Animated 'Firefly' Reboot In Development With Nathan Fillion (hollywoodreporter.com)
- Reference: 0180999514
- News link: https://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/26/03/16/032254/animated-firefly-reboot-in-development-with-nathan-fillion
- Source link: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/animated-firefly-reboot-in-development-nathan-fillion-1236533089/
When the first episode of the original series premiered in late 2002, Slashdot reader fm6 [4]wrote :
> "Firefly, Joss Whedon's 'anti-Trek drama' premieres tonight, on Fox, 8 E/P. I normally despise hypespeak, but this time it's the only language that fits: this is groundbreaking, mind-boggling, totally original. I've seen a bootleg of the pilot (which, unfortunately, the network is holding back) and I promise you this is the most geek-friendly SF you've seen in a long time. Yes, more so than Star Trek and B5, and way past Star Wars. I've never seen the future so skillfully, realistically, and lovingly portrayed. Here is the Official Site and a leading fan site."
"This is the single new show this season I have added a season pass for to the old Tivo," CmdrTaco said at the time. "But I'll probably watch it live. This looks like it could be as good as we hope."
[1] https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/animated-firefly-reboot-in-development-nathan-fillion-1236533089/
[2] https://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/05/09/30/2126253/serenity-opens-today
[3] https://www.instagram.com/reel/DV6Js56jT3F/
[4] https://news.slashdot.org/story/02/09/20/1713222/firefly-premieres-tonight
1st in! (Score:3)
I have high hopes for this, I loved the originals!
Nope (Score:1)
It should live-action or just not at all.
Economics (Score:5, Informative)
The new streaming economics are that, unless you are an established multi-billion dollar IP, like Star Trek, Marvel, Lord of the Rings, or Game of Thrones, you aren't going to get enough money together for live-action anything beyond a simple detective show or medical drama.
There's a rare exception now and then - bestselling novel adaptation, established director or writer, etc... Whedon has a bad name right now, so nobody is going to be throwing money at him. His last huge-budget TV show, The Nevers, got pulled from HBO before it was finished airing.
Re: (Score:2)
Plus FX suck now; it's all crap CGI bid out to contractors with deadlines and budget penalties which has often made today's FX worse than it was decades ago before the outsourcing norm of today. Not that FX was a huge aspect of that series but today it's used too much and at the same time is much poorer in quality.
I bring this up because people bitch about animation when it's often better than live action or it should usually be better simply because it's all controlled, deliberate, and unconstrained... Th
Re:Nope (Score:4, Insightful)
If it is live action, it cannot be set in the intended timeline as the show was 20 years ago. Also if it is live action, it may not happen as all the actors may have other live action shows to do. Scheduling them all to be available for live-action is much larger logistical problem than scheduling individually for voice over sessions.
Re: (Score:2)
You are free to ignore it if you have some non-negotiable disdain for animation.
It's been over 20 years, they want Alan Tudyk in it, and besides probably an easier pitch to get produced anyway. They can't play the characters at the age they were, Alan Tudyk's character couldn't be part of a 'twenty years later' scenario, and generally speaking it would probably have to be a very different story anyway and I'm not sure whatever 'magic' that combination of folks bring to the table would work in a new formula
Re: (Score:2)
Surprisingly, most actors voices change very little over the years. There is no difference until they develop breathing problems very late in their life.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I suppose I should have been explicit as to why animated makes sense, their looks age but voices less severely so, so playing 20 years younger is pretty much only an animation thing.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what I was trying to say too; "Actors age but their voices do not" is a very good argument for doing sequels in animation instead of live action.
nice. (Score:2)
The rarest of all things - good news! They couldn't possibly reassemble the same cast after twenty years and then just pick up where the old one left off; Disney barely managed to do it with Daredevil after like five.
Tara Butters, you say ? (Score:2)
She'd better be nicknamed "Stotch" is all I can say.
I was there Gandalf... (Score:2)
I remember that original CmdrTaco post.... man I'm old.
No, stop it. (Score:2)
Please god, no. There is ZERO chance in today's culture that it won't be "deconstructed" and shit on :(
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE - wait another 20 years until it can me made with some sanity!
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think this? Feel like this is generally some false narrative that some people believe.
Live action animation ANY DAY (Score:1)
There's so much potential for a "getting the gang back together" live-action here. Yes, it's overwhelmingly more to create and produce. But it's worth it. We're no longer children watching cartoons. We want real people.
Re: (Score:2)
> We're no longer children watching cartoons
Watch a few Studio Ghibli films and then come back and say that with a straight face. The medium may surprise you if you explore it with an open mind.
Re: (Score:2)
Wash is going to be looking a bit... decomposed by this time as a character.
Frankly, a bunch of people getting the gang back together for space adventures in their 50s sounds like a pretty dubious concept, *especially* in a series that leaned more into physical action on occasion like firefly did.
Maybe all the animation you watched were 80s cartoons or maybe something like Bluey with your kids, but that does not mean that animation is some 'kiddy' thing.
There's some *very* family unfriendly animation out th
Hoping for the best (Score:3)
Expecting the worst
Good idea, I'm on board (Score:2)
Animation allows the show to be as scifi as possible but fit within a more consistent budget.
It would be nice to hear who will be handling the animation I think Firefly would be a great fit for one of the higher end anime studios like Madhouse or Trigger or Kyoto as Firefly has always felt like Firefly is Cowboy Bebop inspired so that style would work well.
Also helps that Nathan Fillion and Alan Tudyk in particular have done lots and lots of voice work in the years since the show aired so they can get a lot
Just what we need... (Score:2)
... more "space westerns"! Firefly was great because Nathan Fillion is really good at making characters very likable. We'll see if that can be done in an animated feature. And yes, I would like to see more stories from the Firefly universe, provided they are well written.
Re: (Score:1)
I was going to say if anyone has read the firefly books these would be great as fodder for the scripts. one book per season of the animated version. Gives you years of material for the series. Or, it seems they are going with "new" stories, which i'll see how that works out when it's broadcast. Time will tell, but i'm cautiously optimistic.
Re: (Score:1)
I have to admit that Fillon is great at creating great characters. However, he also played one of the most psychotic ones I've ever seen in the Buffy universe. Man, he made crazy look like a jumping off point to where he had gone
Re:Animated? sigh. (Score:5, Insightful)
The show was 20 years ago. They want the new series to be set between the original show and the movie. To use the same actors, it would be easier for the show to be animated than try to make the actors 20 years younger. The alternative would be new actors to play the same characters which would not be favorably received.
Also voice acting would require less time of the actors, and they do not all have to record their lines at the same time. Nathan Fillion, Alan Tudyk, Gina Torres, and Morena Baccarin might have other acting roles right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Echoing this, the timeline they are proposing allows for Alan Tudyk's "Wash" to be a part of the storytelling. That character was a fan favorite, which is why his arc on Serenity was so impactful.
RIP Ron Glass.
His absence would obviously not be addressed in this very early announcement. I'm not totally sure how I'd feel about it, but using AI to recreate his voice either as a character (for the sake of continuity) or as a narrator is something I think I'd be okay with. If it was with his family's ble
Re: (Score:3)
> His absence would obviously not be addressed in this very early announcement.
Between the show ending and the movie, both Sheppard and Inara left the ship. It was stated that the crew occasionally used his planet as sanctuary. So leaving him out of the stories would be fine for the timeline.
Re: (Score:3)
Let's not play that game - "AI is bad, except now when I don't want someone replacing a character I liked when I was younger".
Use a different, LIVING, voice actor.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not as opposed to AI as many - but there's also no need for it here. Ron Glass was great and will be missed, but *Book* is a character, and especially with animation where we won't see the actor, anyway... re-cast. It might be disrespectful if Glass was available, but when an actor isn't, it happens all the time and isn't disrespectful unless done in a way that makes it specifically so.
Re: (Score:2)
Totally agree, there is so many talented voice actors they can tap to fill the role and to me that is more respectful than trying to AI recreate it.
Watching the King of the Hill reboot last year I was similarly concerned how they would handle Dale Gribble after Johnny Hardwick passed away partly through the recording considering what a major cahracter he was.
But they had Toby Huss do the voice for the remainder which I thought was very respectful since they were cast mates and friends on the original run an
Re: (Score:1)
> Why do they have to f**K with everything
Some actors and actresses often prefer to be remembered in their (physical) prime. It's been almost 25 years now since they filmed the first series, and over 20 since the movie.
Let's just say animation is an easy way to age gracefully and earn a paycheck in Hollywood. Otherwise, the Kardashian Kloning facility is just across the street from McFaces in LA.
Re:Animated? sigh. (Score:4, Insightful)
Wasn't high production cost part of the reason the original was cancelled? If so, being able to draw whatever instead of needing a combination of set design and CGI (which, btw, I consider a form of animation) to create the desired effect might be less expensive.
Re: (Score:3)
Because realistically, this is the *only* way they can make it work.
They want Wash to be in the show. There's no getting around that it *must* be set before the film. You can't have people credibly play the same character at the same age after 20 years in live action.
Even without the Wash situation, I'd argue that any scenario trying to reconcile 20 years into the future of the characters would be, necessarily, 'f**k'ing with everything. Animated is probably the *least* disruptive approach.
Re: (Score:2)
> Because realistically, this is the *only* way they can make it work.
There is another way. The Walking Dead: Firefly edition. . . Stop throwing things at me. :P