What happens if.......? by TheSomnambulist

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

What happens if.......?

POSTED BY: THESOMNAMBULIST
UPDATED: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 02:02
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2250
PAGE 1 of 1

Sunday, October 16, 2005 11:04 PM

Hey all.

Just wondering about the legalities of a SERENITY TV show as opposed to a Firefly show?

I mean if Universal were to commission from Joss a 'SERENITY' tv show, given that this is the name they now own, could this be done? Can Joss continue the story from SERENITY onwards? Or would Fox have issues?

Anyone have an idea of how things stand on this front?

Cheers
The
Somnambulist

www.cirqus.com

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

Sunday, October 16, 2005 11:36 PM

GROUNDED

I suspect Fox owns more than just the name Firefly.

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

Monday, October 17, 2005 12:00 AM

THESOMNAMBULIST

Yes true but how much I wonder? They pretty much gave Universal everything that was in Firefly. And now the name SERENITY is firmly established as a Universal Studios product...

So I'm just wondering how the legalities work should a show based on SERENITY be commissioned.

I think Firefly of old is pretty much done with, but those characters still exsist outside of 'Firefly' with a different studio. Surely Universal have the go ahead to do with them as they wish...don't they?

The
Somnambulist

www.cirqus.com

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

Monday, October 17, 2005 11:25 AM

KILTEDWITCH

This suggestion reminds me of when the musician Prince changed his name legally to that unpronounceable symbol, and everyone started calling him "The Artist formerly known as Prince". This was not just a publicity stunt; it was a legal maneuver to get him out of his contract with Sony. He was required to record any "Prince" albums with Sony, but when he changed his name, Sony couldn't stop him from recording under another name. Of course, everyone knew that it was still Prince, and bought the albums anyway. When the Sony contract expired, he changed his name back to Prince. The publicity was just gravy. Some lawyer thought that one up. (Damn lawyers!)

So... "Serenity, formerly known as Firefly...?" (Yeah, that's the ticket...)

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

Monday, October 17, 2005 11:51 AM

THESOMNAMBULIST

sooooo we gotta come up with a symbol :)

Thanks for the thing on Prince I never actually knew what that was all about... man all these years I just figured he had left some kangaroos out of the paddock... Good to know.

The
Somnambulist

www.cirqus.com

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

Monday, October 17, 2005 12:31 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

I thought that Fox and Universal were partners through a merger/acquisition of some sort... If so, Fox really had nothing to lose by giving the okay to Universal to make "Serenity". If it lost money, it wasn't *technically* Fox's money that was gone, and if it MADE money, it could only help Fox through sales of the Firefly DVD sets and or re-airing of Firefly episodes on Fox, FX, or another network (for a fee, of course). And if it became a BIG hit, it would help Fox in that they'd be able to bring back the series - on Fox or another network, such as SciFi - OR they could get more involved with a feature film sequel, etc. You can bet that Fox was going to get a percentage of the gross for the movie anyway. It was a win-win scenario for them.

Now, as to characters, storylines, and the like, my bet is that under the contract terms for Firefly, the vast majority of the characters, their names, likenesses, and so on, are still the "intellectual property" of Fox. They'd either have to sign over the rights to them (not likely), sell the rights, or license them for a fee and/or percentage of the gross, before a new or continuation of the series could take place on any other network.

All of this is UNLESS Joss Whedon or some other interested parties actually acquired the rights to all things "Firefly" BEFORE they started work on Serenity.

I would love to see the stories continue, whether it be through more episodes of the TV show or through feature film sequels, but I'm not really holding my breath at this point. I haven't given up on the idea, but I don't think it will happen too soon (if at all). SciFi would be a perfect home for any new Firefly adventures, and if they proved to be a breakout hit, Fox could always stipulate in the contract that the show could be brought over to Fox Network's primetime lineup.

The best part is, now that there is a plethora of television networks available, a show doesn't have to die just because one of the Big Four networks didn't want to keep it around. The show can be picked up by a smaller network, where it will need a much smaller viewership to be considered a "success". Look at "The Gilmore Girls" for instance - if it were on ABC or CBS, it would have been cancelled before the first season were finished. Being on a "lesser network" (the WB), it found a quirky niche and thrived; it's now in its sixth season, and it's even syndicated on the ABC Family channel. For a sizable portion of the viewing public, the "little networks" have become a haven, a place where we can get away from reality shows, and a place where WRITERS can thrive.

So WILL Fox let good things happen to Firefly? Who knows? But it might actually make them some money if they did. Putting it on a small network allows the writers the freedom to pursue storylines without the politics and placation that seem endemic to major-network shows (the old "you can't say that or we'll boycott your sponsors" ruse), and it allows loyal viewers a place to go to watch their favorite characters carry on their lives. So long as the production budget doesn't become larger than the advertising revenue stream the show brings in, it can be considered a success, in not necessarily a huge hit.

Just a few things to ponder. Do we need to barrage SciFi with a letter-writing campaign to get them interested in wresting control of "Firefly" from Fox?

Mike

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

Monday, October 17, 2005 12:41 PM

THATWEIRDGIRL

Hmmm, what's next...that's on all our minds' now. I don't know. I'm pretty sure FOX has all tv rights. I could be wrong...actually, i'm wrong quite often. For instance, I'd heard (rumor i'm sure) we didn't here a reference to Vera because that was one of the things FOX owned. No idea how accurate that is.

I'll take what i can get. If i don't get anything else, well, that's life. Surely someone here will clue us in on another great series/movie to watch.

www.thatweirdgirl.com
---
"...turn right at the corner then skip two blocks...no, SKIP, the hopping-like thing kids do...Why? Why not?"

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

Monday, October 17, 2005 12:54 PM

LIMINALOSITY

Quote:
Originally posted by KiltedWitch:
This suggestion reminds me of when the musician Prince changed his name legally to that unpronounceable symbol, and everyone started calling him "The Artist formerly known as Prince". This was not just a publicity stunt; it was a legal maneuver to get him out of his contract with Sony.
So... "Serenity, formerly known as Firefly...?" (Yeah, that's the ticket...)

Yeah, that was a brilliant stunt Prince pulled.
Tranquility, by Josh

"Ungoliant: 'Not enough shiny. Want more shiny!'"

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

Monday, October 17, 2005 10:33 PM

THESOMNAMBULIST

Kwicko

Thanks for the breakdown. Much appreciated.

If as you say there was a merger between the two studios then this bodes well for our Heroes no? As any further interest in Serenity would clearly benefit both Fox and Universal.

With this in mind then surely a spin off tv show from SERENITY and/or it's sequels -should there be any- is a very real possiblity. Supposing the box office revenues are enough to convince the executives...

By the way thanks also for the concise breakdown on the way the networks work in the US. I had no idea about any of that... It's interesting that there are alternative networks there, that gives us hope indeed, but why had none of these networks come forward before when Firefly was first aired and subsequently cancelled? Or had the show really not made any kind of impact?

Cheers again Kwicko

The
Somnambulist

www.cirqus.com

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

Monday, October 17, 2005 10:38 PM

THESOMNAMBULIST

ThatWeirdGirl Wrote:

Quote:
Hmmm, what's next...that's on all our minds' now. I don't know. I'm pretty sure FOX has all tv rights. I could be wrong...actually, i'm wrong quite often. For instance, I'd heard (rumor i'm sure) we didn't here a reference to Vera because that was one of the things FOX owned. No idea how accurate that is.

I'll take what i can get. If i don't get anything else, well, that's life. Surely someone here will clue us in on another great series/movie to watch

WOW!!! Vera kept under lock and key by FOX? Surely not???...

....anyone up for a:" FREE VERA" Campaign

www.cirqus.com

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

Monday, October 17, 2005 10:39 PM

THESOMNAMBULIST

Quote:
Originally posted by liminalosity:
Yeah, that was a brilliant stunt Prince pulled.
Tranquility, by Josh

T r a n q u i l i t y he,he... that made me laugh :)

www.cirqus.com

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

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 4:39 AM

CYBERSNARK

Quote:
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:
....anyone up for a:" FREE VERA" Campaign

[Jayne]"I'll chip in."[/Jayne]

Maybe we could get a special edition of Serenity with Vera digitally added over that ugly black teched-out rifle Jayne was toting.

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

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

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 8:44 PM

KWICKO

Somnambulist: I'm not sure of the Fox/Universal merger; I've *heard* they merged in some way or form, but I haven't really looked into it to see if that's true, or if it's just wishful thinking on someone's part (maybe mine?).

As for the "alternative channels" for the networks, those seem to be a more recent thing. For instance, NBC is in bed with Bravo, but I don't think that was always the case. They rebroadcast episodes of "The Office", "My Name Is Earl" later in the week, and NBC has broadcast "Queer Eye" in primetime a few times (it's also put "Battlestar Galactica" in primetime a few times over the summer). Fox has FX (and even FXM, the Fox Movie network), and apparently has *some* ties with the Sci-Fi channel - but I don't know how much (if any) ownership they actually have. SciFi seems to be in bed with more than one of the major networks at any one time. ABC has ABC Family, and *might* have some partnership ties with the WB network.

As for "how networks work"... well, I wish I knew. Most of what I proposed is pure supposition on my part, gleaned (mostly) from watching entirely too much television. I *wish* that Firefly could be resurrected on Fox or one of its smaller affiliate networks, but I don't know what legal hoops would have to be jumped through to make that even possible.

My personal feeling is that it would be a smart move for Fox to let the SciFi network take it on as an original series, for a price. The reason I say it's a perfect fit for SciFi is because it's a marketer's wet dream. Say you're Circuit City or Best Buy, trying to reach your target audience. That audience is typically the "techno-geek" male, 18-34 years old, with disposable income to blow on games, DVDs, and gadgets. What are those people watching? Sure, they're watching all sorts of shows, and they're spread all over the dial, but what SciFi brings to the table is the fact that it's demographic is PRIMARILY made up of those sought-after technogeeks. Shows like "Lost" and "Desperate Housewives" or "Law & Order" grab such a disparate audience that it's hard to "narrowcast" your commercials to your exact viewership. With SciFi, you pretty much KNOW exactly who's watching, so you can target them specifically for better market penetration.

At least, that's my take on it.

Mike

Grrrrr. Arrrgghh.

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

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 1:58 AM

DONCOAT

If Firefly came back as a series, I'd prefer it to be on one of the networks that has an HD feed. For me, at the moment, that's ABC, NBC, CBS, or Fox. Or ESPN. Unless PBS takes it on...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ain't about you, Jayne. It's about what they need.

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

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 2:02 AM

SEP7IMUS

I think the important distinction is that Fox has the TELEVISION rights, but Universal has the FILM rights. I'm not even sure that Fox EVER had the film rights, so I'm not sure that Fox gave/sold them to Universal, at all. They may have, but if so, the definitely kept the TV rights.

In any case, for a return to TV under any name, Fox would have to be involved (or would have to sell their rights).

(I don't think there has been any big merger between Fox and Universal, but I could be wrong.)

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

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE