# Firefly



## Joker (Nov 15, 2009)

I've recently seen the series and there's something I don't understand.

Why in _the_ hell was this cancelled?

I read that it was due to low ratings but am I really that oblivious to what most people like?  Because I love this show.  It's just fun TV.

It was anyway.

Who needs to die for this to come back?


----------



## Crothian (Nov 15, 2009)

Did you listen to the comentaries on the DVDs?  They don't tell the whole story but they tell a good one.

Yes, you must be oblivious to what people like on TV, because people in general have rarely liked science fiction or anything that non science fiction people can call science fiction.

But it is not that simple.  Fox aired them out of order and really treated the show like they didn't like it or just had no idea what to do with it.  

Instead of looking for someone to die and being all violent because that will never work, you need to ask: "Who needs to get paid and how much money will it take?"


----------



## Mouseferatu (Nov 15, 2009)

Crothian said:


> But it is not that simple.  Fox aired them out of order and really treated the show like they didn't like it or just had no idea what to do with it.




Yep. Fox aired the pilot _last_, juggled the episodes in no obvious pattern, didn't show three or four of the episodes _at all_, and preempted the series on a regular basis. 

Would it have succeeded with a cooperative network? I dunno. I love the show--it's one of my favorites of all time--but I understand that it might not've had broad appeal. But we'll never know, because it _wasn't_ give a fair shot.


----------



## jaerdaph (Nov 15, 2009)

Yeah, Firefly was great TV. I missed it the first time but caught it in reruns on SciFi when it was shown in the order it was originally meant to be seen. 

Joker - just in case you don't already know - the 2005 movie Serenity offers some closure to help ease your pain.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Nov 15, 2009)

jaerdaph said:


> Joker - just in case you don't already know - the 2005 movie Serenity offers some closure to help ease your pain.




On the other hand, you might not want to watch the Serenity movie because the 'closure' it offers isn't necessary what you might be hoping for!

Personally I think the movie re-writes some concepts from the series, doesn't pick up some of the really interesting stuff and makes some decisions which I'm unhappy with but won't mention because of spoilers.

(and I have to say - why did drek like Andromeda survive while Firefly didn't?)


----------



## fba827 (Nov 15, 2009)

i'll admit i was one of the people that never watched it when it was on tv.

i tried watching it once (i think it was the second -originally aired- episode) but i couldn't follow it because it _felt_ like so much had already passed from what i saw that i was lost.  (the fact that they weren't aired in order probably has something to do with that)

forward a few years and i gave it another try when it was on reruns on cable. i was able to see it -in order- and that actually made all the difference.  i was hooked and HAD to sit through the entire marathon to watch it all.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 15, 2009)

Plane Sailing said:


> (and I have to say - why did drek like Andromeda survive while Firefly didn't?)




Shows on different TV stations and with different budgets have different expectations.  It would be interesting though to see those ratings and compare them to Firefly's.


----------



## jaerdaph (Nov 15, 2009)

Plane Sailing said:


> On the other hand, you might not want to watch the Serenity movie because the 'closure' it offers isn't necessary what you might be hoping for!?




Yeah, don't expect any Star Wars happy endings...



Plane Sailing said:


> (and I have to say - why did drek like Andromeda survive while Firefly didn't)




I have to believe Gene Roddenberry rolled over in his grave over that. And Kevin Sorbo is a David Hasselhoff wannabe.


----------



## DreadPirateMurphy (Nov 16, 2009)

I really don't think that in the case of Firefly it couldn't have found an audience.  Really the only mainstream barrier was getting over the "in space" element.  I know from personal experience that it can be entertaining for folks who "don't like sci-fi," just as shows like _Heroes_, _Battlestar Galactica_, and _Lost_ can gain a mainstream audience.

What killed Firefly was the network, pure and simple.  The pilot episode explained why the relatively large ensemble cast was all together in the first place, and set the basis for the plot arc of the season.  Fox, in their infinite wisdom, did not air the pilot, fearing it was too much exposition and not enough action.  (Interestingly, they seem to repeatedly misunderstand that what Whedon is most loved for is memorable characters and dialogue.)  They then proceeded to pre-empt it and show it out of order, ignoring the fact that it was show that benefited from watching it in sequence.

The advertising, IIRC, was anemic at best for a new show.  They clearly weren't sure what to do with it from a marketing perspective.  It was undoubtedly pigeon-holed as an odd hybrid "sci-fi western" rather than as an ensemble action-drama a la _Flash Forward_ -- had it been marketed as such and broadcast regularly, it might have found an audience.

Luckily for fans, the DVD sales were sufficient to convince a studio that a major motion piction was worthwhile, and so _Serenity_ was born.  Ignore the warnings against it if you're used to Joss Whedon's other work, like _Buffy the Vampire Slayer_, as you're probably also used to him sometimes twisting a knife into your gut, plot-wise.  It's a very entertaining movie, and a must-see for any fan.

There are also comics written by Whedon that fill in some of the story between the series and the movie.  If you're lucky you can find it at a Big Box bookseller or gaming store that stocks graphic novels.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 16, 2009)

Even after the great DVD sales and word of mouth the movie did not perform well.  According to wikipedia it didn't even gross 40 million.  So, even after it seemingly found an audience with the DVDs it was either not faithful or really not there.


----------



## ssampier (Nov 16, 2009)

I hate to make the obvious comparison, but what did BSG have and Firefly did not?


----------



## Crothian (Nov 16, 2009)

ssampier said:


> I hate to make the obvious comparison, but what did BSG have and Firefly did not?




BSG had a name brand associated with.  It was also on scifi and not network TV.  

Firefly had me as a fan, something BSG didn't.


----------



## Dragonblade (Nov 16, 2009)

Firefly was great. Serenity does offer some closure, but has too many plot holes and other annoyances.

I don't like the random killing of important characters. Whedon's insertion of superhuman heroines into all his properties has become stale and cliche. And the whole Reaver backstory was just ridiculous. But it was fun to see Mal and crew get back together one last time.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 16, 2009)

The Reavers like most monsters like them work better with no understandable backstory when done well.  However, when its not done well it just looks like more boring zombies.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Nov 16, 2009)

Yeah, the whole reaver backstory never made sense considering that it's unlikely that people driven to that degree of insanity and rage would have the pacience to travel between planets.


----------



## Klaus (Nov 16, 2009)

Crothian said:


> The Reavers like most monsters like them work better with no understandable backstory when done well.  However, when its not done well it just looks like more boring zombies.



Orcs. They're space orcs.


----------



## BrooklynKnight (Nov 16, 2009)

Relique du Madde said:


> Yeah, the whole reaver backstory never made sense considering that it's unlikely that people driven to that degree of insanity and rage would have the pacience to travel between planets.




I dunno. They didn't seem much different then Mgog from Andromeda. They were also driven by endless rage and hunger to travel the stars and feed on populations and procreate.

I wouldn't be suprised if there was some guiding intelligence behind the reavers.


----------



## Mark (Nov 16, 2009)

I didn't watch the series until after the movie came out, so I saw them in order and got to watch all of the commentaries and features in the series box set, which I think prepared me for the movie in ways I would not have imagined.  I think this led to me enjoying the movie less than I might have otherwise in that my expectations and wishes for the movie to be great were fairly high.  I did enjoy the movie but think that some of the problems mentioned above were more glaring because of those expectations.  I'd still recommend all of it, though.


----------



## Klaus (Nov 16, 2009)

Relique du Madde said:


> Yeah, the whole reaver backstory never made sense considering that it's unlikely that people driven to that degree of insanity and rage would have the pacience to travel between planets.



IIRC, Whedon said that there were more intellectual Reavers that did the flying. Kinda like Hannibal Lecters.


----------



## amethal (Nov 17, 2009)

Klaus said:


> IIRC, Whedon said that there were more intellectual Reavers that did the flying. Kinda like Hannibal Lecters.



Who did the farming, the basic sanitation, the navigating, the refueling?

I prefer your space orcs, or rather Orks, suggestion.


----------



## DreadPirateMurphy (Nov 17, 2009)

amethal said:


> Who did the farming, the basic sanitation, the navigating, the refueling?
> 
> I prefer your space orcs, or rather Orks, suggestion.




Farming:  They are cannibals, and probably keep some captives alive to serve as livestock and entertainment.  Charming.

Basic Sanitation:  They fly spaceships with unshielded reactor cores.  Basic sanitation is probably not a high concern.

Navigating/Refueling:  The small percentage maintaining some higher brain function, same as with the flying.


----------



## Klaus (Nov 17, 2009)

Basic sanitation is done by the evil groundskeeper types.


----------



## Mallus (Nov 17, 2009)

ssampier said:


> I hate to make the obvious comparison, but what did BSG have and Firefly did not?



For one thing, ambition. 

Don't get me wrong, I loved Firefly. It established some wonderful characters given only a handful of episodes. But Firefly's dramatic ambitions were much more modest (and perhaps, in the end, more successful for their modesty). The nBSG team bit off way more than they could chew, but I really enjoyed watching them _try_, even when they ended up choking...

Also, I not sure Firefly's odd mash-up of sci-fi and Western would ever have caught on well enough to justify it's production cost. I bet a lot of genre fans --well, sci-fi fans at least, fans of televised Westerns no longer exist-- found it off-putting.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Nov 17, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Also, I not sure Firefly's odd mash-up of sci-fi and Western would ever have caught on well enough to justify it's production cost. I bet a lot of genre fans --well, sci-fi fans at least, fans of televised Westerns no longer exist-- found it off-putting.



I've never met anyone who found it off-putting.  It didn't catch on enough to justify its production costs for two reasons, AFAICT.

1) The bizarre way they aired it.  The big networks don't really nurture anything, and Fox is probably the worst of the lot in that regard.

2) The fact that they were not yet tracking Tivo and online viewership in any way, shape, or form at the time.

The latter was proven to me by the fact that Dollhouse got a second season, seemingly based largely on that.  There are entire generations of upwardly mobile folks who don't watch TV on the network's schedule anymore.  That's a big, fat chunk of Whedon's built-in audience.

The slow death of mass media means that the networks are NOT the place to grow up a show like that anymore.  Reality shows and procedurals are the only kind of shows the networks understand how to evaluate within the very narrow quarterly profits window in which every decision seemingly must be made now.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Nov 18, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Also, I not sure Firefly's odd mash-up of sci-fi and Western would ever have caught on well enough to justify it's production cost. I bet a lot of genre fans --well, sci-fi fans at least, fans of televised Westerns no longer exist-- found it off-putting.



Free association:

Star Trek was originally pitched by Roddenberry to Paramount as "Wagon Train in space." He lied, of course having little intention of that, but they bought it. And that was at a time when westerns were at a peak of popularity.

I have always thought that Firefly was a far better setting and in a sense a better utilization of the rules for the original Traveller rpg than Traveller's own setting. Of course, Firefly had nothing to do with Traveller (AFAIK) but it could have and should have.

The only reason televised westerns no longer exist is just because times change. Broadcast networks are currently too busy jerking off on the profit margins of cheap, soul-sucking, excremental "reality" shows. They don't really want to entertain us, they want to PROFIT from us. Or more accurately what they profit from is getting us to watch ANYTHING. Whether what they get us to watch actually IS entertaining or has any redeeming value is irrelevant - the cheaper it is to produce the better they like it, which is why we get so much "reality" tv and so little high-production cost shows of any kind. The latter are more and more likely to be found on cable channels rather than the Big 3 networks because their profits come from subscriptions - not selling advertising.

Was "John Adams" a miniseries on NBC? Was "Band of Brothers" a miniseries on CBS? Normal series: Sopranos? Battlestar Galactica?  Deadwood?  Etc. Broadcast networks do not have an interest in investing in quality content. They have an increasing interest in the CHEAPEST content possible. Quality for them is therefore a mere accidental benefit.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Nov 18, 2009)

Man in the Funny Hat said:


> I have always thought that Firefly was a far better setting and in a sense a better utilization of the rules for the original Traveller rpg than Traveller's own setting. Of course, Firefly had nothing to do with Traveller (AFAIK) but it could have and should have.




I know that after watching the pilot and the first couple of episodes I was thinking "damn if that isn't *exactly* like our old games of Traveller from the late 70s!"


----------



## LightPhoenix (Nov 18, 2009)

ssampier said:


> I hate to make the obvious comparison, but what did BSG have and Firefly did not?




BSG has SFC, and Firefly did not.

For all that I've questioned SFC, and don't watch the channel anymore, that was the advantage.  If Firefly aired on SFC, it may have had a lower budget (though BSG did alright), but I've little doubt it would have aired longer.

To be a little controversial, I think Whedon was a little overconfident if he thought the numbers Buffy/Angel were bringing in (~4m viewers) would float on any major network.  Shows pulling in those numbers are routinely canceled.  I suppose he was hoping for a big hit on a major network, and felt Firefly was it.

Now, going back to Fox for Dollhouse was flat out crazy, IMO.


----------



## ssampier (Nov 19, 2009)

I think you guys are right about BSG; Sci Fi (now SyFy) Channel was a secret to its success. I find that odd to write because usually I can't stand any show on Sci Fi; too many lame horror movies.

Firefly was due to Fox problems.

So, since BSG has been gone for awhile, why didn't SyFy try to reboot Firefly?


----------



## LightPhoenix (Nov 19, 2009)

For one, the lead is on another successful show (Castle).  Several other cast members have roles (permanent or recurring) on other shows (including the actors that played Wash and Inara).  Also, I believe Kaylee's actress got a role on SG:A.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 19, 2009)

Ya, they are all working actors and once Firefly was over they got jobs elsewhere.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Nov 19, 2009)

In theory, I would watch another show set in that world, because I liked the little universe he was setting up.  But that cast was phenomenal and accounted for a lot of what I loved about the show.... so it would be approached cautiously at best.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Nov 19, 2009)

Some columnist--I forget which site--was suggesting that the way to do it would be the occasional TV movie. It could be made between seasons, so the leads were all available. It wouldn't require the budget commitments of an ongoing series. And it would do phenomenally well when later released to DVD.

I could certainly get behind something like that, if done halfway well.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Nov 19, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> Some columnist--I forget which site--was suggesting that the way to do it would be the occasional TV movie. It could be made between seasons, so the leads were all available. It wouldn't require the budget commitments of an ongoing series. And it would do phenomenally well when later released to DVD.
> 
> I could certainly get behind something like that, if done halfway well.



Where do I sign up to contribute happy thoughts towards this idea?  I believe sufficiently and will clap my hands enthusiastically.

Actually, I think a LOT of visual media would be well-served to go a similar route.  Star Trek would also work well that way.  Not as much need for big-budget WOW as a feature film, leaving room to do some thoughtful sci-fi like a handful of the best Next Gen episodes.


----------



## EricNoah (Nov 19, 2009)

I saw the movie, thought it was so-so, got the first disc of the series on Netflix, it didn't grab me.  But who knows, maybe someday I'll be ready to give it another try.


----------



## Fast Learner (Nov 20, 2009)

Eric, it really takes off at about episode 5 or so. It didn't really catch me until then, at which point it had me by the throat. I definitely suggest giving the second disc a shot.


----------



## Orius (Nov 20, 2009)

Plane Sailing said:


> (and I have to say - why did drek like Andromeda survive while Firefly didn't?)




Because Andromeda was syndicated unlike Firefly, so it wasn't subject to network exectutive stupidity. Plus network executives are morons, so they don't get sci-fi. Besides, Andromeda was good until Sorbo started getting creative control.

 I have no idea if Firefly was any good - I plan to check it out on Hulu once I get done catching up on all the Highlander episodes I missed - but really, even if I end up hating the show, I'd still think it would be boneheaded to air the pilot last and the episodes out of order.  That's just stupid.  How's anyone supposed to understand what's going on?

That is I'll be checking out on Hulu as soon as they cycle back around to the beginning.  Why the heck does this show have only 5 at a time?  (Yeah, I understand it's based on how much the copyright owners want to share, but really there's only 13 episodes, and it's been off the air for a few years.  Why dribble them out?)


----------



## Fast Learner (Nov 20, 2009)

They dribble them out so people will continue to buy DVDs. Worked on me.


----------



## TanisFrey (Nov 20, 2009)

Andromeda, every year during the first few episodes of the season they hit the reset button and erase almost all of the gains the heroes made the previous season.  GRRRRR......


----------



## Mark (Nov 20, 2009)

Orius said:


> Why the heck does this show have only 5 at a time?  (Yeah, I understand it's based on how much the copyright owners want to share, but really there's only 13 episodes, and it's been off the air for a few years.  Why dribble them out?)





It feeds on impatient people who can be spurred into going out to purchase the boxed set.


----------



## roguerouge (Nov 24, 2009)

LightPhoenix said:


> BSG has SFC, and Firefly did not.
> 
> For all that I've questioned SFC, and don't watch the channel anymore, that was the advantage.  If Firefly aired on SFC, it may have had a lower budget (though BSG did alright), but I've little doubt it would have aired longer.
> 
> ...




To get Buffy on the air, he had to give a commitment for three other series with Fox as the distributor: Angel, Firefly and Dollhouse. He's now free to go to another network. But he was not crazy; he was under contract.


----------



## roguerouge (Nov 24, 2009)

EricNoah said:


> I saw the movie, thought it was so-so, got the first disc of the series on Netflix, it didn't grab me.  But who knows, maybe someday I'll be ready to give it another try.




Dude. Waste no time. I caught the series in broadcast and I thought it was flailing. Then I saw it in order from midnight to noon at a movie theater and it was flat out amazing. It's better than Buffy--and I get paid 5 grand to teach a Buffy course. Whenever I want to introduce people to the crack cocaine of Whedon, I always start with Firefly.

"It's just 14 episodes... You'll like it.... Here: let me loan you a copy...."

And then they're hooked forever.


----------



## DreadPirateMurphy (Nov 25, 2009)

roguerouge said:


> I get paid 5 grand to teach a Buffy course.




Is that considered part of women studies, entertainment studies, or pop culture?  I've heard of such things, but never actually seen such a course.  Of course, when I was in college, Buffy was still years away from existing as a TV show...

I would think Firefly would be interesting from a cultural studies perspective -- Whedon mixes up Eastern and Western, frontier and urban, democratic and aristocratic all at the same time.


----------



## Sutekh (Nov 25, 2009)

Firefly was good but not great. I actually did see it in order (speak to me one day about Australian tv views on showing scifi on tv: its far far far worse than Americas). 

Generally I found the characters interesting (Adam Baldwin always brings his own style to any character he plays). I found some characters a bit superflous : Gina Torres's character (whose name escapes me) seemed to be .. extra to requirement I thought. 

The main reason  I didnt like Firefly more was the character of River. Ive seen Buffy, so I know about Whedon and his 'kick ass empowerment' female characters. I was just disappointed to see another one in Firefly.  I found the brother's character, who had risked it all for family more interesting. The fact that later she was taking out squads of trained troops was.. familiar.

The setting itself was amazing... very different and occasionally not what I expected.  It's definetly worth a look, but Im not going to create an altar to it.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 25, 2009)

DreadPirateMurphy said:


> Is that considered part of women studies, entertainment studies, or pop culture?  I've heard of such things, but never actually seen such a course.  Of course, when I was in college, Buffy was still years away from existing as a TV show...




I forked the thread to start a discussion on this.


----------



## roguerouge (Nov 28, 2009)

For me, it was less about River and more about her brother, the Easterner, I mean, Simon. River's just a few scenes. Plus, when it was airing, Buffy and Angel were in shades of black, so it was good to see Whedon and company playing with a different tone and palette.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Nov 28, 2009)

Sutekh said:


> I found some characters a bit superflous : Gina Torres's character (whose name escapes me) seemed to be .. extra to requirement I thought.




By comparison, I found her character fascinating - I liked the change of pace inherent in having a happily married couple, and I liked the clear thread of loyalty between her and the captain based upon their shared military history in the browncoats. Also nice to see the strong, competent female military character.


----------



## shilsen (Nov 29, 2009)

Sutekh said:


> The main reason  I didnt like Firefly more was the character of River. Ive seen Buffy, so I know about Whedon and his 'kick ass empowerment' female characters. I was just disappointed to see another one in Firefly.  I found the brother's character, who had risked it all for family more interesting. The fact that later she was taking out squads of trained troops was.. familiar.




Personally, I found seeing a "kick ass empowerment" female character a nice change, even if Joss has done it before, mainly because there are so few of them out there as opposed to "kick ass whatever-you-want-to-call-it" male characters. Male characters who take out squads of trained troops are also fairly familiar. Consider Malcolm, for example. His type of character has been seen a million times before (ranging from classical mythology to Han Solo and beyond). As have male characters who risk it all for family. 

I'm one of the people who saw the movie _Serenity_ before I saw the show _Firefly_, which might be one reason I really like the movie. And the TV show.


----------



## Fast Learner (Nov 29, 2009)

Plane Sailing said:


> By comparison, I found her character fascinating - I liked the change of pace inherent in having a happily married couple, and I liked the clear thread of loyalty between her and the captain based upon their shared military history in the browncoats. Also nice to see the strong, competent female military character.




I agree completely.


----------



## Klaus (Nov 29, 2009)

shilsen said:


> Personally, I found seeing a "kick ass empowerment" female character a nice change, even if Joss has done it before, mainly because there are so few of them out there as opposed to "kick ass whatever-you-want-to-call-it" male characters. Male characters who take out squads of trained troops are also fairly familiar. Consider Malcolm, for example. His type of character has been seen a million times before (ranging from classical mythology to Han Solo and beyond). As have male characters who risk it all for family.
> 
> I'm one of the people who saw the movie _Serenity_ before I saw the show _Firefly_, which might be one reason I really like the movie. And the TV show.



Sure, but Zoe was a much better "kickass empowerment female character" than River, as she was the most stable, competent and honorable character in the entire crew.


----------



## SkidAce (Nov 29, 2009)

Crothian said:


> BSG had a name brand associated with.  It was also on scifi and not network TV.
> 
> Firefly had me as a fan, something BSG didn't.




As a longtime supporter of your posts and a fan boy of your wisdom....I must regret informing you that after...well I cant even repeat the blasphemy you spoke...you henceforth are banished from my reality...you no longer exist to me.


----------



## SkidAce (Nov 29, 2009)

P.S.  I like both shows.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 29, 2009)

SkidAce said:


> As a longtime supporter of your posts and a fan boy of your wisdom....I must regret informing you that after...well I cant even repeat the blasphemy you spoke...you henceforth are banished from my reality...you no longer exist to me.




One day I might watch it.  But Richard Hatch killed my desire about anything BSG long before this series got green lighted.  And then when the show finally ended so many people were posting random spoilers without spoiler tags that many secrets of the show have been ruined for me.


----------



## El Mahdi (Nov 29, 2009)

deleted


----------



## Wayside (Dec 1, 2009)

Crothian said:


> One day I might watch it.



Don't bother. It was a great miniseries with two or so amazing seasons, followed by a two-season nosedive into a finale so bad I wish I'd never watched a single episode.


----------



## RangerWickett (Dec 1, 2009)

But if you ever run a sci-fi action game, get the soundtrack.


----------



## Fast Learner (Dec 1, 2009)

Wayside said:


> Don't bother. It was a great miniseries with two or so amazing seasons, followed by a two-season nosedive into a finale so bad I wish I'd never watched a single episode.




Probably needless to say, but there are many of us who strongly disagree, for the sake of Croth's consideration.


----------



## MortalPlague (Dec 1, 2009)

Fast Learner said:


> Probably needless to say, but there are many of us who strongly disagree, for the sake of Croth's consideration.




Agreed.  I loved the whole Battlestar run.  I also greatly enjoyed both Firefly and Serenity.  Both shows are favorites for me.


----------



## Felon (Dec 2, 2009)

The reason FOX hated Firefly, in Whedon's own words, was that it was a show about a bunch of nobodies living on the fringe and hiding from authorities. Fox executives like shows that cater to fantasies about being a major player--a part of the "it" crowd. That can range anywhere from a bunch of spoiled-brat rich teenagers to a tireless government agent who's an unstoppable kicker of terrorist butt. This is why Whedon thinks Dollhouse will have a better shot.

As to why shows like BSG, Andromeda, and Stargate keep going forever while shows like Firefly and Farscape fail, it seems like it's largely a result of conditioning. Sci-fi fans want their science-fiction nice and regimented, with established chains of command and unflappable leaders making inspiring speeches where they draw the line against the bad guys. Having a bunch of misfits constantly bickering and infighting and downbeat situations is apparently a turn-off.

As to why the movie failed, it's mostly the title. In order to profitable, the movie needed to attract more moviegoers than just the fans of the TV show. Considering that, calling the movie "Serenity" was a flat-out stupid move. Imagine all the folks going to the theater, scanning the marquee, and seeing a movie called Serenity. The irony is kind of lost.


----------



## roguerouge (Dec 2, 2009)

Actually, it opened #2 at the box office. It virtually made its money back in its initial release: 40 million budget, 38 million world-wide returns. (source: imdb) So, with DVD sales and rentals, hardly an economic failure. Indeed, it spent two weeks in the top 10 of DVD sales according to Billboard, grossing about 9 million. So, while that's not going to set the world on fire, it did turn a modest profit.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Dec 3, 2009)

Plane Sailing said:


> By comparison, I found her character fascinating - I liked the change of pace inherent in having a happily married couple, and I liked the clear thread of loyalty between her and the captain based upon their shared military history in the browncoats. Also nice to see the strong, competent female military character.




The interplay between Zoe, Mal, and Wash was essentially a not-love triangle.  Or, if you will, an "adult" love triangle.  There wasn't tension because of your typical sitcom "romance."  Zoe had truly conflicting loyalties to her husband and to her captain.  Heck, there's a whole episode devoted specifically to that topic, and how it gets reconciled (also a point of brilliance, IMO).

Additionally, Zoe's relationship with Mal is multi-layered; on the one hand, he's the captain, but he's also a friend and her ex-commanding officer.

I think what the barrier to her character was that she was _stoic_.  I don't think we ever learn anything about Zoe by her directly coming out and saying it.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 3, 2009)

Felon said:


> while shows like Firefly and Farscape fail




Farscape is a failure?  It lasted 4 seasons!  Sure fans wanted it to get more (they always do!) but if shows need 5 or more seasons to not be a failure I think the bar is really high!


----------



## John Crichton (Dec 3, 2009)

Crothian said:


> Farscape is a failure?  It lasted 4 seasons!  Sure fans wanted it to get more (they always do!) but if shows need 5 or more seasons to not be a failure I think the bar is really high!



Yeah, fail is hardly the word.  Not finish is more appropriate.


----------



## frankthedm (Dec 3, 2009)

Klaus said:


> Orcs. They're space orcs.



Best orcs since Tolkien. 

IMO A BIG chunk of what made Firefly / Serenity good was that Joss knew the TV show was being canceled and he would have only the one movie. The plot was served tasty and fresh and in good sized portions because he had to rush it to the audience. Once the movie started, he had to finish the story. This did mean a lot of folks had to die in a short time, but Joss managed to play his hand very well for the constraints he had.

None of this stretching out a 1 to two season show over half a decade with filler episodes and overused scenarios. No cranking out a movie with a barely related plot to the main series just because the suits want to inflate the property. And no finally being canceled after the show wears thin. Firefly is short and sweet and it is a classic because of its brevity.

It's weird, but Screwed By The Network worked in favor to the property's quality.


----------



## Orius (Dec 3, 2009)

Felon said:


> As to why shows like BSG, Andromeda, and Stargate keep going forever while shows like Firefly and Farscape fail, it seems like it's largely a result of conditioning. Sci-fi fans want their science-fiction nice and regimented, with established chains of command and unflappable leaders making inspiring speeches where they draw the line against the bad guys. Having a bunch of misfits constantly bickering and infighting and downbeat situations is apparently a turn-off.




Well, I can relate to that.  I generally turn to speculative fiction for escapism, I'm not particularly worried about realism.  If I want dysfuntion, I'll just return to reality.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Dec 3, 2009)

Felon said:


> As to why shows like BSG, Andromeda, and Stargate keep going forever while shows like Firefly and Farscape fail, it seems like it's largely a result of conditioning. Sci-fi fans want their science-fiction nice and regimented, with established chains of command and unflappable leaders making inspiring speeches where they draw the line against the bad guys. Having a bunch of misfits constantly bickering and infighting and downbeat situations is apparently a turn-off.



I think we watched different BSGs.

Mine had _very_ flappable leaders, a muddy chain of command, people running from the bad guys most of the time, and the only surviving military were _explicitly_ the misfits who spent most of the time bickering and infighting against the most downbeat situations imaginable.

Compared to most of BSG, Firefly _was_ an example of over-the-top "Big Damn Heroes" cowboying it up in space.  Firefly was a _much_ lighter show.

For other points of irony... this thread has complained that Firefly's cast was too big for success.  BSG's regular cast could swallow 6 of Firefly's cast.

As has been pointed out, the primary reason BSG was allowed to finish and Firefly was not is simple: Firefly was on a Network, and BSG was on a network.  There are many other points of comparison, but at the end of the day, that one's the 400 pound gorilla.


----------



## Mallus (Dec 3, 2009)

Canis said:


> Mine had _very_ flappable leaders, a muddy chain of command, people running from the bad guys most of the time, and the only surviving military were _explicitly_ the misfits who spent most of the time bickering and infighting against the most downbeat situations imaginable.



I watched the same nBSG as you. 



> Compared to most of BSG, Firefly _was_ an example of over-the-top "Big Damn Heroes" cowboying it up in space.



I watched the same Firefly as you, too. 



> BSG's regular cast could swallow 6 of Firefly's cast.



Not to mention the fact roughly a quarter of that cast was the same actors playing multiple version of their characters. Heck, I got confused, and I've been reading about clones and robots et al since I was five.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Dec 3, 2009)

Mallus said:


> I watched the same nBSG as you.
> 
> 
> I watched the same Firefly as you, too.
> ...



I think that was not a bug, but a feature.  The better BSG scripts did a very good job of putting you inside the perspectives of the characters... who had every reason to be confused and conflicted.

I love both shows.  Alas, I was a late-comer to both.  I like TV shows, but I hate Television.  DVD and Netflix are eminently practical solutions to that problem, but it does leave me without the capacity to vote with my dollar or viewership at times that matter to production.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 3, 2009)

Canis said:


> I think that was not a bug, but a feature.  The better BSG scripts did a very good job of putting you inside the perspectives of the characters... who had every reason to be confused and conflicted.
> 
> I love both shows.  Alas, I was a late-comer to both.  I like TV shows, but I hate Television.  DVD and Netflix are eminently practical solutions to that problem, but it does leave me without the capacity to vote with my dollar or viewership at times that matter to production.



Well, if you're not one of those mystical Nielson households, it doesn't matter anyway, right? 

I suppose that DVD sales are actually better, because if the series lives long enough on screen to see the sales of its first DVD, a network at least might let that count for something. If you had watched it on TV, you might not have gotten the DVDs.


----------



## Fast Learner (Dec 3, 2009)

Canis said:


> I think we watched different BSGs.




My thought as well. BSG totally broke all of those rules. 

Firefly might well have succeeded wildly on SciFi, it was Fox -- and the associated audience demainds -- that made all the difference.

Felon, I really think we have vastly different perspectives on "science fiction fans." I think what you're saying might well apply to "will watch science fiction but is no great fan" people, but not at all to fans.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Dec 3, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Well, if you're not one of those mystical Nielson households, it doesn't matter anyway, right?
> 
> I suppose that DVD sales are actually better, because if the series lives long enough on screen to see the sales of its first DVD, a network at least might let that count for something. If you had watched it on TV, you might not have gotten the DVDs.



Well, since they can actually get a raw count of internet views (legitimate ones, anyway), that's actually the best of all.

Alas, I don't usually watch anything that way but The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, so I'm still not contributing to propping up good TV when it matters.

Honestly, TV is consistently bad enough (or I'm picky enough), that I'd rather wait until something has been on a couple seasons and has good recommendations from my friends before I spend time on it.  If we had better structured consumer-driven plans for TV watching (or I had a way to get Hulu on my TV, rather than my computer), it would be easier to try something out when it was new.


----------



## Felon (Dec 4, 2009)

Crothian said:


> Farscape is a failure?  It lasted 4 seasons!  Sure fans wanted it to get more (they always do!) but if shows need 5 or more seasons to not be a failure I think the bar is really high!



I guess that's a fair point of view, but the show did actually struggle to find viewership on the Sci-Fi Channel of all places. It never got the kind of followship that BSG or B5 amassed, so it was specifically a segment of sci-fi fans who didn't like what it was serving up (in fact, Crothian, IIRC you started a thread here some years back about how its downbeatness turned you off). 

And more to the point, the show was canceled. It didn't reach the natural end of its story arc naturally. It got axed.


----------



## Fast Learner (Dec 4, 2009)

Felon said:


> And more to the point, the show was canceled. It didn't reach the natural end of its story arc naturally. It got axed.




Which sci-fi shows have? BSG, check. B5 sort-of, though compressed and rewritten and such because of cancellation in season 3 and then again in season 4.

For that matter, which shows have in general? Only incredibly successful shows like M*A*S*H and Seinfeld have the power to end gracefully. The number of shows that have been able to do that can be counted on one hand, two at the most. Farscape got 3 seasons, which is a success. A very mild success, yes, but certainly a success.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 4, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Well, if you're not one of those mystical Nielson households, it doesn't matter anyway, right?




Not quite true, if I recall correctly.  TiVo now sells it's accumulated data to the networks as well - so the DVR contingent is also getting counted.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 4, 2009)

Fast Learner said:


> Farscape got 3 seasons, which is a success. A very mild success, yes, but certainly a success.




Farscape ran for four seasons, not three.  88 regular episodes, and the final miniseries to wrap it up.


----------



## Fast Learner (Dec 4, 2009)

Even better. Saw it all, including the miniseries. I'm not sure it really did wrap it up, but it was enojoyable.


----------



## Felon (Dec 4, 2009)

Fast Learner said:


> Which sci-fi shows have? BSG, check. B5 sort-of, though compressed and rewritten and such because of cancellation in season 3 and then again in season 4.
> 
> For that matter, which shows have in general? Only incredibly successful shows like M*A*S*H and Seinfeld have the power to end gracefully. The number of shows that have been able to do that can be counted on one hand, two at the most. Farscape got 3 seasons, which is a success. A very mild success, yes, but certainly a success.



I get how it appears that way superficially, treating the concept of "success" as if it were  a numbers game by counting episodes (heck, not even episodes, but seasons which in and of themselves are shorter than a normal season). But at a more qualified level, Farscape got axed on its cliffhanger season finale, and the creators themselves certainly felt burned, so I'm going to side with them and say it was a hosejob. There's a big difference between that and going into your final season actually knowing it's your final season.

By the way, Brian Henson is still trying to get webisodes made in the hopes of getting a Farscape sequal of some kind.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 4, 2009)

Felon said:


> (in fact, Crothian, IIRC you started a thread here some years back about how its downbeatness turned you off).




It was an acquired taste.


----------



## Orius (Dec 5, 2009)

Felon said:


> I guess that's a fair point of view, but the show did actually struggle to find viewership on the Sci-Fi Channel of all places. It never got the kind of followship that BSG or B5 amassed, so it was specifically a segment of sci-fi fans who didn't like what it was serving up (in fact, Crothian, IIRC you started a thread here some years back about how its downbeatness turned you off).




I found Farscape to be somewhat overrated myself.  One of the biggest problems I had was story structure, there were a lot of episodes that just jumped right into the action with poor exposition of what was going on.  I found such episodes to be somewhat difficult to follow.  And there were occasional episodes that were just plain surreal and bizarre and made little sense.

Another problem was some of the characters, particularly Rygel and Chiana, were totally unlikeable to me.  

And then there was that series finale. Ugh.

Overall, the episodes tended to be hit or miss.  There were a number of pretty good episodes in the series that I actually enjoyed.


----------



## RangerWickett (Dec 5, 2009)

Orius said:


> I found Farscape to be somewhat overrated myself.  One of the biggest problems I had was story structure, there were a lot of episodes that just jumped right into the action with poor exposition of what was going on.  I found such episodes to be somewhat difficult to follow.  And there were occasional episodes that were just plain surreal and bizarre and made little sense.




And that's the stuff that I loved the most. I felt like the show assumed that after a season of watching, I could be trusted to get what was going on, no matter how strange.

The show was nuts. I loved that.


----------



## Fast Learner (Dec 5, 2009)

RangerWickett said:


> And that's the stuff that I loved the most. I felt like the show assumed that after a season of watching, I could be trusted to get what was going on, no matter how strange.




Agreed, I loved the eps that just threw us into the middle and let us watch as things came together.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 5, 2009)

RangerWickett said:


> And that's the stuff that I loved the most. I felt like the show assumed that after a season of watching, I could be trusted to get what was going on, no matter how strange.
> 
> The show was nuts. I loved that.



Yup. The show was madness, in a fun way.

I am just rewatching the show, I bought the entire FarScape box.


----------



## ssampier (Dec 5, 2009)

Just to throw a monkey wrench into the discussion.

My mother, who is 56 years old, liked BSG, too. She doesn't like sci-fi like Star Trek or Star Wars, or military shows, period.

There was something about being a survivor that she liked, I guessed.


----------



## Orius (Dec 6, 2009)

RangerWickett said:


> And that's the stuff that I loved the most. I felt like the show assumed that after a season of watching, I could be trusted to get what was going on, no matter how strange.
> 
> The show was nuts. I loved that.






Fast Learner said:


> Agreed, I loved the eps that just threw us into the middle and let us watch as things came together.






Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Yup. The show was madness, in a fun way.




Yeah, Crothian's right.  Definitely an acquired tate.


----------



## Orius (Aug 26, 2010)

Yeah, I'm bumping this instead of starting a new thread.

So Hulu cycled back around to the beginning of the series, and since I have the time right now, I checked out the first three episodes.  It's pretty good.  Helps that I'm actually watching it in the right order.



Orius said:


> I'd still think it would be boneheaded to air the pilot last and the episodes out of order.  That's just stupid.  How's anyone supposed to understand what's going on?




My assumption was correct.  "Serenity", the _real_ pilot, did a decent job of introducing the characters and universe.  Good move, Fox, airing that episode _*LAST*_.

I had always heard about it being a space western, but...wow.  The first episode, they meet up with a sherrif or mayor or something on one of the worlds and her party is nearly all on horseback (except for the guy on the ATV).  And they got old West-style guns too.  The second episode, they rob a train.  This is when they're not flying around in a spaceship, and using tools and weapons that look pretty contemporary.  But yet, it actually works.

The look of the series is interesting.  There's a lot of used future going on with the Serenity as a whole, but the infirmary looks nice and clean and shiny, the bunks aren't really grungy, and the mess has kind of a homey look to it.  It's somewhat unusual to see a single spaceship actually mix styles like this, since most of the time they're either all squeaky clean and shiny or used future, but this also works, it feels more real.   The overall universe has the same look, there are really futuristic planets alongside stuff that looks like it came out of the old West and more exotic stuff that looks Chinese or maybe central Asian or Indian or something.  Same thing with the people, lots of varied wardrobes.  It looks good, gives the show a good deal of depth, or at least a great illusion of one.


----------



## IronWolf (Aug 26, 2010)

Orius said:


> I had always heard about it being a space western, but...wow.  The first episode, they meet up with a sherrif or mayor or something on one of the worlds and her party is nearly all on horseback (except for the guy on the ATV).  And they got old West-style guns too.  The second episode, they rob a train.  This is when they're not flying around in a spaceship, and using tools and weapons that look pretty contemporary.  But yet, it actually works.
> 
> The look of the series is interesting.  There's a lot of used future going on with the Serenity as a whole, but the infirmary looks nice and clean and shiny, the bunks aren't really grungy, and the mess has kind of a homey look to it.  It's somewhat unusual to see a single spaceship actually mix styles like this, since most of the time they're either all squeaky clean and shiny or used future, but this also works, it feels more real.   The overall universe has the same look, there are really futuristic planets alongside stuff that looks like it came out of the old West and more exotic stuff that looks Chinese or maybe central Asian or Indian or something.  Same thing with the people, lots of varied wardrobes.  It looks good, gives the show a good deal of depth, or at least a great illusion of one.




Welcome to Firefly!  I was a late comer to this series as well, quite possibly for the best since Fox messed up the order of shows.  I borrowed the DVDs from a friend and then promptly went out and bought my own set.  I really liked this series, for many of the reasons you've stated above.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Aug 26, 2010)

Welcome.  You latecomers had it easy.  I was on board from the beginning, then got busy with things so I recorded the show to watch later.  I didn't even realize they had cancelled the show and missed recording the second hour of the finally aired pilot.  The sense of loss was huge.

I'm finally over it (and realized it for certain during the Halloween episode of Castle), but I would not mind if somehow more material was produced.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Aug 26, 2010)

Orius said:


> The look of the series is interesting. There's a lot of used future going on with the Serenity as a whole, but the infirmary looks nice and clean and shiny, the bunks aren't really grungy, and the mess has kind of a homey look to it. It's somewhat unusual to see a single spaceship actually mix styles like this, since most of the time they're either all squeaky clean and shiny or used future, but this also works, it feels more real. The overall universe has the same look, there are really futuristic planets alongside stuff that looks like it came out of the old West and more exotic stuff that looks Chinese or maybe central Asian or Indian or something. Same thing with the people, lots of varied wardrobes. It looks good, gives the show a good deal of depth, or at least a great illusion of one.



This was all VERY deliberate, and VERY excellent design.  Whether it was from the series DVD's or the Serenity movie DVD, there is wonderful behind-the-scenes information and the discussion of the set design for the ship is at the top of the list.  It's not just the props lying around and widgets in the background, but the color palette being used as well.  Red for the engine room, gold/yellow for the mess IIRC, white for the infirmary, etc.

For example, the messhall has a little flower/vine pattern running along the structural beams that are much like the flowery patterns on Kaylee's bunkroom door, suggesting that it was Kaylee who took it upon herself to do the decoration there since MAL would never do anything so girly.  The white infirmary suggests both the necessarily sterile environment of a hospital but also reflects the "sterile" personality of Simon, the doctor.  This sort of attention to detail extends beyond set design to world design.  Why Chinese, for example?  Traveller and other SF rpgs and SF settings have postulated the probability of China becoming a dominant colonizing force.  Without ever once mentioning it specifically in an episode or hitting you over the head with it, it is clear that the world of Firefly/Serenity embraces that notion.  In fact, they make it a fun and interesting quirk of the show when the characters use Chinese curses and phrases and viewers _don't_ really need the translation.

Yeah, I LOVED the show, top to bottom, and curse Fox for the ignorant mishandling that doomed it.


----------



## Deset Gled (Aug 26, 2010)

Thornir Alekeg said:


> Welcome.  You latecomers had it easy.




This is so very, very true.  I put more effort than I care to admit into watching Firefly.  It was on such a horrible time slot on Friday nights.  It also came on after "John Doe" *shudder*.

I also can't decide to laugh or cry at the number of people that I told to watch it who refused to, or watched one/part of an episode and said they hated it, and who now gush over it and claim to be huge fans.  They ask "Why did such a great show get cancelled?",  to which I reply "Because you never watched it!".


----------



## Orius (Oct 27, 2010)

Well, Hulu's episode loops finally got around to "Objects in Space".  So now  I've seen the whole series.  

I've occasionally made snarky comments before about Fox's "handling" of the series like this one:



Orius said:


> I think it's best described as Fox: the station that gives Sci-Fi a chance in the most half-assed bassackward method imaginable and then wonders why it fails.  Or see also: Firefly.




Such statements were made in ignorance based mostly on heresay with my own disrespect for Fox filling in the gaps.  I have to say though that these comments hit pretty close to the mark, Fox's fumbling of this series is something a sci-fi fan should find a bit irritating.  I'm not really particularly angry about it, because I was prepared for a short series.  It's kind of disappointing that we didn't see more, because there was still a lot of mystery behind River, and the previous episode set up an unresolved plot thread.  There is the movie, the local library has 4 copies apparently (three currently being borrowed ), so I requested a reservation on one.  They also have some book that ties in with the movie with notes on production or something, so I figured what the heck and requested that too.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Oct 28, 2010)

personally I didn't like the movie much - I felt that in an attempt to tie up some plot threads it mishandled them badly. I prefer to live now with my 'might have been' in my head


----------



## Crothian (Oct 28, 2010)

I didn't like that they explained the Reavers.  Monsters are better when not explained.


----------



## jonesy (Oct 28, 2010)

Crothian said:


> I didn't like that they explained the Reavers.  Monsters are better when not explained.



Even explained, because of how it was presented, they remain one of the coolest monsters. But I do agree with you.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 28, 2010)

My take on the various series mentioned here:

Andromeda: syndicated action/sci-fi fast-food.  It didn't need huge viewership to survive, and because it was primarily an action show with a sci-fi setting, it didn't really need to be quality.  Stations that aired it could choose where it fit best in its lineup.

Farscape: a decent show I found only in rerun after it had been cancelled.  Some of it I found to be pretty well done, some of it meh.  It was too inconsistently written for my taste, but I thought the cast did pretty well.

BSG: an OK show for its time, it nevertheless lost me as a routine watcher fairly early.  I consider it to be a better show than Gil Gerrard's Buck Rodgers, but not by much, especially towards the end of its run.

nBSG: this version of the series struck me as better written and acted than the original, but not without its flaws.  I watched from beginning to end, and was rarely disappointed for the first few seasons.  I thought the last season and the ending were weak- using _All Along the Watchtower_ as the secret signal revealing the Final 5 was self-indulgent and cutesy and bugged the *CENSORED* out of me- which meant I had really low expectations for Caprica...which lost me after episode 1.  (I saw an interview with the show's creators: they claimed it was the best sci-fi series ever.  I disagreed, given the existence of Bab5 and other shows.)

Firefly: a sci-fi Western with Civil War themes and a Blake's 7 vibe.  A good, rollicking ride, but again, not consistent enough for me.  While its highs were not as high as nBSG at its best its lows were nowhere near as low.  Overall, a killer cast top to bottom, including some of the villains 'o' the week.


----------



## IronWolf (Oct 29, 2010)

Plane Sailing said:


> personally I didn't like the movie much - I felt that in an attempt to tie up some plot threads it mishandled them badly. I prefer to live now with my 'might have been' in my head




I agree.  Serenity is one of those movies I try to pretend does not exist, sort of like the 2nd and 3rd Matrix movies.  Serenity was way too rushed.  I much prefer the TV series over the movie.


----------



## Orius (Oct 29, 2010)

Plane Sailing said:


> personally I didn't like the movie much - I felt that in an attempt to tie up some plot threads it mishandled them badly. I prefer to live now with my 'might have been' in my head




I prefer to be able to read stuff on the cortex web about Firefly without tripping over Serenity spoilers myself, having tripped over a handful already.   

Reavers.  They showed up in what, like two episodes?  Or does "Bushwacked" only count as half an episode here because we only saw Reaver aftermath and a proto-Reaver.  I thought they'd be more important, but then this is what happens when you only make 14 episodes and only 11 air.

I think that's where some of the lack of consistancy comes in.  It seems there were a few long term plot threads being laid down, particularly the whole Simon and River plot, and then the late introduced 



Spoiler



Inara decides to leave


 thread that got unresolved in the series.  Maybe the Reavers as well, and possibly some character growth for Jayne.  Even the best sci-fi series tend to have forgettable episodes, and I think because the series was short, they tend to stick out a bit.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Oct 29, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Andromeda: syndicated action/sci-fi fast-food.  It didn't need huge viewership to survive, and because it was primarily an action show with a sci-fi setting, it didn't really need to be quality.  Stations that aired it could choose where it fit best in its lineup.




I don't disagree that Andromeda was light watching.  However, in any discussion about Andromeda, I have to point out that the creator and executive producer, Robert Hewitt Wolfe, was basically forced out in the middle of the second season.  Basically, the producers wanted it dumbed down and all focus on Sorbo, RHW said no and was booted.  So there's really two shows here - Season 1/2.0, and seasons 2.5 on.

As an aside, anyone who watched Andromeda may want to read RHW's Coda and related discussion - it basically outlines what RHW was going to do with the series, and then he goes an answers questions about it.


----------



## John Crichton (Oct 29, 2010)

Serenity was a little disjointed compared to the show but upon repeat viewings it gets better and I'm VERY glad it was made.  Without a doubt.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 29, 2010)

LightPhoenix said:


> I don't disagree that Andromeda was light watching.  However, in any discussion about Andromeda, I have to point out that the creator and executive producer, Robert Hewitt Wolfe, was basically forced out in the middle of the second season.  Basically, the producers wanted it dumbed down and all focus on Sorbo, RHW said no and was booted.  So there's really two shows here - Season 1/2.0, and seasons 2.5 on.
> 
> As an aside, anyone who watched Andromeda may want to read RHW's Coda and related discussion - it basically outlines what RHW was going to do with the series, and then he goes an answers questions about it.



Thanks for the info and link...but I didn't find the coda all that impressive.  I suspect that the leadup to that ending wouldn't have done much for me either.

However, for me, the series never really clicked and lost me early on, partly because I just didn't buy Sorbo in the role he was cast.  That the producers booted the creator explains why I didn't see any improvement in the series in the episodes I caught from time to time afterwards.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 29, 2010)

I really liked the character of Tyr Anasazi, and RHWs "coda" was very interesting, too. Unfortuantely, the show lost me at some point after RHW left.


----------



## IronWolf (Oct 29, 2010)

John Crichton said:


> Serenity was a little disjointed compared to the show but upon repeat viewings it gets better and I'm VERY glad it was made.  Without a doubt.




Maybe I just need to watch it a few more times and see if it grows on me.


----------



## John Crichton (Oct 29, 2010)

IronWolf said:


> Maybe I just need to watch it a few more times and see if it grows on me.



Perhaps, but I don't expect anyone to enjoy things the same way I do.  I did like it quite a bit the first time I saw it, as well.  It was certainly different enough from the show to feel a little _off _until I adjusted to all the changes that happened between the last episode and the start of the flick.  Not to mention the different look.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 29, 2010)

While monsters are generally better left unexplained- to a point- I thought the explanation for Reavers was actually pretty good within the context of the show.

OTOH, I didn't particularly care for Catatonic Lil' Sis being a female Bourne...  It made for some interesting fight scenes, but I didn't like the way it shaped the plot over the series' run.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 29, 2010)

LightPhoenix said:


> However, in any discussion about Andromeda, I have to point out that the creator and executive producer, Robert Hewitt Wolfe, was basically forced out in the middle of the second season.  Basically, the producers wanted it dumbed down and all focus on Sorbo, RHW said no and was booted.




It might be interesting to note that Sorbo himself got Executive Producer credit after the first season.  Coincidence?

And yes, if you were watching the show, you could see the point where RHW left like someone flipped a light switch.  Unfortunately, they were flipping it off....


----------



## Umbran (Oct 29, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> While monsters are generally better left unexplained- to a point- I thought the explanation for Reavers was actually pretty good within the context of the show.




Joss Wheadon has noted - the Reavers we saw in the movie were not the Reavers he'd intended for the series.  Same for River's backstory.  We got a wrap-up, but not the same one we'd have gotten had the series continued.

That makes sense in two ways - the origins he'd intended may not have played out well in a movie, for one.  For another, if by some miracle the movie did well enough that some Powers That Be decided to revive the show, the movie could be taken as non-canon, and they could just move along.  Joss has worked in the comic book industry, where non-canon sidelines are commonplace.


----------



## Herschel (Oct 29, 2010)

Battlestar Galactica was produced by NBC/Universal and put where is could grow. 

Firefly was on a Murdoch cesspool network where they don't try to understand how to make a show work but play speghetti theory with their lineup. They did teh same thing with Brimstone prior: The Friday night dead-slot (but at least that went in order). I never actually saw Firefly until it came out on DVD, but the Brimstone debacle was the one and only time I've ever composed and sent a letter to network programming.


----------



## Felon (Oct 29, 2010)

Herschel said:


> Battlestar Galactica was produced by NBC/Universal and put where is could grow.
> 
> Firefly was on a Murdoch cesspool network where they don't try to understand how to make a show work but play speghetti theory with their lineup. They did teh same thing with Brimstone prior: The Friday night dead-slot (but at least that went in order). I never actually saw Firefly until it came out on DVD, but the Brimstone debacle was the one and only time I've ever composed and sent a letter to network programming.



I think Whedon summed up the Fox mentality pretty well. They wanted dramas about cool people, but not cool because they're loners or outcasts living on the fringe. Their dramas had to be about movers and shakers, people with wealth or authority who call the shots, drive expensive, shiny cars, talk on cell phones constantly, and never have trouble getting laid. Looking back at the waves after waves of FOX shows with aborted first-season runs, it mostly jibes.

According to Whedon, they would constantly refer to Firefly as being a show about a bunch of losers. This understanding of the Fox mentality was how Dollhouse came about.

Compare and contrast: Malcolm Reynolds versus Jack Bauer


----------



## Felon (Oct 29, 2010)

IronWolf said:


> I agree.  Serenity is one of those movies I try to pretend does not exist, sort of like the 2nd and 3rd Matrix movies.  Serenity was way too rushed.  I much prefer the TV series over the movie.




I've always been perplexed how Whedon could have thought that titling a movie "Serenity" would produce a marketable action movie. Kind of foolish to just assume audiences would pick up on the irony. And the Fox execs didn't even pressure him into changing it. Weird.

Other than the title, my other major peeve is the seven-stone River single-handedly slaughtering the Reavers in hand-to-hand combat.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 29, 2010)

To be fair to Fox, they tried a LOT of sci-fi on their network, usually on Fridays.  Out of that came X-Files, Millenium, Sliders and Firefly with multi-year runs, plus shows that presaged nBSG and Chuck that would come a decade later.

Sure, they managed to screw a lot if stuff up, unlike a lot of pre-Sci-Fi network broadcasters, Fox put a TON of sci-fi in their lineup.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Oct 29, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> To be fair to Fox, they tried a LOT of sci-fi on their network, usually on Fridays.  Out of that came X-Files, Millenium, Sliders *and Firefly* with multi-year runs, plus shows that presaged nBSG and Chuck that would come a decade later.




The point stands, but I think you meant another show here.  

For all that Fox catches a lot of flak, they really did have a good track record as far as giving sci-fi shows a chance to at least see air when the big three wouldn't even touch them.  Not to mention something like Fringe, which is still on Fox and in its third season.

I would quibble on the last point though.  I wouldn't really consider Chuck sci-fi/fantasy, though certain elements of it are fantastical.  BSG ran on SFC, so it's not really a good comparison to the Fox shows.  A better example might be Lost.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 29, 2010)

LightPhoenix said:


> The point stands, but I think you meant another show here.
> 
> For all that Fox catches a lot of flak, they really did have a good track record as far as giving sci-fi shows a chance to at least see air when the big three wouldn't even touch them.  Not to mention something like Fringe, which is still on Fox and in its third season.
> 
> I would quibble on the last point though.  I wouldn't really consider Chuck sci-fi/fantasy, though certain elements of it are fantastical.  BSG ran on SFC, so it's not really a good comparison to the Fox shows.  A better example might be Lost.



You're right- I may have been thinking of John Doe or something else.  There were a few sci-fi shows with (short) multi-year runs, like Harsh Realms.

My point about Chuck and nBSG is merely that FOX aired series that resembled those shows in themes, tones and writing styles back in the late 1990s.

That was my point...but I was half wrong: the pre-nBSG nBSG was Space: above & Beyond, which aired on FOX.  The pre-Chuck Chuck was Jake2.0, which aired on UPN.


----------



## Felon (Oct 30, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> To be fair to Fox, they tried a LOT of sci-fi on their network, usually on Fridays.  Out of that came X-Files, Millenium, Sliders and Firefly with multi-year runs, plus shows that presaged nBSG and Chuck that would come a decade later.
> 
> Sure, they managed to screw a lot if stuff up, unlike a lot of pre-Sci-Fi network broadcasters, Fox put a TON of sci-fi in their lineup.



True, and they did the world a favor and made sure Kindred: the Embraced DIDN"T run a full season. 

Also, good observation about Chuck. Among the many other flaws that make it an awful TV show, it's a rip-off of Jake 2.0. Excellent point.

Seriously, though. When the Firefly cast were at DragonCon promoting Serenity, Adam Baldwin actually spoke up for Fox when the fans started booing and pointed out that they didn't have to bother with the DVD's or the movie.


----------



## John Crichton (Oct 30, 2010)

Felon said:


> I've always been perplexed how Whedon could have thought that titling a movie "Serenity" would produce a marketable action movie. Kind of foolish to just assume audiences would pick up on the irony. And the Fox execs didn't even pressure him into changing it. Weird.



When it really comes down to it, Serenity wasn't made to be a big-time action movie.  It was primarily made for fans of the show and peripherally for everyone else.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> There were a few sci-fi shows with (short) multi-year runs, like Harsh Realms.



Pretty sure HR didn't have a multi-year run.  A few unaired eps creeped out after cancellation which happened to air in the spring not fall, IIRC.   I really liked that show.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 30, 2010)

Yeah, right about HR- I just went and looked up FOX's past aired shows


----------



## John Crichton (Oct 30, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Yeah, right about HR- I just went and looked up FOX's past aired shows



You actually got me excited for a moment cuz I thought I may have missed something!


----------



## Felon (Oct 30, 2010)

John Crichton said:


> When it really comes down to it, Serenity wasn't made to be a big-time action movie.  It was primarily made for fans of the show and peripherally for everyone else.



That's a charming notion: $40 million was spent on a big hug to all of the loyal fans of a show cancelled mid-season. But, when you get right down to it, entertainment is a business. If mainstream success was not a primary consideration--well, that's what direct-to-DVD is for.


----------



## Janx (Oct 31, 2010)

Per some other source, Kindred got canceled because the principal actor died in an accident.  I only saw a few episodes, it looked alright for one of the only vampire shows on at the time.  It was basically a V:tM clone, which I would have thought those fans would have loved.

While it's true that Fox has given a number of sci-fi shows a chance (a half-season), many get the axe.  It's really a shame that Sci-Fi channel isn't getting these shows, since it's the SciFi channel (ignoring that SciFi is NBC/Universal affiliated).

I suspect Whedon called the movie Serenity, to avoid licensing issues with the name Firefly.  Unlike Buffy, where he had to put his film partners in as executive producers and give them a cut, because they had some rights in the licensing.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 31, 2010)

Janx said:


> Per some other source, Kindred got canceled because the principal actor died in an accident.  I only saw a few episodes, it looked alright for one of the only vampire shows on at the time.  It was basically a V:tM clone, which I would have thought those fans would have loved.




It was based on VtM.  It had the clans and everything.  Not a great show though and I was not surprised it got canned quickly.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Oct 31, 2010)

Janx said:


> While it's true that Fox has given a number of sci-fi shows a chance (a half-season), many get the axe.  It's really a shame that Sci-Fi channel isn't getting these shows, since it's the SciFi channel (ignoring that SciFi is NBC/Universal affiliated).




Well, it's Syfy now... 

I don't think it's so simple that Syfy (via NBCU) can simply grab shows that were canceled.  For one thing, for shows on another network like Fox, the network retains the rights to those shows.  Those rights can be sold, but in practice that rarely happens.  Another thing is that many sci-fi shows are expensive.  The big networks can afford that, but a small timer like Syfy can't.  A big  (but IMO not the only) reason Farscape was canceled was how much it cost to make, versus how much it was bringing in advertising revenue.

One thing I would have loved to see Syfy do was grab rights to show older sci-fi shows out of general syndication.  Except the problem with that is again cost versus revenue.  Anything that is going to have a good ratio is snapped up by bigger networks (see Star Trek).  Anything that has a poor ratio is going to lose the network money.  So it doesn't work as neatly as one might think.

Of course, Syfy has plenty of old shows.  They could replay some of their old shows (_GvE_, I miss you so).  Cost is non-zero (royalties, etc), but relatively low.  However, revenue from them isn't that great either, hence cancellation..  Plus, suppose one of them takes off?  Well, too bad, most of the sets are stuck and actors moved on, so it'd be difficult to leverage into something profitable.

Still, it's nice to dream that NBCU would throw it's clout around.  Except, right now, they don't have much clout at all.

Still, it's nice to dream.


----------



## John Crichton (Nov 1, 2010)

Felon said:


> That's a charming notion: $40 million was spent on a big hug to all of the loyal fans of a show cancelled mid-season. But, when you get right down to it, entertainment is a business. If mainstream success was not a primary consideration--well, that's what direct-to-DVD is for.



Considering that the fans of the show (read: massive DVD sales) are what got the movie made, it's more truth than fiction.  The bottom line is that it _wasn't_ made for mainstream audiences.  The title is a great example of that.  There was a monetary consideration: everyone who bought the series would buy the movie plus whatever it brought in at the box office. And that's what happened.  Fox/Universal made money off Serenity.  Not much, but they did.


----------



## Orius (Nov 1, 2010)

LightPhoenix said:


> As an aside, anyone who watched Andromeda may want to read RHW's Coda and related discussion - it basically outlines what RHW was going to do with the series, and then he goes an answers questions about it.




Now that sounds very interesting, and a bit subversive.  Better than the junk the show unfortunately morphed into.  Big problem is there's a lot about the show that I forgot, so some of the references I don't quite understand.



LightPhoenix said:


> For all that Fox catches a lot of flak, they really did have a good track record as far as giving sci-fi shows a chance to at least see air when the big three wouldn't even touch them.  Not to mention something like Fringe, which is still on Fox and in its third season.




The biggest problem is ratings.  The networks have gotten more and more impatient with ratings over the years as cable, videotapes/DVDs, video games, the web and so forth have slowly taken more and more bites out of the audience.  They expect a show to become a huge hit and axe it when it doesn't even if it pulls in some decent ratings.  That hurts sci-fi even more since it gets lower ratings due to the mundanes often not connecting with it, and it's more expensive as well.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 4, 2010)

It seems that we will rarely ever see this type of show again. A sci-fi show set in the far future is difficult at best to include product placement during the show. And with more viewers using technology that lets them skip commercial breaks, we're going to see more in-story advertising. It's jarring and pathetic enough to see it so blatantly done in a modern-era sci-fi show. I never want to hear lines again like "All restuarants are Taco Bell." Even great shows like Fringe have those scenes where the camera zooms in on Olivia's phone so you can see she's using a Sprint phone (or whatever).


----------



## Umbran (Nov 4, 2010)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> It seems that we will rarely ever see this type of show again. A sci-fi show set in the far future is difficult at best to include product placement during the show.




Well, I wouldn't be surprised to see less advertisement-driven content in the future, in favor of subscription-based models.


----------



## Ahzad (Nov 4, 2010)

for those that might be interested Joss & Zack Whedon released through Dark Horse Comics this week, Shepard's Tale. A story explaining who/what Shepard Book is it's not what I had expected in terms of who he was.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Nov 4, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Well, I wouldn't be surprised to see less advertisement-driven content in the future, in favor of subscription-based models.



I am skeptical of this idea especially for new programming.  

With advertising, you are pitching a new show to a limited number of executives to convince them to give you large sums of money.  As a result some of the risk of developing a new show is distributed between the network and the advertisers.  

With subscription-based models, you are pitching a new show to a large number of people to convince each of them to give you a small amount of money.  The network (or whoever is airing the show) ends up assuming all of the risk until the show is proven to be a success.

Unless things change dramatically, I don't see the model changing that much anytime soon.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 4, 2010)

Thornir Alekeg said:


> I am skeptical of this idea especially for new programming.




I agree. Ad revenues on a global scale would outweigh any subscription price that viewers would find reasonable. Especially since many view for free now. As soon as you tack on any cost the rage will swell.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 4, 2010)

Thornir Alekeg said:


> I am skeptical of this idea especially for new programming.
> 
> With advertising, you are pitching a new show to a limited number of executives to convince them to give you large sums of money.  As a result some of the risk of developing a new show is distributed between the network and the advertisers.
> 
> ...



Pay-TV is a form of subscription service. You don't subscribe to one single show, you subscribe to a channel (or multiple ones). On some levels, it is still very similar to an advertisement based channel. But you don't have to worry about concepts like "focus groups" that interest your advertiser. You offer a subscription service for sci-fi? You give sci-fi fans what they want. You don't have to care whether Proctor & Gamble pays better for a soap ad then Mattel does for action figures or whatever, or wheter sci-fi fans are more or less receptive to ads. The thing you have to worry about is satisfying the consumer, not the advertiser.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 5, 2010)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Pay-TV is a form of subscription service. The thing you have to worry about is satisfying the consumer, not the advertiser.




I haven't watched much on pay channels in the last ten years. I know they probably still don't have actual commercials, but do they practice product placement?


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Nov 5, 2010)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Pay-TV is a form of subscription service. You don't subscribe to one single show, you subscribe to a channel (or multiple ones). On some levels, it is still very similar to an advertisement based channel. But you don't have to worry about concepts like "focus groups" that interest your advertiser. You offer a subscription service for sci-fi? You give sci-fi fans what they want. You don't have to care whether Proctor & Gamble pays better for a soap ad then Mattel does for action figures or whatever, or wheter sci-fi fans are more or less receptive to ads. The thing you have to worry about is satisfying the consumer, not the advertiser.




Right now the only successful pay-TV I'm aware of that have original programming are HBO and Showtime.  The thing about them is that neither one has a particular focus, instead looking for the broader audience.  Right now that succeeds because there are limited choices; some people are willing to drop the extra money each month on these channels.  If the broader market begins to move in that direction, then suddenly the consumer has to become more discriminating in where they spend their money.  More choices will often lead to lower prices as well.  All this reduces the amount of money available to a praticular channel to produce original programming.  



			
				Vyvyan Basterd said:
			
		

> I haven't watched much on pay channels in the last ten years. I know they probably still don't have actual commercials, but do they practice product placement?



 Of course they do.  It might not be as overt as the Subway sandwiches placement in Chuck, or the Hyundai Genesis in Burn Notice, but it is there.  Why pass up a possible revenue source?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 5, 2010)

You also have successful pay TV + new prigramming models with the sports organizations.

As for the issue of product placement, we've also seen Subarus and other products in Eureka, a slow-pan up from tabletop caressing a Miller that Sam Axe was drinking in Burn Notice, to add a couple to the list.


----------



## Richards (Nov 6, 2010)

Ahzad said:


> for those that might be interested Joss & Zack Whedon released through Dark Horse Comics this week, Shepard's Tale. A story explaining who/what Shepard Book is it's not what I had expected in terms of who he was.



I picked this up as well, and I agree it had some unexpected twists.  Not unexpectedly, my favorite "scene" in the story was the interaction with Jayne.

Johnathan


----------



## Orius (Nov 6, 2010)

Well, got the movie and saw it.  Not bad.  It felt a bit off in places, particularly how Mal was in Simon's face early in the plot, but otherwise good.  I don't feel like it damaged the experience of the show, though I do have to wonder why Whedon felt it was necessary 



Spoiler



to kill Wash off


.

So now I'm totally caught up on the Firefly 'verse like the rest of you guys....



Ahzad said:


> for those that might be interested Joss & Zack Whedon released through Dark Horse Comics this week, Shepard's Tale. A story explaining who/what Shepard Book is it's not what I had expected in terms of who he was.




Aw _*crap*_....  



Seeing everything in the space of a little more than 2 months though made it a good experience.  Not like watching it out of order, having it cancelled, and waiting three years for a movie.  There really wasn't enough of the show, and it's left me hungry for more.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 6, 2010)

Thornir Alekeg said:


> I am skeptical of this idea especially for new programming.
> 
> ...
> 
> Unless things change dramatically, I don't see the model changing that much anytime soon.




I think DVRs and online presentation of content are in the midst of changing things dramatically.



Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I agree. Ad revenues on a global scale would outweigh any subscription price that viewers would find reasonable.




The network is a big middleman.  The internet means you don't need to pay him - you can do direct distribution, like a big podcast feed.

Firefly cost, reportedly, about $2 million dollars per episode to produce.  Same for Farscape, if I recall correctly.  That's production costs and salaries and such all rolled up - all the people who make the series are paid in that, the special effects budget, and so on.

So, one million viewers, $2 per week, and blammo, you have a series.  Comes up to be about $50 for a season - about what you pay for to get a season of a series on DVD.  

I won't be surprised to see more things like this in the future:  Riese: Kingdom Falling | Syfy






Especially since many view for free now. As soon as you tack on any cost the rage will swell.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Welverin (Nov 8, 2010)

Orius said:


> though I do have to wonder why Whedon felt it was necessary
> 
> 
> 
> ...




It's what Joss does when he ends a show, it's something you can't afford to do in the middle of a shows run, but when it's ending it no longer matters.

The other two comic series were good and there should be more going forward, Dark Horse has plans to continue all of Joss' shows starting next year.


----------



## fba827 (Nov 8, 2010)

Richards said:


> Not unexpectedly, my favorite "scene" in the story was the interaction with Jayne.




Would that be the same Jayne who is the Hero of Canton, the man they call Jayne?


----------



## Richards (Nov 9, 2010)

The very same.  

Johnathan


----------



## fba827 (Nov 9, 2010)

Richards said:


> The very same.




That just deserves this ....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qa8OVrMS6Zg]YouTube - Hero of Canton[/ame]

(Coming soon to a D&D Tavern near you ...  )


----------



## Orius (Nov 9, 2010)

Gorrammit, I just got that ruttin' song out my head! Now it'll be in there for another two weeks.

That was my favorite episode of the whole run, and I watched that scene several dozen times.


----------



## Fast Learner (Nov 9, 2010)

Thornir Alekeg said:


> Right now the only successful pay-TV I'm aware of that have original programming are HBO and Showtime.




Starz has some original programming, too. _Spartacus: Blood and Sand_ and _Gravity_ are both solid standouts, especially the former.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 9, 2010)

Orius said:


> I don't feel like it damaged the experience of the show, though I do have to wonder why Whedon felt it was necessary
> 
> 
> 
> ...




If you want to know, you have to look at the structure of the movie, and where it sits with respect to the series as a whole.  It is quite obvious if you were one of the obsessive Browncoat fan/freaks who saw one of the pre-release showings*.

[sblock]
Book dies first.  You figure that's done to make Mal mad (both in-story and out: the Operative and Joss both want Mal to be pissed off there).

Then Wash dies.  Wash was perhaps the most beloved character in the series.  Joss is now showing you he's damned serious - his world is cruel, and bad things happen to good people.  Good people can and will die.

Then comes the big fight scene at the end.  If you're watching this in the theater, a fan of the show, not having seen folks discuss it later, now you really don't know what's going to happen.  It is now quite credible that he could go for the TPK!

So, that's why Wash dies - to add tension to that fight, because Wash's death means you cant' tell who, if anyone, will survive to the end.[/sblock]

*Me? No I don't know anyone like that.  Not at all.  At least, not anyone who dressed up in costume to go to the premier....


----------



## Klaus (Nov 9, 2010)

Orius said:


> I don't feel like it damaged the experience of the show, though I do have to wonder why Whedon felt it was necessary
> 
> 
> 
> ...




It's called Mood Whiplash.


----------



## Orius (Nov 10, 2010)

I don't need the link for Mood Whiplash.   I went right to that page the first time I watched "Ariel".  The teaser for that episode is a textbook example of mood whiplash at its finest.


----------



## cattoy (Nov 10, 2010)

I'm sure the OPs question has been answered, but just to restate the obvious, FOX sucks.

Firefly gave me a kind of live action Cowboy Bebop vibe, what with the used future take and the oddly composed crew of misfits and odd bedfellows, all of whom kick butt in one way or another. No adorable corgi, though. Ein is awesome.


----------

