# Firefly cancelled!



## Chun-tzu (Dec 11, 2002)

According to a report on Hypaspace (news bytes from Space: The Imagination Station, Canada's answer to the Sci-Fi channel), Fox has put Firefly on hiatus for January. Low ratings were cited as the reason. The show has not been cancelled yet, but this move doesn't leave much room to turn things around.

Enjoy it while it lasts!

Edit - see latest posts


----------



## Sulimo (Dec 12, 2002)

*Re: Firefly on hiatus*



			
				Chun-tzu said:
			
		

> *According to a report on Hypaspace (news bytes from Space: The Imagination Station, Canada's answer to the Sci-Fi channel), Fox has put Firefly on hiatus for January. Low ratings were cited as the reason. The show has not been cancelled yet, but this move doesn't leave much room to turn things around.
> 
> Enjoy it while it lasts! *




And prey that Joss can move it to another network where its treated with some respect and not pre-empted at the drop of a hat.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 12, 2002)

I don't know if it was pre empted at the drop of a hat.  The only time I recall was for the World Series, and that was expected.


----------



## Nightfall (Dec 12, 2002)

Even so, I'm starting to doubt that Fox will give it a shot. So send Firefly elsewhere. Perhaps with Angel? Interesting combo no?


----------



## Negative Zero (Dec 12, 2002)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> *Even so, I'm starting to doubt that Fox will give it a shot. So send Firefly elsewhere. Perhaps with Angel? Interesting combo no? *




perhaps, but honestly i have more hope of UPN picking it up, as they've had good experiences with Buffy, or maybe Sci-Fi Channel as they're losing Farscape. it's pretty much wait and see at this point. i do agree that Fox has shown the show no respect at all. the only promotion i've seen was two ads on Sci-Fi several weeks before the season started. shameful.

if you haven't already done so, check out my "save a Firefly" thread with the online petition to do just that.

~NegZ


----------



## John Crichton (Dec 12, 2002)

The same news was reported at AICN a few weeks ago.  At least we'll get a new Firefly this week and maybe next as well.  They haven't cancelled it yet and have ordered 15 episodes to be made.  FOX has a horrible schedule to begin with.  They just started airing new Andy Richter eps and remember how late they started showing new X-Files eps?


----------



## Welverin (Dec 12, 2002)

Let me start by saying I hope it doesn't end up on SciFi since it will just get ruined or canned anyway.



			
				John Crichton said:
			
		

> *They just started airing new Andy Richter eps and remember how late they started showing new X-Files eps?   *




That was also because of baseball, at least towards the end. The NFL doesn't help much either for the early Sunday shows.


----------



## John Crichton (Dec 12, 2002)

You make a good point about the sporting events, however the X-Files was their key show for Sunday nights and football is usually over by 7-7:30 because ESPN carries the late game.  Baseball is understandable but it only happens for a month and not every Sunday if I'm not mistaken.


----------



## sotmh (Dec 12, 2002)

Yeah, FOX has quite the reputation for letting good shows die and bad shows linger.  They'll probably cancel Firefly since the ratings aren't as good as their usual "The World's Blankiest Blank" tripe. 

Low ratings obviously mean the show sucks, they can't possibly be attributed to airing a show aimed at the 18-30 market on Friday night in the same slot that killed Dark Angel (along with a real downturn in writing quality for that show). 

I would be hopeful for another network to pick up the show should it be cancelled.  UPN is probably the most likely pick, since the slot following Buffy would be an ideal choice for the show. 

sotmh


----------



## Umbran (Dec 12, 2002)

IIRC, this hiatus may not have much to do with the show's most recent ratings.  It's been expected nearly since the show began - perhaps more an issue of holiday programming than of ratings?


----------



## John Crichton (Dec 12, 2002)

Umbran said:
			
		

> *IIRC, this hiatus may not have much to do with the show's most recent ratings.  It's been expected nearly since the show began - perhaps more an issue of holiday programming than of ratings? *



Hmmm, or maybe they need time to make more episodes.  That would be a nice thought if it was true...


----------



## Welverin (Dec 13, 2002)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> *You make a good point about the sporting events, however the X-Files was their key show for Sunday nights and football is usually over by 7-7:30 because ESPN carries the late game.  Baseball is understandable but it only happens for a month and not every Sunday if I'm not mistaken. *




Well I firmly believe that the late NFL games killed Space Above and Beyond and have Futurama three quarters of the way to the grave.

While baseball may only go a month into the season, television viewing is rather habitual and by that point a lot of people may have already settled into watching other programs. So while it may not preempt anythin the rest of the season the damage is already done.


----------



## John Crichton (Dec 13, 2002)

Welverin said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Well I firmly believe that the late NFL games killed Space Above and Beyond and have Futurama three quarters of the way to the grave.
> 
> While baseball may only go a month into the season, television viewing is rather habitual and by that point a lot of people may have already settled into watching other programs. So while it may not preempt anythin the rest of the season the damage is already done. *



While I don't totally agree about the sports killing some of the shows I do think you make a good point overall.  Maybe this is not what you were getting at but I think we can all agree that FOX has done a horrible job balancing their regular programming with their sporting events.  The only nights they have ever really had were Sundays (Simpsons, X-Files) and Mondays (Ally, Boston Public) and that only lasted a couple of years.  The rest of the nights (with the exception of 24) have been a basic crap-shoot as to what they are trying to do with their programs.

Or maybe I'm just bitter.


----------



## LrdApoc (Dec 13, 2002)

Futurama was technically cancelled last season.. they just have a seasons worth of unaired episodes left.


----------



## Welverin (Dec 13, 2002)

LrdApoc said:
			
		

> *Futurama was technically cancelled last season.. they just have a seasons worth of unaired episodes left. *




Gee, thanks for reminding me. I'll have you know I was perfectly happy in my denial and you went and ruined.


----------



## LrdApoc (Dec 13, 2002)

Sorry.. I'm just waiting for the Season Box sets.. they're already being released in Europe, however since Cartoon Network picked up the rights we have to wait even longer.. sigh..


----------



## Sulimo (Dec 13, 2002)

LrdApoc said:
			
		

> *Sorry.. I'm just waiting for the Season Box sets.. they're already being released in Europe, however since Cartoon Network picked up the rights we have to wait even longer.. sigh.. *




Yeah. They've started to appear here in Australia  . It does get me wondering how many seasons have actually been made.


----------



## Welverin (Dec 13, 2002)

LrdApoc said:
			
		

> *Sorry.. I'm just waiting for the Season Box sets.. they're already being released in Europe, however since Cartoon Network picked up the rights we have to wait even longer.. sigh.. *




Hey that's a good thing (cartoon network) even if it leads to a bad thing (delayed release of boxed sets).

What DVD region are Europe and Sunny Austria?


----------



## Pielorinho (Dec 13, 2002)

Bad news, folks:  the cancellation's official.

We can only hope another network will pick it up.  I'm hoping against the SF channel, since I don't get it.  UPN would be ideal.

Daniel


----------



## LrdApoc (Dec 13, 2002)

I believe there are just enough to syndicate. Meaning at least 3 seasons.


----------



## Chun-tzu (Dec 13, 2002)

This bites. Cross-genre shows are often a tough sell, and it's a shame that the show wasn't given the time it needed to build a solid audience. Hopefully, this isn't over yet.


----------



## Chun-tzu (Dec 13, 2002)

LrdApoc said:
			
		

> *I believe there are just enough to syndicate. Meaning at least 3 seasons. *




This is season 5 for Futurama.


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Dec 13, 2002)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> *Bad news, folks:  the cancellation's official.
> 
> We can only hope another network will pick it up.  I'm hoping against the SF channel, since I don't get it.  UPN would be ideal.
> 
> Daniel *




Suck.

Let's hope UPN will show some stones and pick the show up.

Fox in the network of Ally McBeal and 90210, remember.  They have always sucked.  The Simpsons was an accident.


----------



## Henry (Dec 13, 2002)

Simply put, If anyone on these boards sees any more info on what fans can do to help resurrect the show, please post it in this forum. I for one do NOT want to see this show go. After the dramatic turnaround of show quality in the most recent 5 episodes, this show DESERVES a shot, and I am willing to do anything beneficial to see it.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Dec 13, 2002)

Shame that it has been cancelled but I expected it, Fox put it on the worse night of the week (date night, HS Sports night, Friday night).  

Who did they expect to watch it?


----------



## Pielorinho (Dec 13, 2002)

Henry, keep your eyes on http://fireflysupport.com/ -- these fans look like they mean business!

Daniel


----------



## Welverin (Dec 13, 2002)

Chun-tzu said:
			
		

> *This is season 5 for Futurama. *




As was already mentioned this is actually just part two of last season and the others may not have been full seasons either.

It's joined Freakazoid in the cool cartoons that got canned prematurely bin.


----------



## Chun-tzu (Dec 13, 2002)

Welverin said:
			
		

> *
> 
> As was already mentioned this is actually just part two of last season and the others may not have been full seasons either.
> 
> It's joined Freakazoid in the cool cartoons that got canned prematurely bin. *




Yeah, definitely premature.

You're right, but seasons are typically defined by when the episode are actually aired, unless there's a clear order or numbering to the episodes. There's an episode guide to Futurama here: http://epguides.com/Futurama/

Season 1 was 9 episodes
Season 2 was 20 (!)
Season 3 was 15
Season 4 was 12
and it looks like Season 5 will be 16 episodes

That will make a total of 72 episodes.


----------



## VorpalBunny (Dec 13, 2002)

This is why I don't watch TV anymore - all the shows that I really care about like _Freaks & Geeks, Futurama,_ and now _ Firefly_ are invariably treated like crap by the networks and cancelled, while the ones that should be cancelled like _Voyager_, run for seven years.  

Hopefully UPN will take their collective heads out of Rick Berman's ass and see _Firefly_ for the quality show that it is and pick it up.


----------



## John Crichton (Dec 13, 2002)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> *Bad news, folks:  the cancellation's official.
> 
> We can only hope another network will pick it up.  I'm hoping against the SF channel, since I don't get it.  UPN would be ideal.*



GRRR.

Okay, I'm off to mail out some support letters to UPN as suggested here.  MAN, I just did this for Farscape a few months ago.  This is starting to really wear on me and it must for others.

All I want for Christmas is *Firefly* and *Farscape* on UPN......


----------



## Whodat (Dec 13, 2002)

Okay, things aren’t looking good for Firefly right now. But, hey, Joss hasn’t given up! Why should we? He has a better idea of what he’s up against than anyone else… And there’s still plenty of fight in him.

Here is an actual post from Joss Whedon himself over at Buffistas.

Quote:

joss - Dec 13, 2002 7:49:36 am EST #7717 of 7737 Mark 
Kiba owes me her life. 

Four AM. Can't sleep. Who'd have thought? 

There's a couple of things I'd like to say. And a few things I really can't. First of all, I'm prouder of this show and the people I worked with on it than I can express in words, monkey noises, or hyroglyphics. I believe this has been some fairly great TV. And the experience of making it... I've had crew members who've been working for 20 years say they've never worked around such excitement, support and love. You walk on that set, you're transported. The cast: 9 count 'em 9 incredibly talented actors who are all decent, wonderful people. This phenomenon cannot be explained by science. 

Second of all, don't think for a second that I have given up on this show. I think it has been mistreated shamefully, but the Fox network has indicated that they would not stand in the way (which they can) of my finding a new home for the show. That's no easy prospect. But I will do everything in my power, as always, to keep this bird in the air. Of course I'll post if there's any news. 

But even if the show goes back up elsewhere, I'm going to lose a good portion of my crew. Production will halt, they'll need to find new jobs. You can't imagine how that feels. How much they brought to the table, how hard and well they worked. And their Christmas bonus is this. As much as the cast, the staff, and my not so secret lover Minear, I honor those guys, and hope to get them back on board. 

So for now, I proudly take my place beside Profit, The Ben Stiller Show, the Tick, and Action. But I won't rest until I've found safe harbour (no, not the Gregory Harrison show) for this vessel. 

I've got the time. 

It ain't like I'm sleeping. 

-joss. 
==========

End quote:

Here’s the link to the original post… However go there at your own risk! The emotions are running pretty high, and there is a generous use of language that Eric’s grandma would not approve of. You have been warned!

http://www.buffistas.org/showthread.php?thread_id=13&post_id=7711


----------



## Villano (Dec 14, 2002)

Sci-Fi might be a good fit for the show.  While it relies on FX, it's more like Stargate in that it's managable (no lasers and the only major cgi is in the starship scenes).  It could fill the niche left by Farscape (remember, the reason that was cancelled was due to the failure to come to terms over money, not the ratings).

Okay, the main reason I want it on Sci-Fi is because I don't get UPN or WB. 

Anyway, the last episode pulled in a 2.7, up .3 from last week.  It sucks that it's getting cancelled as it's gaining viewers. 

In related news, Fox has announced that they are doing a Baywatch reunion movie.  Remember, kids, Fox is all about quality programming.


----------



## Welverin (Dec 15, 2002)

Villano said:
			
		

> *In related news, Fox has announced that they are doing a Baywatch reunion movie.  Remember, kids, Fox is all about quality programming. *




*In bizarro world! *


----------



## WisdomLikeSilence (Dec 18, 2002)

I'd suggest that people who are really steamed about the "hiatus" follow a previous suggestion and check out

http://fireflysupport.com/ 

Then write a postcard to UPN about how much you love the show.

It may be quixotic, but it's better than doing nothing and it might even work.

Also, I've already had the privilege of viewing the unaired pilot.  It's truly excellent television, and what really got me excited about the show.  That makes this Friday a great opportunity to get together and have a viewing party.  Tell your friends to watch!  Tell your acquaintances!  Tell your enemies!  Just get the audience out.

A large enough audience for the pilot will help convince another network to take the show, or (in the most unlikely of scenarios) give FOX a reason to reverse their decision.

-WLS


----------



## Welverin (Dec 18, 2002)

WisdomLikeSilence said:
			
		

> *A large enough audience for the pilot will help convince another network to take the show, or (in the most unlikely of scenarios) give FOX a reason to reverse their decision.*




One problem with this, it doesn't matter how many people watch if they're not Nielson voters. Every person in the country could watch the show, *except* for the nielson voters and the networks would still think it was a bomb.


----------



## WisdomLikeSilence (Dec 19, 2002)

> One problem with this, it doesn't matter how many people watch if they're not Nielson voters.




True, and I should have paid attention to that in my first post.  Still, if we spread the net wide enough we might catch a few voters.   And either way, if we get people excited enough they'll write postcards or be primed to watch the show when it appears on another network.

Of course, if this really is the end than getting someone hooked now is just sadistic.   

-WLS


----------



## sotmh (Dec 19, 2002)

The Nielsons are also pretty heavy biased to favor shows targetted to an older audience, since older people are far more likely to participate in the Nielsons than younger people.  

Thus, programming that is aimed primary at younger viewers tends to perform poorly in the ratings.  A programs actual place in the ratings is ultimately less indicative of it's performance than how the program moves in the ratings from week to week.  This will usually tell you whether it's gaining or losing viewers.  

Unfortunately, when a show gets preempted regularly, tracking it's progress through the ratings becomes less accurate.  Also, viewers will be lost due to attrition when this happens, especially when a show is in it's infancy.  All in all Firefly got a pretty raw deal. 

This stuff is pretty basic, the kind of thing you learn in second year broadcasting school.  I can't believe FOX actually expected Firefly to succeed with all the crap they did to it (lack of promos, showing it out of order, prempting it regularly, putting it in the worst possible timeslot).  It's almost like someone wanted it to fail.

sotmh


----------



## Welverin (Dec 19, 2002)

WisdomLikeSilence said:
			
		

> *Of course, if this really is the end than getting someone hooked now is just sadistic.  *




I'm starting to like this save Firefly campaign more and more.



			
				sotmh said:
			
		

> *It's almost like someone wanted it to fail.*




I get this impression from them and the other networks all the time.


----------



## Mark (Dec 19, 2002)

I'd love to see it moved to UPN, placed right behind Enterprise, and then give Twilight Zone a nudge to the hour right behind it.  I think the lead in of Enterprise would give it some good ratings and get it off the ground to a level that the execs could respect and no longer deny its quality.  That'd be my hope, anyway...


----------



## Negative Zero (Dec 19, 2002)

i disagree with Mark.i don't think that the fans of Star Trek that _still_ watch Enterprise, will actually like Firefly. they seem to be two completely different animals. i think that playing it after Buffy on UPN would be a good move tho. i can see it now: "UPN's Tuesday night of Joss!" 

watching TV the other night, i was appalled at the sheer level of unfairness in the TV world. i mean, c'mon; Enterprise, Twilight Zone and Anna Nicole Smith still have TV shows! and they're cancelling Firefly????????? there just is *NO* justice in the world.     

~NegZ


----------



## Umbran (Dec 20, 2002)

Negative Zero said:
			
		

> *i disagree with Mark.i don't think that the fans of Star Trek that still watch Enterprise, will actually like Firefly. *




Well, I'll stand with Mark.  That makes two Trek fans, still watching _Enterprise_ who like _Firefly_ 



> *i think that playing it after Buffy on UPN would be a good move tho. i can see it now: "UPN's Tuesday night of Joss!"  *




Yeah, except for the fact that there's absolutely no assurance that Buffy will be there next season.  Given that they'd need time to strike a deal, and finish up with Fox, for how long would they really get paired up?


----------



## Negative Zero (Dec 20, 2002)

in the news section of tvtome.com's Firefly section, they report that: 







> According to zapit2it, UPN has been looking into being the new home of firefly. As of right now they are in talks with Joss Whedon. If all goes well it will air the same night as buffy or the Buffy spin-off depending on the fates.




now i'm assuming that they meant zap2it, but i can't confirm this report on the zap2it website. anyone else have better luck?

Umbran, you certainly have much greater intestinal fortitude than i if you still watch Enterprise!   seriously though, it just seesawed too much bettween occasional brilliance and all around crap to keep me as a viewer. after suffering through Voyager, i couldn't gring myself to wear the "Trek-fan" mantle again. especially when good fare was so sporadic.

~NegZ


----------



## Mark (Dec 20, 2002)

Well, if they attach it to Buffy (which does make sense on a number of levels) they run the risk that some of the cache they build into it as a UPN property will be lost when Buffy finishes and they'll have to hope it can fly on its own after that.  If they attach it to Enterprise they have a longer window to nurse it before pushing it out of the nest.  At this point, I think it could use a little extra insurance... *shrug*


----------



## Dragongirl (Dec 20, 2002)

I have tried to like Firefly.  But I think it moves too slow and their choice of music just underscores that.  I am not surprised that it will be cancelled.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 20, 2002)

Dragongirl said:
			
		

> *I have tried to like Firefly.  But I think it moves too slow and their choice of music just underscores that.  I am not surprised that it will be cancelled. *




Considering that only something like half of all new shows make it past their first season, nobody should be surprised at the cancellation.  The odds are pretty much against any new show succeeding, no matter the pacing.


----------



## Ranger REG (Dec 20, 2002)

I kinda like the song, IMHO.

Personally, I hate when only certain music can only represent a genre, like only classical orchestra can do science fiction.

Of course, some music would be out of place, like rap music for a romantic time period movie (the kind you see on _Masterpiece Theater_).

Personally, FOX didn't give the show a chance, what with being a sci-fi TV series. I mean, come one, how long does it take for _Buffy_ to gain such a massive audience, what with The WB being the youngest TV network at the time?


----------



## Welverin (Dec 21, 2002)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> *Personally, FOX didn't give the show a chance, what with being a sci-fi TV series. I mean, come one, how long does it take for Buffy to gain such a massive audience, what with The WB being the youngest TV network at the time? *




Damn it! You people have to stop using logic! It just doesn't exist in the world of TV executives!


----------



## Ranger REG (Dec 21, 2002)

Welverin said:
			
		

> *
> Damn it! You people have to stop using logic! It just doesn't exist in the world of TV executives! *



Of course, they don't embrace Logic and Common Sense, and until they upchuck the antiquated Nielsen rating for something more substantial (1 viewer = 1 vote), they will never get their heads out of their ... sixes.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 22, 2002)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> *I mean, come one, how long does it take for Buffy to gain such a massive audience, what with The WB being the youngest TV network at the time? *




Yes, and being a small network at the time is what _allowed_ them to settle for a show that produced lesser ratings for a while. 

Fox may not be the bigggest fish in the pond, but it is by no means small.  In order to maintain it's position, it must meet some minimums, ratings-wise.  If Firefly isn't meeting those minimums, it is not pulling it's own weight, as far as the network is concerned.


----------



## danzig138 (Dec 22, 2002)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> *I kinda like the song, IMHO.
> *



I think the Ballad of Serenity is possibly the coolest theme for a TV show that I have ever heard. I say that as someone who is not a fan of any country music produced in the last 20 years. Every time the theme starts, I tear up just a little. There is something incredibly sad, yet hopeful in the song. Now, as someone who has been playing music for nearly 15 yeaes, with various failed bands, I must say that Joss's ability to write songs and great TV just makes me  
(grumbles about people _with_ talent). Anyway, the music fits the show very well. Have a good one.


----------



## Ranger REG (Dec 23, 2002)

Umbran said:
			
		

> *
> Fox may not be the bigggest fish in the pond, but it is by no means small.  In order to maintain it's position, it must meet some minimums, ratings-wise.  If Firefly isn't meeting those minimums, it is not pulling it's own weight, as far as the network is concerned. *



And once again, I must point out they are using an antiquated rating systems.


----------



## Airwolf (Dec 24, 2002)

The cry to save Firefly and Birds of Prey has been heard and reported by the nice people of CNN.  Here is the article.Save Firefly and Birds of Prey on CNN


----------



## Villano (Dec 25, 2002)

Airwolf said:
			
		

> *The cry to save Firefly and Birds of Prey has been heard and reported by the nice people of CNN.  Here is the article.Save Firefly and Birds of Prey on CNN *




My favorite part of the article was



> "It's gratifying that so many fans are speaking up for these shows," said one network executive. "But where were they in October?"




Which proves once again that all network executives are morons.  

Hey, Einstein, we *were* watching in October!  We've been watching all along, you @#$%^& idiot!  But none of us have Neilson boxes, so we don't count.

How, in God's name, does the Neilson system stay in effect?  How can it possibly give an accurate representation of viewers?  I don't have a box, no one I know has a box, and no one I know knows anyone who has a box.  I doubt that anyone in the entire city I grew up in or the town in which I live now has one.

Charles Barkley was on the Today Show a few months ago to hype his show and complained about the system, saying that, in all his years and all the people he's met, he's never once encountered anyone who owned a box or knew someone who did.

Barkley is a famous athlete who's traveled around the entire country numerous times.  Think about how many people he's met to put that statement into perspective.

What's amazing is, I've tried doing searches and can't even find out how many boxes are actually out there.  Does anyone know, or is it kept secret?


----------



## Whodat (Dec 26, 2002)

Villano, I understand your frustration – but I am at the opposite end of the spectrum. Speaking as a Neilsen household, I don’t feel my participation counts for anything.

I’ve participated in the Nielsen rating study for about three years now. Since then, every one of the shows that I watch regularly has been cancelled… every single one! Most of them just within this year.

So I’ve got a question for that network busybody: What is the point of me having a Neilsen box when all of the shows that I watch are being cancelled anyway?

Birds of Prey… gone!
BattleBots… gone!
Firefly… gone!
Farscape… gone!


But somehow… SOMEHOW… Anna Nichole Smith’s drunken antics are revived for a second season!

I’m thinking that there are too many morons participating in the current Nielsen study, and that my input is being washed away in a flood of mediocrity. I feel like I’m voting for the “Independent” candidate in an election, and I’m simply throwing my vote away.

If they cancel South Park, my TV may stay off entirely.


----------



## Chun-tzu (Dec 26, 2002)

I guess I'd represent the midpoint between you guys, Villano and Whodat. I kept a Neilsen diary for one week in November, a sweeps week. I was more than happy to do it, since it meant a chance of boosting ratings for Firefly and other shows I was hoping to keep alive, like Futurama and Birds of Prey.


----------



## Villano (Dec 26, 2002)

Wow.  I guess I can't say that I never met anyone who was a Neilsen family anymore. 

You can understand why I was so angry at that executive.  I honestly think he really believes that all these people who are trying to support the show weren't watching until now.

A few years ago, I worked at a cable tv network, and I heard stories from people who had been there for years about the questionable decisions executives make.

For example, one guy who had no tv or writing experience was given a chance to create and write his own show merely because he was friends with an exec.  Fair enough.  But when the show bombed after only a few episodes, he was allowed to do another one.  And another one. And another one.

This guy hasn't created a series that made it a complete season, yet he's been given chance after chance after chance.  He still works there, churning out crap that will be cancelled in 6 episodes, and will probably be there as long as his good buddy is at the top.

It wouldn't be so bad except for the fact that the guy was an egomaniacal jerk who was under the dillusion that he was a genius.  He would walk around with his nose in the air (literally) and talk down to people, not realizing that everyone considered him to be a joke.

My office was right next door to his and I could hear him and the other writers (who were his friends who, not surprisingly, also had no writing experience) hammering out scripts.  God, they were awful.  A high school kid could knock something out better.

Excuse the rant. 

But, if you don't mind me asking, Whodat, how many people does your vote represent?  Also, do you know how many Neilsen Family there really are?  I wasn't joking when I said I turned up zero information in my online searches.

Before you admitted to having a box (Do they use boxes?  Chun-tzu mentioned a diary), I was beginning to believe that the whole Neilsen process was some sort of twisted urban legend, like bigfoot (although more people have probably seen bigfoot).  Just something that networks used to excuse their horrible decisions and conceal their plot to cancel all the quality shows on tv.

BTW, BattleBots is cancelled?!  Are you serious?  Nooooo! 

Geez. With Nero Wolfe, Firefly, and now BattleBots gone, that leaves my entire tv watching schedule to:

Alias (off and on)

Crossing Jordan (off and on)

Law & Order

Law & Order: SVU

Whose Line Is It, Anyway? (When I can find it.  ABC bounces it around the scheule so much it doesn't seem to air in the same timslot 2 weeks in a row)

Buffy reruns on FX (I don't get UPN) 

Dragonball

Dragonball Z

Inuyasha

Yu Yu Hakusho

Home Movies

Ultimate Muscle

People's Court (off and on)

MASH reruns on FX

And what's with shows getting cancelled just as they branch out into merchandising?  Farscape releases its RPG and gets canned.  BattleBots is coming out with a video game, and now it's gone.

Yet Anna Nichole, Fear Factor, and Who Wants To Marry A Millionaire's Dog will be airing from the grave.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Dec 26, 2002)

Television is not getting any better, just a few shows I watch anymore.

Sunday        - Futrama (no new shows) and Angel (now moved)
Monday        - Stargate on SciFi 
Tuesday       - Everwood and Buffy 
Wednesday - Smallville and ED, sometimes Enterprise
Thursday     - 
Friday          - Farscape (cancelled), Firefly (cancelled), Joe Doe, Stargate
Saturday     - 

I do try to watch the Buffy reruns on FX everyday.   And I don't know why I like Everwood, I just do, I think it is something on before Buffy on my UPN/WB station.


----------



## John Crichton (Dec 26, 2002)

For the Neilsen Ratings questions that have been popping up, this may be helpful.  About 6-8 years ago my family was asked to keep a diary for I think it was a month.  I participated, even though I didn't watch a ton of TV at the time.


----------



## Villano (Dec 26, 2002)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> *For the Neilsen Ratings questions that have been popping up, this may be helpful.  About 6-8 years ago my family was asked to keep a diary for I think it was a month.  I participated, even though I didn't watch a ton of TV at the time. *




Thanks for the link.

It's not very encouraging to know that only 5,000 people are used to determine the viewing habits of 320,187,000+ people (288,774,000+ US and 31,413,000+ Canada).

Granted, not everyone owns a tv.  The article claims roughly 99,000,000 in the US.  That still equates one Neilson vote to 19,800.  Of course, that number would have to be much higher if it included Canadian viewers.

Again, I can't see why networks place so much stock in it.


----------



## Whodat (Dec 26, 2002)

> But, if you don't mind me asking, Whodat, how many people does your vote represent?




This Nielsen “household” represents two viewers. Of course, we have been told explicitly from Nielsen Media Research that we are not to tell any friends or family that we are a Nielsen household. 

I’ve heard of the diary. But, no – we have a box. It’s about the size of a VCR. They removed the back of the TV, did some soldering, hooked the box to the telephone, and put the TV back together. Every night, around 3 am, the box phones home to tell NMR what shows we’ve watched for the day. No muss, no fuss.

The problem that I have with the box is that it is too hands-free. I mean, my roommate and I are of the same basic demographic. White males, age 18-35. Suppose, however, that I were married with a couple of kids. One child watches programming for children under 5, one child is 10 or older. My wife likes to watch sit-coms. I like to watch dramas. How do they know which demographic is watching which show?



It has been reported by Futon Critic that BattleBots has been cancelled. 

http://www.thefutoncritic.com/cgi/gofuton.cgi?action=showatch&network=all&status=0

Sorry, Villano. I feel your pain.


----------



## Villano (Dec 26, 2002)

Mucho thanks for the link, Whodat.

And on the plus side for BattleBots, Comedy Central doesn't own the show, so it's possible (though unlikely) that it could still turn up elsewhere.  It can't be that expensive to produce since the contestants build their own bots.

I hope someplace like FX steps in and picks it up.  

Oh, well.  I'll probably pick up the PS2 game if its good.  Hopefully there will be a "build a bot" feature.  At least the show will live on in some form for me.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 27, 2002)

Whodat said:
			
		

> * The problem that I have with the box is that it is too hands-free. *




I have seen some Nielsen folks talkig about new technologies that they're working on - devices that do pretty much what you say this box does, but personal.  You carry this thing with you, and based upon a signal buried in the audio track, it can tell what you're watching, no matter who'se TV you're watching it on...


----------



## Ranger REG (Dec 27, 2002)

What about just logging into the internet and tell you watch I'm watching?


----------



## Limper (Dec 30, 2002)

And so it was spoken that no more would I watch the filth that is Fox and have thusly removed it from my programed channels...


I hate that network... I've been boycotting WB for the loss of Buffy and now have to add Fox to the never watch again list. I'm down to CSI... 

Guess I'll get into another gaming group since I only have an hour of TV to watch each week.


----------



## John Crichton (Dec 30, 2002)

Limper said:
			
		

> *And so it was spoken that no more would I watch the filth that is Fox and have thusly removed it from my programed channels...*



Understood.


			
				Limper said:
			
		

> *I've been boycotting WB for the loss of Buffy and now have to add Fox to the never watch again list.*



Why?  The WB didn't cancel Buffy and it's still on the air.  Just wondering.


----------



## Limper (Dec 30, 2002)

They could have paid and kept it off of cable channels I can't get... they could have kept it on the public airways for us loyal can't afford cable fans (and can't get UPN even if I could).

Thus the boycott, and for Firefly's cancelation... ohhhh I wish I were God for just one day... a doom upon the networks and a pox upon the Nielsons.


----------



## John Crichton (Dec 30, 2002)

Limper said:
			
		

> *They could have paid and kept it off of cable channels I can't get... they could have kept it on the public airways for us loyal can't afford cable fans (and can't get UPN even if I could).*



Fair enough, works for me.  At least the eps are getting made and you'll be able to catch missed eps on syndicated reruns or on DVD eventually.  


			
				Limper said:
			
		

> *Thus the boycott, and for Firefly's cancelation... ohhhh I wish I were God for just one day... a doom upon the networks and a pox upon the Nielsons. *



It's not the Nielson Ratings fault.  They just made the system.  It's the networks that pay them for their information.  If the networks wanted to find a better way to gather information they would.  Instead, they use an old system that caters to a small demographic and doesn't fully use the technology we have today.  If the networks didn't pay for it, they would have to make changes to get their business back.  Chicken and the egg I guess....

So I blame the network for not finding an audience for Firefly.  Not the Nielson Ratings.  Feh.


----------



## Ranger REG (Dec 30, 2002)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> *
> So I blame the network for not finding an audience for Firefly.   *



What do you mean? They found me. And judging from this thread, I'm not the only audience.


----------



## Ranger REG (Dec 30, 2002)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> *
> Why?  The WB didn't cancel Buffy and it's still on the air.  Just wondering.   *



Not on my "The WB" station in Hawaii. It is possible that your local TV station were able to buy airtime for that show, assuming that you don't have UPN (then again, you may have combined affiliate of UPN/WB, like we had, but now it is soley "The WB.")


----------



## John Crichton (Dec 30, 2002)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> *
> What do you mean? They found me. And judging from this thread, I'm not the only audience. *



Meaning that they have cancelled it without truly giving it a chance.  They haven't run any reruns and haven't really promoted it all that much.  They found me as well but I was looking for it.


----------



## John Crichton (Dec 30, 2002)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> *
> Not on my "The WB" station in Hawaii. It is possible that your local TV station were able to buy airtime for that show, assuming that you don't have UPN (then again, you may have combined affiliate of UPN/WB, like we had, but now it is soley "The WB.") *



My area (just outside NY) gets the WB and UPN.  And I understand that some areas aren't as lucky but the show did not get cancelled, it simply moved to another network.  IIRC, UPN outbid the WB and since they had Smallville in the pipeline, they let it go.  Buffy has new episodes that can be found in reruns, on DVD, etc.  It's a much lesser of the 2 evils, IMO.


----------



## Negative Zero (Dec 31, 2002)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> *
> Not on my "The WB" station in Hawaii. It is possible that your local TV station were able to buy airtime for that show, assuming that you don't have UPN (then again, you may have combined affiliate of UPN/WB, like we had, but now it is soley "The WB.") *




Buffy wasn't cancelled. the show was actually produced at (and i believe by) Fox. WB was paying Fox for the show. towards the end of it's run on WB, they were complaining that Fox was asking for too much money, and that they couldn't afford to keep the show. that's when UPN stepped in and picked it up. i'm not sure where it's produced now though.



			
				Ranger REG said:
			
		

> *What do you mean? They found me. And judging from this thread, I'm not the only audience. *




they may have found you, but the sure as hell didn't find me! they had no promotion for the show. _i found it_. i knew about the show before it came on, and _*I*_ went looking for it. i really hope that someone else picks it up and makes a mint off it.

~NegZ


----------



## John Crichton (Dec 31, 2002)

Negative Zero said:
			
		

> *they may have found you, but the sure as hell didn't find me! they had no promotion for the show. i found it. i knew about the show before it came on, and I went looking for it. i really hope that someone else picks it up and makes a mint off it.
> *



Man, that would be great.  If another network picks it up and it duplicates the success of Buffy (just as an example).  Put Fox in there place, so to speak....


----------



## LrdApoc (Dec 31, 2002)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> *Man, that would be great.  If another network picks it up and it duplicates the success of Buffy (just as an example).  Put Fox in there place, so to speak....   *




Yes and no.. Fox still profits from the sale and residuals of producing the show regardless of who airs it.. Like Buffy and Angel... so they aren;t really being punished either way.


----------



## John Crichton (Dec 31, 2002)

LrdApoc said:
			
		

> *
> Yes and no.. Fox still profits from the sale and residuals of producing the show regardless of who airs it.. Like Buffy and Angel... so they aren;t really being punished either way. *



Hmmm, you make a good point.  Well, on the other hand it would show them that they obviously did something wrong.  And they would loose advertising dollars if the show is not on their network.  

:: edited to make sense ::


----------



## Negative Zero (Dec 31, 2002)

LrdApoc said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Yes and no.. Fox still profits from the sale and residuals of producing the show regardless of who airs it.. Like Buffy and Angel... so they aren;t really being punished either way. *




will Fox still produce Firefly? i got the impression that they were giving it up totally. though i admit to not having actually read anything concrete about that.

~NegZ


----------



## Chun-tzu (Dec 31, 2002)

Negative Zero said:
			
		

> *
> 
> will Fox still produce Firefly? i got the impression that they were giving it up totally. though i admit to not having actually read anything concrete about that.
> 
> ~NegZ *




I suppose that would depend on the new network and the new contract. As it is, Fox has said that they are not ordering any new episodes, which effectively cancels the show. However, they aren't blocking Joss and Tim Minear from shopping around for a new network (which they can).

Even if UPN or another network picks up the show, some serious damage may have already been done. As it is now, the people who used to work on the show are out of a job, and looking for new ones, and if they find something, they may no longer be available for Firefly. 

According to the Save Firefly webpage, Hollywood is closed until January 6, so we most likely won't get any responses from networks until then, at the earliest.


----------



## Shadowdancer (Dec 31, 2002)

I think there are some misunderstandings about who makes TV series.

TV series are made by production companies. TV networks buy the series and air them.

Sometimes, the TV networks own the production companies. Such as Universal, which owns UPN and also owns the production company that makes "Enterprise." Universal also owns all of the rights to the "Star Trek" franchise, TV and movies.

But sometimes, you have a situation where one network owns a production company, but another network buys the series to air. Doesn't happen as much as it use to, now that Fox, UPN and the WB -- which all own production companies and make series -- started their own networks. Back in the days when NBC, CBS and ABC were the only networks, it happened frequently. However, even Fox, UPN and the WB today air shows made by production companies they don't own.

I don't believe Fox owns the production company that makes "Firefly." Joss owns that. He just sells the series to the high bidder, in this case Fox. Fox didn't order a full season of episodes to begin with, and has informed the production company that it won't order any behind its initial order. So the production company is not making any more episodes because it has no one to air them. If another network or cable outlet steps in and picks up the series, the production company can make more episodes. Fox won't get any money if someone else shows these episodes.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Jan 1, 2003)

Shadowdancer said:
			
		

> *I don't believe Fox owns the production company that makes "Firefly." Joss owns that. He just sells the series to the high bidder, in this case Fox. Fox didn't order a full season of episodes to begin with, and has informed the production company that it won't order any behind its initial order. So the production company is not making any more episodes because it has no one to air them. If another network or cable outlet steps in and picks up the series, the production company can make more episodes. Fox won't get any money if someone else shows these episodes. *




Agree with all this.  Just want to clarify a point, FOX would likely make money from re-aired shows that they bought(the 1st season). Without reading the contract they have no-one can be sure, but they likely have a clause so that they control those episodes.(though they may only control them for a limited time)


----------



## Umbran (Jan 1, 2003)

Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> *but they likely have a clause so that they control those episodes.(though they may only control them for a limited time) *




If sok, they aren't exercising it.  Apparently, Joss considers this an extnesnion of good will - "We don't have a place for your show, but we won't exercise any rights we might have that would get in the way of shopping the show to anyone else." Joss has been clear about how FOX is being very nice about it, when they could actually be rather nasty about it.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Jan 1, 2003)

Shadowdancer said:
			
		

> *Such as Universal, which owns UPN and also owns the production company that makes "Enterprise." Universal also owns all of the rights to the "Star Trek" franchise, TV and movies.*



Just a little nitpick. I believe it's Paramount that owns Star Trek and UPN, not Universal.


----------



## Shadowdancer (Jan 2, 2003)

I can never remember if Paramount owns Universal, or Universal owns Paramount. But IIRC, they are parts of the same corporate entity.


----------



## rangerjohn (Jan 2, 2003)

Hence UPN.....

  Universal

  Paramount

  Network


----------



## Lady Mer (Jan 2, 2003)

I thought UPN stood for *United * Paramount Network.


----------



## John Crichton (Jan 2, 2003)

Lady Mer said:
			
		

> *I thought UPN stood for United  Paramount Network. *



This is correct.


----------



## Unseelie (Jan 2, 2003)

FYI...

Viacom owns Paramount, which includes UPN. They also own Showtime and MTV for what that's worth.

Vivendi Universal owns Universal. They also own USA Networks, which includes the SciFi channel.

Paramount and Universal are most decidedly not part of the same corporate entity.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Jan 4, 2003)

Thought so.


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 6, 2003)

Negative Zero said:
			
		

> *in the news section of tvtome.com's Firefly section, they report that:
> 
> now i'm assuming that they meant zap2it, but i can't confirm this report on the zap2it website. anyone else have better luck?
> 
> ...




Zap2it referenced this page:

http://www.fireflysupport.com/

The page confirms talks with UPN.  However any tie-in with Buffy is pure speculation on the posters part.

By the way, I happen to LOVE Enterprise.  I think people forget how truly sucky the first couple of seasons of Next Generation was.  Enterprise is FAR better than the first season of NG, no question about it.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 7, 2003)

No, _ENTERPRISE_ is more of rehashing old stories. It is also Brannon Braga's show, and I can't tell you enough how much I hated him for what he has done to _VOYAGER._ 

He's a great writer (when someone else above him is editing his work), but he suck as a producer.

Although I am glad that UPN is interested (which may be an ominous sign that _ENTERPRISE_ and _Star Trek_ is heading out) but it's a whammy for those like me who live in Hawaii and can't watch UPN (there is no longer a channel dedicated to UPN programming), unless local TV stations are willing to buy airtime for _Firefly._


----------



## Whodat (Jan 7, 2003)

As it stands now, UPN is the most likely network to give Firefly a chance. 

On average, Enterprise is pulling in about a 3.0 in the ratings and has dropped out of the top 100 several times this season. Despite having an established audience, and the fact that it airs on Wednesday nights, the show is performing far below the network’s expectations. In fact, Enterprise’s second-season ratings are comparable to those of Firefly before it was cancelled. Executive producer Rick Berman has already confessed that they are going to try spicing up the show with more sex and violence in order to attract viewers.

But now it looks like UPN may be waiting until the end of the season before they officially do or say anything about the future of Enterprise. In other words, they are not standing behind the show, nor are they guaranteeing that it will be around for next season.

Unfortunately for UPN, Enterprise is an expensive little show to produce. First – lots of aliens mean lots of latex and make-up. Second – because fanboys demand eye-candy, the show also has an overabundance of special effects. And the way the actors interact with so many of the special effects (phaser battles, computer data screens, CGI creatures, etc.) means that a lot of the special effects have to be joined with the live-action in post-production. Joss has cleverly worked around those problems on Firefly by using slug-thrower weapons and very little make-up. I’ve seen very few composite shots where actors interact with CGI effects. The shots are either completely CGI, or require no post-production special effects. Simple. Effective. Cheap.

My speculation is that if Buffy is gone next year, and Enterprise is already in trouble, UPN may be the most likely candidate to scoop up Firefly – if for no other reason than to have something to show next season... assuming UPN is willing to take a chance on a decent, semi-established show like Firefly.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 8, 2003)

Whodat said:
			
		

> *
> Executive producer Rick Berman has already confessed that they are going to try spicing up the show with more sex and violence in order to attract viewers.*



_* shakes head in disappointment *_

Rick, dude, you're only going to get viewers like me to return if you write good stories. Don't sugar coat it. A crappy story with sex and violence is still a crappy story. I got better plotline watching featured porn films!

And this preceding message comes from what your colleague Braga once called us longtime _Trek_ fans "Continuity Pornographers."


----------



## Daiymo (Jan 8, 2003)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> *
> * shakes head in disappointment *
> 
> I got better plotline watching featured porn films!
> ...




Ummmmm...Pornnnn..


----------



## Negative Zero (Jan 8, 2003)

a friend and i were just talking and he made a really annoying observation, which i saw but somehow didn't pick up on: anyone else notice how much Fox has been advertising Fastlane at its "new time"? 

that really pisses me off. not only do they singlehandedly kill one of the best shows on tv, but they promote the hell out of the _cancelled_ show that they're replacing it with. what a waste of a network.

~NegZ


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 9, 2003)

Well, they did cancel the show. Now they have to fill that empty slot. Plus it is to remind those avid _Fastlane_ viewers on the new airtime.

I would have wanted it that way if the situation is reversed (_Fastlane_ cancelled and _Firefly_ fill in the vacant timeslot).


----------



## Negative Zero (Jan 9, 2003)

i wasn't clear enuff. Fastlane _IS_ cancelled! Fox cancelled Firefly partly because they never promoted it (i think i've only ever seen one Firefly commercial) then replaced it with another show (Fastlane) that's been cancelled too, and now they're promoting the hell out of Fastlane. too bad there's a profanity filter and Eric's grandma about, or i'd say what i _really_ thought of Fox. oh well 

~NegZ


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 9, 2003)

Please cite your source about _Fastlane_ being cancelled, in case I missed it.


----------



## Negative Zero (Jan 9, 2003)

hmmm ... perhaps i was a lil hasty with that. i thought i'd read it somewhere, but after a quick search turned up nothing, i'm guessing i'm confusing a "with Fastlane now in the 'death time slot', it WILL be cancelled" comment made during a conversation with a friend of mine. sorry if i caused any heart stoppage 

i still think that Fox should be beaten over the head [edit] repeatedly [/edit] with a Mack truck. 

~NegZ


----------



## theRogueRooster (Jan 10, 2003)

Anybody else suffering from Firefly withdrawal?

*sigh*

Anyone know when we might hear about its future?
-tRR


----------



## Pielorinho (Jan 10, 2003)

Check out www.fireflysupport.com for all your depressing Firefly news.  For example, yesterday they posted that UPN has reportedly declined to pick up Firefly.  As near as I can tell, that's the show's death knell.  

And on another forum, I'm reading that UPN is losing something like $1 million per episode of Buffy, and that Angel isn't doing very well in the ratings either.

I really hope that Joss's star isn't falling; he's the only reason I have cable TV.

Daniel


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 10, 2003)

Negative Zero said:
			
		

> *
> hmmm ... perhaps i was a lil hasty with that. i thought i'd read it somewhere, but after a quick search turned up nothing, i'm guessing i'm confusing a "with Fastlane now in the 'death time slot', it WILL be cancelled" comment made during a conversation with a friend of mine. sorry if i caused any heart stoppage
> 
> i still think that Fox should be beaten over the head [edit] repeatedly [/edit] with a Mack truck.
> ...



Well, the reason why they move _Fastlane_ to Friday night is because Wednesday night is the choice spot for _American Idol_ and yes it is back.

It is the night when I must resort to a 13-inch B&W TV because my girlfriend and my nieces hog bigger color TV and I dare not go near that TV lest I wish to have my eyes gouged out by their press-on nails.


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 10, 2003)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> *Check out www.fireflysupport.com for all your depressing Firefly news.  For example, yesterday they posted that UPN has reportedly declined to pick up Firefly.  As near as I can tell, that's the show's death knell.
> 
> And on another forum, I'm reading that UPN is losing something like $1 million per episode of Buffy, and that Angel isn't doing very well in the ratings either.
> 
> ...




Angel is doing worse than Buffy in the ratings. I don't see how either should could last through the next round of cancellations.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 11, 2003)

Really? Didn't noticed. I still watched _Angel_ even when they decided to bring back Cordy but as an amnesiac who then shagged Angel's grownup(?) son, Connor. I think a lot of people didn't like that and the fact that everyone is all split up, particularly Wesley going off on his own, and Fred & Gunn are on the verge of breaking up.

The good news(?) is that Joss is now available to help out his two creations.


----------



## LrdApoc (Jan 11, 2003)

Even with some of the spoiler info I have regarding the rest of the season and the Big Bad, I can't bring myself to watch Angel anymore after the sleeping with Connor thing.. I still get sick just imagining that.


On the Firefly topic: I guess the next target is SciFi, who knows.. but I'd say it's time to hang up those spurs and let the show ride out into the sunset.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 12, 2003)

Well, I can only say that as a thirtysomething, yeah it is way too much for me to see Connor and Cordy doing the cradle-robbing Mrs. Robinson routine.

Then again, any viewers with the same age as Connor might get a kick out of it. Hell, I didn't think Cheryl Ladd and Farrah Fawcett were too old back in the old days.   

I still have high hope for _Firefly._ It's the very reason why I'm playing _T20_ right now. Then again, perhaps the mainstream are not yet ready for hard sci-fi.


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 12, 2003)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> *I still have high hope for Firefly. It's the very reason why I'm playing T20 right now. Then again, perhaps the mainstream are not yet ready for hard sci-fi. *




Ummmm...HARD sci-fi? Wasn't the whole theme of the show SOFT sci-fi?


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 12, 2003)

Looks like hard sci-fi without the technobabble to me, the way I envision what a _Traveller_ universe would be like, with various tech level societies.


----------



## Pielorinho (Jan 12, 2003)

Indeed, Sci-Fi channel is the next target.  Find out more at www.fireflysupport.com -- although I've got very little hope at this point.

Daniel


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 12, 2003)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> *Looks like hard sci-fi without the technobabble to me, the way I envision what a Traveller universe would be like, with various tech level societies. *




"Hard sci-fi relies heavily on science fact... to the point of the story collapsing if the science is removed. Soft sci-fi, also known as Psychological sci-fi, deals more with social issues that may arrise in the advent of new technology. Either take can be character or plot driven."

In my opinion, science is not the focus of the show, but social issues are. I really think that was the whole point of the show, in fact (other than character and plot). Hence I think it is soft sci-fi.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 12, 2003)

You could make the same argument for _Star Trek_ when they started doing technobabble since _TNG._ But I still consider it soft sci-fi.

Let's agree that our opinions varies. You can still do hard sci-fi without having to explain the science in the story (aka technobabble).


----------



## Staffan (Jan 13, 2003)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> *Well, I can only say that as a thirtysomething, yeah it is way too much for me to see Connor and Cordy doing the cradle-robbing Mrs. Robinson routine.
> *



Cradle-robbing? Cordy's supposed to be 22 or so, and Connor's supposed to be what, 17-18? That hardly qualifies as cradle-robbing in my book.

Sure, Charisma Carpenter is 30 or so, but Cordy isn't.


----------



## LrdApoc (Jan 13, 2003)

Staffan said:
			
		

> *
> Cradle-robbing? Cordy's supposed to be 22 or so, and Connor's supposed to be what, 17-18? That hardly qualifies as cradle-robbing in my book.
> 
> Sure, Charisma Carpenter is 30 or so, but Cordy isn't. *




Okay, where I find this whole relationship sick is in the kissing your sister type way. 6 months is all that has passed for Cordy since she held connor as a baby. Regardless of his physical age, I find it hard to accept. 

Granted with a Joss show not all is as it seems, but I don;t want to derail the discussion so I'll let it rest.


----------



## Ulrick (Jan 13, 2003)

Man, this thread is a little depressing.

I like Firefly. It isn't the best show in the world, but its a good show with a great storyline.

I noticed that a lot of it was setting up for something spectacular, something jaw-dropping, but now I'll never know. It seems like everybody on that ship has their secrets, and it sucks we won't ever find out the truth. 

But, its Fox. And Fox seems to like to cancel decent shows after they've put them in lousy timeslots.

Here in Central Iowa, Firefly was on Friday Nights at 7pm. Not the best timeslot, and I knew from the beginning it would be a struggle because some other shows that I like were put there and died.

I just don't understand it. Good 1st season shows get put in crappy timeslots on Fox. Then its sink or swim with little promotion from the network.

Some other examples include:

Space: Above and Beyond -- here it was on Sundays at 6pm...so that way basketball could run overtime into it...constantly.

Brimstone -- Some might disagree, but I did like this show. Especially because it came before....

Millenium -- This show was scary but cool. But at least it made it to season 2 before Fox dumped it...which kinda screwed up season 2 a little bit because Chris Carter thought the show would be cancelled after the first season so he had to hastily get a plot going.

Then there was American Gothic, but I can't remember if it was on Fox or not.

To sum it all up: "Grrrrrrr"  

Ulrick


----------



## Wolf72 (Jan 14, 2003)

Woo HOO! ... [thank mom], I finally got to see the 2 hour episode.  ... which I thought was excellent.

here's hoping for some sort of intervention to bring it back


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 14, 2003)

Ulrick said:
			
		

> *
> Then there was American Gothic, but I can't remember if it was on Fox or not.*



It was on CBS. It occupied the Wednesday night timeslot. That show was cancelled to make room for _Wolf Lake,_ which is also cancelled in the midseason (UPN later aired the remaining episodes but still did poorly to warrant a renewal).

CBS once did _The Flash._ The actor later played Dawson Leery's father in the WB "teen angst" show with Katie Holmes.

FOX once did M.A.N.T.I.S., following the _Batman_ trend, with a paraplegic African-American donning a powered suit. The actor is currently starring with Jennifer Garner in _Alias._


----------



## WisdomLikeSilence (Jan 15, 2003)

FYI 
Some fans are collecting information on demand for a possible Firefly DVD, if you'd like to participate.

http://forums.prospero.com/foxfirefly/messages/?msg=4091.244

It certainly can't hurt.

-WLS


----------



## Negative Zero (Jan 15, 2003)

i'm certain i read that Joss is committed to a dvd release. i'll certainly pick it up.

~NegZ


----------



## Chun-tzu (Jan 15, 2003)

>sigh<

According to the Save Firefly page, Sci-Fi Channel announced yesterday that they're not picking up the series. I hate to be a doomsayer, but it's pretty much over at this point.


----------



## Welverin (Jan 15, 2003)

Ulrick said:
			
		

> *Space: Above and Beyond -- here it was on Sundays at 6pm...so that way basketball could run overtime into it...constantly.*




Actually it was the NFL that did it in, which also claimed Futurama.



> *Brimstone -- Some might disagree, but I did like this show. Especially because it came before....*




I liked it as well as did my father and I believe my brother.



> *Millenium -- This show was scary but cool. But at least it made it to season 2 before Fox dumped it...which kinda screwed up season 2 a little bit because Chris Carter thought the show would be cancelled after the first season so he had to hastily get a plot going.*




It made it to season three as well didn't it?

You didn't mention The Adventures Brisco County, Jr., Harsh Realm, and Dark Angel as shows Fox failed to propely support. I won't be surprised to see John Doe soon join them.


----------



## John Crichton (Jan 15, 2003)

Welverin said:
			
		

> *You didn't mention The Adventures Brisco County, Jr., Harsh Realm, and Dark Angel as shows Fox failed to propely support. I won't be surprised to see John Doe soon join them. *



Harsh Realm and Brisco were cool but I could never get into Dark Angel.  I tried, but the action scenes were bad, the plot wasn't that involving and the villains weren't entertaining.  The only reason to watch was to see Jessica Alba.  And that's not enough to keep an hour long show on the air.  I kinda liked the romance story but beyond that I wasn't really interested.

On a different note, I'm wondering if the WB or UPN would have cancelled the show had it premeired on one of their networks in a different time slot...


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 15, 2003)

Negative Zero said:
			
		

> *i'm certain i read that Joss is committed to a dvd release. i'll certainly pick it up.
> 
> ~NegZ *




He means they are organizing a direct-to-DVD subscription model. Not a DVD of old episodes, but DVDs of new ones, to be released on on DVD (not shown on TV).


----------



## Whodat (Jan 15, 2003)

> The only reason to watch was to see Jessica Alba.




Mmm... Jessica Alba. 

I wish she were playing Elektra in the new Daredevil movie – instead of Jennifer Garner.


----------



## John Crichton (Jan 15, 2003)

Whodat said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Mmm... Jessica Alba.
> 
> I wish she were playing Elektra in the new Daredevil movie – instead of Jennifer Garner. *



Both are beautiful women with one exception:  Garner has proven she can act and pull of an action scene.  Alba was decent as an actress but she didn't have much material to work with in Dark Angel.  Garner has much better scripts to work with on Alias.

On a similar topic:  Firefly had *four* beautiful women on that show that could act.  Unbelievable.  Fox should have marketed it on that alone and then kept the viewers watching with the outstanding stories it told.

And on another note:  That DVD campaign would be fine with me.  I have no problem buying quality programming.  Problem is that it will probably never happen.  *sigh*

:: edited for spelling and a sentence on Jennifer Garner ::


----------



## Henry (Jan 15, 2003)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> *
> 
> He means they are organizing a direct-to-DVD subscription model. Not a DVD of old episodes, but DVDs of new ones, to be released on on DVD (not shown on TV). *





Holy crap-on-a-stick! Hook me up with some of that! 

Thanks for the link, Wisdomlikesilence!


----------



## WisdomLikeSilence (Jan 15, 2003)

Henry said:
			
		

> *
> Thanks for the link, Wisdomlikesilence! *




My pleasure. 

The DVD campaign is highly unlikely to succeed, but it's also well worth a shot.  Even if it fails, it increases the chances of a similar campaign succeeding in the future.

>crossing my fingers<

-WLS


----------



## Umbran (Jan 16, 2003)

Hm.  Looks bad.

From Sci Fi Wire:

"Christopher Buchanan—president of Joss Whedon's production company, Mutant Enemy, which is behind Fox's defunct Firefly—told SCI FI Wire that ABC, CBS, NBC, UPN and the SCI FI Channel have all turned down deals to resurrect the SF series, at least so far."

Full story here


----------



## Whodat (Jan 16, 2003)

There was hope for a while that one of the premium cable networks might pick up Firefly. 

The potential benefits were huge: without network censors breathing down his neck, Joss could really cut loose on things like language (we might hear some real swear words), nudity and adult situations, and even more graphic violence. 

But you might rule out HBO, because they prefer to broadcast their own (“HBO Productions”) programs. As a result, I have heard that probably wouldn’t want to go through Mutant Enemy or Fox to get this show.

When last I heard the final word wasn’t in from Showtime (birthplace of Stargate SG1).

There are still hopes for TNT. Although I think they prefer to broadcast repeats.



Yes. Looks bad.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 16, 2003)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> *
> Both are beautiful women with one exception:  Garner has proven she can act and pull of an action scene.  Alba was decent as an actress but she didn't have much material to work with in Dark Angel.  Garner has much better scripts to work with on Alias.*



Well, the Max character makes her out as a super-soldier trainee turned escapee turned thief. Not exactly a spy in the making, compared to what the Sydney Bristow character has to do.




> *On a similar topic:  Firefly had four beautiful women on that show that could act.  Unbelievable.  Fox should have marketed it on that alone and then kept the viewers watching with the outstanding stories it told.*



Sorry, but if _Birds of Prey_ with three lovely ladies can't maintain that show, I doubt _Firefly_ could pull it off by marketing the ladies of this one. Besides, I didn't just watch the show because of the ladies, at least that is not my main reason.

I watch it because of one special lady: _Serenity._ 

_* Sighs *_ More bad news. It seem all of the major network have turned down on _Firefly,_ including UPN and that crappy SCI-FI. While this is painful, it is not surprising.

As I have said all along, they should have gone syndicated. But I do know that by going syndicated, they have to work with a smaller budget (less than $2MIL an episode).


----------



## John Crichton (Jan 16, 2003)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> *Well, the Max character makes her out as a super-soldier trainee turned escapee turned thief. Not exactly a spy in the making, compared to what the Sydney Bristow character has to do.*



I was just saying that the writing on Alias is better than the writing on Dark Angel.  But I agree that the characters weren't all that similar.







			
				Ranger REG said:
			
		

> *Sorry, but if Birds of Prey with three lovely ladies can't maintain that show, I doubt Firefly could pull it off by marketing the ladies of this one. Besides, I didn't just watch the show because of the ladies, at least that is not my main reason.
> 
> I watch it because of one special lady: Serenity. *



Oh, I agree completely.  I watched it for the stories it told, not for the women.  I'm not saying they should have, but they could have marketed it using the women as "bait."  We all know Fox isn't beyond that kind of thing.    And I thought *Birds of Prey* was done badly.  I had hope for that show and they didn't follow through on making the characters that interesting.  To me anyway.



			
				Ranger REG said:
			
		

> ** Sighs * More bad news. It seem all of the major network have turned down on Firefly, including UPN and that crappy SCI-FI. While this is painful, it is not surprising.
> 
> As I have said all along, they should have gone syndicated. But I do know that by going syndicated, they have to work with a smaller budget (less than $2MIL an episode). *



I'm not surprised it hasn't been picked up either.  I was hoping it would, but this is just another show in the history of shows that was cut down either in its prime or before it could grow.    This one just hurts a bit more because Joss has proven in the past that his shows get much better after their first seasons.  I considered Firefly as close to a lock as one could get to being an excellent show.  I guess Fox wasn't watching the same program.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 16, 2003)

You know what this all teaches us, boys and girls?  It teaches us what we could have if we had maximally funded public television.  Imagine, if you will, a TV channel with money, but not addicted to profit.  One with the same mindset that kept Dr. Who on the air for decades...


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 16, 2003)

Umbran said:
			
		

> *You know what this all teaches us, boys and girls?  It teaches us what we could have if we had maximally funded public television.  Imagine, if you will, a TV channel with money, but not addicted to profit.  One with the same mindset that kept Dr. Who on the air for decades... *




HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Boy are you a funny guy. Yeah, we should go to a max public TV system, where your number of channels is reduced from 300 to 6. That sounds like a great idea! I'm sure that, by cutting out 294 channels, we will certainly be able to get our favorite show on TV! Cause, you know, everyone in the public thinks just like us right!


----------



## Mallus (Jan 16, 2003)

*You know Mistwell....*

.... you might change your mind after the next few seasons' of nothing but American Idol and Joe Millionaire clones...

Better funded public TV wouldn't be such a bad thing. My current favorite show is a BBC import called "Coupling". Beats the hell out of any sitcom currently running in the US, IMHO....


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 16, 2003)

Umbran said:
			
		

> *
> You know what this all teaches us, boys and girls?  It teaches us what we could have if we had maximally funded public television.  Imagine, if you will, a TV channel with money, but not addicted to profit.  One with the same mindset that kept Dr. Who on the air for decades... *



Actually it taught me that most of us gamers are armchair critics who would not want to go through the trouble of obtaining a communications and business administration degrees to work in the TV industry and finally earn enough capital to start up a network aimed at science fiction fans, however little they may be.

After all, if we do so, we may be criticized by other armchair critics, and that's lethal to our already fragile egos.


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 16, 2003)

*Re: You know Mistwell....*



			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> *.... you might change your mind after the next few seasons' of nothing but American Idol and Joe Millionaire clones...
> 
> Better funded public TV wouldn't be such a bad thing. My current favorite show is a BBC import called "Coupling". Beats the hell out of any sitcom currently running in the US, IMHO.... *




You do know that BBC America is NOT publically funded, right?

I am a big fan of So Graham Norton. Cracker is good too.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 17, 2003)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> *Boy are you a funny guy. Yeah, we should go to a max public TV system, where your number of channels is reduced from 300 to 6.*




Um, Mistwell, go back and read what I said, please.  

Saying that really well funded public TV might bring us what we want does not in any way say that we should eliminate the usual corporate TV.  There's no reason that the two could not coexist.

Next time, perhaps you'd like to consider if you are reading things correctly before you get so sarcastic, hm?


----------



## Welverin (Jan 17, 2003)

Well we should use this experience to remind us all to tell the networks we are watching shows like this *as soon as the start!* That means sending letters and emails as soon as you find out you like it and making sure to let them know you're not in a neilson family. This way they'll know people were watching from the beginning and hopefully realize the neilson ratings just aren't representative.


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 17, 2003)

Umbran said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Um, Mistwell, go back and read what I said, please.
> 
> ...




I read you correctly.  Maximally funded public TV is usually mutually exclusive with extensive corporate TV. Empirically, in nations that very heavily fund lots of public television, the private television is small to nonexistant.  Government subsidies have a significant impact on capitalism.  They tend to eliminate the unsubsidized version of that industry, and television is not an exception.  I'm sorry if my post offended you in some way, that was not my intent at all - I actually kinda thought you were joking a bit when you said it, or at least fantasizing while knowing you were leaving out the bad parts.  I wouldn't have been sarcastic if I had thought you were being totally serious (well okay I might have, but that wasn't the case this time). Again, sorry if you thought I was being inappropriate in my response.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 17, 2003)

Well, I don`t know all the american/english expressions for TV "organization", but in Germany, we have a mixture.

There are ARD ("Das Erste"/"The First"), the ZDF ("Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen" / Second German TV), several (typically regional focuses, though most can be received in whole Germany, like N3, BF, SWF...) "Dritte"(Third) and the private TV stations like RTL, SAT1, Pro7, Kabel1, VOX and many other ones.

Interestingly, most of the (let`s call them forth) stations do broadcast Science Fiction (Startrek, Andromeda, Lexx) or Fantasy/Action (Buffy, Angel).
But: These shows come from foreign lands (mostly USA), obviosuly, they didn`t create them. 
Own productions are rare, among the funded stations as among the private ones. 
But there are still some, typically co-produced with other, foreign stations.

Well, what`s the point of this: No system guarantees the right support for us SciFi/Fantasy fans. 
The funded stations have to answer the question: Are our productions useful for /accepted by the public, since the public pays for it. 
The private have to ask: is our viewership great enough to afford these movies and series - do we have enough money from commercials?

A result seems to be: we have thousands (exaggeration) of "hospital"-shows, talkshows, "law"shows (that typically run in the afternoon) or crime shows, but only few really good shows. (in my opinion - though some of the shows are good - "Tatort" has brought several good characters and stories). 

Mustrum Ridcully


----------



## Umbran (Jan 18, 2003)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> *I read you correctly.  Maximally funded public TV is usually mutually exclusive with extensive corporate TV. Empirically, in nations that very heavily fund lots of public television, the private television is small to nonexistant.  *




This may be true, however, said countries did not, IIRC, have a massive corporate Media Machine in place when they started such funding.  Order of operations probably matters.  

Plus, where did I say the funding should come from the government?  All I said was that it be "public" -  which does not equate with "government".  Perhaps you don't watch PBS stations much? There are these pretty impressive "begathons" they hold a couple times a year.  Without them, PBS stations would fold.  But with them, a touch of government funding, and a few corporate donations, they manage some pretty impressive shows.  Now, imagine if many more people gave money to support such stations.

Heck, you don't even need public TV.  You only need publicly funded, non-profit production.  Let's think about this for a sec...

Someone mentioned that _Firefly_ cost $2 million per episode.  So, you get 2 million people together, each pays a whole whopping $22, and there's the production of one season.

For $100 per year, the members of Two Million Fans Productions could fund the production of four such shows, and have enough left over for a half-season show like _Witchblade_.

Now, you laugh at me and say, "Ha!  That handles producing the show, but not airing it." Well, that becomes easy.  You see, the subscribers of TMFP don't want any profits.  They only want to be able to see the show.  So, they turn to a channel and say, "I will sell you this show for _pennies_.  Zero overhead.  You get every single cent of advertising revenue the show produces." 

Now, you set TMFP on scooping up quality shows - Farscape, Firefly, Witchblade - things for which we know there's an audience.   

People gripe a lot, "The Neilsen's don't represent us!"  "The big networks don't care!".   But in those cases, people are griping about something for which they've paid nothing more than waiting for the commercials to end.  Well, folks, you get what you pay for, now don't you?


----------



## Whodat (Jan 18, 2003)

> People gripe a lot, "The Neilsen's don't represent us!" "The big networks don't care!". But in those cases, people are griping about something for which they've paid nothing more than waiting for the commercials to end. Well, folks, you get what you pay for, now don't you?




Only if you look at from the perspective of “You (the viewer) don’t pay for these programs, so be happy with what you get.”

But I think you’re missing the bigger picture.

Networks go through a lot of effort trying to find out how many people watch certain programs at certain times. They also need to know which demographics watch what shows. This helps them know which advertisements to run during certain programs. 

This research has even spawned its own industry. AC Nielsen harvests these numbers and in turn sells their data back to the networks. 

Yes. They sell the information. It isn’t free.

So, in a hypothetical situation wherein a show (for this example, I’ll call it… “Farscape”) had a loyal following, but let’s say that the viewing numbers were not accurately represented in the Neilsen research data. Now let’s say that the network which airs Farscape (I’ll call them “Sci-Fi”) had shelled out money to AC Nielsen for their flawed research data. Would you say that the network “got what it paid for?”

Or look at the advertisers who paid money to the Sci-Fi channel for their airtime. Advertisers, who have been told which programs are being watched by key demographic audiences. Advertisers who can pull ads from programs which they deem offensive, or aren’t reaching the right audience. Would you say that the advertisers “got what they paid for?”

The problem, as I have stated before, is that the rating system is broken. If there are 250 million people in the U.S., and roughly 95% of the households have television sets, how can Neilsen Media Research poll only 5,000 households and call that a sampling? 

I find it staggering that in an age of cell phones that e-mail, televisions that get 300+ channels via satellite, and self-adhesive postage stamps (don’t ask), NMR is relying on the same polling size that they were using twenty years ago.

I’ve heard it mentioned that NMR is “looking into” an eventual sampling of TiVo viewers – with no mention on why it hasn’t already happened, or how much longer it will take to implement. 

When NMR finally starts looking into larger slices of what we actually are watching – then sponsors will be getting what they are paying for.

/End rant.

I do like your idea of a fan-based production company, though. 

"I'd buy that for a dollar!"


----------



## Villano (Jan 18, 2003)

Umbran said:
			
		

> *
> 
> This may be true, however, said countries did not, IIRC, have a massive corporate Media Machine in place when they started such funding.  Order of operations probably matters.
> 
> ...




I have 2 problems with what you said.

First, I doubt that this system would result in a different television landscape than we have now.  There would still be a million reality shows because that's what a lot of (stupid) people watching tv want to see and would be willing to pay for.

Also, if one show does this and succeeds, then others will follow suit.  Suddenly, you have a hundred new shows vying for tv time (some of which might concievibly be so bad that a network wouldn't want to air them no matter the cost).

And, while it would be nice to think that the investors wouldn't want any profit, I don't think that would happen.  At the very least, they would want some creative control which, if given, would severly drop the quality of the show (most people aren't professional writers for a reason; they can't write and/or aren't creative).

And, regardless of how cheap the show is to produce, advertising is the bread and butter of the industry.  The networks would still want to know haw many people are watching in order to determine their commerial rates (think of how the commercial time during the Super Bowl is much, much higher than any time else).

If they totally ditched the rating system, it would fall to judging which shows have the most money backing them since that means the most viewers or richest viewers (2 things advertisers are most intereseted in).  This would mean that people who could invest the most would have the most control of tv.

Secondly, what do you mean by "people are griping about something for which they've paid nothing more than waiting for the commercials to end"?  Unless you're relying on an antenna, you are probably paying a cable or satellite bill.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 19, 2003)

Okay, I have two people to respond to.  I'll take 'em one at a time.

For Whodat:

I find a fundamental inconsistency between your premises.  While I'm not certain, I can accept the notion that the Neilsen system is "broken" in the sense that it is simply inaccurate and inadequate.  However, given that, I find it hard to believe that the networks are really putting a lot of effort into finding out who watches what, and when.  If the system is broken now, it has been so for years.  If the networks really were making a good faith effort to fix it, then it would have gotten fixed.  They've had the money and the time, if they really wished to apply it.

For Villano:

I'll approach your "secondly" first.  Turn on most of your cable channels.  Don't you see the commercials there?  Most cable programming is still paid for by commercials, not by paying your monthly cable bills.  

The exceptions are "premium" channels - HBO, Showtime, and the like, which commonly run without much in the way of commercial interruption.  Now, isn't it interesting how their in-house productions ("The Sopranos", "Oz", "Sex in the City", "Stargate SG1" to name a few) frequently get good viewership and critical acclaim?  

Now, to approach your Firsts...

Whoever said that I wanted or expected this notion to change the TV landscape?  I don't care about the landscape as a whole.  I'm only concerned with getting a couple of shows on the air.

As for the investors not wanting profit - people have been investing in public TV for decades, without expecting any profit or creative control.  People have been paying for HBO without such expectations.  Why should this be all that different?

The networks can go ahead and keep their ratings systems.  This notion works _within_ the system.  They go ahead and figure out the ratings, and thus the value of advertising time during the show in the normal way.  By reducing the cost the network has to pay for the show to near zero, we make it profitable even if the ratings are low.

I don't think that the general public would opt for such a thing.  Their television wants are already met by the usual system, so they have no pressure to pay out extra cash.  What I'm talking about only works when you have a whole bunch of people who are rabid about how their wants _aren't_  being met, and are willing to act to fill their own wants.  

All I'm saying is the we could put our money where our mouths are.  If we really like a show that badly, wouldn't it be worth a measly $22 bucks a year to be able to see it?


----------



## Femerus the Gnecro (Jan 19, 2003)

Umbran said:
			
		

> *Now, isn't it interesting how their in-house productions ("The Sopranos", "Oz", "Sex in the City", "Stargate SG1" to name a few) frequently get good viewership and critical acclaim? *




Last time I checked, SG-1 wasn't being produced by a cable network at all (and it certainly was never an 'in-house' showtime production), and had switched to Sci-Fi (a commercial showing network), all the while getting far higher ratings due to better exposure.

-F


----------



## Whodat (Jan 19, 2003)

> I find it hard to believe that the networks are really putting a lot of effort into finding out who watches what, and when. If the system is broken now, it has been so for years. If the networks really were making a good faith effort to fix it, then it would have gotten fixed. They've had the money and the time, if they really wished to apply it.




Ah, but the networks DON'T spend a lot of time, effort, or money trying to find out what their viewers watch. Years ago they thought it would be better to enlist a non-partisan third party to collect that information for them. This way each “ratings point” would be standardized for all networks. That is what AC Nielsen does for them, and has been doing (wrongly, in my opinion) for years.

It may have had an acceptable margin of error back in the days of Sanford & Son, but today we're talking millions of dollars! 

Now, in order to fix a system which has been the accepted industry standard for generations, you are talking about doing some major changes – and getting the networks to agree on how to fix them. So the networks either continue to use a system which they’ve become dependent on (even tough it doesn't accurately represent their viewing audience), or close their eyes and “use the Force”. 

Perhaps I wasn’t being clear in my previous post. This was the point that I wanted to emphasize. Regardless of our misunderstanding, I don’t believe we are in disagreement.

In any case, I hope that the days of Nielsen Media Research and AC Nielsen are over. Thanks to the miracles of technology, we (the average fan) have short-circuited the system. Now, with the advent of the internet, fans can rally together (in the cases of Farscape and Firefly) and voice their opinions directly to the networks if our favorite programs are in danger of being yanked due to poor numbers. 

Network executives are trained to look at polling information. Based on what that information tells them, they make a decision on whether a particular program is profitable based on the amount of revenue it can generate. They are simply not trained to deal with massive fan-based movements. And I think it scares the crap out of them!

At the very least, I hope it wakes them up to the fact that the ratings system that they use is broken. But then I’m not a network exec. If I were, I'd probably be worried more about my own shows, or the competition's new fall lineup than things like fixing the ratings system.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 19, 2003)

Whodat[/i][b]
Perhaps I wasn’t being clear in my previous post. This was the point that I wanted to emphasize. Regardless of our misunderstanding said:


> * Networks go through a lot of effort trying to find out how many people watch certain programs at certain times. *




Now you say:


			
				Whodat said:
			
		

> * Ah, but the networks DON'T spend a lot of time, effort, or money trying to find out what their viewers watch. *




While these statements are used to support different points, they are themselves mutually exclusive, as written.  You expect us to not get confused by that?


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 19, 2003)

More Neilsen griping? Okay, I will take a shot at it one more time:

1) They do not watch 5000 homes.  They watch 30,000. 5,000 of that is a more permanant setting, while 25,000 is floating.

2) The claim that Neilsen is flawed in a manner that HURTS THE SHOWS YOU LIKE is itself flawed.  It is a 50-50 chance that they are over-representing the shows you like.  In fact, I would say the odds are even worse than that - that the sci-fi shows you like have more fanatical viewers with boxes than other shows, and that more Neilsen viewers are leaving the TVs on during a sci-fi show, even if they are not at home, to intentionally artificially increased the numbers for that show than they would for, say, a game show or talk show or court show (or something like John Edwards).  Let's face it, you have no idea what would happen if the ratings became more accurate - it could mean the end of Sci-Fi.

3) This idea that you subscribe to shows directly is just silly.  Take the shows mentioned - they don't even have 2 million viewers even with wide exposure and not charging for it. Do you think it would get more viewers if you have to pay to view it the first time?  I really think all this talk about converting to a public television system is naive.  It is lovely in theory, but in practice it has no commonality with reality.


----------



## Villano (Jan 19, 2003)

Umbran said:
			
		

> *For Villano:
> 
> I'll approach your "secondly" first.  Turn on most of your cable channels.  Don't you see the commercials there?  Most cable programming is still paid for by commercials, not by paying your monthly cable bills.*




I certainly agree that networks make most of their money from commercials.  I said as much during my earlier post.  However, I was responding to your statement that "people are griping about something for which they've paid nothing more than waiting for the commercials to end".  My Direct TV bill is certainly more than nothing. 



> Whoever said that I wanted or expected this notion to change the TV landscape?  I don't care about the landscape as a whole.  I'm only concerned with getting a couple of shows on the air.




The idea of introducing a system to keep shos on the air that would normally be cancelled would indeed change the landscape of tv.  You forget that, if the system is implemented, there will be many more people other than you trying to keep their "couple of shows" on the air.

Suddenly, instead of just Firefly and Farscape still being on the air, you have a hundred potential other shows trying to fill a limited number of timeslots.  And ratings would still be the deciding factor in which shows stay and which go.  



> The networks can go ahead and keep their ratings systems.  This notion works _within_ the system.  They go ahead and figure out the ratings, and thus the value of advertising time during the show in the normal way.  By reducing the cost the network has to pay for the show to near zero, we make it profitable even if the ratings are low.




Okay, first, if this system was in effect, there would be many, many shows using it.  Now following that, a network would still rather run a "free" series that garnered more ratings than one that didn't, meaning that there's no guarantee that Firefly would even make it then.

Actually, you don't really have to look to far to see proof of what I say.  Every year, the networks spend millions upon millions on pilots which never see the light of day.  There are even entire series that are shot which are locked away in vaults and will never air.

Now, with the money already spent on these things, why don't the networks take these shows and air them anyway?  Because they feel that they won't recieve good ratings and, hence, can't get a good advertising rate.

Think about it.  It isn't even a matter of getting a free show.  They already spent the money on it.  They are willing to take a million dollar loss rather than air it.  They won't even dump it in late, late night timeslots because they will get more money from infommercials.

Fox even has those last, what is it, 3 episodes of Firefly which have been shot?  Money already spent which they don't even want to attempt to recoup by airing.  Plus they also bought 2 or 3 more scripts.



> As for the investors not wanting profit - people have been investing in public TV for decades, without expecting any profit or creative control.  People have been paying for HBO without such expectations.  Why should this be all that different?




Because, what you are describing is different from PBS and HBO.  First, most of the money you give to PBS goes to buying already produced series.

Secondly, with the premium channels, you are paying to gain access to additional channels.  It's like an extension of your cable bill.  Sure, those networks produce their own shows (although most of their business, I suspect, comes from theatrical movies), but the ratings still determine what they cancell.

If The Sopranos bombed its first season, no ammount of money you gave to HBO would bring it back.

What you are really descibing is a sort of limited partnership or a stock.  You aren't just giving money to watch a show, you are giving money to *produce* a specific show.

Actually, there is an example in real life that sort of mirrors this; WWE (formerly the WWF). 

You can buy stocks in the company and the company, among other things, produces several weekly wrestling tv series.

Granted, the investors can't tell Vince McMahon how to book his shows (considering how crappy they've been lately and how many fans are complaining, this is obvious).

However, stockholders still would like to see some return on their investment.

Ignoring those people and focusing on just those who bought stock just becuase they enjoy wrestling, they can still show their feeling by selling shares (causing the stock to lower).  And since you can now buy WWE stock for the change you find in your couch, they may already have.

Okay, it's not really a great example, but it's the closest I can find.



> All I'm saying is the we could put our money where our mouths are.  If we really like a show that badly, wouldn't it be worth a measly $22 bucks a year to be able to see it?




I suppose it would.  I'm just saying that the system really wouldn't work nor would it guarantee that the shows you want to see would make it to air.

That said, I'd buy a direct to video Firefly series.  If Joss wanted to try it, there may be a market for it (I mean, look at how many people buy direct to video anime series).


----------



## Umbran (Jan 19, 2003)

Again, it seems I've got two people to respond to.  

Mistwell:

Sorry, but you're speculating as much as the rest of us.   Unless you've got actual data, your "50-50 chance that they are over-representing" carries little to no weight.  Sorry.  Your contention that there aren't two million viewers out there is dependant upon the Neilsen ratings beign correct - they are the only measure we currently have. However, since we question that system too, we won't eagerly accept your contention that there aren't enough people.

And, even if there aren't quite as many viewers as I think - that only means the price for each goes up a bit.  So you pay $2 per person per episode, rather than one.  That's still less per hour than movie rentals in major metropolitan areas.

Villano:

Your direct TV bill may not be nothing, but IMHO you err in what you think you're paying for.  You aren't paying for the shows.  You're paying for a particular method of delivering the shows to your house.  In that bill you're paying for a delivery system, not the thing being delivered.  If you were paying for the actual shows, you should be up in arms about all the darned commercials 

I disagree that there'd be lots of other people trying to bring back cancelled shows using the method I describe.  You don't see massive letter-writing campaigns and 10,000 signatures in 24 hours on internet petitions over most shows.  

I said this before, but you seem more to ignore it than to counter it - This sort of thing wouldn't be used by most folk, simply because their TV wants are already met.  There are loads of sitcomes, prime-time dramas, and so on.  If one goes off the air, there's always another.  People who like them feel little pressure, because they can find something else to their liking when a show leaves the air.  The same cannot be said for sci-fi fans. 

That's the crux of it - sci-fi fans have _repeatedly_ shown that they feel the need to make a stink over losing beloved shows, where you don't see the same thing each time a cop-show gets cancelled.  That indicates that there's something _different_ here.  Something that may require a different approach.

As for unshown episodes of Firely - we don't yet have confirmation that they will not air the episodes.  Only that they don't yet have them on the schedule.   In considering airing them, there's more than simple "the money is already gone" to consider.

One thing to consider is the fact that if you choose to show those episodes, you'll extend the period over which the fans will gripe about the cancellation.  There's something to be said for simply dropping it so that the letters and e-mails and phone calls that disrupt their day go away more quickly.  Remember, the time required to process them is money.  

There's also the possibility of corporate politics entering into the equation.  We can speculate on that to our heart's content, but have nothing solid.  We should remember, though, that while the general policies may pretty much depend on the bottom line, certain details (like if a few last episodes air or not) may be due to other influences.


----------



## Villano (Jan 19, 2003)

Umbran said:
			
		

> *Your direct TV bill may not be nothing, but IMHO you err in what you think you're paying for.  You aren't paying for the shows.  You're paying for a particular method of delivering the shows to your house.  In that bill you're paying for a delivery system, not the thing being delivered.  If you were paying for the actual shows, you should be up in arms about all the darned commercials *




But my point was that people are paying money to watch and as such do have a right to complain about the system that determines what shows tey can watch.

Otherwise, only people who own stock in Fox could complain. 



> I disagree that there'd be lots of other people trying to bring back cancelled shows using the method I describe.  You don't see massive letter-writing campaigns and 10,000 signatures in 24 hours on internet petitions over most shows.




That's because aside from Star Trek and a very few other shows, petitions don't work.  People view it as a waste of time, and, sadly, it is. 



> I said this before, but you seem more to ignore it than to counter it - This sort of thing wouldn't be used by most folk, simply because their TV wants are already met.  There are loads of sitcomes, prime-time dramas, and so on.  If one goes off the air, there's always another.  People who like them feel little pressure, because they can find something else to their liking when a show leaves the air.  The same cannot be said for sci-fi fans.




I didn't ignore it, but thought my views were expressed elsewhere in my post.  If this system is put in place (fans can put up money to put a show back into production), it stands to reason that others will use it in order to start production of a tv show.

Think about it.  Firefly is gone.  However, James Cameron says, "I liked that show.  In fact, I want to do my own space western.  Who wants to donate some money to see it made?"  Most of those Firefly fans would put up their money for that. 

There are a great many people who have ideas for series that won't get made because they don't have any backing.  If money became available to them, they'd jump at making it themselves and handing over a finished product to a network.

Another factor to consider is who ended the show.  Friends will (eventually) be cancelled because the people associated with the show want to cease operations.  That's the same reason the MTV cartoon Daria was cancelled.  Both could still pull in the ratings.

Also, popular shows usually outlive their welcome.  By the time they are cancelled, people are sick of them.  Usually, by this point, the quality has totally dropped off.  Look at The Simpsons.  I don't think that that show has been good in years.  

X-Files is another example.  A great many people were relieved went that was cancelled because it became almost painful to watch how far the quality had fallen.

Eventually, Survivor will go when the audience leaves.



> That's the crux of it - sci-fi fans have _repeatedly_ shown that they feel the need to make a stink over losing beloved shows, where you don't see the same thing each time a cop-show gets cancelled.  That indicates that there's something _different_ here.  Something that may require a different approach.




The Cagney & Lacey cancellation launched a massive letter writing campaign.  If they cancelled NYPD Blue, I'm sure there'd also be a campaign.  

And, truthfully, you don't really know how many online petitons are out there for shows that have been cancelled.



> As for unshown episodes of Firely - we don't yet have confirmation that they will not air the episodes.  Only that they don't yet have them on the schedule.   In considering airing them, there's more than simple "the money is already gone" to consider.
> 
> One thing to consider is the fact that if you choose to show those episodes, you'll extend the period over which the fans will gripe about the cancellation.  There's something to be said for simply dropping it so that the letters and e-mails and phone calls that disrupt their day go away more quickly.  Remember, the time required to process them is money.
> 
> There's also the possibility of corporate politics entering into the equation.  We can speculate on that to our heart's content, but have nothing solid.  We should remember, though, that while the general policies may pretty much depend on the bottom line, certain details (like if a few last episodes air or not) may be due to other influences.




And you're ignoring what I said about all the other unseen pilots and episodes out there that are finished and sitting in a vault (Aren't there more Tick episodes?).

Do you get Bravo?  They ran a couple of specials about this.  One was Brilliant But Cancelled in which they talked about shows which were well done but didn't last.  Some were too edgy, others were ahead of their time.

They also did one on all the pilots and series that were never shown.  Admittedly, some looked so bad that I'm not surprised (The Man With The Power!).  Others were so strange, they could have been terrible or brilliant (The Tribe, which was an attempt to bring a Quest For Fire type series to the screen comes to mind).

Ultimately, that's millions in lost income for the networks every year.  Granted, it used to be that a very few of the pilot movies are repackaged and shown theatrically overseas, but I'm not sure if they even do that anymore.

In the end, they have fully finished products that no one will ever see.

And unless there's something specific in Joss' contract, I doubt that we will ever see them (unless they dump them, unadvertised, mid-afternoon on a Sunday).

From what I saw in one interview, one of the directors said that Joss was committed to putting the episodes aready shot out on dvd.  That's something, at least.

Maybe if all the people who were willing to pay that money in the system you proposed instead bought the dvds, it would show Joss that there is a market for a direct-to-video series.  And you could sell the series as a tv series overseas.

So, buy those Firefly dvds!


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 20, 2003)

Umbran said:
			
		

> *Again, it seems I've got two people to respond to.
> 
> Mistwell:
> 
> ...




Umbran, are you being intentionally obtuse? 

We have no data on how accurate the Neilsen rating system is. It could be over representing or under representing.  You have offered no reason as to why it would tend to under represent sci-fi (though I offered at least one reason, speculation though it is, as to why it might over represent them). So, given we have no data, YOU STAND A 50-50 CHANCE.  How are the odds, without data, anything OTHER than 50-50? It's a flip of the coin as to whether the number is higher or lower than what Neilsen says it is - and you insist that somehow the flaw in the system should go to the advantage of sci-fi shows? Why? How does that have any basis in logic?


----------



## Rahkan (Jan 20, 2003)

I haven't read the entire thread but I gather that most of you liked Firefly. I personally am not in the majority opinion here. I tried to like it, I watched it several times each time with the firm intention of liking it. But it plainly made no sense to me, it was hard to pick up, and the dialogue and plot were boring. I even prefer Voyager to what I say. I am glad it has been cancelled.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 20, 2003)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> *Umbran, are you being intentionally obtuse? *




Nope.  I admit to the rather speculative nature of my position.  I'm simply trying to point out that you cannot beat speculation with more speculation.  If you actually want us to shut up about Neilsen ratings, you'll need to give us something more solid than what we already have.



> *You have offered no reason as to why it would tend to under represent sci-fi (though I offered at least one reason, speculation though it is, as to why it might over represent them). *




Actually, I have, though I didn't point it out as such.  Sci-fi fans have repeatedly felt the need to make a big stink about cancellations.  Assuming some basics about mass psychology (that sci-fi fans really aren't that much more rabid than any other viewer, on the whole), we get the implication that if there's so many who are making a stink, then there's lots more who aren't.  



> *So, given we have no data, YOU STAND A 50-50 CHANCE.  How are the odds, without data, anything OTHER than 50-50? It's a flip of the coin as to whether the number is higher or lower than what Neilsen says it is *




Here I'll be picky, rather than obteuse - our "chance of guessing correctly" would only be 50-50 if there were only two possibilities, and we were guessing in complete ignorance, at random.  That's not the case here.

For one thing, there's more than two possibilities - You may be right, I may be right, and many, many shades of neither or both of us are correct in some sense.  

For another, we are not guessing at random.  We are basing our positions off of some observed evidence followed by some reasoning.  Our "chance" is then based upon how valid our observations are, and how closely our reasoning follows reality.

In the end, though, this doesn't matter.  Since when is being less than 100% sure ever been a barrier to making a suggestion or attempting something new?  Bigger things than TV shows have been built on lesser odds.


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 20, 2003)

Umbran said:
			
		

> *Actually, I have, though I didn't point it out as such.  Sci-fi fans have repeatedly felt the need to make a big stink about cancellations.  Assuming some basics about mass psychology (that sci-fi fans really aren't that much more rabid than any other viewer, on the whole), we get the implication that if there's so many who are making a stink, then there's lots more who aren't.  *




The reasons for sci-fi fans being more vocal than non-sci-fi fans have been well documented, but I will briefly repeat them.  

1) Sci-fi fans are also more computer literate and more internet savy (and yes, I can back that up with lot's of pretty rock solid statistics, there are a HUGE number of sci-fi fans active on the internet than disproportionate to their numbers).  The organization for all these protest movements has all taken place through the internet. It is only natural that such protest movements would therefore be bigger;

2) Sci-fi fans stick up for one another more than fans of other genres (like I did, by writing numerous letters to executives about the cancellation of Farscape despite the fact that I don't actually watch Farscape);

3) Pychologically I think you can show that sci-fi fans are much more rabid than fans of other genres based on the tendancy of sci-fi fans to view themselves as social outcasts more often and therefore more apt to obsess over what social structures they do embrace in their life.

4) Sci-fi shows are more serialized in nature, which means that anyone who is still watching it near the end of the show has a lot invested in the show, and a lot more to loose when the show gets cancelled (not being able to see how it all turns out).  Therefore, they will be more vocal than shows which are generally not serialized (and there are more non-sci-fi shows that are not serialized).

Anyway, my point is that the number of vocal sci-fi fans bears no relation to the overall viewers of sci-fi shows. I believe because of the nature of sci-fi, and the people it attracts, you will naturally have a more vocal audience than other genres.



> Here I'll be picky, rather than obteuse - our "chance of guessing correctly" would only be 50-50 if there were only two possibilities, and we were guessing in complete ignorance, at random.  That's not the case here.For one thing, there's more than two possibilities - You may be right, I may be right, and many, many shades of neither or both of us are correct in some sense.




You are incorrect.  Here are the possibilities:

1) The Neilsen ratings are underrepresenting the ratings for Firefly;
2) The Nelisen ratings are exactly correct for the ratings for Firefly;
3) The Neilsen ratings are overrepresenting the ratings for Firefly.

That's it.  There are not other possibilities.  And since we both agree for purposes of this discussion that the Neilsen ratings are flawed in some way (and if you did not admit that, then there is no disucssion), then it really is a 50-50 chance that it is either over or under representing the viewers for the show. That's it. This is not a shades of gray question.



> For another, we are not guessing at random.  We are basing our positions off of some observed evidence followed by some reasoning.  Our "chance" is then based upon how valid our observations are, and how closely our reasoning follows reality.




Everything you have said aboud how vocal sci-fi fans are, and that I have said about why that vocalization bears no relation to the number of fans and actually the rabidness of the fans would increase the Neilsen ratings aritifically for sci-fi shows, is pure speculation. We really are guessing at random.  Neither of us has sufficient data to even come up with a correlation. We are just fans with opinions.  So, again, we are back to 50-50.



> In the end, though, this doesn't matter.  Since when is being less than 100% sure ever been a barrier to making a suggestion or attempting something new?  Bigger things than TV shows have been built on lesser odds.




My whole point is that you should be a LOT more sure about your claim that the Neilsen ratings are under representing the number of sci-fi viewers before you "fix" the Neilsens.  You very well may result in a new system that cuts out all sci-fi as we know it, as opposed to just a few shows here and there.  You do not have enough data to take such a risk on behalf of all sci-fi fans.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 20, 2003)

*Re: Re: You know Mistwell....*



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> *
> 
> You do know that BBC America is NOT publically funded, right?
> 
> I am a big fan of So Graham Norton. Cracker is good too. *




I thought BBC America was just a programming package sold to US cable/satelite companies. An extension of the BBC practice of selling individual shows to American PBS stations. I assumed the content on BBC America was standard issue BBC programming, at least partially publically funded.

My parents get BBC America, unfortunately I don't {I catch coupling on PBS}. Is Cracker the Robbie Coltrane show?


----------



## Umbran (Jan 21, 2003)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> *1) Sci-fi fans are also more computer literate and more internet savy (and yes, I can back that up with lot's of pretty rock solid statistics...*




Then do so.  Until you provide data and attribution, I'm sorry to say your claim is still classified as hearsay.  Asserting that you've seen a thing is not the same as actually presenting said thing.  

*sigh*  Discussions on the whole would go more smoothly if people would simply remember the simple rule - show, don't tell.  If you've got proof, don't spend time saying you have it.  Just deliver it and be done.  



> *
> 4) Sci-fi shows are more serialized in nature, which means that anyone who is still watching it near the end of the show has a lot invested in the show...*




The contention that sci-fi is more serialized in nature doesn't hold up well.  The modern prime time drama is pretty serialized - stop watching ER for a while, you get lost.  A large draw for some reality shows are their serial nature - watching the progression of the internal politics/interactions over time.

Some Sci-fi shows are serial, but interestingly, the best rated ones - Star Trek shows, are highly episodic.  As were a number of shows lost during or at the end of their first seasons - GvsE, Brimstone, Crusade, and Firefly were all pretty much episodic at the time they were canned.

This point #4 really only applies to B5 and Farscape, really.  They're the only recent long-run shows that were threatened with extinction.  Mostly, though, we're talking about shows killed at or before roughtly the 24th episode - while they are still "1st season.  Not that much had yet been invested, and so folks didn't have much to lose.  But there was still organized resistance for all of them.



> *
> You are incorrect.  Here are the possibilities:
> 
> 1) The Neilsen ratings are underrepresenting the ratings for Firefly;
> ...




That'd be all well in good, if my original contention was about Firefly, specifically.  I believe if you re-read, you'll find that I've mentioned a belief that Neilsen ratings are inaccurate - meaning that I suspect they undercount sci-fi/fantasy viewers _in general_.  I also noted that I don't think this is certain.  Nor did I specifically claim that Firefly is inaccurately reported.  Given my general contention, the myriad possibilities still exist.  Some shows may get undercounted, some overcounted, for different reasons.  The end average may still be undercounting.



> *My whole point is that you should be a LOT more sure about your claim that the Neilsen ratings are under representing the number of sci-fi viewers before you "fix" the Neilsens.  *




Now, Mistwell, I really, really must ask you to _pay attention_.  

I haven't suggested any "fix" for the Neilsen rating system.  In fact, I speciifcally stated, "The networks can go ahead and keep their ratings systems. This notion works within the system."  Elsewhere, I have even gone so far as to argue against a repeatedly mentioned "fix" for the system (using TiVo boxes as rating-meters).

You really do have to be a bit more careful.  You'll find it hard to convince a person you are correct when you don't even keep straight which position they hold.


----------



## Daiymo (Jan 21, 2003)

Rahkan said:
			
		

> *I haven't read the entire thread but I gather that most of you liked Firefly. I personally am not in the majority opinion here. I tried to like it, I watched it several times each time with the firm intention of liking it. But it plainly made no sense to me, it was hard to pick up, and the dialogue and plot were boring. I even prefer Voyager to what I say. I am glad it has been cancelled. *




I certainly respect your opinion Rahkan. I didnt like the first couple of episodes-some of it was a bit slowish for me, and there was much I didn't know why it was going on. As time went on it grew on me(or rather I should say, the characters grew on me). The only quibble I had was that the main obstacle that the group had to overcome each week was the "someone got shot far away from the proper medical attention" quandry. Or at least it seemed like that.

However, I think my initial confusion and Rahkan's( and the countless masses that perhaps tried the show, but gave up slightly confused) could have been lessened if Fox had PLAYED THE PILOT FIRST!!! Sorry for the Caps  I mean, I still dont understand the wisdom of just throwing the series out there, essentially in midstream, without giving us some setup and context, which the pilot(shown last, after the show had been cancelled) did. 

IMHO, you may argue demographics and economics of TV, but I think it just comes down to the fact FOX half heartedly supported the show, shuffled it and preempted it and really never gave it too much support. Even their ad campaign touting  the show totally misreprented the show IMHO, and made it seem like a completely different show than it really was.

Geez..


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 21, 2003)

Umbran said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Then do so.  Until you provide data and attribution, I'm sorry to say your claim is still classified as hearsay.  Asserting that you've seen a thing is not the same as actually presenting said thing.
> 
> *sigh*  Discussions on the whole would go more smoothly if people would simply remember the simple rule - show, don't tell.  If you've got proof, don't spend time saying you have it.  Just deliver it and be done.  *



*

If you PROMISE that, if proof is provided, you will concede on this discussion and drop it, then I will go get the proof.  Otherwise, it would be futile - I would be wasting my precious hours digging up info just so you can say "I need more, that doesn't persuade me". Deal?




			The contention that sci-fi is more serialized in nature doesn't hold up well.  The modern prime time drama is pretty serialized - stop watching ER for a while, you get lost.  A large draw for some reality shows are their serial nature - watching the progression of the internal politics/interactions over time.
		
Click to expand...



I feel the percentage of sci-fi shows that are serialized is higher than non-sci-fi shows in a material way. Sure, there are episodic and serialied shows in all genres. I just think sci-fi has a significanltly higher perecentage than other genres.




			That'd be all well in good, if my original contention was about Firefly, specifically.  I believe if you re-read, you'll find that I've mentioned a belief that Neilsen ratings are inaccurate - meaning that I suspect they undercount sci-fi/fantasy viewers in general.  I also noted that I don't think this is certain.  Nor did I specifically claim that Firefly is inaccurately reported.
		
Click to expand...



If you think your own arguement is not valid for Firefly...then why did you bring it up in THIS thread?




			Now, Mistwell, I really, really must ask you to pay attention.
		
Click to expand...



Please don't be rude. That's the second time you have accused me of not paying sufficient attention to what you say, and you were wrong the first time so I would think you would be a bit mor polite about it the second time.  We are having a discussion.  We are going point by point, through dozens of points.  If someone misses one thing, or misinterprets one thing, it doesn't mean they were not paying attention to what you were saying.  Please be polite.




			I haven't suggested any "fix" for the Neilsen rating system.  In fact, I speciifcally stated, "The networks can go ahead and keep their ratings systems. This notion works within the system."  Elsewhere, I have even gone so far as to argue against a repeatedly mentioned "fix" for the system (using TiVo boxes as rating-meters).
		
Click to expand...



You've said this however "If the system is broken now, it has been so for years. If the networks really were making a good faith effort to fix it, then it would have gotten fixed. They've had the money and the time, if they really wished to apply it." 
So by implication you feel the system should have been "fixed", but that it hasn't been for nefarious reasons.  You then went on to discuss a method of eliminating the ratings system entirely through public television (how this eliminates the system I still don't know, since you would think public television would still want to show things that the most number of people would want to watch, and therefore would want to use Neilsen also).  That appeared to be your "fix".  If I am wrong about that, then so be it. But my being wrong didn't come from a lack of attention to what you have said. 




			You really do have to be a bit more careful.  You'll find it hard to convince a person you are correct when you don't even keep straight which position they hold.
		
Click to expand...



More unecessary rudeness, and the second time you have taken such an extreme sarcastic stance.  If this is going to continue, then I think the conversation should end here.  I'm all in favor of a civil discussion, but not if you are going to get all catty.*


----------



## Umbran (Jan 21, 2003)

Sorry, folks, but this one will be long...



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> *If you PROMISE that, if proof is provided, you will concede on this discussion and drop it, then I will go get the proof. *




You want me to promise ahead of time that I will be convinced by your data?  That's buying a pig in a poke.  No deal.  
I can promise to review the data you submit with an open mind.  I will not agree to call it proof before seeing it, knowing who gathered it, and how.



> *I feel the percentage of sci-fi shows that are serialized is higher than non-sci-fi shows in a material way. *




Fine.  I disagree.  I feel the number of serialized shows in sci-fi is about the same as in other grenres.  Unless we're going to sit down and define "serialized" and "sci-fi show" in depth, so that we could actually take a count, we shall have to remain in disagreement. I personally don't feel the point is so important as to go to the bother.



> *If you think your own arguement is not valid for Firefly...then why did you bring it up in THIS thread?*




I have not decided if Firefly was undercounted or not.  
I wasn't the one who brought up undercounting, or the idea that the Neilsen's were broken.  I discussed the topic - and stated my uncertainty - because someone else mentioned it.  Topics do drift, you know. 



> *That's the second time you have accused me of not paying sufficient attention to what you say, and you were wrong the first time so I would think you would be a bit mor polite about it the second time.*




As for the rest - from where I sit, I was not wrong the first time.  I mentioned "maximally funded public TV".  I stated that I disagree with your position that maximally funded public TV is mutually exclusive with extensive corporate TV, and gave basic support for that position.  You still insist that I have a plan to eliminate the ratings system through public TV, though I have no such thing, and have already stated multiple times that I feel corporate TV and ratings systems can stay in place.  That is at the very best you misreading me gravely.  



> *Please be polite.*




Right.  I'm sorry, but since impoliteness wasn't my intent, I feel a bit put out by the accusation.  As I'm only human, I will vent my frustration in a single bout of peevishness - I wasn't the one who first thought laughing in all capital letters was an appropriate technique in polite discussion.  Pot, kettle.  People in glass houses, plank from your own eye, hoist with your own petard, Golden Rule, and all that.  You're in a poor position to take umbrage at sarcasm, sir, since you already used it yourself.  Thus endeth my peevishness.



> *You've said this however "If the system is broken now, it has been so for years. If the networks really were making a good faith effort to fix it, then it would have gotten fixed. They've had the money and the time, if they really wished to apply it."
> So by implication you feel the system should have been "fixed", but that it hasn't been for nefarious reasons.  You then went on to discuss a method of eliminating the ratings system entirely through public television (how this eliminates the system I still don't know, since you would think public television would still want to show things that the most number of people would want to watch, and therefore would want to use Neilsen also).  That appeared to be your "fix".  If I am wrong about that, then so be it. But my being wrong didn't come from a lack of attention to what you have said.*




(For the readers at home, I made the post Mistwell is quoting on January 19th.)

First, you choose a very interesting place from which to take a quote.  Earlier in the very same paragraph, I state, "_While I'm not certain, I can accept the notion that the Neilsen system is 'broken'.._".  An explicit statement that I am not sure whether the system is accurate preceeds your inference in the vary same paragraph, but you seem to ignore it.

Second, there is no implication of which you speak.  You seem to ignore the presence of the big two-letter word - *if*.  I speak about what is likely true _if_ the system is broken.  I fully leave open the possibility that the system isn't broken - but that case is trivial, uninteresting, and wasn't the topic of discussion at the moment.  Not addressing the "not broken" option explicitly does not consititute a statement that I believe the system is broken.

Third, there are many ways to fail to make a good faith attempt at things.  Nefariousness is one.  But incompetance, casual disregard, and difference of opinion are also possibilities.  There are others, as well.  I made no claim or implication that skulduggery was afoot.  That comes only from you.

Fourth, I never presented public television as a method of eliminating the ratings system.  I presented public TV as what it has traditionally been in the USA - a way to see a show that wouldn't survive the cutthroat world of corporate TV and the whims of the broad viewing public.  I presented publicly funded production of a way to make a poorly rated show profitable for corporate channels, explicitly stating that it happens within the rating system.  This "Umbran wants to eliminate corporate TV and the Neilsen system" is a boogeyman created in your own head, which I have tried to dispel repeatedly, with rational support.  But you maintain it despite my protestations.

So, you are wrong about many things here.  Do you wish to explain this rather substantial list of failures to correctly characterize and read my position?  It's a bit too much, and too deep, and too concentrated to explain away as the occasional slip-up.  

I'm afraid the only reasonable thing I can guess is that you've become so heated in your defense of "the system" that you no longer pay much attention to what's being said.  It happens occasionally, no big deal.  My recent reminder to you to pay closer attention was intended to get you to look beyond your own heated temper, to see that I am not the target you think I am.


----------

