Is Fox deliberately killing Firefly? by millernate

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Is Fox deliberately killing Firefly?

POSTED BY: MILLERNATE
UPDATED: Thursday, September 5, 2002 13:34
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3428
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, September 2, 2002 1:57 PM

With all the recent news about Fox's behavior with Firefly (continually using the wretched "Smashmouth Promo" and expanding on it with a second as well as not showing it to advertisers) it brings to mind a story that William Goldman (a novelist who is well known as the screenwriter behind Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid as well as All the Presidents Men ) wrote about in which a studio purposely set out to destroy its own film (Goldman related this story in his book Adventures in the Screen Trade, which is a good read, even if it is a bit out of date since it hasn't been updated much since its 1982 release).

Think about it, the main theme that Firefly is giving to "outsiders" (non-Joss Whedon fans) is "campy" due to the feel of the heavily featured "Smashmouth" promos. While this might attract a couple more fans, these will quickly leave when they realize that Firefly is a mostly serious drama (which is the only kind of thing Joss really does) as opposed to "Animal House in Space" (which is how one person described the feel of the ad campaign). Also, as opposed to what Zicsoft has said elsewhere, every successfull show of modern times has had the very best advertising (I say "modern times" to separate it from the old days, pre-1996, when you could afford to blow it early and still recover, which isn't the case today) that gave you a true feel for what the show was going to be. Couple that with the fact that it hasn't even been seen by advertisers (which is one of the dumber things you can do) and you have the single worst situation for a new show (well, single worst for a new show that isn't Push, Nevada anyways).

I'm beginning to wonder if maybe someone at Fox doesn't have reason to want this show to fail. Especially since it doesn't have any "known stars" as Execs are much more loath to screw over a big name TV star than they are a producer (Stars sell series to the public, not producers after all). Contrast that with Fastlane, which has many people lining up to watch it thanks to the tremendous ads that have been coming out. I hate to be pessimistic but I expect about 4 episodes and out due to the network repeatedly shooting (

) this series before it even airs

. Sorry, but you just can't overcome initial bad advertising and bad buzz anymore (back in the old days you could but not anymore).

Nathan
"It looks like a great adventure...That's what it is; that's what it feels like. When I saw the pilot, it was really engaging. It was exciting. It was unusual. It threw me off every now and then. I think people will be grabbed by it." - Ron Glass, on the pilot, during an interview with the Indianapolis Star

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

Monday, September 2, 2002 2:16 PM

NOVAGRASS

Now is when the worrying starts.

I'm worried.

At least Firefly has a 13 episode commitment. So even if it does fail, we'll have 13 episodes to enjoy.

--Dylan Palmer, aka NoVaGrAsS--

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

Monday, September 2, 2002 2:32 PM

MILLERNATE

Actually we don't even have a garuanteed 13 episodes. That's how many Fox agree to purchase but that does not mean that Fox agrees to air them. The failed Daniel Sterns sitcom Danny had at least a 6 episode order but it was gone after one episode. A similar fate befell a detective show starring Glenn Fry of The Eagles (I believe it was South of Sunset), though the episodes of that series did eventually air *long* after the fact. So we might not even get 13 episodes to enjoy

(unless you know a good bootlegger, in which case I'll be blatantly advertising for someone to tell me

).

Nathan
"It looks like a great adventure...That's what it is; that's what it feels like. When I saw the pilot, it was really engaging. It was exciting. It was unusual. It threw me off every now and then. I think people will be grabbed by it." - Ron Glass, on the pilot, during an interview with the Indianapolis Star

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

Monday, September 2, 2002 3:31 PM

ZICSOFT

I think "deliberately" is the wrong word. TV networks have killed any number of good series with this kind of stupidity. And that's all it is, institutional stupidity. Big, complicated organizations do stupid things -- it's a fact of life.

Remember, Fox has invested a lot of bucks in Fire, and they won't get much of it back if the show fails. Obviously they won't throw away millions of dollars on purpose -- but they have wasted big bucks this way in the past and will in the future.

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

Monday, September 2, 2002 4:58 PM

JERRY

Fox seems to be advertising the show a lot. They may arguably be killing it with ineptitude, but they aren't just dumping it out there to die.

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

Tuesday, September 3, 2002 6:19 AM

MILLERNATE

Quote:

I think "deliberately" is the wrong word. TV networks have killed any number of good series with this kind of stupidity. And that's all it is, institutional stupidity. Big, complicated organizations do stupid things -- it's a fact of life.

You don't repeatedly air a commericial that gives a completely different view of a series than it actually is unless you want to sink it. If this was the standard network method they would have immeadiately yanked it (I know you can't yank TV advertising quite as easily as radio but they had a month to yank the Smashmouth ads and have instead chosen to expand them). I realize saying something indicating network intelligence is to be avoided around here but when an ad obviously doesn't work then that ad is gone. That the "Smashmouth ad" is still around, and in fact has been expanded on, indicates that a deviation from the normal order of business is going on. The fact that they control whether its screened to advertisers, and considering this is the standard, the fact that they haven't and have departed from the standard is another indication.

Quote:

Remember, Fox has invested a lot of bucks in Fire, and they won't get much of it back if the show fails. Obviously they won't throw away millions of dollars on purpose -- but they have wasted big bucks this way in the past and will in the future.

Ask William Goldman what the movie of his that the studio deliberately killed cost (heck ask TNT how much it invested in Crusade, which they deliberately knifed, and I'd bet its a larger part of their budget than Firefly is to Fox). I'm betting that it cost more than Fox has invested in Firefly so far (even more so when you factor in that it was in 1982 dollars). Fox can afford to have Firefly fail thus its failure can be used as a political chip (to sink someone or make someone who has left look worse) and I'm willing to bet that that is whats happening.

Nathan
"It looks like a great adventure...That's what it is; that's what it feels like. When I saw the pilot, it was really engaging. It was exciting. It was unusual. It threw me off every now and then. I think people will be grabbed by it." - Ron Glass, on the pilot, during an interview with the Indianapolis Star

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

Tuesday, September 3, 2002 10:38 AM

MOJOECA

Quote:
Originally posted by millernate:

You don't repeatedly air a commericial that gives a completely different view of a series than it actually is unless you want to sink it. If this was the standard network method they would have immeadiately yanked it (I know you can't yank TV advertising quite as easily as radio but they had a month to yank the Smashmouth ads and have instead chosen to expand them). I realize saying something indicating network intelligence is to be avoided around here but when an ad obviously doesn't work then that ad is gone. That the "Smashmouth ad" is still around, and in fact has been expanded on, indicates that a deviation from the normal order of business is going on. The fact that they control whether its screened to advertisers, and considering this is the standard, the fact that they haven't and have departed from the standard is another indication.

You obviously don't like the Smashmouth ad, but I do. Your anecdotal evidence doesn't add up to anything. If they've expanded on it, then perhaps it's playing well in focus groups. If the ad is a "completely different view of the series" then what of it? There are different ads, each presenting a different angle. Each variation is geared towards particular segments of viewers -- some looking for humor, others for action, etc. But no matter. I honestly haven't seen that particular ad in awhile. If they are still airing it, then they're airing the others just as much, because, of late, I've mostly seen variations on "Event" and those all new ones ("In the war to unite the planets...").

I don't know what the deal is with the postponed screening for the advertisers. There can be any number of explanations ... maybe FOX thinks the show sucks, or that screening the Pilot was good enough, or maybe Radium isn't gettin the job done, or maybe it's just a simple network snafu.

I'm with Zic, here. Networks do incredibly bone-headed things. I thought that FIREFLY poster was horrendous. It doesn't neccessarily mean FOX is actively trying to railroad an $8 million+ investment. If they are, then why are they advertising at all? So they can pile on to the money they will lose? If you want to ensure a DOA, then you DON'T advertise.

Quote:
Fox can afford to have Firefly fail thus its failure can be used as a political chip (to sink someone or make someone who has left look worse) and I'm willing to bet that that is whats happening.

And who might that be? FOX asked Joss for a series, remember. And Gail Berman, who greenlit the show, is still FOX's programming director.

--- Joe
who thinks millernate is jumping to conclusions.

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

Tuesday, September 3, 2002 2:10 PM

FURYFIRE

Well we're pretty much guanateed 9, since that is the amount of episodes ordered to be shot, as four are scripted. FOX could always halt filming, which is unlikely because even Danny was allowed to finish shooting. Unaired episodes could always be seen somewhere else like what happened with Wolf Lake.

I don't know if FOX would want to dump Firefly, they've invested soooo much in it already, it is likely to air throughout the season but not be picked up for S2 :(

DOn;t forget not just the expensive pilot and episodes and the costs of putting together a show, but Jossy Whedon's development deal with those tens of millions. if Firefly fails, he has one last chance at a new series... for this deal anyway

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

Thursday, September 5, 2002 4:28 AM

MILLERNATE

I know its stupid to be replying here but...

Quote:

You obviously don't like the Smashmouth ad, but I do. Your anecdotal evidence doesn't add up to anything.

Actually I don't mind the Smashmouth ad, on its own, what I mind is that its hurting a series that needed everything to go right, advertising wise, to suceed. Also, my anecdotal evidence should be taken as is in the absence of genuine proof to the contrary as most of the people that dislike the ad are the sort of people that Firefly must appeal to to survive.

Quote:

If the ad is a "completely different view of the series" then what of it?

No, no, you misunderstood me. Its not that the ad is to a completely different view of the show. Its that the ad appeals to a facet of the show that will NEVER be in the show. Joss has to much dignity to do that ridiculous camp crap (which is done only by those that are either incompetent to mask their flaws or by those with no budget who have no other choice, Joss obviously is neither). Thus the few people that the ad does appeal to will quickly leave when they discover that this show doesn't contain any of the qualities found in that ad and those who it doesn't appeal to won't see it because it looks ridiculous. Thus this ad has managed the impossible and achieved a "lose-lose" scenario.

Quote:

maybe FOX thinks the show sucks, or that screening the Pilot was good enough,

Actually Fox never screened the Pilot to advertisers.

Quote:

I'm with Zic, here. Networks do incredibly bone-headed things.

See you'd be right except for one crucial fact: The one thing that networks never screw up, unless they deliberately do so, is that they can promote a show like nobodies business. To quote someone on the official Firefly board: "Take a look at the excellent promotional campaigns done for The X-Files, Dark Angel...". The only time when a network does "stupid things" in advertising a show is when they deliberately set out to destroy a show (see: How the Sci-Fi channel treated The Chronicle). Otherwise they always do an excellent job (not that this means the public will always go for the show despite good advertising as The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr. proved).

Quote:

If they are, then why are they advertising at all?

Because bad advertising is worse than no advertising. A lot of bad advertising ensures that the show becomes a high profile flop and whoever the relevent party wants to look bad then proceeds to look bad. Again, I'd advise you to read the William Goldman book (and not only that but you get several pages of Goldman script to look at which is always interesting). A sure fire sign that something is getting buried is when the tone of the advertising changes continually, and guess what Firefly's advertising has done?

Nathan
"It looks like a great adventure...That's what it is; that's what it feels like. When I saw the pilot, it was really engaging. It was exciting. It was unusual. It threw me off every now and then. I think people will be grabbed by it." - Ron Glass, on the pilot, during an interview with the Indianapolis Star

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

Thursday, September 5, 2002 1:34 PM

MOJOECA

What does FOX stand to gain or prove by throwing tens of millions of dollars down the toilet? Who are they trying to make look bad? Who has the vendetta?

Your contention is conceivable because it's happened in the past, but all you have here is an arguably bad ad campaign. FOX, like any other network or production company, isn't infallible. Because it's nailed the sales pitch for past shows doesn't mean it will continue to do so for for all shows, for all time.

Firefly is a hard sell. It's a sci-fi series with no aliens that's really a western crossed with action, humor, and drama and which comes first is a "bone of contention." So it's no surpise the ads are so varied in tone. Because the promo dept isn't hitting them out of the park isn't cause enough to charge conspiracy.

--- Joe

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

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE