Not Just Fox by RIPWash

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Not Just Fox

POSTED BY: RIPWASH
UPDATED: Thursday, March 5, 2009 03:39
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1870
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, February 26, 2009 8:21 AM

I know this has probably been discussed before, but I gotta vent.

FOX WAS incredibly stupid for airing episodes out of order then snobbishly cancelling this show. But let's face it. The blame needs to be spread around a little bit, too. I mean c'mon. I think that Joss was smart enought to pitch the show to EVERY other network out there: Sci-Fi, TNT, TBS, NBC, ABC, CBS, USA, HBO, Showtime. And they ALL turned it down? I mean . . . that's incredibly stupid on their parts as well. USA? Characters wanted? HELLOOOOO?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

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

Thursday, February 26, 2009 8:39 AM

STORYMARK

At the time he pitched it to the other networks, the DVD wasn't out, so there really wasn't much to it other than being a cancelled show. Business wise, it would have been a rather poor decision to pick up a cancelled show with bad ratings and a very, very small fanbase.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

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

Thursday, February 26, 2009 8:40 AM

RIPWASH

Even so . . . AFTERWARD . . . after the DVD sales . . . the movie. Especially how the other networks actually respond to fan outcries. Look at "Jericho" or "Friday Night Lights". Fans have kept those shows going. Show these other networks the fan outcry and a network would have to think that there's something to this show. Pick it up and give it a shot. Show THEM the episodes in order for cryin' out loud.

*sigh*

Sorry . . . like I said. Just need to vent.

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

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

Thursday, February 26, 2009 8:47 AM

STORYMARK

Well, at that point, after the DVD sales, and the fanbase grew, Fox very likely did give anyone the option to pick it up. They would hacve lost out on more DVD sales, and would have been admitting a mistake (which they rarely if ever do).

But the reality is, it's not like any channel could have just picked it up at any time. Simply not how it works.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

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

Thursday, February 26, 2009 10:42 AM

RALLEM

I am partly ignorant here, but I was under the impression that Fox would only sell the movie rights and would not part with the television right.

http://www.swyzzlestyx.com/index.html

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

Thursday, February 26, 2009 1:13 PM

ZEEK

Early on Joss asked if he could sell the show to other networks and Fox said he could. I'm not sure if the tune changed after the dvd sales or if Joss had the movie to worry about and wasn't looking back to TV at that point. I think after the movie Joss said he couldn't go back to Firefly on TV anymore. That it had become something too big for TV or some such.

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

Thursday, February 26, 2009 1:25 PM

RALLEM

Interesting.

http://www.swyzzlestyx.com/index.html

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

Thursday, February 26, 2009 2:52 PM

DREAMTROVE

I think I've made this same point a lot of times.

The out of order issue on Fox is you have to open with action or they won't air it, it's their only rule: Be sensational, controversial, scandalous, and make things happen. Fox wants "man bites shark." But they want girl bites shark even more.
SCC got it right in their pilot. This is what fox wants, and it's not because they're dumb, it's because they know what viewers want. SCC pilot pulled in over 18 million viewers, topping heroes genre record of 14.3 million, IIRC. Why? Because they knew how to do it. It's not rocket science. I think Joss has too many worshippers. We would be more helpful to him if we were critical editors. Constructive criticism helps a bundle. Nothing in Dollhouse yet screams Pilot. Also, Joss still has the urge to explain backstory rather than tell the story which is going on right now. I mean, it's sometimes a little like if lord of the rings broken every once and a while for a reading from the silmarillion.

Some comparisons

Fringe 9.13 million viewers
Dollhouse 4.7 million viewers

Sure, franchise helps, but no franchise in the genre is larger than star trek:
Enterprise 13 million viewers
Voyager 5.53 million viewers

It's playing to the audience. The tweets on Dollhouse were between "wait and see" "i'm a joss fan so I'll watch" and "I guess I won't tune in for another one."

It failed to play into the nature of a Genre pilot, which means lots of hooks, lots of tropes, it failed to play into action, drama suspense, characters, and it failed to play into its specific target audience: Fox.

If Target had aired first, it wouldn't have made much difference, if any. Fox execs looked at what they had, and ran with what they thought was most exciting. They did the same with Firefly, and they chose Train Job. It's Joss' job to make a pilot that grabs the audience.

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

Thursday, February 26, 2009 3:59 PM

ECGORDON

There's no place I can be since I found Serenity.

No, it's Joss' job to tell the story his way. It's the network's job to tell them they don't want it that way and he has to change it. It's the audience's job to get a frickin' clue that action is not the only thing that can hook you into a new genre story.

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

Thursday, February 26, 2009 4:53 PM

ASARIAN

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I think I've made this same point a lot of times.

The out of order issue on Fox is you have to open with action or they won't air it, it's their only rule: Be sensational, controversial, scandalous, and make things happen. Fox wants "man bites shark." But they want girl bites shark even more.
SCC got it right in their pilot. This is what fox wants, and it's not because they're dumb, it's because they know what viewers want. SCC pilot pulled in over 18 million viewers, topping heroes genre record of 14.3 million, IIRC. Why? Because they knew how to do it. It's not rocket science. I think Joss has too many worshippers. We would be more helpful to him if we were critical editors. Constructive criticism helps a bundle. Nothing in Dollhouse yet screams Pilot. Also, Joss still has the urge to explain backstory rather than tell the story which is going on right now.

(...)

If Target had aired first, it wouldn't have made much difference, if any. Fox execs looked at what they had, and ran with what they thought was most exciting. They did the same with Firefly, and they chose Train Job. It's Joss' job to make a pilot that grabs the audience.

The way you put it, things almost make sense. Almost, of course. I mean, for Fox to air the Train Job first was simply as moonbrained as it gets. Ultimately, Fox maxes incredibly short-sighted decisions. What if Shakespeare's editor had told him to just "Cut to the chase," and move the most action-packed Act in first? That's just ludicrous. Can't you see how retarded that is? Also, FOX tampering/meddling is a decision that tends to re-inforce itself: air it out of sequence, see peeps not getting it, cancel it; and then, come the next show, insist even more that you need to put action first to placate to the moronic Pepsi-culture desire for instant gratification.

Weird thing is, on Whedonesque, even Joss kinda half-way justified Fox for messing with Dollhouse. Because, as I said, it's 'almost' a no-brainer to want to air the most exciting episode first. But why? Anyone who's ever read a book knows that this whole misguided notion of putting the action first is well, just that: misguided. So, what you then wind up with is a gratuitous moter-cycle race and some kick-boxing, all of which serves no real purpose, except to give the Fox execs their high-bitrate scenes. Uh-huh. And that makes it real good. *cough*

I'd even go so far as to say you don't need to air the 'best' episode first. Or the 'most gripping.' Or the 'most whatever.' Just let the writer decide what part of the story needs to be told first. And if that means they're some Ninja-Turtle watching teens out there who won't get it then, or lose interest, fuck 'em.

--
"Mei-mei, everything I have is right here." -- Simon Tam

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

Thursday, February 26, 2009 5:53 PM

RHYIANAN

Well, I'm going to stand in middle on this one. Yes, the first episode needs to make the viewer want more, but high action isn't necessarily the way to do it. If something has an interesting story (say, like serenity did) then that might be a better hook than anything else. Action just for action's sake is neither interesting, nor does it make me want to see more.

Heroes had a bit of action in the pilot, but the thing that caught so many people was its premise: normal people dealing with superhero powers. They created a mystery, kept you guessing. Looking at the heroes message boards while it was running was fascinating because everyone wanted to know what was going on and why it was happening. It wasn't the action that roped people in, but the story and wanting to see it unfold.

You don't need action to lead a story if it is well written. All you need is to create a desire in the viewer to see more.

I'm a leaf on the wind

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

Friday, February 27, 2009 1:51 AM

ZZETTA13

This ground has been covered a few times but I don’t mind covering it again. First of all the magic of making a successful tv show isn’t science. If that were true then every tv network would have a lab stuffed behind parking lot A, studio 27 on their property. The truth of the matter is that tv networks have no idea what will work and what will not. There is no formula. What they do have control of is hiring creative writers and actors and production crews with successful track records.

Now that said, I was one of the people that did not watch Firefly when it first aired on television and I did not see Serenity in the movie theaters. So I can count myself in adding to it’s failure.

I don’t blame F*>< for canceling something that was loosing money. I think that I would do the same myself. What I do blame them for is not running the show in order and moving it around so that it was hard to follow. Joss knew how to create a good tv show. He’d proven that with Buffy and Angel, so why did the network treat FF the way that they did?

My feeling is that somewhere up the ladder someone canned the show from the beginning. Marched it out to the middle of no and where and shot it. Joss was allowed to shop it around but what other company wants to buy a boat with a hole in it? No one really invested any time to check the show out and see it’s genius.

Once the dvd sales started to hit the roof and a browncoat crazed fanship began the network pulled the plug on selling any rights to the thing, it was making money. Not enough to want them to start it up again but enough that they were happy with the 14 episodes that were in the box already.

By then Joss had already badmouthed F*>< so to have him understand his place in the pecking order of things the network just stood by happily making tons of money from dvd sales. They even got a healthy paycheck from Universal for the rights to make Serenity.

After the network produced several piles of horse dung they decided to give Tim Miner a try with “DRIVE” staring Nathan Fillion. I was starting to get into this show when they pulled the plug. Now I see another network starting up the same notion with a show called “Speed”.

Now F*>< is allowing the creator that they burned before with FF have another shot with a new project. I wish Joss tons of luck but being a browncoat through and through, my soul is still there on Serenity. I have yet see another show compete with the level of depth not only one or two, but every character on that tv series has shown me.

Just the way I see it, Z

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

Friday, February 27, 2009 4:39 AM

RIPWASH

I watched "Done The Impossible" yesterday and I've read a few things about what went on behind the scenes. Tim Minear said that they went back and re-shot scenes in the original pilot "Serenity" to meet every point Fox had about what they thought was wrong with it. Then interviews with fans said that they were anxious to see the show because of the clips shown in the commercials . . . from "Serenity". The show comes on and Fox decides to aire "The Train Job" first and that caused confusion right from the get-go.

What Joss should have done was to get Fox to give him the copies (digital or otherwise) of the show for him to take to the other networks as well as the fan response from it being cancelled and have the execs view the series IN ORDER and THEN have them make their decision. I mean this was a guy with a little bit of pull here after all, with Buffy and Angel being such big hits.

I, for one, watched Drive and enjoyed it immensely. I loved Nathan Fillion and what they were doing with it. But . . . oh well.

I agree that Firefly/Serenity can not probably exist as a show anymore. Not as it was. Movies would be the best bet. Perhaps someday we'll get our sequel . . . or trilogy.

Didn't mean to light a firestorm. Just needed to vent.

I do have a slightly humorous story. I mentioned the series to my cousin and he said he knew all about it and that it was one of his favorites shows. I then griped him out for not telling me about it sooner :o)

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

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

Friday, February 27, 2009 4:47 AM

DREAMTROVE

I meant "needs to have aciton *for* FOX" THat's what fox demands, it's what its viewers want. Murdoch may be many things but he isn't petty, if someone trashes fox he'll shrug, trash some (other) network and you might be in trouble.

A show, collectively, any story, needs some basic elements: A hook, a story, and by the end of chapter/episode one you have to know all the characters, not just their names and what they do, but who they are.

This should hold for most episodes of the show, except for the single character eps. which are generally the best, imho. But watch one episode of Buffy and you can go roleplay Cordelia without any problem. This is how it should be.

Heroes has a lot of characters to. I've seen half a dozen eps and I have memory problems but I have no problems remembers Sylar, Hiro, Noah, Peter, Daphne, Tracy, and of course Claire. I don't remember the creepy bald guy's name or Peter's brother, Senator what's his name. Then there's the guy who draws things.

On character, things are more fuzzy.

Claire and Noah are pretty decent characters Sylar is a masterpiece, Hiro is good if a defined, if a little bit of a stereotype. His sidekick Lano? is it, less well defined.

Peter I feel is still poorly defined for all of the screen time he gets. Tracy who I've seen little of leaves a strong impression, as does Daphne.

After one ep Chuck hasn't left me with a lot of names in my head, but it's clear there are some characters, some very familiar comedy archetypes, but I'll probably watch another. Tonight more sarah and dollhouse. Sarah's ratings are suffering because of the time change. TV stations are pretty dumb about this. They should say during the show a lot more "moving to a new time." People might not be watching anything else. Also, these large gaps of no eps. lose viewers. On hulu at least, it would've been nice to fill in with past eps. I don't know if they did that on TV. The only flat completely disposable character alas is John Connor.

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

Thursday, March 5, 2009 12:25 AM

SHINYGOODGUY

I strongly agree with you on this one.

Well, at that point, after the DVD sales, and the fanbase grew, Fox very likely did give anyone the option to pick it up. They would hacve lost out on more DVD sales, and would have been admitting a mistake (which they rarely if ever do).

But the reality is, it's not like any channel could have just picked it up at any time. Simply not how it works.
-------------------------------------------

Before the DVD sales I suspect that Fox would have been happy with unloading this "turkey" of a show to "saps" dumb enough to buy the rights. I read an article somewhere that stated that Fox rushed to get the DVD of the series done to salvage what they could of the investment they made.

Once they saw how much the fans loved this show through the DVD sales, all bets were off. Just take a look at this re: Watchmen lawsuit -

January 15, 2009 Terms of the agreement were not disclosed, but the deal is said to involve a sizable cash payment to Fox and a percentage of the film's boxoffice grosses; Fox will not be a co-distributor on the film, nor will it co-own the "Watchmen" property, but it will share in revenue derived from it. "Warner Bros. acknowledges that Fox acted in good faith in bringing its claims, which were asserted prior to the start of principal photography," the statement read. Fox sued Warners in February, claiming copyright infringement based on agreements the studio had with producer Larry Gordon.

In the words of our BDH, Jayne:
"I got greedy, the money was too good."

or this little tidbit: Batman Returns, 1992
"Things change"
-------------------------------------------

SGG

Tawabawho?

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

Thursday, March 5, 2009 1:01 AM

ADS

Man I really hate the legions of braindead tasteless moronic realitity TV watching mainstream masses who the networks bend over backwards to please whilst royally f**cking up TV for the minority of us with taste.

It would be so awesome if the start up expenses for Firefly werent so steep because I think someone like sci-fi would jump on making this show again in a heartbeat.

And I think Fox would sell it to them too because it's not like they are going to be making much more money of the rights to make more Firefly anytime soon.

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

Thursday, March 5, 2009 3:39 AM

SHINYGOODGUY

And I think Fox would sell it to them too because it's not like they are going to be making much more money of the rights to make more Firefly anytime soon.

Fox would do well to partner up with Universal to produce more FF, except it would air on the Sci-Fi channel and both would share in the DVD sales profit. Win-win situation.

Pretty much like the deal they struck with Warner for the Watchmen movie, cause, like you mentioned above, they are not going to make any money with it sitting on the shelf.

SGG

Tawabawho?

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

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE