Quote:

---

Originally posted by APark:
Thanks to both ZEEK and DMAANLILEITT. Neither is what I wanted to hear, but combined with GWEK's interpretation, it appears that you're accurate.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GWEK:
Some more thoughts:

Let's not forget that Joss has now been burned at least three times by the "establishment,"

---

Quote:

---

Joss got petty much got to do what he wanted on Serenity

---

Quote:

---

Context counts for a lot. As popular as it is to put Joss on a pedestal and pretend everything that doesn't go according to plan is the fault of the evil suits, the fact is - outside of the established fanbase, very few were interested in seeing Serenity.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GWEK:

Quote:

---

Joss got petty much got to do what he wanted on Serenity

---

Obviously not, because what he wanted for 6 more seasons of FIREFLY.

---

Quote:

---

I would actually say that the thing that all three properties had in common is that they were poorly marketed (although SERENITY got the best treatment of the the three, it was still pretty poor).

---

Quote:

---

Regardless of what FOX did to undercut FIREFLY, the ultimate failure lies in the fact that the audience simply wasn't there. That close to 9/11, people didn't want to see something as dark and brooding as FIREFLY. (I am also willing to blame Joss himself a bit more than is commonly done on this board.)

By 2005, however, cynicism had started to set in again. More importantly, SERENITY came out on the heels of the last Star Wars movie. Any well-marketed sci fi flick should have been able to ride that wave. In 2005, the audience DID exist--it just wasn't engaged.

---

Quote:

---

The problem with DOLLHOUSE, ultimately, was DOLLHOUSE. I think the biggest mistake FOX may have made there was in renewing the show for a second season.

---

Quote:

---

Which is not actually Whedon's fault.

---

Quote:

---

He created a movie that was visually compellling, with a strong cast and an interesting (and, arguably, socially appropriate) story. It SHOULD have found it's audience.

But because of a number of factors--I would say questionable marketing chief among them--it did not.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GWEK:

Quote:

---

Joss got petty much got to do what he wanted on Serenity

---

Obviously not, because what he wanted for 6 more seasons of FIREFLY.

---

Yeah.... which Universal (you know, the studio that made Serenity) had nothing to do with. They couldn't give him 6 seasons of Firefly - period.

---

Didn't say it was Universal's fault, just that Joss didn't get what he REALLY wanted out of the movie (which is pretty germaine to the original post, although we've largely drifted away from the original intent of the thread).

Quote:

---

Which I see as a catch-all "we don't know why it didn't succeed, so we'll blame this" excuse.

---

It is indeed a catch-all. Given that I was looking for a pattern among the three works, it is, pretty much, by definition, a catch-all. I don't, however, agree that it's an excuse.

I'm pretty sure I know why FIREFLY and DOLLHOUSE failed (at least a number of the significant, contributing factors in both cases), although I'll admit that I'm a bit more fuzzy on SERENITY.

I was looking for the major factor that they all had in common.

Quote:

---

I could see that case being made with Firefly. Dollhouse seemed to be advertised pretty accurately.

---

"Advertised pretty accurately" and "advertised well" are not necessarily the same thing. FIREFLY's advertising was ridiculously bad AND inaccurate. DOLLHOUSE's may have been fairly accurate to what the show was about--but that wasn't doing it any favors.

Many of Whedon's properties are "almost high concept" (where they appear to be fairly straightforward and marketable, but are actually quite difficult to package) and DOLLHOUSE is probably the most extreme of those.

Quote:

---

Serenity, I thought had pretty representative ads, and I personally saw a lot of them. Perhaps you didn't, but that's a matter of what stations and shows you watch. They can only put so much money into marketing, which means being selective with where they advertise. And like it or no, from a business standpoint, there was no justification behind a huge marketing push which would have cost more than the film itself.

---

Yes, I saw a fair amount of commercials for SERENITY, and the majority of them began with phrases like "From the mind that brought you BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER..."

Now, I'm not trying to blame SERENITY's failure on BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER, but I think it's a terrible way to market the film (particularly since SERENITY and BtVS have little in common other than some themes and Joss's trademark clever/arch writing).

Invoking BtVS immediately limits the audience, because people who know what BtVS is (and would care about that mariketing angle) fall into two categories:

1) People who know and like BtVS... the majority of whom already knew about FIREFLY and had probably already made up their minds on it, one way or another.

2) People who don't like BtVS, either because it just wasn't for them, or because they thought the concept was stupid.

One of the other lynchpins of the ad campaign was to "subtly" invoke the spirit of Star Wars (not a terrible thing) by using the words "rebel" and "empire."

So, basically, the ad campaign boiled down to something like "Here's a Star Wars rip-off by the dude who created Buffy the Vampire Slayer."

Again, a fair amount of commercials doesn't necessarily equal a good marketing campaign.

Quote:

---

Well, I don't totally buy the rationale that people just weren't in the mood for Firefly.

---

Could be that you don't remember what 2001 and 2002 were like in the United States (I can't speak for other countries).

Although there are certain ideas that are universal in terms of time, for many great ideas, the difference between success and failure is timing. Five years earlier or later for Star Wars and it would have been laughed out of the theaters. In 1977, though, brilliant. Put X-FILES on the air when Reagan was president (and popular) and it would have bombed. There are social reasons that Rocky, Rambo, John McClane, and Dirty Harry were all popular at particular times, and not popular at others (and it goes beyond whether scripts are good or bad).

History, politics, and entertainment are all cyclical.

Quote:

---

But even if that is the case, it's not the studio's fault.

---

Debatable, although I agree that it was not solely the studio's fault.

There's a great Whedon quote about FIREFLY that goes something like "FOX asked me if I had a series idea that was lighthearted, uplifting, and patriotic. I told them I had a show about nine people trying to subsist in the black corners of space. They said 'Done!'"

Although he intends it as a joke, it shows how clearly, from Day One, Joss and FOX were not on the same page. Certainly, FOX is at fault for a lot of that--but Joss knew what they were looking to buy and sold them something completely inappropriate anyway, so he's just as guilty.

Quote:

---

I agree that Dollhouse was a flawed concept, but that had a lot to do with the network demands on the show.

---

A lot of people seem to forget that the entertainment business is a BUSINESS. Of course the network is going to have demands, requests, and ideas about the show. They're footing the bill, after all.

It is often said that screenwriting is the least respected profession in Hollywood, and most professional writers have the "fortune" of watching their work gutting by producers, directors, actors, development executives, etc. While the common audience member may not be aware of this fact, Joss, as a third-generation screenwriter, definitely knows.

I'm not saying the system is good, mind you, but as an educated creator, you must assume that your work will be tampered with.

If you read/listen to the interviews, it's pretty clear that Joss, while clever and subversive, isn't exactly doing himself any favors when he "rebels."

Consider, for example, the pilot for FIREFLY. Joss felt very strongly that the episode should be shot in widescreen. The network disagreed and told him to shoot in fullscreen. He shot in widescreen anyway, and, further, shot a number of the scenes so that the episode couldn't easily be converted to fullscreen (watch the ep and see how many scenes have characters standing at opposite borders of the screen). On one hand, a clever way to get his way... On the other, though, kind of a slap in the face to the people paying the bills. If I did stuff like that at work--even if I was ALWAYS right--I would expect to be fired in fairly short order.

Quote:

---

All arguable points, but outside of the already discussed marketing excuse, that's not the fault of the studio.

---

But finding the audience for a movie, marketing a movie, SELLING the movie, IS the responsibility of the studio. In this case, Joss did his part: he gave them a movie that people could enjoy. He did more than his part, because he got out there and publicized the movie as best he could on his own.



www.stillflying.net: "Here's how it might have been..."

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dmaanlileiltt:
Why not Angel?

"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GWEK:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GWEK:

Quote:

---

Joss got petty much got to do what he wanted on Serenity

---

Obviously not, because what he wanted for 6 more seasons of FIREFLY.

---

Yeah.... which Universal (you know, the studio that made Serenity) had nothing to do with. They couldn't give him 6 seasons of Firefly - period.

---

Didn't say it was Universal's fault, just that Joss didn't get what he REALLY wanted out of the movie (which is pretty germaine to the original post, although we've largely drifted away from the original intent of the thread).

Quote:

---

Which I see as a catch-all "we don't know why it didn't succeed, so we'll blame this" excuse.

---

It is indeed a catch-all. Given that I was looking for a pattern among the three works, it is, pretty much, by definition, a catch-all. I don't, however, agree that it's an excuse.

I'm pretty sure I know why FIREFLY and DOLLHOUSE failed (at least a number of the significant, contributing factors in both cases), although I'll admit that I'm a bit more fuzzy on SERENITY.

I was looking for the major factor that they all had in common.

Quote:

---

I could see that case being made with Firefly. Dollhouse seemed to be advertised pretty accurately.

---

"Advertised pretty accurately" and "advertised well" are not necessarily the same thing. FIREFLY's advertising was ridiculously bad AND inaccurate. DOLLHOUSE's may have been fairly accurate to what the show was about--but that wasn't doing it any favors.

Many of Whedon's properties are "almost high concept" (where they appear to be fairly straightforward and marketable, but are actually quite difficult to package) and DOLLHOUSE is probably the most extreme of those.

Quote:

---

Serenity, I thought had pretty representative ads, and I personally saw a lot of them. Perhaps you didn't, but that's a matter of what stations and shows you watch. They can only put so much money into marketing, which means being selective with where they advertise. And like it or no, from a business standpoint, there was no justification behind a huge marketing push which would have cost more than the film itself.

---

Yes, I saw a fair amount of commercials for SERENITY, and the majority of them began with phrases like "From the mind that brought you BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER..."

Now, I'm not trying to blame SERENITY's failure on BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER, but I think it's a terrible way to market the film (particularly since SERENITY and BtVS have little in common other than some themes and Joss's trademark clever/arch writing).

Invoking BtVS immediately limits the audience, because people who know what BtVS is (and would care about that mariketing angle) fall into two categories:

1) People who know and like BtVS... the majority of whom already knew about FIREFLY and had probably already made up their minds on it, one way or another.

2) People who don't like BtVS, either because it just wasn't for them, or because they thought the concept was stupid.

One of the other lynchpins of the ad campaign was to "subtly" invoke the spirit of Star Wars (not a terrible thing) by using the words "rebel" and "empire."

So, basically, the ad campaign boiled down to something like "Here's a Star Wars rip-off by the dude who created Buffy the Vampire Slayer."

Again, a fair amount of commercials doesn't necessarily equal a good marketing campaign.

Quote:

---

Well, I don't totally buy the rationale that people just weren't in the mood for Firefly.

---

Could be that you don't remember what 2001 and 2002 were like in the United States (I can't speak for other countries).

Although there are certain ideas that are universal in terms of time, for many great ideas, the difference between success and failure is timing. Five years earlier or later for Star Wars and it would have been laughed out of the theaters. In 1977, though, brilliant. Put X-FILES on the air when Reagan was president (and popular) and it would have bombed. There are social reasons that Rocky, Rambo, John McClane, and Dirty Harry were all popular at particular times, and not popular at others (and it goes beyond whether scripts are good or bad).

History, politics, and entertainment are all cyclical.

Quote:

---

But even if that is the case, it's not the studio's fault.

---

Debatable, although I agree that it was not solely the studio's fault.

There's a great Whedon quote about FIREFLY that goes something like "FOX asked me if I had a series idea that was lighthearted, uplifting, and patriotic. I told them I had a show about nine people trying to subsist in the black corners of space. They said 'Done!'"

Although he intends it as a joke, it shows how clearly, from Day One, Joss and FOX were not on the same page. Certainly, FOX is at fault for a lot of that--but Joss knew what they were looking to buy and sold them something completely inappropriate anyway, so he's just as guilty.

Quote:

---

I agree that Dollhouse was a flawed concept, but that had a lot to do with the network demands on the show.

---

A lot of people seem to forget that the entertainment business is a BUSINESS. Of course the network is going to have demands, requests, and ideas about the show. They're footing the bill, after all.

It is often said that screenwriting is the least respected profession in Hollywood, and most professional writers have the "fortune" of watching their work gutting by producers, directors, actors, development executives, etc. While the common audience member may not be aware of this fact, Joss, as a third-generation screenwriter, definitely knows.

I'm not saying the system is good, mind you, but as an educated creator, you must assume that your work will be tampered with.

If you read/listen to the interviews, it's pretty clear that Joss, while clever and subversive, isn't exactly doing himself any favors when he "rebels."

Consider, for example, the pilot for FIREFLY. Joss felt very strongly that the episode should be shot in widescreen. The network disagreed and told him to shoot in fullscreen. He shot in widescreen anyway, and, further, shot a number of the scenes so that the episode couldn't easily be converted to fullscreen (watch the ep and see how many scenes have characters standing at opposite borders of the screen). On one hand, a clever way to get his way... On the other, though, kind of a slap in the face to the people paying the bills. If I did stuff like that at work--even if I was ALWAYS right--I would expect to be fired in fairly short order.

Quote:

---

All arguable points, but outside of the already discussed marketing excuse, that's not the fault of the studio.

---

But finding the audience for a movie, marketing a movie, SELLING the movie, IS the responsibility of the studio. In this case, Joss did his part: he gave them a movie that people could enjoy. He did more than his part, because he got out there and publicized the movie as best he could on his own.



www.stillflying.net: "Here's how it might have been..."

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by APark:
As the original poster, I appreciate everyone's thoughts on this thread. I'm reading most people to think that there might be another Serenity -- movie or comic books, etc. -- down the road but no chance for another TV series (Firefly). Perhaps because it's late and I've moved LOTS of rocks today (literally), but why is that? Is it because the chances of the actors being available at the same time are next-to-nil, is it too big a risk for potential funding sources, or is it licensing issues, or maybe it's a combination? I read another post that said the licensing rights leave Fox in 2012.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by out2theblack:

Firefly is just too pretty to let die...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by firefly28:
Well, all of the above ;)

Nathan Fillion and Adam Baldwin are both on stable, successful shows--as much as they love the project, their agents would hunt them down with tazers if they even had a thought of leaving those shows for another attempt at a sci fi western. Summer Glau has another attempt at a show coming up, and Morena Baccarin is on a show that may survive for another year (V).

Honestly, the only way you could even have a Firefly tv show would be to hire all new actors, with the possible exceptions of Sean Maher and Jewel Staite.

And then there's the problem of getting a network to fund it. I do think that one of the smaller networks--eg CW--would do it, as would a cable network, but it'd be costly for them to acquire the license, and Joss would probably not be up for trying to do it on a substantially lesser budget with a very different cast. A major part of the genius of Firefly is how well the cast works together, and that is immensely hard to replicate.

---