Firefly Reboot Coming to Disney+ | Hacker News Reader

Firefly Reboot Coming to Disney+

giantfreakinrobot.com

66 pointsohjeez55 comments

"This shift in tone suggests the new version of Firefly might drop characters like Inara, who is basically a prostitute. Instead it’ll probably lean more into the fun and adventure aspect of the universe’s stories."

Jeepers, what a problematic paragraph. There was nothing basic about the character (who was also fun and adventurous) nor about the sex work portrayed in the series. An entire episode centred around it, telling the story of how unregulated is unprotected in sex work. That universe's take was refreshingly insightful and something modern societies could takes lessons from.

The hatred so many people have towards sex work is very interesting to me. Yet they consume work of sex work, without shame, and without expecting to pay for it - effectively increasing exploitation.

It's very interesting how the more "left" you go, the higher the acceptance towards sex work becomes.

I'm quite annoyed how we've decided to increase the barrier of entry for sex work (to be fair, it is slowly coming down), that makes it so only rich people (generally old and white) can create companies that make sex-based products.

I’m not sure if it’s hatred towards sex workers they aren’t likely going to have the Reavers either at least not in the same manner as the show yet alone the film.

Firefly was really dark with a lot of gore compared to most network shows of the time.

Serenity was probably closer to the level of “dark” JW wanted to have in the show mixed with a FU of some sorts to fans by killing so many of the main cast and basically killing any sequel possibility on either screen.

The issue Disney has is that Disney+ has no room for anything that isn’t kids friendly because it’s a babysitting as a service first.

The Mandalorian goes out it’s way to avoid graphic violence if it wasn’t such a money maker to Disney I don’t think they would’ve it slip into the TV-14 realm for the recent episodes before that it was pretty much TV-PG.

Under these circumstances it’s going to be very hard to have Inara on the show.

In fact I’m not sure how Fox even got away with a TV-14 rating for FF initially, Germany, Australia, NZ and quite a few other countries have rated it 16/18+.

My guess is that Fox got the show rated on the based on the pilot and with how the season progressed they would’ve definitely have had to re-rate the show if it wasn’t canceled.

Disney has a real problem on their hands right now they are in possession of so many IPs that they no longer can be kids only or even kids first across the board and they’ll likely have to segregate their streaming services to support that.

I would not be surprised if Disney would launch a spin-off brand for their more mature properties sort of like Fox and FX.

Two things:

Why would Joss Whedon take his cancelled network show and pitch it to Universal as a movie, just so he could write a FU to his fans?

An alternate take is that without the plot armor normally required by network shows or franchises, JW wrote the story he wanted.

Secondly, regarding your final point, Disney has Hulu for mature properties (and the newly announced Star brand for international markets).

> The hatred so many people have towards sex work is very interesting to me. Yet they consume work of sex work, without shame, and without expecting to pay for it - effectively increasing exploitation.

I don't understand this statement. Are you implying that the people who "hate" sex work are the main consumers of porn/prostitutes? And that they do so without any shame and without paying for it?

No I'm implying that essentially everyone consumes porn. Despite the majority (probably majority?) being very against sex work.

> essentially everyone consumes porn

I'd be interested in how much of "everyone" this "essentially everyone" actually is.

Maybe I'm an outlier, but my appetite for porn pretty well went away once I was in a committed relationship, and especially since I've been married.

Could also just be that I'm getting old, but there are an awful lot of people older than me, which would also suggest that "essentially everyone" is not actually "everyone"

"essentially everyone" is obviously not "everyone" but it is probably higher than you might think. Somewhere around 80%

I can get behind the idea that a large portion of the population occasionally consumes porn, but I have no idea where you're getting this statement that the majority is very against sex work.

And why do you think that they consume it with "no shame"? Or that they don't want to pay for it?

This might be a collective defense mechanism: if it's destigmatized, many people might no longer feel the need to enter long-lasting relationships, and birth rates - already low in Western countries - might decrease even more.

Birth rates are low because it's expensive as fuck to have a child.

Not just the immediate costs and the cost of raising them, but the opportunity cost of having a child is extremely high too.

Our modern economic system is to blame for low birth rates, not the prevalence of porn.

These arguments are not mutually exclusive. It's expensive, it's risky in general (health issues etc.), it's risky for the mother (can be left alone with the child), it's risky for the father (can be left alone and be forced to pay a lot of money each month), it takes time, it takes energy.

But before all this happens, you need to have the intention to have a child. Most males wouldn't think about having a child if they're not in a stable relationship. And if all your needs are satisfied, why even bother?

I think the people on the margin here, who would enter a long-lasting relationship only because they can't get a prostitute instead, rank highly on the list of people we don't want to encourage to enter long-term relationships or have children.

I remember at one of my first jobs as IT staff we sometimes had to do some jobs with warehouse workers in another building, very friendly folks but quite blunt. One of them told my colleague: I married because it was cheaper than spending money on girls. At that time this comment put me off as terribly jerky on his part, I was really disgusted.

Thirty years later, having observed social dynamics, talking to many people of both genders, I’m no longer that judgmental. Moreover, I think the guy was probably a good husband and good father.

Well, it can go well. People develop and change; for example, I'm sure it's possible for a reckless and careless guy to unintentionally get a girl pregnant, and rise to the occasion and make a commitment and end up raising the child very competently. It may not even be rare; evolutionary instincts are a powerful thing, and if you've never seen him in that situation before, you may be surprised.

However, we work with likelihoods. Is an irresponsible jerk, or a horndog who doesn't want a long-term relationship, likely to end up as good a parent as someone who says "I planned to have kids and made sure I had a decent career first"? It's possible, but I don't think it's likely, although I haven't seriously looked into it.

Agreed, but I think it's important to point out this is hearsay from a writer of a no-name fan site. Nothing anywhere has ACTUALLY suggested it; they're just trying to fill paragraphs.

The previous sentence provides useful context. They're going for PG, not PG-13. PG-13 is already "Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13," which sex work probaby fits into. PG is even tamer. I don't see it as throwing shade at sex workers, just as saying the original firefly probably couldn't get a PG rating, in part due to Inara's job.

There's a lot in OG Firefly which wouldn't get a PG rating. Killing people nonchalantly. Stabbing people with swords (with blood). Drug references. The enslavement of River Tam (and her appearing au-naturel in the pilot as a minor). Discussion about grenades being hidden in apples. Frank discussions about the horrors of war, and the psychological impact they have. Self mutilation. Torture.

A lot of what makes Firefly good is how the characters stand out and do good in a realistically amoral world.

"Fans may initially be unhappy, but it’s easy to see a way it could work."

Firefly, but with a new cast and an altered storyline?

That wouldn't retain any of the fans of the original, and in fact Disney would be hated on endlessly for doing it.

If this is real... quite possibly Disney is "leaking" this info to test this idea and see what fans think.

Showrunner: "Let's take this piece of art, well loved by adult sci-fi fans, get a whole new cast, change it at its eyebrow-raising core to make it suitable for pre-teens, reducing it to unseasoned pablum, and see if it sticks to the wall."

Executive: "Ship it!"

It's probably more like all the infamous reboots that have come out recently:

"OK, so we want to do this new show where blablabla"

"Sounds boring as F, nobody is gonna watch that"

"Well, we could call it the VerySuccessfulBelovedFranchise reboot. We can just rename the characters to match the original set"

"Gold"

My secret source tells me we might see the rise of JarJar. That should please every die hard fan

Don't forget recycling plots, characters, scenes but in a sort of soulless way.

As someone who admittedly isn't a die-hard fan of the original, I think something independent in a similar style, set in the same universe could work. But I suspect any corporate attempt at it would break it... can't take too many chances so need to make it bland, need to insert too many throwbacks, ...

There is enough fun lore in the 'verse (Reavers, Alliance, Wild West/Chinese culture mashup) to propel a completely separate storyline, I think. Hopefully that's their idea, because as you say, a reboot of the series would be pure flamebait.

It's easy to see a way it could not work: just take the example of the Star Wars movies

"Disney announced a lot of their big plans for the future in a huge investor presentation last week, but they didn’t announce all of them. There’s one property that I’ve been hearing whispers about that didn’t get mentioned. That property is Firefly. The lack of an announcement about it doesn’t mean, however, that Disney isn’t keen to do something with the Joss Whedon cult phenom."

"My source tells me that Disney is in early development on a Firefly reboot."

So no announcement was made to investors. And the author cites only a single anonymous source. Call me skeptical.

Also "early development" can mean in Hollywood something like one or two of these fun examples:

- Someone wrote down an idea on a cocktail napkin

- Someone wrote down an idea on a whiteboard

- Someone made an assistant note to check to see if Joss Whedon was canceled this month, and how busy his calendar looked

- Someone set a golf appointment with a buddy from Universal to discuss Disney maybe acquiring the IP rights to Serenity to get all the IP back under one roof

I bet there is more than just that going on but I would imagine there are people working on how to develop literally everything they just bought from Fox. If there is an intellectual property that Disney owns, then someone is trying to figure out how to make money off it.

This is just a rumor for clicks. There is nothing backing this up.

> My source tells me they’re planning to target it more at a PG-adventure, family audience and less at the sort of PG-13 dynamic the original Joss Whedon show went for.

> This shift in tone suggests the new version of Firefly might drop characters like Inara, who is basically a prostitute.

> Disney, not wanting to court the ire of outraged Twitter activists, may simply be unwilling to have [Joss Whedon] involved in their brand. It could also end up that Whedon won’t want to be involved, if indeed Disney really is committed to turning Firefly into a gold standard family-friendly adventure series. That may skew too far from his original vision for the program.

Disney ruins everything:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=245j8gWuOTQ

> Disney ruins everything:

I think they turn everything to wholesome family entertainment.

> they’re planning to target it more at a PG-adventure, family audience and less at the sort of PG-13 dynamic the original Joss Whedon show went for

This can't be real. Why would Disney use/ruin the Firefly universe for this show idea when they already have the Star Wars universe?

Because they haven't bought Viacom yet, so they need something to do while CBS ruins Star Trek without them.

That prompt to allow push notifications on every single page load is obnoxious.

Not seeing even a single such prompt visiting this site in Brave.

This is certainly an exciting rumor but I had a question about this:

“Movie theaters are done. The biggest chain in the world will likely shutter permanently next month and the others are likely to follow suit.”

Is this generally expected? I know the pandemic has a done a number on them, but are movie theaters really expected to disappear forever?

Mostly, at least the first run theaters. They were honestly not seeing good profits for a while, because they had to pay so much for films to the studios/distributors.

Most of the chains in my area have gone under and won't reopen, and it's difficult to see anyone getting investment for new ones any time soon - even if they came back to 100% of what they were before the pandemic, they wouldn't be a great investment.

Smaller theaters showing older movies will probably pick up, though... places where you can have a beer and watch Casablanca or a 1970s war movie, that kind of thing.

People seem to project their personal biases onto the theoretical permanent societal effects of covid. When covid is over, nothing will have changed about human nature with regards to wanting to go out vs. stay in. At first there will be pent-up desire to go out more frequently, but then things will revert to the norm.

When people see dramatic headlines about businesses shutting down, they fail to look ahead at those businesses eventually getting replaced with new ones to match rising demand.

Most of the mega-chain theatres were in rough shape two years prior to the pandemic.

I, personally, don't believe that the film exhibition format will go completely away. I think it will return to being owned by the major studios with a sprinkling of localized art-house theatres in cities that can support them.

Probably not, but looking around here I think the big operators like AMC are in the worst position as they rely the most of the big releases absent this year, and I suspect have larger overheads too. I suspect some will fail or get bought at a discount but studios, but the outlook for smaller ones is more positive given their audience and more flexible offering - ef locally I see all the big cinemas closed, but some interesting new releases at the little ones , who’ve also partnered with distributors for online screenings and spotting the takings.

It's not a great time to be an AMC theater, for sure. But I don't really see the wholesale abandonment of a 100 year old form of entertainment just because we couldn't do it for a month. Theaters may start to look different over the next couple years, but people enjoy going to the movies. We might see a tendency toward smaller theaters. Maybe more will start serving food and drinks. Maybe we'll see a wider adoption of strict rules against talking & cellphones a la Alamo Drafthouse, since those are basically the two things that will truly ruin the show for people.

Basically, theater buildings are already built. Projectors are already installed, and film reels are out there. Even if the big studios decided that all new movies are going straight to streaming, the back catalog of amazing movies is HUGE: I would happily go several times a year to a nice theater that showed the old classics. I saw 2001 last year, projected from a 70mm print, and it was fantastic (even though the incompetent AMC theater couldn't get the house lights shut off for the first half)

We’ve been told, in the UK at least, COVID is never going away. So it’s possible that large scale it’s over. Cinemas will live on in some form.

COVID may stay around as an endemic, circulating virus - but at the same time, it will recede in impact.

Eventually, nearly everyone will have some level of immunity via either natural-infection-and-recovery, or explicit vaccination. (The latter is certainly better for avoiding death or serious complications.)

Even if that immunity fades somewhat with time, as seems to be the case with other 'common cold' cornoaviruses, it'll typically be re-boosted by either a mild survivable case (from circulating virus), or explicit re-vaccination. So at some point – probably no later than 2022 – people will be behaving mostly as before, because the ongoing impact of COVID will have shrunk to be similar to traditional colds/flus.

yeah I don't really trust anything in the article based on that statement: >“Movie theaters are done."

It sounds like just wishful thinking(regarding firefly), but I'd love to be proven wrong :) a firefly reboot would be great and many people have wanted this for a long time, the problem is its been way too long and alot of sci-fi fans may have forgotten or just don't know about it, the show was cancelled 18 years ago so most 20 somethings have no idea what it is.

Why not? Theaters have been hurting for a while, and if launching movies simultaneously on HBO Max is successful enough to stick, it could easily draw enough customers to kill the entire model.

Two tickets and a popcorn - for a single movie - is more than a monthly subscription to HBO Max.

Its precisely that statement that makes me sure that movie theaters are not going anywhere, they make a ton of money for studios and alot of people like the experience. Once the vaccine is out and cases have dropped I will be back in the theaters to watch Dune, the new Avatar movies etc.

Hmm, is Whedon involved w/creative team? Seems like he's challenging to work with.

If Josh Wheedon is involved it could be great.

Getting Filoni involved in the Mandalorian was great.

Eh.

I would be more excited if Ben Edlund was involved rather than Whedon. Edlund was the spark and humour behind the series.

Oh that's awesome I didn't realize Edlund was the brainchild behind Firefly. And you're right probably need both of them involved.

As long as there's still an adorable coverall-wearing female spaceship mechanic I'll give it a chance.

Rebels was basically a Star Wars-ified version of Firefly that targets a different audience.

This legit brought a tear to my eye.

"Let's just ruin everything pertaining to space by turning into hipster camp." -- Disney

They can't even leave the one alone that was already hipster camp.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com