JW should resolve the River/Simon thing ... here's why by HATEHATEHATEFOX

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

I have to disagree w/ your logic.

Having Simon & River on the ship does not necessarily make it difficult for them to get work, though it does add to the danger level they may encounter. Of course having two people that fought for the Independants and who harbor strong anti-Alliance sentiments and who are now wanted for questioning in a number of incidents just from the episodes we got to see already makes life difficult enough.

Luckily, the 'verse is big and Mal keeps Serenity off the radar far out on the Rim.

As for the age thing, three years will not make a huge impact on Sean Maher's or Summer Glau's appearances. They are both young and there is always those wonderful makeup artists.

It would just not be the same Firefly without River and Simon.

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

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

Tuesday, January 13, 2004 6:15 AM

There isn't going to be another Firefly TV series. It's either more movies, or, if we are lucky, miniseries following the movie.

It's impossible for them to start up a new Firefly TV series. Almost every single one of the leads is already cast as a lead in a different TV show. Plus, there is there movie career.

Fillion, I believe, even has a signed contract for THREE different NBC shows of varying types, one after another. He has also signed up for a couple movies.

Moreena Bacacrin co-stars in next seasons Still Life.

Adam Baldwin's doing more movies.

Jewel's been bouncing all over the place and I beleive has a regular TV series next year.

Gina Torres is signed on some more movies.

Alan Tudyk's doing A LOT of movies right now.

You can't expect nine actors to sit around doing nothing in the hopes a cancelled TV series they were in will somehow get jump-started again, no matter how much they enjoyed working on it. Especially with 9 people who are either up and comers in the film industry, or have been steady workers in it for years, or a combo of both.

As much as I'd love to see the TV show begin again, the odds against it are very, very high, even if Joss did somehow get it picked up.

And besides, River's my favourite;)

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

Tuesday, January 13, 2004 6:27 AM

CHANNAIN

i DO aim to misbehave

If the movie was being made in 10 years time, I'd be more worried about the aging factor, but not too much. A lot can be done in post to negate whatever aging they may suffer in 3 years time, although I doubt there will be much to worry about. As it has already been said, Sean and Summer are both very young actors, with the kind of features that will make them appear years younger for some time.

In terms of character development, I do agree with you. Some kind of resolution needs to be reached. I was just thinking today that Simon's skills as a doctor could be utilized to bring in some income, at least enough to make him feel like he's able to pay his and River's way. But he can't risk being recognized either, and as indicated in OoG, when the Alliance has nothing better to do, they send out fresh warrants for wanted fugitives. Since he can't risk being seen on core worlds, that would leave the smaller settlements on the border worlds. Chances are pretty good he would have to work with a barter system all the time. That brought visions of chickens in Serenity's hold. Gave me a good giggle on the drive to work this morning.

Firefly Artwork Series
http://www.mnartists.org/artistHome.do?rid=7922

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

Tuesday, January 13, 2004 6:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Channain:
As it has already been said, Sean and Summer are both very young actors, with the kind of features that will make them appear years younger for some time.

I suppose that's true but R/S will (thinking positive

) need to look 16 and <25 respectively.

Quote:
I was just thinking today that Simon's skills as a doctor could be utilized to bring in some income, at least enough to make him feel like he's able to pay his and River's way. snippage
That brought visions of chickens in Serenity's hold. Gave me a good giggle on the drive to work this morning.

Heh, they have smallish droppings, do they?

~~~~~~~
Nothing is ever so profoundly regretted as a kind act.
Robertson Davies

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

Tuesday, January 13, 2004 7:08 AM

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

Quote:
Originally posted by Mahdi:
There isn't going to be another Firefly TV series. It's either more movies, or, if we are lucky, miniseries following the movie.

It's impossible for them to start up a new Firefly TV series. Almost every single one of the leads is already cast as a lead in a different TV show. Plus, there is there movie career.

Fillion, I believe, even has a signed contract for THREE different NBC shows of varying types, one after another. He has also signed up for a couple movies.

Moreena Bacacrin co-stars in next seasons Still Life.

Adam Baldwin's doing more movies.

Jewel's been bouncing all over the place and I beleive has a regular TV series next year.

Gina Torres is signed on some more movies.

Alan Tudyk's doing A LOT of movies right now.

You can't expect nine actors to sit around doing nothing in the hopes a cancelled TV series they were in will somehow get jump-started again, no matter how much they enjoyed working on it. Especially with 9 people who are either up and comers in the film industry, or have been steady workers in it for years, or a combo of both.

As much as I'd love to see the TV show begin again, the odds against it are very, very high, even if Joss did somehow get it picked up.

And besides, River's my favourite;)

I disagree. From what we have seen in interviews, and what was said at the Convention recently in LA, the actors are willing to do a movie and whatever may follow. It seems that they stay in contact w/ Joss, or at least are kept up to date on what Joss is working on.

The cast seems close knit, and I imagine they can negotiate a bit to allow themselves freedom to do anything Firefly wise that may pop up.

Have some faith. If the movie does as well as the DVD sales, and there is no reason to believe it won't, then a new TV series is not out of the question. Universal owns Sci Fi channel, and what better network for Serenity and crew than Sci Fi?

Remember that Star Trek was dead & buried until the movies started rolling & then there was TV series after TV series. If the fans are behind the concept, and spend their money, Hollywood will produce it.

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

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

Tuesday, January 13, 2004 7:26 AM

The STar Trek actors didn't already all ahve contracts to do multiple otehr shows/movies.

Like I said, a movie franchise and/or miniseries is likley if the movie succeeds, but since most of the main cast are already contractually obligated to be in other TV series', some of which premire next season, they will not be available to do the TV show again, no matter how badly they want to.

The star trek TV series also all had completly different casts.

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

Tuesday, January 13, 2004 8:04 AM

ASTRIANA

Quote:
Originally posted by Mahdi:
Like I said, a movie franchise and/or miniseries is likley if the movie succeeds, but since most of the main cast are already contractually obligated to be in other TV series', some of which premire next season, they will not be available to do the TV show again, no matter how badly they want to.

Yeah, well, if the brainiacs that cancelled Firefly have anything to do with ANY of those shows, our beloved crew might be available to reprise their roles sooner than we think.

~A~

...I'm still free,
You can't take the sky from me.

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

Tuesday, January 13, 2004 9:03 AM

IZZOW

I would have to disagree with you. As for Looking young, or old for that matter, make-up artist can make people look any age. And three years time doesn't seem to be a big deal. After all, other shows have 20+ year old actors playing high-school students.

I think the River/Simon issue adds to the over-all storyline. I am interested to find out what was done to River and what abilities she has gained. I would miss River's easy going and comical ways.

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

Tuesday, January 13, 2004 9:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by izzow:
I would have to disagree with you. As for Looking young, or old for that matter, make-up artist can make people look any age. And three years time doesn't seem to be a big deal. After all, other shows have 20+ year old actors playing high-school students.

And don't they usually LOOK like they're in their mid-late twenties?

Quote:
I think the River/Simon issue adds to the over-all storyline. I am interested to find out what was done to River and what abilities she has gained. I would miss River's easy going and comical ways.

I didn't say they should leave the boat. I said they should stop being hunted - or be hunted in a lower-key way. I also like the unpredictability that River brings. To wit: He looks better in red.

Hopefully, we'll be arguing forever about this show! ;-)

~~~~~~~~
Nothing is ever so profoundly regretted as a kind act.
Robertson Davies

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

Tuesday, January 13, 2004 9:42 AM

I'd like to point out that Sean Maher is in his late 20's. He'll be 29 in April. Pretty much 10 years older than Jewel Staite.

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

Tuesday, January 13, 2004 9:51 AM

CHANNAIN

i DO aim to misbehave

Actually Jewel Staite will be 23 on June 2. That's pretty much more like 7 years younger than Sean Maher, not 10. Both of 'em are babes in the woods, but then once you start angling toward 40 (or feeling mortal), everybody under 30 fits that category.

Firefly Artwork Series
http://www.mnartists.org/artistHome.do?rid=7922

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

Tuesday, January 13, 2004 9:52 AM

I was rounding. Hence "pretty much".

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

Tuesday, January 13, 2004 9:55 AM

GUNSLINGINBROWNCOAT

I think the River/Simon storyline was one of the most important things in the show. It made the people on Serenity not just any group of theives and made things difficult for them. River's psychic ability also allows us to see a lot about what's underneath characters when it's used right. Why else do you thing the series started with them boarding in the pilot? I'm pretty sure this was a storyline meant to be carried on for a long time, not just resolved in the first season. I hope making a movie doesn't change what Joss originally intended the storylines to lead too, and I hope this gets as long as it needs to develop.

Also, I must disagree about the age thing. Sean and Summer are both adults now, but they can play younger roles because of their features. If it takes so long to get Firefly on a screen again that they look older, than the story can flash ahead a year or two. Also, makeup would probably solve this problem easily.

--------------------------------------------------
"It must be all lies and of no account when the culture of a thousand years could not prevent this stream of blood being poured out, these tourture-chambers in their hundreds of thousands. A hospital alone shows what war is."
-All Quiet on the Western Front

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

Tuesday, January 13, 2004 9:55 AM

CAPTAINCDC

Yes there were other versions of star trek but the original never came back. They just don't bring back tv shows. I would love to see firefly back on the air, but I think it is a considerable long shot. And don't forget that SciFi already passed on Firefly once.

Quote:
Have some faith. If the movie does as well as the DVD sales, and there is no reason to believe it won't, then a new TV series is not out of the question. Universal owns Sci Fi channel, and what better network for Serenity and crew than Sci Fi?

Remember that Star Trek was dead & buried until the movies started rolling & then there was TV series after TV series. If the fans are behind the concept, and spend their money, Hollywood will produce it.

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

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

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

Tuesday, January 13, 2004 10:01 AM

CHANNAIN

i DO aim to misbehave

Quote:
Originally posted by Mahdi:
I was rounding. Hence "pretty much".

Okay, I get that.

I'd also like to add that nothing is impossible when it comes to the entertainment industry. Schedules can be rearranged, money can vanish, and people just plain change their minds on projects all the time. There was an article in Premiere Magazine about this very thing. The subject was about how certain actors were nearly cast for well-known roles (Clint Eastwood as Agent K - Erick Stoltz as Marty McFly - Marlon Brando as Lawrence of Arabia, etc.), and why they ultimately weren't, but also sheds a great deal of light on how truly flexible the entertainment industry is.

Gotta keep some semblance of hope yet, Mahdi - work with us here

Firefly Artwork Series
http://www.mnartists.org/artistHome.do?rid=7922

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

Tuesday, January 13, 2004 10:15 AM

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

Captain CDC wrote:

Quote:
Yes there were other versions of star trek but the original never came back. They just don't bring back tv shows. I would love to see firefly back on the air, but I think it is a considerable long shot. And don't forget that SciFi already passed on Firefly once.

Yes, but I must point out that it was 14 years between the end of the Star Trek series and the first movie. If things go as they appear, we will have what, perhaps 2 years to wait? A considerable time difference. We also have the wonders of technology that they did not have then, like the internet, DVDs, etc. With the sale of the DVD, and Universal (who owns Sci Fi channel) looking at the script, and I am certain the sales figures for the DVD, a new TV series is not out of the question if there is money to be made in it.

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

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

Tuesday, January 13, 2004 11:19 AM

My one and only hesitation about getting too het up about Universal being interested in Firefly is the way SciFi handled the cancellation of Farscape.

If they could cut the legs out from under a highly respected and popular show like that ... well, you do the math.

Hope is all I have left since I cancelled my cable. ;-)

~~~~~~~~
Nothing is ever so profoundly regretted as a kind act.
Robertson Davies

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

Tuesday, January 13, 2004 12:06 PM

CAPTAINCDC

Quote:
Yes, but I must point out that it was 14 years between the end of the Star Trek series and the first movie. If things go as they appear, we will have what, perhaps 2 years to wait? A considerable time difference. We also have the wonders of technology that they did not have then, like the internet, DVDs, etc. With the sale of the DVD, and Universal (who owns Sci Fi channel) looking at the script, and I am certain the sales figures for the DVD, a new TV series is not out of the question if there is money to be made in it.

I do have hope. If I didn't I probably would not spend quite as much time on sites such as this. What I do not have is a lot of faith in tv executives. I try not to get my hopes up because I have been burned so many times by those beancounters. I should not let it make me come off sounding so cynical. I would love nothing more than to see Firefly back on TV, but I still think it is a long shot.

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

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

Tuesday, January 13, 2004 1:36 PM

BECKINSALE

Quote:
Originally posted by Channain:
Actually Jewel Staite will be 23 on June 2. That's pretty much more like 7 years younger than Sean Maher, not 10. Both of 'em are babes in the woods, but then once you start angling toward 40 (or feeling mortal), everybody under 30 fits that category.

Firefly Artwork Series
http://www.mnartists.org/artistHome.do?rid=7922

Not very important, but I thought I'd point out that Jewel was born in 1982. So, she'll be turning 22 in June. Not 23.

Oh, and, Sean will be 29 when Jewel turns 22. So, yeah, that's 7 years. Definitely not 10. (Saying this because Sean is 9 years older than I am, and I'm trying very hard to convince myself that "it's not much of a difference."

)

As for the rest of the discussion in this thread, I won't say much in fear of not being able to control my sentiments. (Which is rare, but does happen.) I will say that I don't believe their ages in a few years time would make any sort of difference.

And I do still have hope.

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

Tuesday, January 13, 2004 6:28 PM

REKKA2

I think that the River / Simon thing is going to be a major undercurrent in the series, and it does give the Serentity a higher purpose. (Assuming, of course, there is a series...)

As for Firefly coming back, Id like to keep a positive as possible. No matter how stacked the odds become, it isnt over until we let it die.

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

Wednesday, January 14, 2004 3:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by captaincdc:
I do have hope. If I didn't I probably would not spend quite as much time on sites such as this. What I do not have is a lot of faith in tv executives. I try not to get my hopes up because I have been burned so many times by those beancounters. I should not let it make me come off sounding so cynical. I would love nothing more than to see Firefly back on TV, but I still think it is a long shot.

The basic disjunction between tv beancounters and tv viewers is that, as viewers, the quality of the show is what matters to us. To the beancounters, it's the number of eyeballs that they can capture and then use to charge the advertisers more money.

I think we should never lose sight of the fact that the tv industry is all about -- is ONLY about -- money. And if showing a mother eating her live baby will bring viewers to their sets and make advertisers get out their chequebooks then THAT is exactly what we will see on tv.

FOX is a case in point. Just look at the prevalence of so-called reality tv and those soul-killing "Real Death Scenes" type shows on that channel. MONEY MONEY MONEY it's all they are really interested in and we're destined for disappointment if we allow ourselves to think otherwise.

~~~~~~~~
Nothing is ever so profoundly regretted as a kind act.
Robertson Davies

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

Wednesday, January 14, 2004 4:33 AM

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

CaptainCDC wrote:

Quote:
I do have hope. If I didn't I probably would not spend quite as much time on sites such as this. What I do not have is a lot of faith in tv executives. I try not to get my hopes up because I have been burned so many times by those beancounters. I should not let it make me come off sounding so cynical. I would love nothing more than to see Firefly back on TV, but I still think it is a long shot.

Got to have hope. Joss has hope. The cast has hope. How could we do any less?

I don't have faith in TV execs either. But HateHateHateFox has a point. They are different from us and have a different agenda. We want quality television, something w/ characters we feel are real and we can care about. We want scripts w/ substance and plot development. We want antagonists that we can despise right along w/ our heroes.

Unfortunately, TV execs are only concerned about ratings and money. I understand it is a business like any other and no ratings means no sponsers, and no sponsers means no money, but it seems like good, quality shows are becoming more scarce every day. I guess that is mostly the fault of society and the immediate gratification mentality it seems so many suffer from now. It seems that those so called "reality" shows are the flavor of the month. I for one hope they lose their appeal soon so quality TV can make a come back.

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

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

Wednesday, January 14, 2004 5:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BrownCoat1:
"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

BC1, I think your .sig may have an extra meaning now - VIewers for Quality tv TIMe (or VIQTIMs

) such as ourselves should adopt it as our motto since we're not likely to win this battle any time soon.

~~~~~~~~
Nothing is ever so profoundly regretted as a kind act.
Robertson Davies

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

Wednesday, January 14, 2004 6:15 AM

SNIPER

I also have to disagree. Yes, there could be several years between the 1st series and movie, possibly a second series etc, that will probably not coincide with the timeline during the show. Three years of a break would have no impact on the storyline.

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

Wednesday, January 14, 2004 6:40 AM

CAPTAINCDC

I feel the same way Browncoat1. It makes me sick when I read an article talking about how Gail Berman, new head honcho at foxtv, is pinning their hopes on the success of shows like the new American Idol and the new My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance. Those shows are so cheap to produce, I'm afraid they may be around for a while longer. Here's hoping the trend eventually shifts in our direction.

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

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

Friday, January 16, 2004 12:38 AM

Don't make me do this. I do not want to defend Faux. (However that might get me a job at Wolfram and Hart...) So I won't. They made a bad business decision, and will suffer for it eventually.

But I will defend Faux's desire to make money. After all that is what a business is for, making money for its investors, stockholders, as well as its employees. It HAS to be focused on that, otherwise, it ceases to be, and the folks working for it, or investing in it, starve.

If no money is coming in, then folks don't eat. Sets don't get built, shows do not get filmed, props are not built. Ultimately, everyone is in this as a means of living, of earning their daily bread. If it proves ineffective at doing that, then you got a serious problem.

People have to eat in order to continue living, continue existing in this mortal realm. (If you don't like this mortal realm, well, there are many ways to exit it. What's outside, that is a different bug)

There are three ways to obtain one's daily ration. Either freely exchange goods and services with others, make everything yourself, or steal it.

The problem with stealing is that those folks have to eat too. And the folks you are stealing from are the folks who actually produced the stuff you are stealing (Yeah, or bought it fair and square, I am trying to be brief) If your victims starve, or see all their hard work come to naught, they ain't gonna produce, and soon you ain't gonna be able to steal what they ain't got. So you end up starving in the long run.

Making everything you need or want, simply is not doable in this day and age, especially with all the stuff that is out there, that you may desire. I can't make Firefly all by myself, some projects simply require other people to help.

And if they are helping you with what you want to do, then they have to get their food, (as well as the rest of their physical needs) some other way.

Which brings us to free exchange. It means folks have to be paid to do the things you want them to do. And it has to pay more than any other comparable job, or else those folks will simply take those other jobs, instead of doing what it is you want to accomplish.

It also means that your end customers have to pay more than what it costs you to produce, or else you will have no money to pay your employees or investors. Or else You don't eat. And will have to devote your time providing for your needs, instead of doing what you want.

Ultimately, I think it will be proven that Faux's decision to cancel Firefly was bad business. That they will realize that they could have made more money if they had let the show continue. DVD sales are already bearing this out, and the movie deal is another proof that Faux made a bad business decision.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Friday, January 16, 2004 12:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BrownCoat1:
CaptainCDC wrote:

Unfortunately, TV execs are only concerned about ratings and money. I understand it is a business like any other and no ratings means no sponsers, and no sponsers means no money, but it seems like good, quality shows are becoming more scarce every day. I guess that is mostly the fault of society and the immediate gratification mentality it seems so many suffer from now. It seems that those so called "reality" shows are the flavor of the month. I for one hope they lose their appeal soon so quality TV can make a come back.

I agree. But I am loathe to look down on the tastes of other folks, especially about television. Some folks find it relaxing, or entertaining, or whatever. Just like we find Firefly entertaining.

We have an apparent minority opinion, and sometimes the minority is wrong. When you are talking artistic tastes, there is no right answer, as much as we wish their were. We disagree with the majority, and with the Faux execs, but it is a matter of taste in art, and that is all.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Friday, January 16, 2004 1:21 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
Ultimately, I think it will be proven that Faux's decision to cancel Firefly was bad business. That they will realize that they could have made more money if they had let the show continue. DVD sales are already bearing this out, and the movie deal is another proof that Faux made a bad business decision.

Oh they've NO idea....

Look at it from this viewpoint - we watch the show, it's OUR eyes and ears the advertisers pay for, and they offer their products to us, we buy them, yadda yadda.

Ultimately it's we, the consumers, that finance the show, ok?
I know that's an oversimplification of things, but bear in mind this...

Some few fans are a LOT more pissed about this as a last straw kind of thing than you'd realize, and there is a "blacklist" of fux advertisers who are NOT getting out money because the programming they sponsor, frankly, sucks.

Vote with your wallet, and when you put a product back on the shelf cause it's produced by fux nutwerkz, or because it's adverts are on fux, make sure that folks know why.

Word gets around, and it gets around quick when money is involved.

I know most folk would rather focus on the positive, but a Boycott is most certainly in order, because without consequence, ill behavior will continue.

-frem
diefuxdie

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

Friday, January 16, 2004 5:05 AM

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

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Oh they've NO idea....

Look at it from this viewpoint - we watch the show, it's OUR eyes and ears the advertisers pay for, and they offer their products to us, we buy them, yadda yadda.

Ultimately it's we, the consumers, that finance the show, ok?
I know that's an oversimplification of things, but bear in mind this...

Some few fans are a LOT more pissed about this as a last straw kind of thing than you'd realize, and there is a "blacklist" of fux advertisers who are NOT getting out money because the programming they sponsor, frankly, sucks.

Vote with your wallet, and when you put a product back on the shelf cause it's produced by fux nutwerkz, or because it's adverts are on fux, make sure that folks know why.

Word gets around, and it gets around quick when money is involved.

I know most folk would rather focus on the positive, but a Boycott is most certainly in order, because without consequence, ill behavior will continue.

I agree.

Though I see Drakon's point in that Fox has a responsibility to it's sponsors, employees, and stockholders to make money, I would submit that their mishandling of Firefly, not the show itself, was the reason for poor ratings, thus not making money.

I am the marketing director for my company & I can tell you that in order to make money you have to handle the advertising correctly, submit it to your audience in such a way that the most people in the demographic you are targeting. You also need to present it in a format that they can understand and appeals to them. Fox completely botched the job, from start to finish. They trashed the pilot, aired episodes out of order, preempted for baseball, and basically created a general disinterest in the show. To me, that was Fox completely wasting their time & money, and costing a great show to get cut down before it had a chance. If I had employees under me that so poorly handled a job, they would be unemployed. Period.

I agree that boycotting is one way to get the attention of the sponsors, and by proxy, the network, but it is kind of a moot point now. Fox has sold the rights to Firefly to Universal, and the sponsors can't really be held responsible for poor handling & decisions on Fox's part.

I for one do not watch Fox anymore, for their cancelling Firefly, as well as other quality shows I liked. I also despise "reality" shows, & w/ Fox slowly becoming the "Reality" channel, there is no desire on part to watch the channel.

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

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

Friday, January 16, 2004 5:08 AM

SAINT JAYNE

Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
I will defend Faux's desire to make money. After all that is what a business is for, making money for its investors, stockholders, as well as its employees.

I would never dream of trying to convince those dumb Fox to waste their money. What we'd all like to see is a real outcry of people that makes them think, "These Neilson ratings are BS! Look at this throng of fans! It's a goldmine!" Happily ever after for all.

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

Friday, January 16, 2004 5:52 AM

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

Quote:
Originally posted by Saint Jayne:
Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
I will defend Faux's desire to make money. After all that is what a business is for, making money for its investors, stockholders, as well as its employees.

I would never dream of trying to convince those dumb Fox to waste their money. What we'd all like to see is a real outcry of people that makes them think, "These Neilson ratings are BS! Look at this throng of fans! It's a goldmine!" Happily ever after for all.

I have never liked the Neilson rating system, and have never understood how it could be considered a fair & accurate sampling of what viewers watch.

Personally I agree that there is quite a bit of money potential in Firefly, if it is handled properly. Guess we have to have faith that Joss learned by getting burned by Fox and he will see to it that no one mishandles the show again.

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

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

Friday, January 16, 2004 6:33 AM

CAITLYN

They don't bring back dead TV shows? Hmmm... Dr. Who was cancelled in 1984. After a year and a half of protests, fan letters, etc... season 23 did happen in 1986. It was cancelled again after season 26 in 1989. Fox/BBC did a TV movie as a pilot in 1996 and Sylvester McCoy resumed his role long enough to allow for continuity and transition. In recent years there have been DVDs that have sold surprisingly well, and, voila...

The 27th season of Dr. Who, produced by BBC/Wales, premiers in the fall of 2004. It will resume the series where it left off. This only 15 years after the 1989 cancellation. It marks the second time this series has been resurrected by the BBC. DVD sales and ongoing fan interest had a lot to do with the latest resurrection. Oh, and Dr. Who is 40+ years old and incredibly campy.

"Looks like it was made with, you know,
longing."

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

Friday, January 16, 2004 8:25 AM

Quote:
Though I see Drakon's point in that Fox has a responsibility to it's sponsors, employees, and stockholders to make money, I would submit that their mishandling of Firefly, not the show itself, was the reason for poor ratings, thus not making money.

Yep. I could not agree more if I tried really really hard. And that is gonna bite Faux in the butt. You see some folks refusing to watch Faux because, well, why? If its good, they'll just cancel it. If its crap, well, its crap.

Not a way to run a business.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Friday, January 16, 2004 8:35 AM