Whedon did and said more than in the entire series of Buffy The Vampire Slayer.

I can't disagree with that, as much as I love Buffy. But I don't think such Firefly-rific refinement would have been possible without Buffy and Angel.

Ubqtous | July 13, 08:24 CET

Have to disagree, Ubqtous. I thought the reviewer blew it with that statement.

It's not so much that I strongly disagree, although I do (given the chance Firefly could have explored entirely new, different, and wonderful themes and ideas, and it definitely began that exploration; it had a terrific cast; and so on and so on, but "Whedon said and did more" than in the *entire series* of Buffy? Cmon now.) Rather, it's that the statement is placed there without explanation or justification unlike the reviewer's thoughtful comments preceding it. Now, instead of glowing with Firefly happiness, I'm seething in defense of Buffy.

Mr. Costello may have thought he needed some rhetorical flourish at the finish to emphasize just how special he thought Ff is. Too bad he chose a lazy and wrong comparison. Firefly is great, inventive, funny, dramatic etc. etc. but I can't say that a single one of its episodes would break into my top 10 Buffy episode list. And the whole Buffy=teenage, Angel=adult etc. patter may have some literal truth to it, but really, BtVS has as much depth (let's see - one's role in the world, the notion of self-sacrifice; our understanding of mortality and dealing with loss; growth and change - off the top of my head) as anything I can think of. If the writer means to imply that each successive series is somehow more profound because it deals primarily with a later stage of life, well, again, I have to respectfully disagree. Great, lasting, provocative art can as equally be about teens (or children) as about adults, for all that the latter are more cynical, beaten-down, etc. Joss's storytelling and technique have certainly developed, no question. But, you know, Firefly had a few dud (by JW's standards) episodes. First season and all that. And, hate to mention it, but I feel like I've been provoked, the whole genius-child experimented upon now damaged goods thing is, while dramatic (and Summer's a great actress), not particularly deep or original.

In the end, all I take away from the review is that he didn't really *get* BtVS. Too bad. Reminds me of those hyperbolic movie critic lines a la "Makes 'Silence of the Lambs' look like a walk in the park" or what have you. Ridiculous, wrong, and cheap.

SoddingNancyTribe | July 13, 08:39 CET

What amazes me about Firefly is that it found its footing in the first episode. Usually in a television series the first year is awkward and takes a while to find it's footing. Both Buffy and Angel were like that. But with Firefly, it was fantastic from the very beginning.

electricspacegirl | July 13, 08:50 CET

I agree that the reviewer was going for a dramatic close with his better-than-Buffy statement.

The reason I can relate to his view isn't because I don't think Buffy had a ton of 5-star episodes, but because I think Firefly, as electricspacegirl put it so well, had it's footing from the start—and it was good footing. I cared about the lives of Mal and his crew much sooner than I did Buffy and the Scoobs.

In terms of artistic acheivement, I think Firefly is an evolution of what Whedon & Co. gave us with Buffy and Angel.

Of course, ask me to give up any of my ME DVD sets, and I'd probably start weeping ;) In the end, the perceived differences in quality are of no consequence as they are all great shows.

[ edited by Ubqtous on 2004-07-13 07:46 ]

Ubqtous | July 13, 09:45 CET

Yeah when I look at the first(and sniff..only) season of Firefly I feel that its better than the first seasons of B and A. Its like, Joss learned from any mistakes he may have done in the other first seasons and hit one out of the park.

We all know Joss shows get even better in their 2nd season, so imagine how great another year of Firefly would've been?

eddy | July 13, 09:57 CET

I agree with SoddingNancyTribe. Likewise, I had a great big smile on my face when I was reading this article but it faded to a disgruntled frown when I came upon that remark about Buffy. To the author's credit, however, he did make a point of making this statement as his own opinion. I enjoyed Firefly quite a bit - and yes, it really was fantastic from its first episode but I find it troublesome when reviewers try to compare Whedon's series with statements such as these. Each of his series had different messages, explored different things, etc. Firefly's a completely different animal from Buffy, the author even pointed out the differences as the start of his article. Buffy explored teenaged life and then went into life of an early twenty-something once the main kids grew up for the last three seasons (while keeping intact the presense of teenagers in the form of Dawn & the potentials) while Angel continued exploration into life of a 20-something and redemption. Firefly explored something else and naturally, ended up with some different messages. Thus, I respectfully disagree :)

I do agree with other posters that Firefly did an excellent job at finding its footing from the very beginning while I found Buffy & Angel took somewhat longer. They all did find it, though, and that's what matters most to me looking back.

[ edited by NatashaLea on 2004-07-13 08:01 ]

Natashia | July 13, 09:57 CET

Each of his series had different messages, explored different things, etc.

I don't see it as a comparison of which theme was better, rather which show executed its theme with the greatest artistry. Again, it falls into the realm of the subjective, but it's certainly fun to debate :)

Ubqtous | July 13, 10:04 CET

We all know Joss shows get even better in their 2nd season, so imagine how great another year of Firefly would've been?

Eddy, you're gonna make me cry now! Oh, what could have been...sigh.

[ edited by electricspacegirl on 2004-07-13 08:09 ]

electricspacegirl | July 13, 10:08 CET

I don't see it as a comparison of which theme was better, rather which show executed its theme with the greatest artistry. Again, it falls into the realm of the subjective, but it's certainly fun to debate :)

True, it does fall into the realm of the subjective :) I just personally find it difficult to compare when the themes seem to be so different but that may be just me. I still must disagree with the author's statement however. Yet, I do agree that Firefly was executed beautifully and the most successfully of the three shows if that's what we're comparing. Truthfully, I didn't really get into Buffy until the late first season/early second season and Angel until half-way through the first, but once I did...!

Natashia | July 13, 10:17 CET

We all know Joss shows get even better in their 2nd season, so imagine how great another year of Firefly would've been?

Eddy, you're gonna make me cry now! Oh, what could have been...sigh.

Think about it this way: by end of season 2, somebody from the main cast would probably be KILLED. We don't want that, don't we?

futile | July 13, 11:15 CET

I don't think "Firefly" really started to pick up until the last few episodes, whereas BtVS and AtS started off strong right away. As much as I love "Firefly," I just find Joss's other shows to be stronger in most ways.

Invisible Green | July 13, 17:42 CET

BtVS and AtS win in terms of sheer number of great episodes, but that's cause of how long they lasted. IMO, Firefly blows the first 15 hours of BtVS or AtS out of the water. In Buffy's first season and first 3 eps of season 2, I would say "Angel", "Prophecy Girl", and "School Hard" are true classics. From Angel's first 15 eps, I'd say maybe IWRY or "Hero", but really those are fairly flawed eps with unforgettable moments. Whereas Firefly flew out of the gate with a classic pilot, then had a string of classics with "Out of Gas", "Ariel", "War Stories", and "Objects in Space". There were some subpar eps in the first half of the season, but nothing as dire as "She", "Expecting", "I Fall to Pieces", "I Robot, You Jane", or "Some Assembly Required".

Still, that statement about FF accomplishing more than the entire run of BtVS seems rather odd. Especially since he doesn't explain what he means by that at all.

KernelM | July 13, 18:31 CET

(Reenters fray, a little calmer) I agree with almost everything everyone has posted. I think FF probably shaded the 1st season of BtVS - although I cared about the Buffy crew almost from the get-go. FF was blessed with an incredible ensemble. And who knows what it could have gone on to. Can't wait to see the movie.

But none of that supports what the reviewer actually said. He could have said "FF would have gone on to surpass", or "This first season was Whedon's best" or whatever. But what he said was "Whedon *did and said more*" in this season than in BtVS' entire run. He didn't attempt to back it up, and I don't think he could. It's not just wrong, it's demonstrably wrong. And how could it be true? Without time and space for arcs to develop and relationships to grow and change? I'd love for it to have become true, but it wasn't given the chance. Grrr.

And let me tell you how I *really* feel . . . ;)

SoddingNancyTribe | July 13, 19:49 CET

Great discussion going on here. My two cents are that Joss had mastered his skills by the time he came around to doing Firefly and his college was Buffy and Angel. I am, as most of us Whedonesquers are, a total BtVS freak, addicted from the first episode and it has become my obsession. Angel was great, but was always an extension of the Buffyverse so when Firefly started, I thought it would be good because Joss was doing it even though the "cowboys in space theme" didn't seem to appealing to me. Even without the benefit of seeing the show in its proper order, it totally enthralled me and I was quickly in love with the whole show. Up until then, BtvS was the only show that seemed to grab my attention that quickly. I felt the Buffy cast also gelled real quickly and seemed so realistic but the Firefly cast was already a mostly established crew when the show started and it felt like that was true whereas most shows you can tell the actors are still getting used to their roles.

Because Firefly didn't even get to finish it's first season it is really hard to judge how it would've compared to BtVS and AtS over an extended run but I felt it had the potential to outshine them both in the long run. I don't think that takes anything away from BtVS or AtS saying that either because Joss was new to TV when he started with Buffy and he learned a lot over the years and you can really see it with Firefly.

But I agree that the author of this article should have phrased it a bit better or backed it up like SNT said. I don't think its necessary to praise one show by downplaying the greatness of the other.

Firefly Flanatic | July 13, 20:23 CET

I agree with everything that SoddingNancyTribe said. It seems realistically impossible for Firefly to have done and said more in 14 episodes than Buffy did in 144. That's giving a massively huge disservice to BTVS as a series, and it's an unnecessary statement to throw out there.

I also don't think it's fair to compare the first 14 episodes of each series. One thing Firefly definitely had going for it, which Buffy certainly didn't, was a decent budget. I think that makes a huge difference. When I watch the first season of Buffy, I love the writing and think the cast gels perfectly, but the production values and the music are often cringeworthy. These things continued to improve as the series went on, whereas Firefly had the money to make everything shiny from the start.

I love and adore all 3 shows and they all occupy a special place in my heart. I've always felt that the show you love most is probably the one that speaks to you on a personal level. For me, that's Buffy. For others, I'm sure it's Angel or Firefly.

MindPieces | July 13, 21:33 CET

But none of that supports what the reviewer actually said. He could have said "FF would have gone on to surpass", or "This first season was Whedon's best" or whatever. But what he said was "Whedon *did and said more*" in this season than in BtVS' entire run.

I chose to comment on my distillation of the reviewer's statement, rather than on the statement itself ;) I, too, think that it's unfair to say that Firefly accomplished more; however, I think it's likely that it would have lived up to the reviewer's statement given a few more seasons.

Now that Firefly has moved to the feature film arena, it'll be harder to make such comparisons (not that we won't try!)

Ubqtous | July 13, 23:11 CET

Ooh, nice move Ubqtous, with the distillation loophole . . . :)
Here's hoping we get to have the movie debate one day, once Serenity shows the suits what Joss can do on the big screen given creative control.

SoddingNancyTribe | July 13, 23:16 CET

Ooh, nice move Ubqtous, with the distillation loophole . . . :)

Call it artistic license :)

Here's hoping we get to have the movie debate one day, once Serenity shows the suits what Joss can do on the big screen given creative control.

I plan on seeing Serenity in the (first-run) theatres at least thrice as a way to show my support!

[ edited by Ubqtous on 2004-07-13 21:27 ]

Ubqtous | July 13, 23:26 CET

Lightweight... I plan on seeing Serenity at least three times on opening day. ;-P

KernelM | July 13, 23:52 CET

You'll notice he prefaces 'The Statement' with "To me..." making it all rather subjective. If it's true, and only he would know, we may all look and wonder what goes on in the reviewer's head, but it's kind of hard to actively disagree with that kind of subjective remark.

"NO! You're wrong. You don't think that at all!"

giles (yes, it is my real name) | July 14, 02:41 CET

Well, hasn't this just turned into the proverbial powderkeg. That line seems to have gotten me into a little trouble, and since I've been accused of not "getting" Buffy, you'll pardon me if I think that warrants some kind of response.

To be perfectly honest, I was unsure about including that line. I wasn't quite sure if I even believed it, but after some thought, decided to include it anyway. The reason being, thanks to my unquenchable desire to mess with people, I thought it might inspire debate. The site on which that review is posted is an Australian site that doesn't have many people that even know what Firefly is. If, with a statement like that, someone is inspired to run out and buy Firefly, my job here is done. If, with the same statement, someone discovers Firefly, but disagrees and debates their point of view - even better.

It's interesting to note that no one on that site has even commented on the review so far, so I thank you guys for taking an interest. Cheers.

The First Weevil | July 14, 03:32 CET

To be perfectly honest, I was unsure about including that line. I wasn't quite sure if I even believed it, but after some thought, decided to include it anyway.
First Weevil, I take it you wrote the review? I'd be curious if you could explain why (beyond trying to inspire debate, which it obviously did) you decided to include the statement? Do you believe it? And if so, why? I'm curious...
I have to say, I found it a bit incomprehensible – I thoroughly enjoyed Firefly, agree with everyone that it got off to a very good start quickly, and was really hitting its stride, with eps like Out of Gas, Ariel, War Stories, and Objects in Space, right when it was canceled. I would have loved to see what it would have become. But since we never did get to see that, never got to see its potential fulfilled, I was curious why you'd think it accomplished more in just those 14 episodes, that just got things started, than the whole 144-episode run of buffy, with its complex and completed character and story arcs, many layered and shifting themes, in-depth exploration of issues like redemption, friendship, death, responsibility, forgiveness, self-worth, etc. I'm not saying it couldn't have gotten there, or even that it wasn't off to an excellent beginning, with only 14 epsidodes, just that it didn't, couldn't possibly have (unless you discount BtVS as having no worth whatsoever) in such a short span.
Anyhow, I was curious what your reasoning was.

acp | July 14, 03:44 CET

Had this funny feeling that the reviewer might be a member here and might actually post an apologia. Thanks for doing so, FW! As the bright spark that lit the powder-keg, let me first say that my initial response was in the heat of passion. So forgive the more intemperate choices of language. But, as you say, your intention was to inspire, and bravo! you inspired. :). Course, you have to be careful in handling that kind of incendiary - I was all ready to write off the entire review, and then I would have missed your elegant and well-deserved words of praise for FF.

Now I'm feeling like one of Pavlov's pups: ring that bell and just watch me salivate...

SoddingNancyTribe | July 14, 04:03 CET

Anyhow, I was curious what your reasoning was.

I think the reason Buffy resonates with people the way it does is because people can readily identify with its overall message and subtext. What you have to understand is while I can appreciate Buffy like the rest of you, I have a far greater affinity for the exploration self, war, society, civilisation, and existence, which Firefly was unfortunately only beginning to touch upon, but it was enough. Also, it's mastery of visual storytelling in every way surpassed Buffy, and if you'll allow me to inspire even greater debate, while the Buffy cast had an amazing group dynamic anchored by the amazing Anthony Head, I found the Firefly cast to be far and away a better group of actors. But above all else, it was the writing. I can't think of many Buffy scripts that were close to being as solid and well-structured as any of the later episodes of Firefly. You can argue with me about Buffy's sparkling dialogue and sweeping arcs - that's why I fell in love with it - but I saw something in Firefly I never saw in Buffy, and I rejoiced. I guess you'll just have to accept that other people seeing different things in... y'know, things. ;)

The First Weevil | July 14, 04:25 CET

Unfortunately, this sort of thing makes me wonder how many other lines in other online reviews/stories are thrown in just to stir up debate. It's kind of disappointing, but not at all surprising I suppose.

MindPieces | July 14, 06:01 CET

It's kind of disappointing, but not at all surprising I suppose.

I think it's perfectly acceptable for a review to include comments that spark wonderful conversations such as those that grace this blog :)

Also, it's mastery of visual storytelling in every way surpassed Buffy,

I think this is clearly evident in "Out Of Gas" and "Objects In Space".

and if you'll allow me to inspire even greater debate, while the Buffy cast had an amazing group dynamic anchored by the amazing Anthony Head, I found the Firefly cast to be far and away a better group of actors.

Firefly certainly had some great actors, which is why I didn't flinch (much) when I read your incendiary remark ;) But to be fair, I think Firefly was a better acting showcase than the other ME series thanks to its less fantastical milieu. Sure, Firefly featured space ships, but the sci-fi angle was much less important to its stories than the vampires and demons were to Buffy & Angel. Firefly and its characters just seemed more real, and I think that's because they inhabited a 'verse to which it was easier to relate.

[Firefly then... Serenity now!]

Ubqtous | July 14, 08:42 CET

Firefly certainly had some great actors, which is why I didn't flinch (much) when I read your incendiary remark ;) But to be fair, I think Firefly was a better acting showcase than the other ME series thanks to its less fantastical milieu. Sure, Firefly featured space ships, but the sci-fi angle was much less important to its stories than the vampires and demons were to Buffy & Angel. Firefly and its characters just seemed more real, and I think that's because they inhabited a 'verse to which it was easier to relate.

I personally find judging acting skills to be very subjective :) Even after five years of drama and drama critique courses, the opinions of my peers and I still differ quite a bit sometimes (unless it is ever-so-obvious that somebody is a bad actor). While I may find somebody to convey certain emotions wonderfully, another might disagree. I think this could be because we can react so differently from one another to a same situation and what we are used to is also different. Getting a bit philisophical, could it just partly be a quesiton of how well we are able to relate and therefore, believe maybe? I found SMG to be very real as Buffy, especially in her sadness - maybe because I react very much like her when faced with a situation. I found DB to be a little weak at first but he improved immensely in comparison to his first appearance as he continued the role of Angel. Somebody else might disagree. Perhaps it has something to do with the circumstances of the story like Ubqtous said? For me, it's nearly always going to be a debate when acting skills are in question.

[ edited by NatashaLea on 2004-07-14 08:40 ]

Natashia | July 14, 10:39 CET

Getting a bit philisophical, could it just partly be a quesiton of how well we are able to relate and therefore, believe maybe?

I think you're onto something, though I think it's more accurate to just say “a question of how we relate.”

I have run across people that hate Sarah Michelle Gellar and/or Buffy with every bit of their (cold, black) hearts, and the reasons they give for their disdain do nothing to sway my appreciation for the actor or the character.

I think we relate to people on many levels, not all of which are conscious. The way we connect with actors and their characters relies on many of the same conscious and sub-conscious criteria that apply to our real-life interactions with people. Each of us has our own unique combination of criteria (so while I may see the above SMG-H8ers as having cold, black hearts, another person may see them as having shrivelled, walnut-like hearts).

I think my original theory still holds up, but perhaps only in the sense that I connected with Firefly in a way that I didn't connect with Buffy or Angel because it met my waking and not-so-waking criteria for a good show and good characters—and because Morena Baccarin is fine.

;)

Ubqtous | July 15, 07:12 CET