Fox To Public: We Screwed Up Firefly by BrownCoat

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Fox To Public: We Screwed Up Firefly

POSTED BY: BROWNCOAT
UPDATED: Sunday, February 2, 2003 16:48
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 17452
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, January 21, 2003 2:12 AM

http://tv.yahoo.com/news/ap/20030120/104308284000.html

Last few paragraphs are most interesting:

----

Last year, the News Corp.-owned network
staggered its fall launch, airing a few new shows fortwo weeks in September before pulling them off
the air in October to make room for baseball. Fox
then rolled out the remainder of its shows in
November, one of the most competitive months in
television.

As a result, Fox's new shows have been slow to
catch on, and two of the network's most heavily
promoted David E. Kelley's "Girls Club" and
Joss Whedon's "Firefly" already have been canceled.

****"This network is in a state of transition. It's rebuilding," Grushow said. "To put new shows on for two weeks and then take them off for four weeks for baseball is not a particularly effective launch strategy." ****

Instead, Fox will get a six-to-eight-week head
start over its network rivals, who plan to stick withtradition and introduce their new prime-time
programs in late September

---

I don't know about this bullcrap calling Firefly "heavily promoted". I only really knew about it because a friend of mine brought it to my attention.

I read about the reports of Gail Berman's relationship with Joss being strained at this point over the whole Firefly incident. Well guh! Did she smile while she twisted the dagger in his heart? Did she say "Hey, no hard feelings, right?" when Fox promised to give Firefly the full run of Decemeber, heavy promotion, and a new time slot, only to reneg not two weeks into the month? Didn't she pest after him for years to bring a show to Fox? And after he does, she kills it post-haste?

Yeah, I'd be a little bitter about it too. But Joss still has to keep working with these people. I'm not so sure I'd be able to do it myself, but he's probably a more laid back guy than me. :)

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

Tuesday, January 21, 2003 4:45 AM

LOSTANGEL

Unfortunately, they were big enough *this big=__* to admit that it didn't work, but not big enough to admit that they didn't even try.

And, this doesn't help us get our Firefly back on the air. I will think about Fox every time I watch my DVDs of Firefly, and everytime I hand over money when Joss pulls out his Crazy Ivan.

I will think of Fox and LAUGH!!

______________________
Lost Angel

WASH: Psychic, though? That sounds like something out of science fiction.
ZOE: We live in a space ship, dear.
WASH: So?

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

Tuesday, January 21, 2003 7:57 AM

BROWNCOAT1

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.

Fox Television Entertainment Chairman Sandy Grushow said:

Quote:
"This network is in a state of transition. It's rebuilding," Grushow said. "To put new shows on for two weeks and then take them off for four weeks for baseball is not a particularly effective launch strategy."

Well, all I can say is that at least she is big enough to admit that they screwed up. They preempt the show to try to snag some ratings w/ baseball ( I sport I do not at all care for ) and thanks to that "brilliant" (please note heavy sarcasm) tactic, the show gets cancelled.

Great job Fox. Keep up the horrible work. I am sure the other networks appreciate all your effort.

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

Tuesday, January 21, 2003 8:17 AM

ALLRONIX

And Fastlane...ye, Gods...

We lose Firefly and get "lesbian bank robbers" in return?

(wince)

Inara Sera has class, at least.

Co-founder of the Evil Writing Crew - causing hell, one hero at a time!

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

Tuesday, January 21, 2003 9:43 AM

DUNDEE

Quote:
"This network is in a state of transition. It's rebuilding," Grushow said. "To put new shows on for two weeks and then take them off for four weeks for baseball is not a particularly effective launch strategy."

Translation:

We here at fox are happy to announce that we personally bent over Joss Whedon, everybody at ME and thousands of fans. Why because we are dumber then our own socks

"that is not a particularly effective launch strategy"

thats one hell of an understatement... it seriously makes you wonder what exactly where they thinking at fox , or more importantly WHERE they thinking at all.

Dear diary, Today I was pompous and my sister was crazy,
Today we where kidnapped my hill folk never to be seen again, it was the best day ever.

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

Tuesday, January 21, 2003 9:55 AM

RUXTON

In my middle-aged cynicism I had strong suspicions (and voiced them to personal friends) there was a female executive behind the screwing (yes, rutting) of Mr. Whedon's latest masterwork. Now I have had my ignorant eyes opened, and learn there are no fewer than two involved: Gail Berman and Sandy Grushow. I have nothing against competent women, but suspect these two are less than competent.

All my male friends who are active outdoorsmen, avid shooters, and who have sufficient intelligence to be able to read a book from time to time, absolutely loved "Firefly." Some who haven't seen it are crazy-eager to see it, just for the old-time Western flavor, and the happy fact the characters use real guns, not laser-shooters. Could it be that the above-named Fox women don't like guns? Could it be that gorram simple?

But that doesn't fully explain the clumsy handling of the show. Could it also be that the captain of "Firefly" is a competent man's man? Capt. Reynolds would surely kick some of the characters of "Fastlane" through the engine almost as fast as I would. Could it also be that there was some problem with the man's men of the show? Or did they simply resent the awesome ability of Mr. Whedon? I have a strong feeling, based on my having worked with many women executives over several decades, that there was some strong resentment toward the Whedon camp by someone holding a lofty position within Fox. I don't think the massive waste of money was an issue. I suspect there was something very personal involved, with making Joss look bad for some petty reason. Nothing else makes sense.

The proper home for "Firefly" may not be Fox, but perhaps a determined assault on Fox in light of their recent admission they screwed up, might just give the show another chance on that network. I suspect the dismal showing of "Fastlane" in the Friday-night slot might also have opened the eyes of these execs. Let us furiously hope.

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

Tuesday, January 21, 2003 10:03 AM

MATWANG

And how many millions of bucks did they waste to make this great show and then hide it from a potentially huge, young fan base?

How hard would it be for them to run the episodes they have financed over and over again, late at night or whenever, and see what kind of response the public might really have if they ever get the chance to see this amazing story?

Fox management just simply has no clue.

If they own the rights to Firefly, then they should do something worthwhile and profitable with it. They've already paid for most of the expenses. It's a crime to let it sit on a shelf.

And please, don't anyone post anymore lines about "Well Firefly just didn't connect with audiences..."

Yes, the target audience never even knew about it.

Everyone I know adores the show. What's wrong with Fox? If they were offered the original Star Trek they'd say, "Oh it was nice, but it didn't connect with audiences."

And guess what Fox, the money won't connect with your bank account.

ST didn't become a hit until it went into syndication 5 years after the show was cancelled. At least they got 52 episodes.

Keep your apologies, Fox. Do something intelligent for a change.

Put Firefly back on the air.

Keep lookin' up... the bugs are flyin!

MaTwang

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

Tuesday, January 21, 2003 10:24 AM

RUXTON

What we're seeing from Fox is what's called a "limited hangout." They admit to part of the problem, which gives them enough credibility to deny accountability for the major problem -- which is actually all theirs.

Let's suppose Fox read my suggestion about a class-action lawsuit against them. To appease everyonw, they decided to accept part of the blame, as we've seen, and thus hope to get the heat off themselves. It doesn't really help anybody, but could reduce the anger among those who are unhappy with Fox.

Does M.E. and Company have a valid right to complain about their mishandling by Fox, much less sue?

Let's suppose you're a successful and well-known painter. A company is constructing a new building and hires you to paint a mural to decorate a hall within the new building. Your work consists of ten or twelve panels of the finest artwork you can produce. The panels tell a story, and MUST be displayed in order.

The company who paid you installs the panels in random order because they think the colors or shapes look better their way. Do you as an artist have any reason to get upset and complain? You'd better believe it. (I speak as one who has sold artwork to various highly visible companies and organizations.) You as the artist have a reputation, and can't sit by and let that reputation be sullied by those who buy your work. The panels you painted are an extension of you, their display reflects on you directly, and is a very important part of the transaction. When the company displayed the panels out of order, it was a huge slur to you, the artist. You not only have a right to complain, you MUST complain or other artists will lose their rights to have their work properly displayed. You must also demand the clear and open display of your name on the work and must see to it that the public gets a chance to see your work (i.e., proper advertising and promotion). That's part of the game and Fox knows this.

Fox had an obligation to display Whedon's work in the correct order, and to promote it as well as they could. After all, the livelihood and success of everyone working on "Firefly," including all the actors, crew, writers, and even the kid who goes for doughnuts depended on Fox's promotion and proper display of the artwork. Fox failed, Mutant Enemy knows this, and M.E. has (I believe) a legitimate right to request redress of grievances.

Hence, the limited hangout.

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

Tuesday, January 21, 2003 10:39 AM

KETHRYVERIS

Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:
In my middle-aged cynicism I had strong suspicions (and voiced them to personal friends) there was a female executive behind the screwing (yes, rutting) of Mr. Whedon's latest masterwork.

Well . . . I just have to say something. Ruxton, you're certainly entitled to your opinion but I sense a bit of female bashing in your post that I just have to respond to. I'm a woman and while I'm not an executive at an entertainment company I am a manager at an aerospace company. I also dislike westerns except for "Blazing Saddles", "The 'Frisco Kid" and "Wild, Wild West" (the TV show, not the movie) and I love Firefly. So much that I went to a lot of trouble to obtain a copy of "Our Mrs. Reynolds" when it was preempted where I live for baseball and recopied my tapes so that I could watch the episodes in the correct order. I certainly don't feel threatened by the "man's men" especially since 90% of the people I work with every day are men and I don't find them particularly imposing. I don't pretend to understand the lunacy that led Fox to treat this great show the way they did but I don't agree with your implication that it was a women vs. men thing.

Kethryveris

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

Tuesday, January 21, 2003 2:56 PM

PERSEPHONE1113

Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:

Let's suppose you're a successful and well-known painter. A company is constructing a new building and hires you to paint a mural to decorate a hall within the new building. Your work consists of ten or twelve panels of the finest artwork you can produce. The panels tell a story, and MUST be displayed in order.

The company who paid you installs the panels in random order because they think the colors or shapes look better their way.

Gustav Klimt? :)

I agree with you, none-the-less. All types of artists have been the underdogs for years, and it sucks.

"Heavily promoted?!?!?!" PLEASE...I see ads for crap like 'American Idol' and 'Joe Millionaire' all the time that it has became annoying....thats "Heavy promotion". I'm honesty disgusted.

-Persephone1113

*KEEP FLYING*

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

Tuesday, January 21, 2003 3:28 PM

KIRINAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:
In my middle-aged cynicism I had strong suspicions (and voiced them to personal friends) there was a female executive behind the screwing (yes, rutting) of Mr. Whedon's latest masterwork. Now I have had my ignorant eyes opened, and learn there are no fewer than two involved: Gail Berman and Sandy Grushow. I have nothing against competent women, but suspect these two are less than competent.

Actually, from everything I've read, Sandy Grushow is a man. So I guess incompetence knows no gender. Especially when it comes to network execs.

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

Tuesday, January 21, 2003 4:05 PM

HKCAVALIER

That there was something personal and unprofessional at the bottom of Firefly's cancelation is entirely possible, but I have to say, Ruxton's war of the sexes interpretation struck me as pretty out of line. So he's had some bad luck with some executives that happened to be women and there are two women executives involved in the decision process that led to the cancelation of Firefly. Not exactly a representative sampling of female executives, is it?

For the record, I know only three other humans who know of Firefly at all and they all love it and they are all women. And they are all, along with a large contigent on this and other boards, in love with man's man numero uno, Mal Reynolds.

I'm glad that FOX is claiming any responsibility for Firefly's demise, it can only help ME's attempt to sell the show to someone who won't bungle it.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

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

Tuesday, January 21, 2003 5:20 PM

CARDIE

First of all, yes, Sandy Grushow is a man. The pronoun he is always used in news stories that feature his commentary. Secondly, Joss Whedon though male, is a feminist icon via Buffy, and has himself said that one of FOX's biggest blunders was to aim and market Firefly exclusively toward young males. The demographic research that's been independently conducted on "Farscape" revealed that it had a 60% female audience. There is a huge female audience for science fiction that always gets discounted because of stereotypes about women only wanting to watch romantic mush. Now, yes, the violence on Firefly may have been less attractive to some women than on softer genre shows, but I'm female and know many women who loved the show. Just look at how many females are on the fan boards. It not only has strong, capable women in it but extremely attractive and compelling manly men to drool over.

Lots of things caused Firefly's cancellation, but female sexism is not very high on the list, if you ask me.

Cardie

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

Tuesday, January 21, 2003 6:35 PM

LIVINGIMPAIRED

So lemmie get this straight. Because I was born with two X-chromosomes, I therefore dislike science fiction, get sick whenever someone gets pretend-shot on tv, and I'm incompetent? Forgive me, but I think that is the same kind of insane troll logic employed by certain Middle-East countries.

And as for where the Fox executives are concerned, I think it's clear that stupidity knows no gender…. But I suppose that the blatant, ignorant chauvinism of a certain post in this thread says all on that point.

________________

I'm marveling at the wrongness of that idea.

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

Tuesday, January 21, 2003 7:05 PM

DANIKIN

Two thoughts on this article:

#1) Duh. We've been saying this for months.
#2) About damn time. We've been saying this for months.

-Dani Kin

Keeper of:
Inara's Tea Set of hot lovin'
Inara's shuttle

And has been know to, on occasion, poke badgers with spoons

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

Tuesday, January 21, 2003 7:39 PM

SLOWSMURF

Its likely too hopeful, but is there any way this could result in firefly getting a proper chance?

They wouldn't even need to produce new episodes(for a while), just give it a decent timeslot and RUN IT IN ORDER.

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

Tuesday, January 21, 2003 7:52 PM

RUXTON

Re:
"They wouldn't even need to produce new episodes(for a while), just give it a decent timeslot and RUN IT IN ORDER"

AMEN! What on earth would they have to lose?

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

Wednesday, January 22, 2003 2:09 AM

BROWNCOAT

They would have to FULLY admit that they blew it, and I don't think they would ever be prepared to take it that far...

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

Wednesday, January 22, 2003 4:01 AM

THEWRITINGWENCH

Quote:
With this admission, FOX is planning to launch their next slate of new series during the Summer instead of Fall, capitalizing off the lesson learned from the successes of FOX's reality series like 'American Idol' that was launched during mid-season and subsequently struck gold for the network.

With Firefly having 3 remaining episodes in the queue, perhaps FOX might consider airing them during Summer in conjunction with premieres of their other new shows--giving Firefly a second chance. And if ratings for the three are significantly better, perhaps Firefly's "hiatus" is really just that, an hiatus.

These are the paras I find most interesting. Fox's implied promise (or someone's interpretation that Fox implied such) to offer Firefly another chance. Which doesn't, to me, seem like a promise at all - or even the hint of one - unless there is a full push and the entire season is run first in order in repeats, from the 2 hour series opener Serenity to Objects in Space with the final 3 hours to follow to hook the summer audience. And then they'd better plan to have everybody under contract and a new set of shows to follow up with. That's the only way this "implied" promise might work.

The Writing Wench

Quote:
"Boy's going to get us killed. Let's just
do this deal and get."

Jayne, Jaynestown

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

Wednesday, January 22, 2003 4:55 AM

BROWNCOAT1

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.

Ruxton said:

Quote:
In my middle-aged cynicism I had strong suspicions (and voiced them to personal friends) there was a female executive behind the screwing (yes, rutting) of Mr. Whedon's latest masterwork. Now I have had my ignorant eyes opened, and learn there are no fewer than two involved: Gail Berman and Sandy Grushow. I have nothing against competent women, but suspect these two are less than competent.

I can't say that I am too comfortable w/ or share the opinion you stated Ruxton. Obviously incompetence is not restricted to one gender or the other when referring to TV executives. Sandy is a man and Gail seems to have personal issues w/ Joss as exhibited by her comments in a recent interview I saw over at the official site. It seems to me the mishandling in general seemed to cause the cancellation of Firefly not a female out to shut it down.

My fiancee loves Firefly and she is not bothered by the violent scenes in the show. Quite honestly, there is nothing done on Firefly that is not done on any other TV show or movie you might sit down to watch. I know it is not the western feel, as I love them and my fiancee hates them, yet she likes the show.

Guess that leaves us w/ incompetence on the part of Fox executives in general and their idiotic decision to preempt the show for baseball and show the episodes out of order. Hard to reach your target audience to get ratings when the show is never on or advertised.

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

Wednesday, January 22, 2003 6:58 AM

FIREFLYPASSENGER

Ruxton just stated a suspicion. It is an opinion and everyone has a right to their opinion. I believe we are all trying to make sense out of nonsense.
I am a woman who loves the show. However I am certain that Gail probably never saw all the episodes and did not understand what Joss was doing. Whether or not she understood the show, it appears to have been sabotaged from the outset. Unfortunately it may be for very petty reasons gender related or not, or just a blind idiotic faith in numbers from Neilsen Rating info. All of this is simply speculation.
Sandy has admitted that doing things correctly would make Fox smarter than it is.

Quote:

Despite the big success of "Joe," Berman said she couldn't see any way to make a second installment: "The secret is already out." And no, the producers didn't think far enough ahead to film two versions at the same time. "That would've made us much smarter than we are," said Fox Television Entertainment Group chairman Sandy Grushow.
here's a link to the article:
http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/living/tv/0103/20fox.html

May Serenity keep flying.

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

Wednesday, January 22, 2003 10:23 AM

MANDOLINMONSTER

i've never seen an ad for firefly on fox. i found out about the show by seeing a behind the scenes insider on the tvguide channel. fox is dumb.

http://www.geocities.com/mandolinmonster/

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

Wednesday, January 22, 2003 11:15 AM

TINYTIMM

There is the obvious Not Politically Correct moral standards, limited though they may be, not to mention the casual acceptance of firearms as something besides a talisman of evil.

Jeff
Who fails to blame the tool

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

Wednesday, January 22, 2003 12:00 PM

TALLGRRL

Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:
Re:
"They wouldn't even need to produce new episodes(for a while), just give it a decent timeslot and RUN IT IN ORDER"

AMEN! What on earth would they have to lose?

Seems to me that re-running the ENTIRE series, with the pilot airing first, as it should, would be a perfect summer replacement/test of Firefly.

They admitted screwing up. But it wasn't even like they were embarassed for wasting so much money.
"We spent a shitload of money on a brand new expensive to produce TV show, didn't pimp it like we do reality shows, and then because of the World Series we moved it around so people couldn't find. And guess what? They couldn't find it so we got bad viewer numbers! Tee-hee! Our bad!"
Someone chose to premiere a brand new show DURING the World Series...a show that cost a bunch of money to produce. It seems to me like a bad choice that maybe should have gotten someone fired.

Tll Grrl
"Take me, Sir. Take me hard."

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

Wednesday, January 22, 2003 1:34 PM

CAPTAINMAL

Well, perhaps I am naieve optomistic, but I sense a se-change in this admission.

Some realities:

Joss will do literally anything to save the show;

the cast is almost religiously interested in saving the show;

The sets, AFAIK, are still intact;

Much has been said by the fans as a matter of record on what went wrong;

Every network needs summer filler...and they need it before August;

there are three unaired eps;

Fox still has rights to the show;

Fox spent a steaming pile of money and every re-airing recoups some of that;

So, LOGICALLY, and God knows no one has accused Fox of logic, logically, if for no other reason than those stated above, Fox could start right after the May sweeps and run the 13 eps in order and with a few re-runs go right up to baseball playoffs...if the first 8-10 eps draw ratings they like, that gives then over 2 months to give Joss the word to produce more eps to be ready for November.

It makes a LOT of sense.

In fact, it makes so much sense that it's probably to easy for the goofs at Fox to figure out...but maybe we should all be nice and send postcards to fox praising them for reconsidering rather than bashing them for demonstrated stupidity...

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

Wednesday, January 22, 2003 1:48 PM

HJERMSTED

Obviously we can send postcards all by ourselves... but I'm curious why Firefly Immediate Assistance ( www.fireflysupport.com) isn't spearheading a coordinated "Firefly as summer replacement series" postcard onslaught toward Fox.

Any ideas? I guess it would help to know where Joss & Tim are trying to take the show.

Wherever Firefly is headed, a Firefly summer replacement series can only help boost the audience numbers.

mattro

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

Wednesday, January 22, 2003 4:14 PM

GUAILO

What really gets me is the notion that Fox seems to think they heavily promoted the show. Others have mentioned it, but I didn't se anyone draw the similarity to Farscape and how Sci-Fi seemed to just say "We don't understand why the ratings dropped becaue we advertised the program constantly."

Uh...

As I recall, most of the hype about Firefly was (A) connected with Buffy and (B) connected with the premier of John Doe.

Firefly was nothing like the former and had nothing to do with it whatsoever and thus alienated a potential audience because of the connection. Sad but true, Buffy fans. I don't like the campiness of the show - too jokey. But Firefly hit the head of the nail, so to speak, and had the perfect mix for my taste as well as many of my non-Buffy cohorts.

Likewise, Firefly was nothing like the latter, which turned out to be a lot less "X-Files" and a lot more "CSI" than I was interested in. As a matter of fact, I tuned out after about ep3 of John wandering around figuring everything out except his name - dull, dull, dull. I kept thinking "Who gives a crap?" Plus, if I had to sit through another mile-a-minute Deus Ex Machina resolution to "how Doe figures it all out by noing something really obscure" I though I was going to put my shoe through the set.

ALl the time Firefly was on, it was connected with these two shows. I think this fact coupled with a bad air time (maybe not 7:00p central, but definitely Friday nights) did nothing but drive the show into the dirt.

Did Fox promote the show? Sure.

Did they promote Firefly for what it was and what it would become. Not at all. It was touted as goofy Buffy cowboys in space on your set right before this other wierd show. It never stood on it's own.

Same thing happened to Farscape in it's late year where Sci-Fi promoted it right along with SG-1 for it's illustrious "Sci-Fi Friday" spectacular, puctuated by re-runs of return of the Tremors or some crap. The also put it on TV on Fridays and at 7:00 central (repeated at 9:00, but so what).

Coincidence?

I think not...

Mal: “The next time you decide to stab me in the back, have the guts to do it to my face.”

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

Wednesday, January 22, 2003 5:47 PM

TIMMINEARNET

Quote:
...I'm curious why Firefly Immediate Assistance ( www.fireflysupport.com) isn't spearheading a coordinated "Firefly as summer replacement series" postcard onslaught toward Fox.

It has been made very clear to those of us at Firefly: Immediate Assistance that, while the producers are working on a last ditch effort to keep the series alive in some form, there is nothing more the fans can do at this time.

If that were to change, we would certainly let people know.

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

Thursday, January 23, 2003 6:02 AM

BROWNCOAT1

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.

TimMinearNet wrote:

Quote:
It has been made very clear to those of us at Firefly: Immediate Assistance that, while the producers are working on a last ditch effort to keep the series alive in some form, there is nothing more the fans can do at this time.

Yes, Kiba & Shell both made it clear that from word they got from Mutant Enemy is that the avenues they are pursuing now could not be assisted by any sort of fan push. For now it is all up to Joss & crew.

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

Thursday, January 23, 2003 11:54 AM

FURYFIRE

FOX sed they'd heavily promote it, and give the show a chance, War Stories aired after a few weeks off, and after only that episode the "hiatus" was announced. After all Wolf Lake last fall was put on haitus, brought back on UPN from CBS for a second chance, but failed, maybe we can get Firefly to do this, but not fail, and like, yu know, succeed.

We as fans, must start promoting this show to our friends and the public NOW. Not later, but NOW. Or else yu really don't care whether it lives or dies, would u?

If you know anyone that can help my screenwriting career, please help! And yes, I am self-advertising here. Hehehe, me such a little devil.

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

Friday, January 24, 2003 4:42 PM

MIA

Quote:
Originally posted by FURYFIRE:
FOX sed they'd heavily promote it, and give the show a chance, War Stories aired after a few weeks off, and after only that episode the "hiatus" was announced. After all Wolf Lake last fall was put on haitus, brought back on UPN from CBS for a second chance, but failed, maybe we can get Firefly to do this, but not fail, and like, yu know, succeed.

We as fans, must start promoting this show to our friends and the public NOW. Not later, but NOW. Or else yu really don't care whether it lives or dies, would u?

If you know anyone that can help my screenwriting career, please help! And yes, I am self-advertising here. Hehehe, me such a little devil.

My name is Melissa. Fox I hope you read this. I really believe you messed up. This is/was a good show and if you don't want to air it let sci-fi, wb, upn, or usa take a crack at it. This show was so different from other shows that are out there and so much alike. Like john Doe it is like a more Hi tech Mcgavor, but this show was ahead of it's time. I was coming home to record this show, and it's off the air. You guys did well with Firefly, Fast Line,and John Doe. don't let this show go. What about Saturday or Sunday nights?

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

Friday, January 24, 2003 5:45 PM

KAYTHRYN

Hell, Fox could air Firefly any day of the week, at two a.m. if they wanted to and I'd still make time to watch it.

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

Friday, January 24, 2003 5:48 PM

HKCAVALIER

I sure don't know much at all about the way TV networks do business, but isn't the fact that FOX has felt the need to say anything at all about the way they mishandled Firefly significant? I mean, do networks normally go around apologizing for blunders? Does any corporate body do that? I mean, isn't the show "dead," so isn't it yesterday's news? I don't buy the class-action suite theory, 'cause I've never heard of such a thing being done and without precident I can't see FOX troubling themselves. So to me the fact that they're admitting their mistakes with Firefly absolutely point to some activity within FOX concerning the future of Firefly. What I'm saying is that Firefly is still on their minds and if it was well and truly canceled, it wouldn't be.

Maybe they do this kind of thing all the time, you guys gotta tell me, but for now I'm waiting for the second shoe to drop and I'm hoping it will be a happy, happy shoe.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

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

Friday, January 24, 2003 5:55 PM

MIA

Yes I could watch it at anytime to, but when are they going to show it again? They have/had the best cast and story lines goodlooking men/beautiful women. but shows like Cops stay on the air, shows like Buffy the vampire and the list goes on.

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

Friday, January 24, 2003 8:37 PM

LCOLFORD

Very good point. The fan campaign and FF growing cult status has become newsworthy. Other sites (yahoo/slayage, independent review)have featured FF reviews that also include the fan response to a possible cancellation. Maybe FOX wants to salvage any remaining quality audience after driving most away with Joe Millionaire.
My personal campaign? Taking tapes to the uninitiated, play in CORRECT order, and feel the love. Now I've got people I don't know asking for them. Tupperware-like.
Last note: if FOX tries a summer rerun, they ought to get fans' input on promotion first. Obviously, the suits had no clue how to package our "Cowboy/girl Morality Play in Space."

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

Tuesday, January 28, 2003 10:56 AM

REYVNDARKNIGHT

I have noticed that Faastlane is only getting a 2.4. So why hasn't Fox dropped it? Demonstrates to me that Fox has a scewed perspective.

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

Wednesday, January 29, 2003 7:27 AM

BROWNCOAT1

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.

ReyvnDarKnight wrote:

Quote:
I have noticed that Faastlane is only getting a 2.4. So why hasn't Fox dropped it? Demonstrates to me that Fox has a scewed perspective.

Where did the 2.4 figure come from? Have a source or website address?

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

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

Wednesday, January 29, 2003 11:14 AM

TALON47

Um, I just tried to log onto Fox's FireFly site and couldn't. Are we like, toast?

Unauthorized Keeper of Pet Jayne

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

Wednesday, January 29, 2003 11:17 AM

TALON47

... I am SO GLAD I bookmarked this site early ...

Unauthorized Keeper of Pet Jayne

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

Wednesday, January 29, 2003 5:54 PM

TALLGRRL

Quote:
Originally posted by Captain:
[snip]

I just have one small fear: If and when Firefly returns, especially if it returns to Fox, there will be a new sort of pressure on it. Having seen the dark side and lived to tell the tale could cause Fox to "tweak" the show. If ANY, ANY exec ouside of Mutant Enemy and Mr. Whedon and company try anything to "tweak" the show, I will be more than outraged, I will be disgusted and will probably never watch TV again. [snip]

What could Fox possibly do to "tweak" this show?
They can lose any of the characters:
Mal - He's the Captain. Plus he's handsome and strong and flawed and has steaming sexual tension with the courtesan...and maybe the 2nd in command.
Zoe - She's the 2nd in command. Gotta have a first mate. She's got brains, she's strong, and the woman playing her is gorgeous.
Wash - He's the pilot. Can't lose the pilot.
Kaylee - Can't lose the engineer. It's already been established that she knows more about the ship than anyone.
Inara - Please. And lose 1)a call-girl who's; 2)gorgeous and who; 3)takes men AND women as clients and who; 4)has steaming sexual tension with the Captain? I'm thinkin' no. Can't lose Inara.
Jayne - The muscle and possible turncoat at any moment. And he's funny. And he's a hunk.
Shepherd Book - Man of mystery. Possible former Alliance, moral core, good in a fight in a pinch. Great foil for Jayne & Captain.
Simon & River - Can't lose 'em. Can't lose the ship's medic. And the 'fugee' backstory is great.
Plus Simon is a great foil for Jayne...and sometimes the Captain.
NONE of these characters is expendable.
It's like 'Life Boat' or 'Stage Coach': Each is an important element to the on-going story.
They can't possibly make it more 'action' oriented. There's plenty of action: there was never so much gunplay in 'Star Trek.'
The show has a perfect blend of 'comedy' with the drama.
I could go on, but well...that's how I see it.

Tll Grrl
"Take me, Sir. Take me hard."

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

Wednesday, January 29, 2003 6:09 PM

TALLGRRL

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I sure don't know much at all about the way TV networks do business, but isn't the fact that FOX has felt the need to say anything at all about the way they mishandled Firefly significant? I mean, do networks normally go around apologizing for blunders?

Apparently the fan response caught someone's attention, some questions were asked and Fox felt the need to try to explain themselves.
Believe me, netword don't usually say "We f**ked up."
But they're saying it this time.
Hee-hee!

Tll Grrl
"Take me, Sir. Take me hard."

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

Wednesday, January 29, 2003 6:17 PM

TALLGRRL

Quote:
Originally posted by talon47:
Um, I just tried to log onto Fox's FireFly site and couldn't. Are we like, toast?

Unauthorized Keeper of Pet Jayne

http://www.fox.com/firefly/index.htm
Still there!

Tll Grrl
"Take me, Sir. Take me hard."

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

Wednesday, January 29, 2003 9:54 PM

SPETHARUKAI

From my perspective, the reason Firefly didn't get the ratings was because hardly anyone even knew about the show. As a long-time sci-fi fan, having travelled in sci-fi circles, I know literally dozens of people who would love this show. How many of them (as far as I knew) actually watched it? Only about four or five. Clearly, this disproves Fox's claim of "heavily" promoting the show.

But even some of the people I knew who knew about Firefly and were interested had just never "gotten around" to watching it. Why? It was on on a bad night. When will the networks -- all of them -- learn that science fiction shows simply don't do well on Friday (or Saturday) nights? With the exception of The X-Files and (for a while) Farscape, I can't think of any sci-fi or fantasy show that lasted on Fridays -- and there have been innumerable attempts (such as Max Headroom, the newer Dark Shadows, American Gothic, and now Firefly). All were first-rate, top-notch programs. None lasted longer than a season, if that. (The only other exception is Dark Angel, but that failed after they ruined the show.)

Fox also seems to have forgotten that The X-Files wasn't an immediate success. It did very poorly in the ratings its first season, as I recall. In fact, no one I know who watched it started watching it the first season, myself included. Shows as unique as The X-Files and Firelfy need to be nurtured. If Fox had promoted Firefly as much as they do Joe Millionaire and all their other trash shows, I'm certain Firefly would've become their next X-Files. The really sad thing is that Joe Millionaire is on twice a week! Fox has so much room in their schedule that they repeat shows! And yet, quality, ground-breaking programs like Firefly don't get a fighting chance.

I can't remember the last time I was this upset about a show being cancelled. Perhaps it's because there hasn't been a show this good (that's been cancelled) in a very long time. If networks could learn to be patient, I think they'd make out much better financially in the long run. They just need to learn how to recognize quality when they chance upon it, and how to schedule and promote their shows properly. Sadly, early ratings are too often given undue weight.

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

Thursday, January 30, 2003 3:03 AM

TALON47

Thanks Tallgrrl! I'll visit there now and then. Think this is my new home, tho. I prefer the way this site functions.

Unauthorized Keeper of Pet Jayne

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

Thursday, January 30, 2003 6:07 AM

ATOMICBLONDE

Well!! At least they can admit it!!!!
I cant tell you how furious I was with Fox for jammin the show like that. If John Doe wasnt such a babe I'd have been done with them.. LOL
There is hope..
Thank God
I was just getting over missign the show too..\

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

Sunday, February 2, 2003 5:52 AM

XED

The problem isnT just that Fox network screwed up Firefly (which they did, and royally, and in multiple ways -- don't air the pilot, air episodes out of order, yank the show to substitute baseball, then put it on hiatus)...
The real problem is that Fox network appears to have developed a bad habit of brutally mistreating and then axing excellent show.
This isn't just my opinion. It's been commented on by professionals, by critics, by industry observers.
Consider
http://www.michigandaily.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/01/10/3e1e5123a8
97a

"What is wrong with FOX? It has the best show on network TV right now (`24'), arguably the greatest show of the last 15 years (`The Simpsons') and not much else - although a case could be made for `King of the Hill,' `Andy Richter Controls the Universe' or `Boston Public.'
"So why cancel Joss Whedon's `Firefly,' its best hope for the future? What's wrong with you, FOX?" (10 January 2003)

These aren't just FIrefly fans talking.

Or consider this attack on FOX network by a pretty prominent TV critic:

from

http://www.teevee.org/archive/2002/06/03/

"So we move to the portion of the program where we look at the new programming Fox has lined up for the fall season. Or, as it's known in the Michaels household, who in the hell cares? It's not like I can seriously expect Fox to come up with six more shows I want to watch. And even if it did, it already waxed three of the programs I liked to watch last fall, with a fourth one in its crosshairs. Why should I waste my time taking an interest in any of the new shows if, assuming they're any good to begin with, when Fox will just toss them out with the melon rinds and coffee grinds come this time next year." (June 2002)

And notice the eerie accuracy with which this critic predicted Fox would trash Firefly (the guy predicted it last June!):

"There's always a possibility that America could embrace Firefly... (..) The show, which airs at 8 p.m., is created by Joss Whedon, who has a nice little program called Buffy the Vampire Slayer to his credit. Hopefully, Fox executives will let him down easy when they cut his legs out from under him." (June 2002)

Remember, that was written back in *June* of last year. And this guy is not a Firefly fan. Too many impartial observers have noticed Fox's pathological behavior to simply chalk it up to "disgruntled Firefly fans."

Bottom line?
Fox is trying to make a quick, buck by dumping shows on the air, then yanking them after only a ahndful of episodes if they don't show huge audience numbers. But this is stupid and destructive. Why? Because in the end it alienates the audience.
Why should anyone bother to watch anything on Fox? After all, if it's any good, we know it won't last -- they'll just abuse the show, pre-empt with the roller derby or "World's Funniest Self-Mutilations" and then yank it after 6 episodes.
Someone asked why Fastlane, which gets worse numbers than Firefly, is still on Fox.
Answer:
Because Fastlane costs a lot less to produce. For a science fiction show you need compositing, CGI, elaborate sets (like the Firefly interior) -- all big bucks.
For Fastlane, whaddaya need?
A couple of cars, some bimbos, a pair of Gen Xers, some cheap borax furniture and 3 plywood flats for the sets. Oh, and pyrotechnics. Lots 'n lots of pyrotechnics. But they're cheap. Just gasoline 'n black powder.
Sadly, science fiction or fantasy will _always_ cost more to produce than shows like "Celebrity Boxing" or "Fastlane." So things don't look so great for sci-fi on TV. Especially when wacked-out networks like Fox are doing their very best to alienate their audiences by yanking every one of their shows that's worth a damn.

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

Sunday, February 2, 2003 7:02 AM

SAILOR

Hear, Hear

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

Sunday, February 2, 2003 4:48 PM

TYLOR

Quote:

What could Fox possibly do to "tweak" this show?
They can lose any of the characters:
Mal - He's the Captain. Plus he's handsome and strong and flawed and has steaming sexual tension with the courtesan...and maybe the 2nd in command.
Zoe - She's the 2nd in command. Gotta have a first mate. She's got brains, she's strong, and the woman playing her is gorgeous.
Wash - He's the pilot. Can't lose the pilot.
Kaylee - Can't lose the engineer. It's already been established that she knows more about the ship than anyone.
Inara - Please. And lose 1)a call-girl who's; 2)gorgeous and who; 3)takes men AND women as clients and who; 4)has steaming sexual tension with the Captain? I'm thinkin' no. Can't lose Inara.
Jayne - The muscle and possible turncoat at any moment. And he's funny. And he's a hunk.
Shepherd Book - Man of mystery. Possible former Alliance, moral core, good in a fight in a pinch. Great foil for Jayne & Captain.
Simon & River - Can't lose 'em. Can't lose the ship's medic. And the 'fugee' backstory is great.
Plus Simon is a great foil for Jayne...and sometimes the Captain.
NONE of these characters is expendable.
It's like 'Life Boat' or 'Stage Coach': Each is an important element to the on-going story.
They can't possibly make it more 'action' oriented. There's plenty of action: there was never so much gunplay in 'Star Trek.'
The show has a perfect blend of 'comedy' with the drama.
I could go on, but well...that's how I see it.

With apologies to What's New Starring Phil and Dixie, the tweaking Firefly joke:

Three characters discussing which character should sacrifice himself to the gods of TV show tweaking

Mal: I'm not leaving the show, I'm the captain.

Wash: Me neither, I'm the pilot.

Jayne: Well, I'm not leaving either... I've got a loaded machine gun pointing at the two of you.

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

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE