Ok, did I miss something? Why didn't another network pick up Firefly? by LetoV

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Ok, did I miss something? Why didn't another network pick up Firefly?

POSTED BY: LETOV
UPDATED: Sunday, December 26, 2004 20:26
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4654
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, December 24, 2004 5:36 AM

Here's the question that bothers me the most and that I've never heard what sounded like a serious answer to.

Has there been any indication from Joss, Tim, et al as to why Firefly wasn't picked up by another network?

Just about everyone I introduce to Firefly asks why it didn't end up continuing on the Sci-Fi channel or somewhere else for that matter. To this I have no answer. Anybody?

- Leto_V

"Well, my days of not taking you
seriously are certainly coming to
a middle." - Mal

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

Friday, December 24, 2004 6:24 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

It is my not so reliable opinion that FOX continues to hold onto any and all rights for the t.v. adaptation of Firefly . The folks who saw it as a major waste of network $$ and a ratings liability and were so eager to pull the plug on this show yet are still unwilling to let those rights go and potentially allow another studio make $$ off of 'their' product.

This is why we likely won't see a return to t.v., no matter how popular the movies turn out.

you, FOX.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

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

Friday, December 24, 2004 8:04 AM

NYWOE

If I remember correctly (and I may not), I think Joss shopped it around, but no other networks were willing to take it. It was probably an expensive show to produce, and it acheived relatively low ratings while on Fox. (True, this had more to do with poor advertising than anything, but how do you convince the networks of that?)

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

Friday, December 24, 2004 8:25 AM

SERGEANTX

Actually, Fox was fine with Joss shopping it to other networks, which he did relentlessly. The question you've asked was THE question on this board for most of 2003. I don't remember an answer that made much sense.

Personally I just think it's because network executive types are cowards who are either unable to recognize genius or have no faith that viewers will respond to it. There may have been other reasons we aren't privy to. Some of the cast and crew have made guarded comments suggesting that certain powerful industry people sought so squash Firefly for unknown reasons. But that does lean toward the paranoid.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

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

Friday, December 24, 2004 8:30 AM

KRAD

The reason why nobody picked it up is because nobody wanted to take a flyer on a very expensive show that did poorly in the ratings. Sci-Fi wasn't going to go anywhere near it, because it's way out of their budget range.

TV networks are businesses, not charities. They're not in the business of "recognizing genius," they're in the business of making profit, and they didn't see any way they could profit on Firefly. Fox could've, if they'd left well enough alone, but they didn't, and that pretty much ruined the show as a show. So Joss took it to another medium.

The really ironic thing is that, while it was very expensive for television, it's actually fairly cheap for a movie....

Keith R.A. DeCandido
keith@decandido.net
www.DeCandido.net | www.AlbeShiloh.com
www.livejournal.com/~kradical

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

Friday, December 24, 2004 8:40 AM

CARDIE

Space-based, futuristic science fiction is always one of the toughest sales in television. It's much more expensive, what with VFX and the creation of futuristic worlds and spaceship sets. Only the Star Trek shows, with their brand-name franchise and immense ancillary revenues have been able to stay on a broadcast network, UPN, and that's only after years in syndication and on a "minor" network where ratings expectations are much lower. Now even UPN is having trouble justifying the continued expenditure on Enterprise, with its anemic ratings.

The only viable venues for this sort of SF, since the splintering of the television marketplace, have been pay cable networks and the dwindling first-run syndication market, but they have routinely saved money on production costs by moving to Canada. Vancouver is currently the SF capital of North American tv production.

I'm betting that no broadcast network would take a risk on a costly show that probably with the best promotion wouldn't have attracted more than four or five million viewers. The appeal of this sort of SF has always been limited to a cult audience. I don't know if there was unwillingness to go the Stargate-New Battlestar Galactica route to make it palatable for cable by moving the production and reducing the number of American performers to satisfy "Canadian content" regulations. Firefly would have had one advantage in that Nathan and Jewel are Canadian.

So I'm not surprised other networks didn't pick up Firefly. I think it's greatest chance would have been on UPN, but Paramount wasn't about to host a competitor for the Trek franchise.

Cardie

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

Friday, December 24, 2004 8:53 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by KRAD:
TV networks are businesses, not charities. They're not in the business of "recognizing genius," they're in the business of making profit, and they didn't see any way they could profit on Firefly.

This is the argument that's always put forth in defense of the networks. But I think it's something of a smokescreen. The fact is they can make money from recognizing genius. In the long run they'll make more money doing that than sticking with the sure thing. It takes guts and skill, of course, and that's what I'm calling them on.

The current state of the networks rewards short term gain at the expense of more lasting quality programming. I think that's because of short sighted execs and lazy, non-discriminating viewers, not something inherent in the profit motive.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

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

Friday, December 24, 2004 10:30 AM

TRAGICSTORY

If I remember correctly, the two best choices were Sci-Fi & UPN. Sci-Fi had just finished investing in numerous shows and was "out of speculative cash" and UPN didn't have the $ to continue it along with the Fox/Universal rivalry.

I think that was what we agreed on.

-----------
"Societies are supported by human activity, therefore they are constantly threatened by the human facts of self-intrest and stupidity." --Peter Berger

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

Friday, December 24, 2004 9:22 PM

KRAD

Quote:
This is the argument that's always put forth in defense of the networks. But I think it's something of a smokescreen. The fact is they can make money from recognizing genius. In the long run they'll make more money doing that than sticking with the sure thing. It takes guts and skill, of course, and that's what I'm calling them on.

First of all, what gives you the notion that I'm defending anything? I'm just explaining.

Yes, they can make money from recognizing genius. But they most likely won't. That's simply because most TV shows fail.

In addition, the standards for success on Fox are much higher than they are for UPN or the WB (which are, in turn, higher than they are for syndication and cable). In order to succeed on Fox, Firefly had to reach a much wider audience than Joss's two previous shows.

Unfortunately, they hired Joss Whedon without letting him be Joss Whedon. The first four episodes of Firefly that people saw were arguably the four worst of the 14 extant episodes, with "The Train Job" being a simply awful introduction to the series, one that did not showcase Joss's strengths as a writer, nor properly introduce the setting.

By the time Fox cancelled the show, the damage was done. It was too expensive for a smaller network or cable, and it wasn't successful enough for a bigger network to take on. Joss's best recourse was to switch media.

In October, we'll have a good idea as to whether or not it worked.

Keith R.A. DeCandido
keith@decandido.net
www.DeCandido.net | www.AlbeShiloh.com
www.livejournal.com/~kradical

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

Saturday, December 25, 2004 12:12 AM

TLACOOK

I know that I may sound bitter but there are several years worth of threads just like this one.

Can no one point you to one?

Show was cancelled, no other network would pick up a cancelled show. We now get movies.

Moving on, people.

This is not directed at you, Keith.

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

Saturday, December 25, 2004 4:52 PM

SNIPER

Quote:
Originally posted by KRAD:
The reason why nobody picked it up is because nobody wanted to take a flyer on a very expensive show that did poorly in the ratings. Sci-Fi wasn't going to go anywhere near it, because it's way out of their budget range.

Is it really more expensive than SG-1 and Atlantis? Those shows must cost a lot, given the ammount of ammunition, CGI and set work that they use. Pity they won't drop Andromeda, they could have replaced it with Firefly no problem.

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

Saturday, December 25, 2004 6:55 PM

CARDIE

Those shows are filmed in Vancouver. Huge difference in what everything costs up there vs. LA.

Cardie

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

Saturday, December 25, 2004 7:18 PM

TLACOOK

It think several members of cast crew did not want to move to Vancouver. I know Adam was very against it since he is very close to his family and young children. Joss has a new young family also...

One of the reasons Xfiles died as early as it did is DD's unhappiness with being away from his wife and the craziness that followed.

Sometimes uprooting families is not cheaper than production costs.

Just sayin.

And if you live in LA...

Really really hard to consider moving to Vancouver for 9 months out of the year.

(Recent LAista transplanted from Seattle and will never regret the move.)

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

Sunday, December 26, 2004 7:49 AM

DANFAN

Are you the same tlacook that I've met over on the official board?

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

Sunday, December 26, 2004 12:13 PM

TLACOOK

The one and only. Can't you tell?

What is your nickname over there?

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

Sunday, December 26, 2004 7:29 PM

SNIPER

Quote:
Originally posted by tlacook:
It think several members of cast crew did not want to move to Vancouver. I know Adam was very against it since he is very close to his family and young children. Joss has a new young family also...

One of the reasons Xfiles died as early as it did is DD's unhappiness with being away from his wife and the craziness that followed.

Sometimes uprooting families is not cheaper than production costs.

Just sayin.

And if you live in LA...

Really really hard to consider moving to Vancouver for 9 months out of the year.

(Recent LAista transplanted from Seattle and will never regret the move.)

That would make more sense. I guess they also didn't want to film the planets as forests either.

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

Sunday, December 26, 2004 8:26 PM

TLACOOK

The plains and scrub of Santa Clarita is much warmer and more westernish, anyway.

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

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE