Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Content

It was announced yesterday that Walt Disney would be reviving the short-lived science-fiction television series Firefly as an animated series featuring the original cast.

This is an interesting development. Created by Joss Whedon at the height of his powers, during the final season of Buffy, the Vampire Slayer and the penultimate season of Angel, Firefly was a space western following Captain Malcolm “Mal” Reynolds (Nathan Fillion) and his unlikely crew of misfits aboard their ship, Serenity. The show consists of one two-hour pilot and then a half-season order of thirteen episodes, but it was cancelled by Fox after only eleven of the fourteen aired.

The show was well-regarded, spawning a vocal fan campaign to resurrect it. Viewers appealed to UPN to pick it up, which failed. However, the support for Firefly did manage to convince Universal to agree to produce a feature film, Serenity. That film, which released in September 2005 and was well-received, was a financial disappointment. As such, it seemed like Firefly was dead. It seemed destined to remain a well-loved curio in the “gone before its time” annals of television history.

Culture seemed to move on. Joss Whedon went on to produce shows like Dollhouse and The Nevers, which failed to recapture the zeitgeist in the way Buffy, the Vampire Slayer had. He went on to direct The Avengers and Avengers: Age of Ultron, with the latter having an extremely troubled production. Whedon became a source of controversy when a number of his past collaborators spoke about his abusive behavior, which his interviews did little to help and seems to have stalled his career.

The cast have done well for themselves in the intervening years. Fillion headlined Castle and The Rookie. Alan Tudyk has enjoyed a prolific motion capture and voice acting career in films and worked on shows like Resident Alien. Morena Baccarin has enjoyed a steady stream of work, including a regular role on Homeland and a recurring role in Gotham, alongside the steady role of the love interest Vanessa in the Deadpool trilogy. The show has a legacy, despite its brief run.

The resurrection of Firefly in some ways feels inevitable. Following their purchase of Fox, the Walt Disney Corporation has begun strip-mining the company’s library of intellectual property for parts. Obviously, they are planning to fold the X-Men franchise into their larger Marvel Cinematic Universe, a project that began in earnest with Dr. Strange in the Multiverse of Madness and carried through Ms. Marvel and Deadpool & Wolverine.

While it initially seemed that they might be destined for streaming, the Alien and Predator franchises have demonstrated their value to Disney as theatrical and cable properties, with recent releases like Alien: Romulus, Alien: Earth and Predator: Badlands. However, it does seem like the rest of the Fox library is destined to be grist for the streaming service mill, given that Disney have recently determined that their live action Marvel and Star Wars properties are too valuable for that role.

This trend is already in effect. Ryan Coogler is working on an X-Files reboot. Chloé Zhao was working on a Buffy, the Vampire Slayer reboot, but it was cancelled over the weekend. There is a Malcolm in the Middle reboot coming. All of these projects are (or were) aimed at the company’s streaming output rather than at cable television, linear television or theatrical distribution. The idea is to plug the gaps left by the pivoting of projects like Freakier Friday or Lilo & Stitch back to theatres.

There is something exhaustingly cynical in all of this, in the ruthless and unending exploitation of any intellectual property – no matter how fringe or marginal. I try not to write these pieces in the first person, but given the arguments that I am about to make, it is worth stressing that I make them as a big fan of Firefly, as somebody who thinks that the show never got the respect that it deserved, and that it was cancelled far too early by a network that did not understand what it had.

Maybe it’s okay for things to end. Maybe it’s good for properties to run their course. Maybe it’s ideal for television shows to wrap up. Not everything needs to be constantly recycled and regurgitated, rehashed and replayed, to cash in on nostalgia by pandering to those fans who loved it. Maybe it is enough for these objects to stand as complete monuments, even those projects that ended too soon. Maybe it’s for novelists and comic book writers to expand or develop at the margins.

This is a broader comment about the state of pop culture, which is haunted by unending zombie franchises that just keep shuffling awkwardly around. On a long enough curve, everything gets a reboot, a revival, a prequel, a remake or some strange resurrection. More often than not, this resurrection becomes uncanny. This is in part because the talent have either aged or changed from where they were when the property hit, but also because the audience has as well.

It is a cliché, but it is true: you can’t go home again and you can’t step in the same river twice. There is something disconcerting in contemporary culture’s inability to recognize this simple fact of life, and to chase the simulacra of nostalgic childhood memory down these strange rabbit holes. Is it any wonder that we have computer-generated young Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) or that Disney is licensing its brands and property to allow users to generate endless artificial content?

There are a few reasons why Firefly specifically is a bad fit for this sort of revival, both within the text and outside of it. The show already has a pretty great ending. Serenity is a pretty decent conclusion to the story, and it notably includes some fairly definitive endings for Wash (Tudyk) and Book (Ron Glass). There is simply no need to pick the franchise up again. Then again, given that Serenity was produced by Universal, Disney has their reasons for wanting to steer viewers away from it.

There are bigger reasons outside the text itself. The biggest one is Joss Whedon. This gets into complicated and thorny territory, particularly in an era that seems built around simplistic moral absolutes where the first impulse on hearing that an artist has done bad things is to reflexively decry their entire body of work as bad. It’s an understandable reaction, as it avoids having to delve into uncomfortable contradictions if bad people make bad art and good people make good art.

Whedon has certainly made bad art. His hack job replacing Zack Snyder on Justice League resulted in a film that arguably prefigured the larger direction of those sorts of blockbusters in the worst possible ways. Dollhouse has not aged particularly well. Age of Ultron is a fascinating mess of a movie that is over-stuffed and awkwardly paced. Whedon is not quite the nerd god that he was proclaimed to be at the height of his powers.

However, Whedon is also a generationally important artist. And while one can certainly read some uncomfortable connections into his body of work, the truth is that a lot of what made Buffy, the Vampire Slayer such a success was down to Whedon’s artistic sensibility. As comforting as it might be to be able to cleave Whedon from the work, the truth is that the two are inexorably intertwined. It is something to struggle with when processing that work.

The same is true of Firefly. Whedon is credited on the scripts of five of the fourteen episodes, and he directed the pilot, the first episode after the pilot and the finale. He also wrote and directed Serenity. The show is suffused with his personality and his interests. This is not a uniformly good thing. There are certainly aspects of characters like River Tam (Summer Glau) which fall into some of the clichés of Whedon’s writing. However, Whedon is inseparable from the project.

So, there are two options when resurrecting Firefly. The first is to bring back Whedon, which is obviously unconscionable. There is a reason why Whedon should not be working, and certainly why he should not be placed in an active show running position. The other option is to bring the show back without Whedon, which is the path that the revival has chosen, although it does have his “blessing.” This a bad choice for different reasons, reducing the show to an imitation of Whedon.

Presumably, Whedon is still going to get paid for Firefly. He is going to earn money off a participation deal, and likely collect a fee for the use of characters and concepts that he created. There is a valid ethical question there about rewarding an abusive artist while they are alive. For example, DC has made a general commitment not to republish collected editions of works by writer Gerard Jones while he remains alive to avoid putting money in his pocket.

More broadly, there is a sense that Firefly is a show of its time. Though set in the future, it is a western. Pointedly, it is a post-civil war western, where the crew of the Serenity fought on the losing side. Although never foregrounded in the narrative, it is effectively a romantic “Lost Cause” fiction in science-fiction trappings, playing into that fantasy of the Confederate States of America as an oppressed victim of Northern expansion in a way that downplays the real factors involved.

This wasn’t that big a deal in the original context of Firefly. It was not a huge deal at the time for Whedon to, for example, introduce a bounty hunter (Richard Brooks) played by an African-American performer who shared a name with Confederate General (and “Bad Old Man”) Jubal Early. These days, however, culture is perhaps a bit more finely attuned to the appropriation and use of Confederate iconography in popular American culture.

None of this is to criticize Firefly, by the way. The show was, as all art is, a product of its time. The issue is that the strip-mining of pop culture history for nostalgia, the “cultural fracking” of trying to wring every last cent of value from existing intellectual property, is often ill-equipped to deal with that very simple and very straightforward reality. It is no longer 2002, and the challenge in bringing back something like Firefly is that acknowledging that reality would mean changing it fundamentally.

It is exhausting and draining. Firefly got an ending. It was a premature ending, but Serenity offered a more satisfying conclusion than many long-running shows could hope for. It seems reckless to throw that all away, trying to turn back the clock more than two decades.

Files

Comments

Jeremy Claybrook

100% agreed! as a long time fan i say let Firefly remain burined

Brian S

An excellent article as always, and as a huge Buffy and Angel fan when the shows aired, I appreciated your examination of Whedon's legacy and his horrendous behavior. I never wanted a Buffy reboot, and I won't watch the Firefly reboot when it airs. I was never a fan of Dollhouse, because of its ethical implications (and the lack of attention to that facet makes much more sense in retrospect), and while I liked parts Firefly, was never that much of a fan. Its post Civil War undertones and the fact that one of the episodes was basically an A-Team retread, along with the horrific dialogue, turned me off. I do not understand the fangirling towards the show. It was alright, nothing more. Even Buffy faded at the end, with Season 6 being utterly terrible overall, with a few decent moments. As far as Whedon is concerned, I'd be happy if he never worked again.

Dread Pirate Mittens

It kind of gives me hope that Fillion is involved as a producer, but I agree that Firefly had an ok enough ending. Why not come up with something new.

Ryallen

If there was a time for a Firefly reboot, it was a long time ago. Even before Whedon got outed and perhaps even before Age of Ultron. We don't need a rehash of a show that's older than the original run's target demographic. Everyone who would've watched the reboot has probably aged out of caring by this point. I'm not sure how I feel about the comparisons to the Civil War and equating the main cast as Confederates though. On one hand, you could make that argument and there is merit to that. A civil war between two factions regarding "freedom" that then leads into a Wild West setting does evoke an American Western starring a Confederate. On the other hand, I feel that taking that stance means that, during any type of civil war plotline, the winning side *has* to be the good guy because they were the good guy in the American civil war, which restricts not only narrative potential but also (indirectly) narrows the potential allegory of a civil war exclusively to the US as opposed to the various other civil wars that have taken place across the world. Not to get too self absorbed in this topic, but I don't think I've ever even heard of a Western wherein the protagonist (or someone even slightly sympathetic) was on the side of the South. The West is a sexy ideal for renegades and outlaws and fighting a losing battle, or having fought it rather, makes that even more appealing to the downtrodden and the underrepresented.

Aaron Von Seggern

I've never seen such a hedging, "escape clause-laden" announcement from a lead of a project

Brian S

The Civil War subtext (and yes, they're all cowards) was pretty plainly apparent, almost to the point it was simply text. The faux-countryfied way of talking confirms this. As for the good guys versus bad guys, that was never fully explored. The authorities in the show were villains, both based on Mal's perspective and dialogue, as well as the actions taken by the government in the show and movie, but the other side's actions or moral justification weren't really discussed, as I dimly recall.

Brian S

Coming up with something new would take work... lulz.

Davsau

I would dearly love it if this didn’t happen. I enjoyed this series when it originally aired, and I liked the movie, but I have no real desire to see it come back. As for Whedon, I find he’s poisoned his stuff in a way that keep me from ever revisiting any of it. The added context of what he did and who he is means a lot of his stuff lands differently. You watch a scene and you can see Whedon’s mask dropping for just a second and it just feels icky.

ParaParadox

1) I agree that this feels like content strip mining. Even if they approached it with the best of intentions though, would they be able to capture the original feel or would it be more of a show of Theseus? 2) Joss Whedon benefiting from it is inherently offputting for me. 3) The Confederacy comparisons are in the background. Of the three options I can think of: Address, Double Down, and Ignore, they're definitely not going to make everyone happy and I can't help but feel like they'll try to have it all ways and make *nobody* happy. All in all I do not have faith that Disney is capable of doing a good job.

Valentin

So, what's the best case scenario here? That we get parody instead of cloying pastiche? The sardonically romantic goggles of Whedon's "The Killer Angels" torn off and replaced by the Vietnam-era revisionism of the heroic frontier myth? I'm tired, boss. We're already suffused in the plight of Mal Reynolds and company. Apathy and cynicism are the currency of the cultural realm, plentifully generated by the all-consuming machine devouring our childhood and regurgitating it back at us. So, what? Are they gonna make an even more cynical Firefly? Less? Darker? Brighter? Who's the target audience here? The Browncoats have already lived through "the lost cause". They already got their share of nostalgia and bitterness. Just let them die in peace.

HardRevenge

I have never been a big fan of space fantasy (especially star wars 😮‍💨). Firefly was familiar and dynamic enough for me to get hooked. Don't need a remake though, if I want to experience it again then I'll gnab my DVD. It's another marker in time and I'm alright with that. Great article Darren!

buckysrevenge

I just recently rewatched the series and movie, it still holds up fairly well, but I have to agree that many of the clichés that they relied on wear thin today. I will always love Firefly, but I'm also happy with the ending it has already

Andrew White-Winter

Agree with all of these points. For me, I'm frustrated it will be animated and set between the OG series and Serenity. I don't care how the characters will react to anything 20 years ago. I got that. 20 years ago. I wanna know how they react to life now. Animated or not, pretending like the last 20 years hasn't happened is annoying and insulting to what Firefly was about.

Pyrian

Something new doesn't have a built-in audience you can point at to executives.

William Alexander

Fully agreed. I'd fully agree with this even if I wasn't utterly sick of reboots, legacy sequels, etc. I would love to see studios investing in making new shows, movies and IPs that could be the next Firefly, Buffy, etc. but it seems like that will never happen. And Jesus I never even saw the show but the premise and concept of Dollhouse might as well have been called "Huge Red Flag Alert."

Darren Mooney

And, to be clear, I love “Firefly!”

Whimsy

Lot of good points, but one stickler for me, but maybe I’m behind on things. I was under the impression Disney gave permission, but that they aren’t involved in production for sure and that Fillion was going to make the rounds with pitching

Tim Wilson

I only saw Serenity with absolutely no context (it was a quid in a bargain bin) but it was pretty fun. The rest I know from reputation and it always smacked of what I call “Kurt Cobain Syndrome”. A perfect icon, stuck in time and revered precisely because of its tragic end and the lack of opportunity to ruin itself later. Seasons 6 and 7 (and on) of Buffy made me happy the reboot has died again and I don’t think Firefly would be as universally remembered as a shining star had it been able to burn out.

TVCas

Indeed. Also Whedon is not involved. Both might make some Profits, though, but it does not feel like the usual cash grab as the ones mentioned by Darren.

Darren Mooney

My mum and dad actually caught it on television one night and watched it having no idea there was a show. (They just liked Chiwetel Ejiofor.) They followed along quite easily.

Darren Mooney

It's with 20th Century Animation, not just as a permission, but as co-producer. I would be quite surprised - but who knows? - it doesn't end up in the Disney eco-system. Hell, the 20th Century Animation stuff that doesn't end up on their streaming services (that "Alien vs. Predator" series) just doesn't exist.

Darren Mooney

Yep, it's an icky one, particularly in the context of "the Slayers" and River Tam and such. Like an assembly line for Whedon girls. And I say that liking a far whack of Whedon's work, and thinking he was a breath of fresh air. It's like Polanski. Well, Polanski's worse and should be in prison, but I'm okay with neither man working again, but that doesn't change the impact and quality of "Chinatown." It just makes it something to wrestle with.

Darren Mooney

I do get the sense the key there is to de-canonise "Serenity" without de-canonising "Serenity" because the fans would riot. It allows you to have a complete experience of the show inside the Disney eco-system.

Darren Mooney

I really like it, in case there's an ambiguity there. I think it's a great.

Darren Mooney

I think a lot about the post-Whedon MCU here. And I know that because Whedon is a bad man who has done bad things, the impulse is to insist that everything he did was bad. And some of it is. But the truth is that Whedon does much better Whedon writing than almost anybody else. And there is a real drop in the writing of the team between the Whedon and Russo "Avengers" movies. In Whedon's "Avengers", I can tell you the differences between Cap and Tony. Cap feels like a character who grew up in the thirties, while Tony bristles against authority. (I actually believe, for example, Whedon's Cap believes in God, which is a pretty big character beat. In the Russo movies, he occasionally stops by a church for a funeral or whatever, but I don't think that character believes in a higher authority.) In the Russo movies, you can pretty swap around most of the dialogue and it will make as much sense coming from any character's mouth.

Darren Mooney

I imagine they'll just ignore the Confederacy stuff, which is perhaps worse.

Aaron Von Seggern

I got introduced to Firefly by my dad randomly renting the DVD when it came out. Haven't watched any of the show before or since, and my average Midwestern family all loved Serenity.

Antiphar

Only upon reading "clichés of Whedon’s writing" did I think about the similarities between River and Scarlet Witch in AoU. Definitely won't be able to rewatch either without shuddering at the creepy overtones of the abused young heroine...

Darren Mooney

Off the top of my head, the DC character Jonah Hex fought for the Confederacy and wears a grey jacket. The title character in "The Outlaw Josey Wales" is a former Confederate. There are plenty of them: the Carradine character in "Stagecoach", as I recall who is generally a decent sort and gets a hero's death. The John Wayne character in "The Searchers." To be fair, it's not an issue with the idea of a sympathetic loser. It's more the specific issue of America never really parsing the Civil War. It would be different, I think, if the country had grappled with an acknowledged its past. But turning it into a playground where the people who fought for slavery are often treated (unquestioningly) as noble losers, while the real world can't agree on what the Confederate flag means is an issue. (The thing about civil wars, as you point out, is that they don't generally have good guys and bad guys. They're generally really unpleasant affairs in which everybody is horrid to one another and the scars last generations. Here in Ireland, our civil war was admittedly sixty years after America's, but we just don't really talk about about it. We build romantic tales about the War of Independence, in part because the British government really leaned into playing the villains there, but while the Irish Civil War still shapes Irish society (two of our big three parties were the opposite sides of the conflict, but have no meaningful policy differences) and while it was not fought over something as horrific as slavery (it was fought over six counties, which we've generally decided to leave their determination to them), we still just don't talk about it or create romantic fantasies of it. Fun fact, I did write an Irish Civil War western over a decade ago that I shopped around the industry, the work of a twenty-something-year-old playing with the iconography of a western in an Irish context. It was made very clear there was no interest in that. A few years later, someone cracked what I was trying to do by making a Famine Western instead. "Black '47", which is like my novel if it were good.)

Darren Mooney

I will admit to finding "Firefly" a breath of fresh air in the space of the moment, when "Star Trek" was in decline and "Star Wars" was doing the prequels. It was fun, zippy, clever, postmodern space western.

Jessica Addams

I don't care about the question of a Firefly reboot in particular - I watched the series when it dropped on DVD and was generally unimpressed; wasn't bad, but I never understood the slavish devotion that cropped up after it was canceled - but as the trend of IP fracking, as you repeatedly invoke, continues I want to see an exploration of how it's not even so much the IP that's being regurgitated as it is the idea of the IP. The image that fans have built in their heads over the years/decades of the franchise being at rest. For instance, you know more about Star Trek than I do so you can correct me on this, but in the original series Kirk was not a 'play by his own rules' maverick, yes? Yet from what I heard about the Abrams reboot Pine's Kirk was a full-of-himself, I'll-do-what-I-want rebel. Because somewhere along the line people in general or the fans specifically got it in their head that Kirk regularly went against the Federation/Prime Directive/whatever. So if a Firefly reboot does take off, is it going shoot for the same tone and spirit of the original series, or is it going to Flanderize the characters, setting, etc. to play into what the fans want? Just a layer of this whole trend I don't see being addressed.

Jack Philipson

There were really quite a lot of swings at making original space opera for TV in the 90s and 2000s: Firefly, Babylon 5, Farscape, Andromeda, Lexx, and successful revivals for beloved ropey classics Battlestar Galactica and Doctor Who, and multiple incarnations of Stargate. That time is very much over. The 2010s at least had The Expanse and Dark Matter, now we just get Star Wars and Star Trek being endlessly regurgitated, and now Firefly is joining them. I'm surprised they haven't gone about rebooting more of them, frankly. Is Stargate just insufficiently nostalgic? Too much of a "War on Terror" era product?

Nyx

I'm going to do what I've learned to do in this minefield of reboots, retakes, remakes, etc. I'm going to wait and try it (if it ever comes out), and make up my mind there. I thought Scrubs was going to be a butchery of its former self, but so far...I've enjoyed it. It's still funny but somehow adapted for modern time, without doing any revisionist stuff to the original show. I really want this Firefly animated show to succeed. But if it doesn't, I'm prepared to not be emotionally crushed by it. I still have the original dvds and a player. So at least I can always rewatch that.

dirtside

No, we absolutely do not need it. Stop rebooting old IP. Make new stuff. It's that simple (if not that easy). [In this particular case, I will not touch this with a fifty-foot pole if Adam Baldwin is involved, he is a giant pile of crap. Did you know he literally coined the term "GamerGate"?]

Travis Garlick

I'm going to be the voice of disagreement here. Serenity was not really a great conclusion as much as it was a rush through all the plots that otherwise would have had more time to breath over the course of multiple seasons. I think an animated follow up is a great way to finally give this show a chance (even if I do agree that doing it without Whedon might be a little awkward), and I can only hope it doesn't just end up as another tax write off.

Crowleyboughtmysoul

Since this is going to be set before Serenity, are they planning to use ai to replicate Ron Glass's voice? I really hope not, but I wouldn't be at all surprised.

Stormy K.

I would be cautiously on board with a Firefly reboot if they took some of the cultural appropriation criticisms to heart. In addition to the Confederate implications, the notable lack of Chinese/East Asian characters in the main cast when two of them are named "Tam" and they all sprinkle in Chinese words and phrases is...A Choice. If a reboot took the opportunity to spotlight some new talent from an underrepresented group and really lean into the premise, I would at least be interested. Currently? Not at all.

Grey1

I'd say two important reasons for bypassing/"soft-rebooting" Serenity are 1) keeping Alan Tudyk and 2) the fact that Firefly, and especially Serenity, doesn't suggest an "everyone is 20 years older and everyone is back/still on the ship" scenario.

Grey1

I guess the distinction would be that it's said to not be a studio buying the actors for a money grab nostalgia reboot, but that Fillion et al are selling it as their personal dream project "for the fans".

Grey1

To be honest, to me Serenity looked like what a season 4 would have been, with a few twists away from the original setting and everyone looking a bit too comfortable and capable in their role.

Grey1

Abrams' version also goes all in on Kirk being promiscous. He's basically Futurama's Kirk parody in that regard.

Grey1

Basically, I guess sanitizing the confederacy mess would come across as Flanderization; and not sanitizing it would come across as tone deaf. So...

Jessica Addams

I have no investment in the Firefly franchise, as I said in my first comment, but there are ways to address the Confederacy analogue without handwaving it or downplaying it. Jonah Hex's backstory is that he fought for the Confederacy initially on the view of states' rights, but when it became clear it was about slavery he walked away. Maybe have the characters confront the full reality of what they were fighting for, even if they were only motivated by specific ideals at the time.

Grey1

A Stargate reboot is coming from Amazon, and Peacock tried to reboot Galactica. Regarding Babylon 5, Straczynski has been trying forever to manifest a franchise out of the Show, never successful, and I think he's still trying to get a reboot off the ground. Related to how Firefly is coming back: He did do an animated (Multiverse) movie a few years ago, and I think animation was explicitly a cheap/realistic way to do it.

Grey1

They are lucky in that regard since Serenity is offering an excuse for writing Book out of the cast, even if just in an "he's off doing other stuff but will come back" way. Other than that, i think animation today is generally okay with recasting with "similar enough" voices, from Clone Wars to Babylon 5 to Rick & Morty.

Whimsy

ahh. I am uninformed then. That must have been part of the deal for them to grant rights. I heard new showrunners, ShadowMachine, and “i’m about to go pitch this thing…[to find a home for the show]” and thought it was more of a “we’ll happily take some money for you to try to do something with an IP we don’t have plans for” kinda deal from Disney/Fox

Darren Mooney

I honestly find this really frustrating. Like, I'm an adult. I am a mature person. I can real with unpacking the use of Confederate imagery in your space western. But I know that if they even touch that third rail, you'll get the loudest army of the worst people shouting night and day about it.

Freakjob

I was initially very hyped for the buildup on Nathan Fillion's IG. The reveal of an animated series had me leaping for joy. The more I've reflected on it though, the more apprehensive I've gotten. The story ended well. We've had some great comics come out that explore the story post-show, neatly contained. While I love the show, cultural fracking is a cancerous disease that needs to be cut out. Will I watch this animated series? 100%. Will I have a small nagging thought in the back of my head saying it's a bad thing? Yes. At the end of the day though, it's more Firefly, and I'm too much of a sucker for one of the greatest TV shows ever to not be excited. Yes, I'm a hypocrite; Darren has made multiple videos articulating my (highly negative) feelings about lega-sequels like the live action Disney movies, but I can't not be excited to get more of something I love. The question now remains: will it be good? Only time will tell.