THE REASON NO ONE TALKS ABOUT

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

THE REASON NO ONE TALKS ABOUT - MONEY

POSTED BY: XED
UPDATED: Sunday, December 22, 2002 23:34
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2344
PAGE 1 of 1

Saturday, December 21, 2002 2:17 PM

THE CRAZY AUNT IN THE BASEMENT - MONEY

That wacky nutjob H. Ross Perot used to harp on "the crazy aunt in the basement" -- the big issue no one ever mentioned.
Y'know, it occurs to me that the crazy aunt in the basement of Firefly is...money.
Think about it.
A show like "Fear Factor," loathesome as it is, costs beans. Next to nothing. It's a dream come true. Just feed a girl some eels and use a hand-held Sony VX2000 to get close-ups of her face. *That's* cheap.
Now compare with Firefly.
You've got a Western/space show with location shoots using horses (a legendary way to burn through cash, espcieally with day out of days and the animal wrangler) PLUS CGI. Yet *another* way to burn through cash.
So Firefly requires two of the THE most costly procedures in network TV. Truck the cast out yonder to location with uncertain weather and unruly animals...plus ya gotta pay the boys at the SGI video engines to render and composite those CGI shots.
There's a reason why sitcoms clog the airwaves. They're dirt cheap. Slap together 3 walls, dolly up 4 cameras, call in the gaffers, dump 6 actors on the set and and ya got a show.
The average sitcom has got to cost max 1/10 of what Firefly cost.
Buffy the Vampire Slayer probably clocks in nearly as cheap as a sitcom -- everything's done on one big backlot, with the rare exception of location shoots (once in a blue moon, the episode where Buffy meets the orignal slayer, the episode where The First Evil convinces Angel to off himself).
True, Buffy's CGI shots do up the bill. That's why you don't always see the vampires turn to dust on-screen. Sometimes you only hear the sound effect. Costs, what? 8 grand per vamp? And John Vulich gets a pretty pennyf or those great latex masks -- but he deserves it.
Firefly has got to cost a *lot* more than that just for the CGI shots and compositing alone. (Think of the brief shot in the 2-hour pilot with Inara in her shuttle -- CGI plus compositing. God knows what that little scene cost just for CGI rednering.) Not to mention the giant Firefly cargo hold set, bnuilt from scratch. Buffy's Sunnyvale could be grabbed from some generic backlot -- not so Serenity.
It's the old problem the original Trek faced -- extra cost for all those optical shots (they called 'em "topicals" back in 1966) and exotic sets, but you don't necessarily get extra audience ratings for that extra expense.
Does this mean that science fiction on TV will find itself eternally behind the 8-ball, what with the added expense of CGI shots?
And remember all the weird props -- strange weapons custom-built by prop masters. Exotic consoles full of a million miles of wiring to make all those lights blink.
On a sitcom...three walls, 4 cameras. A bank of kleigs.
Man, no wonder TV sci-fit's a hard sell.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 21, 2002 3:31 PM

STRAYCAT

There is *some* truth in this.

But it doesn't explain why Fox invested so many millions in Firefly in the first place - and then to treat their investment so badly.

If what you say is the whole story, then why did Fox ever go for Firefly in the first place?

Oh - and an ep of Firefly generally costs a lot less than an ep of Buffy.

Andy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 21, 2002 5:45 PM

THELEFTHAND

Actually, I read somewhere that Firefly cost LESS than Buffy to make. I'm sure it's got to do with actors' salaries. Can someone point to a location where this information can be verified?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 21, 2002 6:00 PM

HKCAVALIER

You know, all these arguments about why Firefly failed just miss the boat as far as I can see. No one I know even heard of the show before I told them about it. I tend to read Entertainment Weekly religiously and there was the tiniest blurb about a wacky new sci-fi show and I tuned in and thought it was great. I have to admit that the fact that they respected the fact that sound cannot travel in a vacuum was enough for me to walk around for a couple weeks saying it was the best sci-fi show ever. I've got this pet peeve about wooshes and kabooms in the vacuum of space. But right away the writing and acting and the amazing CGI distinguished Firefly. And I went around telling everyone I knew to watch the show. There was one gal sitting at a play a row behind me who overheard me talking about it to my roommate. And she blurted out, "It's been canceled." And this was in October! I told her it was scheduled for a hiatus, etc. Then I went online and found out that several news gathering agencies were proclaiming the show cancelled. But the main thing here is that NO ONE I am aquainted with (inteligent, artsy-fartsy, media savvy folk all of them) had even HEARD of Firefly. The show was not advertised. That's what killed Firefly.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 21, 2002 7:17 PM

XED

Thanks for the info. I didn't know that Firefly actually cost *less* than Buffy per episode.
That makes it doubly baffling that Fox didn't get behind Firefly 100%.
It is completely incomphreneisble to me that Fox would spend all that money...then not advertise the heck out of the 2-hr pilot, or even *show* it.
That's what floors me!
Pay all the money to make a first-class ki8ller primo 2-hr pilot..then...NOT SHOW IT.
Amazing.
Just amazing.
I am as completely astounded by that as you are.
And, yes, now I think back on it...Firefly wasn't advertised very much. Saw only a few promos for it. No print ads come to mind.
By comparison, I'm just barely old enough to recall seeing a full-page ad in the newspaper for the premiere of the original Trek in '66.
Quite a difference in advertising.
Could that explain Trek TOS' survival for 3 years as oposed to Firefly absolutely undeserved demise...?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 22, 2002 11:34 PM

ZERO

Actor salaries; thats what usually takes up so much money in movies and popular tv series. There's no way that Buffy costs less than Firefly.

------------------------------------------
-=ZERO=-
Check me out on WinMX, I have all the episodes in SVCD format. Any Firefly fans get free starts, just msg me.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE