An animated series would be nice, but I'm skeptical than anyone would want to pay to make one.

I'm guessing that they're doing an audio drama, like the Big Finish Doctor Who stuff, Orphan Black: The Next Chapter, or Star Trek: Khan. They are quite popular these days, and can be made on the cheap.

It also has the benefit of being able to be done quickly; just having the actors read scripts in a studio somewhere. No need to worry about anyone aging out of their roles, and roles can be recast if necessary.

Yeah, I hate how the term has been consistently misused. It has been rendered meaningless by now.

No thanks. Just, please. Huge fan of the original show and you’ll never touch that cast, time, etc. It was one of those things that just worked out and while the show was far too short-lived I love that it is short which makes every episode special. The Serenity movie is a solid entry too and at least a proper send off if a little sad. If you haven’t already, I highly recommend purchasing the blu-ray box set with the cool case. It’s got unaired episodes, cool cards and booklets & the discs look good too. Throw in the 4K of Serenity and you’ve got yourself a wonderful TV show and film combo. I watch it all annually.

I realize that reboots don’t always mean the same thing but if you use the name or likeness of anything prior then to me it’s a reboot. And, we know how there is a good chance of some new show royally screwing up something attempting to "modernize" it. Wish they’d take their funding and energy and put it into something original instead. Just leave Firefly alone.

Then what's a revival?

To be fair, Wikipedia has this to say about the "reboot" semantics:
So, "reboot" certainly can be used as a catch-all term for revivals as well as shows that completely restart the continuity. To that point, entertainment news outlets such as People have referred to the Scrubs revival as a "reboot":
https://people.com/scrubs-reboot-rel...-news-11903433

I don't know how I managed to have this same argument about two different words within 24 hours, but just because some people use a word incorrectly doesn't mean I have to accept that usage.

As I noted in my original post, it's a pedantic nitpick.

Fair enough and I do feel the same with some words, but it seems like your nitpick is based on a definition that isn't universally agreed upon by legitimate semantic sources. Even Cambridge Dictionary defines it more generally as "a new and interesting version of something such as a movie or television show, or the act of making a new and interesting version." When a word has been defined both generally and with a more specific intention in a particular context, it seems reasonable to at least accept the more general usage (but maybe that's just my own pedantic nitpick ). This isn't a "literally vs. figuratively" situation where people incorrectly use a word where its complete opposite is what's applicable.

At least most of us can agree that whatever this Firefly thing ends up being, we probably prefer that they leave well enough alone.

I like precise vocabulary more than the next person, but I will point out that there was a TV series called "Reboot" about the revival of an old sitcom with the original cast.

English dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. If a poor usage becomes common enough, they'll include it. Dictionaries aren't there to say what words/definitions/usages are "correct," just what's common.

Go look up the definition of the word "literally" for an example of dictionaries including a definition many people think is wrong.

And Alanis Morrisette wrote a song called "Ironic" listing a lot of situations that weren't ironic.

Given the songs popularity and critical acclaim, I guess that means that within the context of any music industry discussion, all those things she listed are officially ironic.

Seems a somewhat arbitrary place to draw the line, but to each their own! Some computer nerds from the 70s are probably lamenting the "incorrect" use of the word reboot being applied to comics on some Usenet group in the 90s and consider the eventual colloquial application to many different types of fiction a "poor usage" on your part.

For related reference:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/word...ot-word-origin

Her misunderstanding of ironic is iconic

Which is itself ironic. The song was called Ironic...and it was!

This could turn out to be as amazing as Disney's Star W....oh wait.

Eh, I don't have a problem with a new version of Firefly existing. Maybe it turns out great. At worst, it's ignorable. I watched most of the new X-Files, and while it didn't make an impression on me, it didn't tarnish my memory of the original. I admit others may have stronger reactions, though.

The revival of X-Files was worth it just for "Mulder and Scully Meet the Were-Monster". Although "The Lost Art of Forehead Sweat" and "Rm9sbG93ZXJz" were pretty good as well.

As an aside, there is also an X-Files "reboot" in the works. There's been a pilot ordered for Hulu:
https://deadline.com/2026/02/ryan-co...er-1236733363/

This description makes it sound like a sequel series, sort of a "X-Files: The Next Generation":

Not to go too off topic, but this Reboot vs Revival talk has me curious. How would you guys classify the most recent Hawaii Five-0 as. Reboot or revival? Obviously same title except for an o vs a 0, some same character names, different actors, same basic premise. How about Magnum PI? Some same and some very similar character names, same premise.

Since Alanis Morissette is GOD. it might not be ironic, but at least canon.

I think a way to think of it is in terms of movies. Like, for movies, they get sequels, and sometimes those sequels are years to decades later, but they're still considered sequels if they maintain continuity with the previous films. When The Fast and Furious franchises named their forth film 'Fast and Furious," nobody was talking about how it was a "reboot' of the franchise.

However, when a new movie in a franchise cuts ties with the previous films, and resets the continuity, typically retelling the original story, or at least starting back at the beginning, that's a reboot. It's starting over, with a new continuity.

So, the movie Spider-Man came out, then Spider-Man 2 and Spider-Man 3 were sequels, and then Sony rebooted the franchise with The Amazing Spider-Man, and then made a sequel to that, The Amazing Spider-Man 2, and then the franchise got rebooted again for the Tom Holland movies.

For TV shows, we're used to the sequel seasons getting greenlit almost immediately, so when the sequel season is years or decades later it feels different, but it's still a continuation of the original show, so terms like "revival" or "continuation" fit. It's when the show returns to the original premise but resets the continuity that it's a reboot.

You must be easily bemused.

Whedon won't be involved so anyone expecting anything but a legacy reboot/next gen project wearing Firefly IP as a skin suit will be disappointed.

Which is, itself...

nah.

I never realized that's what this was about.

Reboot = turn it off and turn it back on to get it running again.

They aren't rebooting the property, they are rebooting cash flow.