When I was at the Film & Comic Con the other week I got to ask Adam Baldwin (he's not one of the Baldwins - which I wasn't aware of) a quick question - so I asked whether he thought there'd be another series of Firefly. He didn't rule it out, but felt it would be more likely there would be a sequel film if Serenity did well.

Which I think is a bit disappointing. One of the interesting things about Firefly was that there was what always seems to be termed an “arc” running through all the episodes. This is not something new, many TV shows like to do this - it's one of the things that makes people come back every week (or, contriwise, puts you off when you miss a couple of episodes of “24” .

The thing is, films usually don't do this. They tend - the Matrix, Star Wars and Lord of the Rings aside - to be one-offs which might get a sequel if they make enough money. You might argue that Fox's treatment of Firefly means a TV show is sometimes in a not dissimilar state if it tries, as Joss Whedon did in this show, to carry the arc between series. But I can't really think of a film that's bettered its TV roots... whereas Buffy the Vampire Slayer is infinitely better as a TV series than it was as a film.

I think the longer, if more fractured, format of a TV show gives a better opportunity to do more interesting things than a film. I suppose though, many in the TV and film industries seem to see films as validating what they do more than a TV series does. Which is a pity, Hollywood has always seemed out of ideas to a degree (the article covers the last five years, but many classic films are adaptions: The Godfather, Apocalypse Now, Rosemary's Baby, To Kill a Mockingbird, Cape Fear and The Birds to name a few).

I hope the film does well, and I'll be going to see it if I can, and if it does well, we'll probably get a sequel, but I kind of wish they could get it back to TV.