited. David Madden is a very nice man and exceedingly polite/charming. He could have very easily been making pleasant small talk.

IrrationaliTV | January 13, 05:54 CET

Word.

brinderwalt | January 13, 07:54 CET

Does anyone have a link to Joss' most recent comments about the idea of a Firefy revival? (Because while for years I do remember him talking about the lack of interest from Fox being the issue standing in the way of a revival, I seem to remember him more recently talking about feeling too much time had passed...and he has talked recently about wanting to focus more on new projects rather than going back to old ones.)

rg253 | January 13, 08:33 CET

"Please Sir, may we glom onto you like the bloodsucking leeches we are and try to steal a few drops of pure gold from your enormous worldwide fame and fortune?

Oh FYI, if you become obscure again, we will immediately go back to treating you like a leper with Alzheimer's, and not returning your phone calls."

RobynH | January 13, 09:10 CET

You have got to be kidding me with this. Ahaha.

edit: slightly more serious comment - even if that was a first step towards something, who thinks FOX would be the place it should air! would be canceled again after another 5 episodes :)

[ edited by D-e-f- on 2017-01-13 07:29 ]

D-e-f- | January 13, 10:27 CET

I don't remember if it was Whedon or Minear, but one of them said in an interview, that they do not want to revive "Firefly", because whatever they come up with could never be as good as the high expectations. After the magic back then, everything would be a disappointment.

At this point, I'm not sure if I want another season... I think the show was so awesome, because everyone involved knew, it was in danger of cancellation and that it had to go all in and get to the good parts and fire on all cylinders or they will never get to tell their stories.

I guess I'd feel different about another movie. Thinking about it, I would be the happiest getting a 2-part mini-series or something. This way everything could air before Fox cancels the show.

roadi | January 13, 11:48 CET

Would they un-kill Wash so that Alan could join the show?

SteveP | January 13, 14:37 CET

What roadi said. Except I don't want a movie either. "Firefly" is what it is, and it's "perfect" in its own way. I don't want it to be meddled with.

Sahjhan | January 13, 15:37 CET

Joss wont do it. Too much time has passed and he has other projects. So Madden can safely say that, paying lip service to fans while knowing it wont happen. He just passed the blame card to Joss. Dick move. Very sad.

Bad Karma | January 13, 16:10 CET

Extremely unlikely to happen. A) The cast members are all a decade older than when we last saw them, and most of them have gone on to busy careers; B) There are now a whole bunch of canon comics that would have to be worked around (and no, Joss wouldn't just trash them... he has more integrity and respect for the fans than that); C) I'm not entirely sure he and Adam Baldwin would still be willing to work with each other, and D) Even if everything else came together, I'm sure Joss would insist on 100% creative control, in his contract. Even if it's just a miniseries, networks hate doing that.

AndrewCrossett | January 13, 18:27 CET

Beware of what you ask for. Serenity was a thousand times better than what Babylon 5 fans got.

jclemens | January 13, 22:37 CET

There is always a story to tell.

I think time has passed to the extent that a long running series just wouldn't work but that a miniseries might. In my opinion, these people wouldn't be together as a group any more (maybe Mal and Zoe), it would be fascinating to see them come back together again for a reason. Serenity's last flight before it gives up the ghost?

Apocalypse | January 13, 22:43 CET

I actually believe this will happen. The timing couldn't be more perfect. Most of the crew are free, the rest are doing guest shots. Adam only does 10 episodes per year of the Last Ship so am sure he could do 10 eps of Firefly. Most of the networks are doing the 10-episode thing anyway.

And the 10 (almost 11) year gap means nothing to me. Everyone ages. We get better as we age. It just means that Zoe would have a 10-year old to deal with instead of an infant. WAY more interesting in my humble opinion. And we all loved Wash and Shepard Book, but they are gone. Let's see what happened in the aftermath. Bring on a couple of new crew members.

I would be willing to bet my house that Joss has already written a couple of episodes.

madmolly | January 14, 00:50 CET

There is nothing to say that they have to try and come back to the story as if no time had passed, so I could see them revisiting the Firefly 'verse 10 years on. Bring back cranky ol' Mal, still flyin' with Zoe and her budding pilot pre-teen, maybe both Kaylee and Simon are still aboard, but River is... elsewhere, and isn't that a mystery they don't comment on for a while... and add a few new crew... I could see it just fine. Or do something along the lines of a mini series (with an open ending), in the vein of how they do the Sherlock series. One story over several episodes, instead of trying to do another regular series up until the pull the plug again.

NYPinTA | January 14, 04:51 CET

@madmolly Is it a nice house?

@AndrewCrossett Yeah, C. I don't see those two working togther, uh, ever.

Grack21 | January 14, 06:40 CET

Or another crew set in the verse, with room for our cast to make guest appearances. It's a big verse full of untold stories.

AnotherFireflyfan | January 14, 07:37 CET

What about a soin off rather than a revival or a reboot? Revival seems unlikely although they are all the rage right nlw and a reboot just could never be the same. But a spin off could work? Set in the same world, different people?

Ivalaine | January 14, 08:52 CET

Wow. With so many old series being revived or rebooted, it was only a matter of time before someone with an actual connection to the money/rights expressed interest. But who would have expected it back at the time?

Honestly, I'm leaning toward hoping for a spin-off too, with some of the original characters and some new ones. That way returning cast members will be a bonus rather than an expectation and it won't be burdened with as much pressure and scrutiny. And original cast members who can't commit to be regulars can still have guest appearances.

Bluelark | January 14, 17:31 CET

If we should ever get more Firefly, I'm very afraid that Simon's not going to last for long. There are not many couples that make it to the end of something Joss does. As it stands, Simon and Kaylee are happy together. Not having a continuation of the series is likely the only way to preserve that relationship...

Valentijn | January 14, 23:46 CET

@Grack21 I don't see Joss having any problem with Adam. He mentioned that they have always had different political views but it doesn't seem to have affected their friendship or working relationship.

Butler | January 15, 06:40 CET

I'm hoping toward 2 Serenity sequels to make a nice tight trilogy.

Butler | January 15, 06:42 CET

I'm very scared for a Firefly revival for the same reasons that Joss recently gave regarding "not living up." But that doesn't mean I wouldn't be pumped if it happened. I'd prefer another movie I think. Something where the whole cast could do a "getting the gang back together for one last mission" type of story perhaps.

I noticed this says "reboot," and to me that's a VERY different prospect. I'm not interested in reinventing Firefly. I feel like that would be even more likely to disappoint.

Also, regardless of their WILDLY different political views, I have seen nothing to indicate Joss and Adam wouldn't get back together for more Firefly.

[ edited by SuperScuba on 2017-01-15 05:09 ]

[ edited by SuperScuba on 2017-01-15 05:09 ]

SuperScuba | January 15, 08:08 CET

@SuperScuba & @Grack21, while I don't know anything about Joss and Adam's personal relationship, given the stance Joss took during the recent election I would feel that it would be alittle hypocritical of him to work with Adam again.

(Simply because working with Adam would mean giving an- indirect- platform to Adam's political position...which would run in opposition to the work Joss has been doing leading up to and following the election. If Joss hadn't approached the election/ current political situation the way he has, it wouldn't be particularly controversial for him to say he and Adam work well professionally and political issues didn't matter. But because of the way he took an active role in the election- and because of how vocal of his own views Adam is- I feel like Joss would have to address how he feels hiring Adam isn't an endoresement of Adam's views, and explain how it doesn't contradict the work he has been doing before and after the election.)

rg253 | January 15, 12:00 CET

Judging by Joss' ugly attacks on Nicole Kidman and Speaker Paul Ryan on Twitter, Adam's political position may cause problems.

Seriously, though, Joss seems to be losing his mind on Twitter.

bivith | January 15, 17:41 CET

Yeah, only Trump is allowed to lose his mind on Twitter.

Seriously, Adam Baldwin's heavy involvement in the GamerGate incident and his continued positions during the election season would make it very uncomfortable for Joss (and possibly some of the cast and crew) to work with him again.

[ edited by AndrewCrossett on 2017-01-15 16:19 ]

AndrewCrossett | January 15, 19:08 CET

Guys, we seem to be veering into a proxy bun fight between two people who have drastically opposing views on Twitter and with that comes bashing and all the fun stuff that I love to see here and then I go to a corner sobbing and lose the will to form proper sentences. So if we could get back on track onto the unlikelihood of a Firefly reboot then that would be great.

Btw if we can't even get a Buffy reboot in this age of old shows coming back then there's no hope for Firefly.

Simon | January 15, 20:52 CET

@Simon: I really don't want a Buffy reboot. There is no reason for Buffy reboot to exist. The only good reason to do a reboot of something is if you can either improve on the original in some way, or make a different, but equally compelling version of it. I don't think any of this could be the case with Buffy, and I just want it to be left alone.

Now, a Buffy continuation, on the other hand, would be cool, if Joss, Marti, Jane, SDK and other Buffy writers were involved in it and the original cast could all come back. Especially since the comics have, sadly, been very underwhelming, especially since the beginning of season 9, or the last arc of season 8 minus the last issue. But even that would present some huge logistical problems that a Firefly continuation would not face (how do you explain the vampires looking 10+ years older?).

TimeTravellingBunny | January 15, 22:47 CET

TimeTravellingBunny _ I don't think it's a matter of whether you and I want a Buffy reboot or not. I would be happy to let sleeping dogs lie. But at some stage, 20th Century are going to look (if they haven't already) at how much money a new Buffy series would make for them. The show is a huge brand name out there and made a lot of of revenue in its day.

I personally can't see a continuation with the existing cast happening. So a reboot which pays lipservice to the original show would be a way forward. Much like that new Charmed show that's coming out. It'll probably be awful but we're in the era of peak TV and if X-Files, Full House, Charmed, Twin Peaks, 24, Prison Break, Star Trek can make a return to the small screen then so can Buffy.

Simon | January 15, 23:53 CET

I could see a continuation. Might be interesting to see where the lives of the characters are 12 - 13 years after Serenity. I think River needs to be the slayer in charge. Could be an army of Reaver slayers. Wash could show up as an LMD. In fact, there's three of him.

Nebula1400 | January 16, 00:03 CET

I don't think there will be a Buffy reboot or a direct continuation. However, I could imagine Fox one day talking Joss into giving his seal of approval to a new Buffyverse show, focusing on new characters. Any cast members from the old shows who wanted to pop in could do so. Joss would get to hand-pick the showrunner and would get an executive producer credit... with the stipulation that his name would be taken off the show if it ever went too far from his vision. That would be a powerful incentive for the network not to do stupid things.

They don't legally need Joss's seal of approval, of course, but the show wouldn't have a chance without it.

AndrewCrossett | January 16, 06:45 CET

I don't think a continuation of "Firefly" is at all likely for the various reasons cited (although the ones pertaining to concerns about basic professionalism -- which is the umbrella under which "working successfully with people of disparate values and priorities outside work" falls -- are very disappointing), and I'm not sure a reboot of it would have much value without that cast and its chemistries.

"Buffy" is a different animal; for good or ill, the TV series was a continuation/reboot/relaunch, the actress in the title role was already the second to take it on and had to reimagine it. It's already "broken in" on those terms. I think a continuation would be plausible under the right circumstances (personally I'd prefer it maybe be based on a very penumbral outline of the early, non-universe-bending existential part of Season 8 as past events), but I'm also perfectly cool with an out and out reboot. It's a brand and a concept that deserves revitalization for generations that won't be arsed to grab it on netflix just because their 30-40 year old siblings, parents, or uncles tell them it was really good.

KingofCretins | January 16, 17:22 CET

New ideas are always preferable to reboots.

When a society becomes less and less interested in moving forward creatively and more and more obsessed with reliving the past, it can create the impression that that society's best days are behind it.

AndrewCrossett | January 16, 18:22 CET

two by two, hands of blue.

mystery needs addressing ... just saying.

StephenP | January 16, 22:01 CET

@King of Cretins: Why exactly wouldn't new generations be watching Buffy, whether on Netflix or something else? Is there something that makes it impossible to watch anything that hasn't been just made, at most sometimes during the previous year? How is something superior just because it has been made recently? It's not like the human race is going to undergo a radical transformation in the next decade or so, to the point that the new transhumans will be unable to enjoy anything made in late 1990s or early 2000s. It's not like the English language is likely to suddenly undergo the second Great Vowel Shift and that over the course of just 10 or 15 years instead of several centuries, turning it into Even More Modern English, so new generations in 15 years time will be unable to understand a show made in the late 1990s/early 2000s. (And even if that miraculously happened... use subtitles, people. Large portions of populations over the world watch English language TV shows exactly that way.)

Also, what difference does it make that a (rather lame) movie called Buffy the Vampire Slayer was made before the show? People still talk about Buffy and write about Buffy and watch Buffy - not the movie, but the show. And there's a very good reason for that. It's the vastly superior show that has remained a staple of the pop culture and that most people think of when they hear 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer', not the mediocre summer movie comedy.

TimeTravellingBunny | January 16, 22:45 CET

TimeTravellingBunny: Perhaps I've just been seeing an extremely vocal minority on Tumblr, perhaps not. But we're approaching the 20th anniversary of the debut of Buffy as a television show, and as time has passed, as either a new generation has discovered the show or people who didn't watch it when it aired have discovered it much later on, the show has come under a great deal of increasing, sometimes harshly so, scrutiny. I've seen a great deal of commentary about the show along the lines of "well, it's a product of its time, but that just makes it more problematic in its efforts to be feminist and progressive in general." The mostly white racial make-up of the primary cast, the major secondary characters, and even the background extras has come under fire, for one thing. The handling of various characters' sexual orientations, in that most characters were presented as mostly straight, only a small percentage were gay, and the show made virtually no effort to acknowledge the existence of bisexuality (let alone allow any of its characters to be quietly or openly bi), has come increasingly under fire, and not just from people motivated by their particular 'shipping interests. And then there are characters like Xander and Riley -- heterosexual males whose character development were largely explored through both their romantic and non-romantic relationships with the female characters, who didn't have a supernatural status quo like vampire, wizard, or werewolf for the audience to filter them through. These characters have come under increasing, and increasingly harsh and unforgiving, fire from new fans who seem determined to parse through every thing they say or do (or don't say or do) through a lens that proves that they are nothing but Sexism and Misogyny personified, if not Feminism's Antichrist, for not being fully formed from birth as exhibiting only those behaviors or opinions deemed "acceptable" On A Show That's Supposed to Be All About Feminism.

And heck, even if we ignore everything above, let's consider the actual act of rebooting a show. What do you keep from the original? What do you change? What do you throw out altogether? *Why* do you keep, change, or throw something out? Do you incorporate new characters and relationships, or do you focus primarily on the originals? Do you focus on those characters and relationships from the show's first, high school years? What about the ones from the later, post-school years? Do you incorporate them into the rebooted show from the beginning? Is Willow gay from the beginning, or does she start out seemingly straight like she did in the original show? Do you race-, gender-, or orientation-bend any other characters? What about Dawn -- do you include her from the beginning, or at all? Why can't Giles be openly gay or bisexual, or Xander? If characters maintain their original sexual orientations, who do they become involved with? Do you repeat the Buffy/Angel romance, or do you replace Angel with Spike, or do you have a Buffy/Angel/Spike triangle from the beginning? Or why don't you follow in The 100's footsteps by making Buffy/Faith canon this time? Wait, how do you get Faith involved this time around? Do we kill Buffy briefly again and activate another slayer? Do we introduce Kendra, and if so, do we kill her shortly thereafter again, or do we keep her around this, time, develop her as a character, and increase the cast's diversity? Or do we skip her altogether and go straight to Faith? Do we include Oz, Tara, or Kennedy, and who gets to be involved with Willow? Same question, only with Cordelia, Anya, and Xander? What about Riley? Jenny Calendar? Snyder? Spike? Druscilla? Darla? Wesley? Joyce? Do we kill off different characters this time? Why don't we kill off Xander this time, since he was so unpopular on the first show, and replace him with a new, less offensive, character? Or why not put him and Willow together? Wait, is Willow a witch on the new show?

What Do We Keep the Same, What Do We Do Differently, and What Do We Throw Out? What Do We Risk making the Old Audience Mad About, and What Do We Risk Driving Away a New Audience with? I'm giving myself a headache just typing this up; I don't even want to consider the migraines that producers of a reboot would encounter.

skippcomet | January 17, 04:04 CET

@skippcomet: These are some of the reasons why I'm in favor of the radical, shocking new idea that... wait for it... people could just try writing new, original shows, instead of constantly rebooting old ones. One can be inspired by "Buffy" or some other show, but go on and do their own thing, rather than practically writing a new show but then trying to force it into the confines of a pre-existing universe and characters.

TimeTravellingBunny | January 17, 05:10 CET

A Firefly revival? Pig's arse. (That's Australian for "I don't think so".)

Gemini Webster | January 17, 07:36 CET

I for one am glad that boring old retreads have kept Star Wars, Star Trek, the Bond franchise, and to some extent Tolkienn adaptations, and the Batman franchise probably foremost among comic series... alive, and present, and vital for audiences of every generation within their generation. Buffy is a story setting with that kind of staying power, it's just been left to sort of linger on in increasing obscurity in (I'm said to admit, being an OG defender and enthusiast) an increasingly listless comic. I'd be thrilled to see some new take on Buffy in a more 2010s aesthetic just to see how it would work.

KingofCretins | January 17, 09:58 CET