WTF George?

[Thundershot]

Haven't seen Firefly yet...but I did very much enjoy Serenity.
Never watched Buffy untill the last series, of which, although I enjoyed it & thought was very good never considered as being essential viewing.

[Chopper]

I never liked Buffy, was a bit too corny for me. Firefly just hit the nail on the head IMO.

[meertoh]

TBH, I probably need to give Firefly another chance.

[Quickfire]

Genosse!

Fear ye not, am not anti-Whedon.

Just can't assemble a sensible argument beyond stating the obvious that Whedon plus Star Wars is not handy karma.

Sure, he could create a brilliant po-mo parody, but when Star Wars emerged out of the Omnizeotrope universe, George's 'faster! more intense!' direction led everyone to play it straight, as if it was Ealing Studios on the West Coast in the 1970s. That's sort of why it works the way it does. Which is genius.

See, am trying to assemble an argument and I said I wouldn't do that. Oh, and don't mention JJ Abrams either. If a Romulan zips out of a black hole carrying Luke's Uncle Owen as a hostage and Jar-Jar as the court jester I might mutter into my beard more than once.

[The Baron]

Whoever did POTC should do it, the perfect balance of action, humour, fantasy-horror, drama and universal appeal. As for Chop's mental misfire regarding the sequels, well... 4 was obviously a cash-in but 2 and 3 rock. Better than 1 to be honest. The climactic battle of the Black Pearl and the Flying Dutchman locking masts around a whirlpool? Out-f*cking-standing.

Firefly HAS to be watched as a whole, with Serenity as the finale. It's not an option to dip in and out, the River Tam arc is too subtle. For me, that show just conveys the love - everyone involved in it was having the time of their lives, I know Fillion had a a massive depression after it was axed. I get the same vibe from Farscape.

[ODB]

Whedon and Abrams can stay well away as far as I am concerned. I do not like any of their output to be honest, and if they got they mitts on the Star Wars universe it would just end up as another generic action/scifi film. For all the faults of the prequels they did avoid the need to add in fast editing, shakey cam, OTT soundtracks and gratuitous slowmos, bullet time etc.

[DAMartin]

I liked the Firefly series, but it's a totally different kind of SciFi than Star Wars: Star Wars is more fantasy-like, including not only aliens but also mystical stuff like the Force, while Firefly takes a more realistic approach where the closest to aliens are human colonists. Taking the Firefly approach in Star Wars would be a mistake.

[Thundershot]

Aye, also with Babylon 5 you got the sense that the actors were fully behind the project.

I guess times have changed & directing styles that appeared fresh & revolutionary 30 years ago probably looks dated by modern standards....Lucas' editing style could be considered staid & very old school by modern audiences.

[Quickfire]

George is at the Austin Grand Prix Qualifying session.

The circuit is technical, with no soul, but very shiny.

Oh wait.

[Chopper]

Abrams rooted Star Trek imo. He isn't a directors bum hole. The only thing Whedon would need to bring to Star Wars is a little grounding and not too much Jah jah. I think he could do it and still maintain the feel of the original movies.

Firefly had a good balance of not so shaky camera. I don't think Whedon is guilty of that so much. Which is good because half of the fun is marvelling at the size of ships, nebula's, eye candy etc, etc. The only decent shot in Trek was the scene where the Enterprise rose out of the rings of Saturn. The rest was as much fun as licking dogs balls.

I agree very much with Jim's take on Firefly. Takes a couple of eps to settle in but when you see the story for what it is, its brilliant.

This kind of thing would work perfectly..... the kind of verse where Han would always shoot first.