GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

So why couldn't the Sci-Fi network pick up Firefly???

POSTED BY: OPPYH
UPDATED: Monday, November 7, 2016 00:09
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 12970
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, April 25, 2008 10:19 AM

OPPYH


They show the reruns, and Firefly the complete series is one of the best selling dvd's....ever!

Sci-Fi would no doubt welcome the chance for a new FF series on it's network, because it would draw huge ratings. Did Joss ever even consider them? Seems like a no-brainer, after all if they need shows like FF after BSG is gone. I thought I heard something long ago about the fact that they wouldn't have the budget for it, but I say Baloney. If theyt can make BSG(fantastic) they can make FF!


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

Friday, April 25, 2008 11:01 AM

PENTHOS


Someone somewhere stated the reason SciFi wont produce new FF shows is because FOX still owns the rights to all future Firefly DVD sales... So SciFi won't do it because they couldn't make any money of DVD sales of the series like they do with BSG and Stargate...

Can't say if its true, just what I read (probably on this very board)

I've always believed that where there is a will there is a way. And that's why we need to post frequently over on the Universal HD board because they own SciFi and they are running Firefly on Saturday nights...

Universal HD Firefly message boards:
http://boards.nbcuni.com/universalHD/index.php?showforum=4
POST THERE!

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

Friday, April 25, 2008 1:42 PM

ECGORDON

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


The dvd rights is only a partial reason, and definitely not the main one. FOX did allow Joss to shop the show around but no network was interested at the time, probably because of the expense. The times that a network has taken on another network's discard can probably be counted on one hand, and not even all the fingers on that one. I can recall JAG and Sabrina, the Teenage Witch, and there might be one or two other examples.

Also, don't forget that the dvds were not released until a year after the series was canceled, long after everyone passed on the deal and before anyone knew how big a seller it was going to be.




wo men ren ran zai fei xing.

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

Friday, April 25, 2008 2:10 PM

RICKKER


because Firefly is a non-reality sci-fi show. It costs money to make and the sci-fi channel can't spend money on sci-fi programing cause it costs to much. theyll spend it on nonquality crap programming rather than quallity, if it has quality they cancel it quick; Farscape, Stargate SG-1, Battlestar Galactica, Dresden Files. And to a lesser extent of quality First Wave and Invisible Man. But we get plenty of Frakkin' ghostfacers(Supernatural is awsome) / ghost hunters, and destisnation crap.

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

Friday, April 25, 2008 2:42 PM

OPPYH


Quote:

Originally posted by rickker:
because Firefly is a non-reality sci-fi show. It costs money to make and the sci-fi channel can't spend money on sci-fi programing cause it costs to much. theyll spend it on nonquality crap programming rather than quallity, if it has quality they cancel it quick; Farscape, Stargate SG-1, Battlestar Galactica, Dresden Files. And to a lesser extent of quality First Wave and Invisible Man. But we get plenty of Frakkin' ghostfacers(Supernatural is awsome) / ghost hunters, and destisnation crap.


I did hear something about the cancellation of BSG because of the cost of production. Although hailed as one of the best shows on television, BSG just doesn't draw in big numbers, and that's a shame.

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

Friday, April 25, 2008 2:45 PM

OPPYH


Quote:

Originally posted by ecgordon:
The dvd rights is only a partial reason, and definitely not the main one. FOX did allow Joss to shop the show around but no network was interested at the time, probably because of the expense. The times that a network has taken on another network's discard can probably be counted on one hand, and not even all the fingers on that one. I can recall JAG and Sabrina, the Teenage Witch, and there might be one or two other examples.

Also, don't forget that the dvds were not released until a year after the series was canceled, long after everyone passed on the deal and before anyone knew how big a seller it was going to be.




wo men ren ran zai fei xing.



I still tend to think FF can exist in a direct to dvd(new eps or movies)market. It would sell huge and make the fans BIG DAMN HAPPY!

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

Friday, April 25, 2008 3:28 PM

STRANGEBIRD


Quote:

Originally posted by rickker:
because Firefly is a non-reality sci-fi show. It costs money to make and the sci-fi channel can't spend money on sci-fi programing cause it costs to much. theyll spend it on nonquality crap programming rather than quallity, if it has quality they cancel it quick; Farscape, Stargate SG-1, Battlestar Galactica, Dresden Files. And to a lesser extent of quality First Wave and Invisible Man. But we get plenty of Frakkin' ghostfacers(Supernatural is awsome) / ghost hunters, and destisnation crap.




Ok I agree with you on Farscape and Dresden.... but SG-1?? Canceled QUICK? Probably just poor choice of words. That show got more of a chance than any other Science Fiction show that I can immediately think of. Besides Doctor Who. I enjoyed SG-1 greatly since it's inception but the last two seasons had far more bad than good. Sure they made some big mistakes with cancelation. It should have been canceled after season 7 or so, so they could pick up the originally planned Stargate Command(or whatever they were going to call it) series which would have starred the cast SG-1 had in it's final couple seasons. Then it may have run for even longer. But ofcourse they wanted to go for longest running series and got greedy.

Anyway this is a thread about Scifi picking up Firefly so I'll have to say I agree with ECGORDON that it was the expense of the show and it's poor ratings that sealed it's doom. Didn't matter that the ratings were due to poor advertisement and scheduling issues.

There's still hope for more 'verse. And it most likely lies with either the internet or Fox, unless Uni decides to make further films. Joss's new series Dollhouse will, if a big enough hit, renew his standing(in the eyes of the big wigs) as a money maker. I won't say if it'll be a continuation of Firefly(Very unlikely.. though one can hope) or a new series set in the 'verse. All I hope is that Joss can pull it off and make it stick.

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

Friday, April 25, 2008 7:06 PM

FREELANCERTEX


"So why couldn't the Sci-Fi network pick up Firefly???"

I have asked myself that question many atime, and still don't have an answer. Sci-Fi is the perfect home for our shiny crew. Fox doesn't deserve the rights to Firefly. heathens -_-


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

Saturday, April 26, 2008 1:35 PM

BIGGESTDAMNHERO


Pondering this thread. Joss got lucky with Firefly, and got unlucky REALLY quick. Americans for the most part are raised on blasters, aliens, wookies, lightspeed, and the force. Joss taking a tame sci-fi yet plausable direction coupled with a hokey western theme did him in. 500 years into the future and people using lever action rifles? Then we should still be using matchlock or wheelock muskets today? Horses? Give me a break! Most people are too dumb to appreciate good writing, and great character development. They want the quick fix of special effects, etc. Why elese were the dumb "Transporter" movies even made? Firefly was a brief shining (or maybe shiny) moment. I think the "women as bad-asses" obsession is unrealistic and tiring. Starbuck from BSG being made into a woman? If Summer Glau was a former East German shot putter I'd buy it. Sadly it seems, that Joss isn't a money maker anymore. Sorry if this isn't what your used too. Just not a Joss worshipper, or bought into that whole Wedonesque cult. Never cared for Buffy or Angel. Never watched a single episode. But Firefly? Hell yes!
BDH

"And I'm thinking you weren't
burdened with an overabundance of
schooling"

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

Saturday, April 26, 2008 6:11 PM

ECGORDON

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


Quote:

Originally posted by biggestdamnhero:
Never cared for Buffy or Angel. Never watched a single episode.


How can you know you don't care for something you've never seen?



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

Saturday, April 26, 2008 7:12 PM

FREELANCERTEX


i never cared for buffy or angel either :-P and yes i've seen each (not a lot, but enough to know i didnt like them). just not of the same quality as firefly. firefly is definitely his best work by far ^_^ well that and titan a.e. but i dont think he was a forerunner on that..not sure.


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

Sunday, April 27, 2008 12:37 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


The bottom line is, of course, MONEY, and lots of it.

The BDM, according to Box Office Mojo, cost $39M to make and grossed $38.9M at the box office. Not good by Hollywood standards.

Why didn't it do well:

36.5% Poor marketing campaign from Universal.
17.1% Failure of original TV show, 'Firefly,' foretold soft grosses.
15.8% Space Western concept inherently had limited appeal.
11.9% Storyline left the uninitiated and non-fans lost.
10.3% Strange title for an action or sci-fi movie
3.2% The show's fans, the Browncoats, didn't see it enough times.

Fact: Here is an Action/Adventure Sci-Fi movie that is released Sept. 30, 2005. Other than The Matrix (3/31/99) when do you release a Sci-Fi movie in the non-summer months and expect a blockbuster?

Another thing is that, although Sci-Fi Channel is owned by Universal, they still follow the same basic principles of the entertainment world...MONEY/PROFIT. They want more returned than they put into it. Having said that, I still think a miniseries (on the net or in limited release to pay cable, then to DVD) is the way to go. I prefer a TV series than a movie, but the bottom line is a reality show is cheaper to produce than a series with actors, writers and such. Hence we get Big Brother, Survivor, AI and Top Chef, all great shows (wink, wink), but anything of quality - Firefly, Joan of Arcadia, This So Called Life - is flushed down the toilet.

Shiny! Let's be bad guys!

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

Sunday, April 27, 2008 2:16 AM

IMNOTHERE


Quote:

Originally posted by Shinygoodguy:
The bottom line is, of course, MONEY, and lots of it.

The BDM, according to Box Office Mojo, cost $39M to make and grossed $38.9M at the box office.



And obviously didn't make a penny on DVD, otherwise it would have been one of the first movies to be released in HD. Oh, wait - it was!

I think the big marketing problem was that it was sold as "Buffy in space" (Big picture of Summer in whoopass mode on all the UK posters) and Buffy is pretty much percieved as a kids show, especially in the UK. When I saw Serenity, a group of people walked out after hearing about Kaylee's nethers





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

Sunday, April 27, 2008 3:44 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Hey ImNotHere

People really walked out on the movie - especially at that part. Wow, I don't think they got the movie. That line by Kaylee is great (Mal's reaction was a hoot). But I agree that this movie was not marketed properly, nor was it released to take advantage of the biggest movie-going crowd - the summer audience.

Say, do you remember if any of the actors in the BDM were ever interviewed on any of the talk shows? I'm straining my brain to see if I do but I'm drawing a blank. As you know Leno, Letterman and Conan are key in getting to word out in the mainstream.

Shiny! Let's be bad guys!

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

Sunday, April 27, 2008 3:55 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by biggestdamnhero:
. Just not a Joss worshipper, or bought into that whole Wedonesque cult. Never cared for Buffy or Angel. Never watched a single episode. But Firefly? Hell yes!
BDH




To quote Wash from TRASH..." I'm confused ". You go through a lot of contradictory comments here, and I for one am a bit lost as to your true meaning of things. On the one hand, you smartly point out that...
Quote:

Most people are too dumb to appreciate good writing, and great character development.
...and what's exactly the stuff for which Joss has made his mark. But then you follow up with how...
Quote:

Just not a Joss worshipper, or bought into that whole Wedonesque cult. Never cared for Buffy or Angel


I also was cool to the whole Buffy/Angel scene myself. I had seem 'some' of the episodes, enough to know who most of the main characters were, but not much more. Then I saw Firefly - WOW! And yeah, despite the pump action guns, I was able to look past the peripheral stuff and see what was really important. The story and the characters. I was hooked, and still am today. But Firefly lead me to go back and check out Buffy and Angel, season by season, and I'm glad I took the time to watch 'em all.

Anyway, just wanted to point out that it sounded to me you were contradicting yourself a bit.


Also, Firefly is being shown on Universal HD, Saturday nights at 8pm. Just so ya know.



It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

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

Sunday, April 27, 2008 4:02 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by ImNotHere:

I think the big marketing problem was that it was sold as "Buffy in space" (Big picture of Summer in whoopass mode on all the UK posters) and Buffy is pretty much percieved as a kids show, especially in the UK. When I saw Serenity, a group of people walked out after hearing about Kaylee's nethers







I guess it's the Jayne in me, but why'd anyone walk out of the movie then? If anything, that's when you may think things were getting MORE interesting!!

Sorry to hear about the marketing snafu. And despite the draw back , Serenity still managed to rate as BBCs top movie for 2005. Here in the U.S., I don't think it was as much an issue of MIS-marketing, as it was just not enough marketing to begin with. Had they come to me and listened to some of my ideas, SERENITY would have made much much more.



It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

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

Sunday, April 27, 2008 5:31 AM

IMNOTHERE


Quote:

Originally posted by Shinygoodguy:
Hey ImNotHere
People really walked out on the movie - especially at that part. Wow, I don't think they got the movie.


It was a bit rude...
Quote:


Say, do you remember if any of the actors in the BDM were ever interviewed on any of the talk shows?


I saw one interview on morning TV in the UK (Jewel and, uh, I forget who else). It actually opened at #1 over here, but (If I recall correctly) got knocked off the top spot by Wallace and Gromit the next week. There is no shame in that...

There were TV ad spots for it, but the usual stupid sort which stopped when the film actually opened (unlike when they're trying to salvage some lame gross-out comedy and do follow-up ads with vox pops from chavs coming out of the cinema).

I partly blame DVD - its easier to pull something from theaters after a couple of weeks in the knowledge that you can have a second chance come the DVD release than it its to follow through with the film marketing.



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

Sunday, April 27, 2008 8:12 AM

BIGGESTDAMNHERO


Quote:

Originally posted by ecgordon:
Quote:

Originally posted by biggestdamnhero:
Never cared for Buffy or Angel. Never watched a single episode.


How can you know you don't care for something you've never seen?


ecgordon;
Because I did not care for a woman slaying vampires. Van Helsing was a better vamp-slayer.
Angel: A Vampire show again? Really the Whedon take on Anne Rice was questionable. Really the whole Vampire genre is been there, done that!

"And I'm thinking you weren't
burdened with an overabundance of
schooling"

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

Sunday, April 27, 2008 8:16 AM

BIGGESTDAMNHERO


Quote:

Originally posted by ImNotHere:
Quote:

Originally posted by Shinygoodguy:
The bottom line is, of course, MONEY, and lots of it.

The BDM, according to Box Office Mojo, cost $39M to make and grossed $38.9M at the box office.



And obviously didn't make a penny on DVD, otherwise it would have been one of the first movies to be released in HD. Oh, wait - it was!

I think the big marketing problem was that it was sold as "Buffy in space" (Big picture of Summer in whoopass mode on all the UK posters) and Buffy is pretty much percieved as a kids show, especially in the UK. When I saw Serenity, a group of people walked out after hearing about Kaylee's nethers

Your correct. Buffy teenie-bopper, and Angel ??? who knows. The BDM was marketed as by "The creator of Buffy" If you weren't a goth vampire wannabe why watch Buffy/Angel? I wouldn't waste prescious hours of my life on it.





"And I'm thinking you weren't
burdened with an overabundance of
schooling"

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

Sunday, April 27, 2008 8:38 AM

MUDKICKER


Quote:

Originally posted by ecgordon:
The times that a network has taken on another network's discard can probably be counted on one hand, and not even all the fingers on that one. I can recall JAG and Sabrina, the Teenage Witch, and there might be one or two other examples.



Well, in recent history, we have Scrubs switching from NBC to ABC here in Season 8, I think?

In days of yore, Star Trek was an NBC production later pitched to fledgling FOX during the creation of TNG (who couldn't commit to more than 13 epis, due to start up costs) then issued in first run syndication under Viacom and eventually aired by Universal/Paramount for the UPN network. Another big loss for FOX and one that paid off for millions of Trek fans.

Battlestar Galactica was an NBC show that rebirthed as a part of Sci-Fi Channel.

____________________________________

"We are not gonna die. You know why? Because we are so...very...pretty. We are just too pretty for God to let us die."

PVT Gabriel "Mudkicker" Sheppard, 76th Independent Battalion

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

Sunday, April 27, 2008 11:00 AM

ECGORDON

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


Quote:

Originally posted by biggestdamnhero:
Quote:

Originally posted by ecgordon:
Quote:

Originally posted by biggestdamnhero:
Never cared for Buffy or Angel. Never watched a single episode.


How can you know you don't care for something you've never seen?


ecgordon;
Because I did not care for a woman slaying vampires. Van Helsing was a better vamp-slayer.
Angel: A Vampire show again? Really the Whedon take on Anne Rice was questionable. Really the whole Vampire genre is been there, done that!


I'm like Auraptor here. I didn't think much of Buffy/Angel prior to Firefly, have several pre-conceived notions of what it was about (teeny-bopper vamp slayer, meh!) and I also didn't care for the original movie. Then I realized that the brilliance of Firefly doesn't just appear out of nowhere, and I learned that not only Joss, but a lot of the other writers and directors on Firefly had worked in the Buffyverse. I started renting the discs through Netflix, but along about the middle of season three I splurged and bought all the seasons on dvd. Haven't regretted that for a second. Also got all five seasons of Angel, and actually like it more than Buffy.




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

Sunday, April 27, 2008 5:30 PM

PSYCHOTIC


This explains how TV execs think. Just substitute "Hiatus" with "Firefly". I love this comic series.

http://savehiatus.com/2008/04/14/critical-mass/
http://savehiatus.com/2008/04/18/executive-derision/

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

Sunday, April 27, 2008 6:30 PM

FIREFLYPASSENGER


If you never watched Buffy or Angel you don't know what you're missing. The same as those dismissing Firefly without watching it.

Joss' writing and storytelling is great.

Back on topic. SciFi was not interested at the time. That is the short answer. Joss tried, no on was buying. Very sad.

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

Sunday, April 27, 2008 7:42 PM

VALKREY


Quote:

Originally posted by rickker:
because Firefly is a non-reality sci-fi show. It costs money to make and the sci-fi channel can't spend money on sci-fi programing cause it costs to much. theyll spend it on nonquality crap programming rather than quallity, if it has quality they cancel it quick; Farscape, Stargate SG-1, Battlestar Galactica, Dresden Files. And to a lesser extent of quality First Wave and Invisible Man. But we get plenty of Frakkin' ghostfacers(Supernatural is awsome) / ghost hunters, and destisnation crap.



Just a quick reply to try and get this thing back on some sort of original flight plan. SG-1 ran for 10 seasons total. Not a quick cancel at all. BSG is ending because the creators say it is time and the story will be finished. To the other shows, I agree. Also now that SG-1 is done and BSG is almost done why not pool some funds for the greatest show ever to return to television on the SciFi channel.

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

Sunday, April 27, 2008 8:27 PM

PARTICIPANT


Scifi channel would rather air wrestling

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

Wednesday, April 30, 2008 8:10 AM

BOOKREADER


Quote:

Originally posted by participant:
Scifi channel would rather air wrestling



It is more profitable for them. The ratings for wrestling are pretty good, and the cost is dirt cheap. They are in business to make money and they make a lot of it with wrestling.

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

Wednesday, April 30, 2008 8:13 AM

PENTHOS


Quote:

Originally posted by BookReader:
Quote:

Originally posted by participant:
Scifi channel would rather air wrestling



It is more profitable for them. The ratings for wrestling are pretty good, and the cost is dirt cheap. They are in business to make money and they make a lot of it with wrestling.



Exactly, don't blame scifi for showing wrestling, blame the wrestling fans... that's what I do.

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

Wednesday, April 30, 2008 10:39 AM

STORYMARK


Wait, wait, wait.....

Did someone just talk about how important good writing is.... and then say Van Helsing was better than Buffy?

Seriously??

And Angel had virtually nothing in common with the Anne Rice Vampire books. It's like saying The Howling and Teen Wolf are the same, just because they have werewolves.

If you watch the shows, and don't like them, fine. But making such daft statements without ever having see of what you speak....?

Staggeringly stupid.

"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  

Wednesday, April 30, 2008 2:37 PM

PENTHOS


Quote:

Originally posted by Penthos:
Exactly, don't blame scifi for showing wrestling, blame the wrestling fans... that's what I do.



Actually, after thinking about it, I'm going to qualify my above statement by saying that the "Science Fiction Channel" SHOULD NOT BE SHOWING WRESTLING IN THE FIRST PLACE!

They don't show murder mysteries on the Food Network. And ESPN sure as hell doesn't show Star Trek.

Come to think of it; maybe we should petition SciFi to change the name of their network to just "Fi", because that's all pro wrestling is, fiction. Or maybe we should stop watching the SciFi channel all together. I mean if they'll show "pro wrestling" but not do what it takes to get new Firefly\Serenity episodes made then why shoudl we be loyal to them at all.

Maybe the thought of losing a hundred thousand or so viewers would convince them to try just a litle bit harder to bring the show back in some form or another.

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

Thursday, May 1, 2008 8:18 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by Penthos:
Or maybe we should stop watching the SciFi channel all together.



That's what I did.


Quote:

Maybe the thought of losing a hundred thousand or so viewers would convince them to try just a litle bit harder to bring the show back in some form or another.


The unfortunate reality being, if that happened, their revenue would go down, which would make them more inclined to do even more cheap programming.

"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, May 1, 2008 8:49 AM

PENTHOS


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
The unfortunate reality being, if that happened, their revenue would go down, which would make them more inclined to do even more cheap programming.



I don't buy it... if SciFi can afford to produce shows like BSG, Eureka, and Stargate SG a-z, then SciFi can afford to produce Firefly...

They need get off the pot and buy the Firefly rights from FOX instead of feeding us roid-raged rednecks in leather boots and sequened speedos pretending to beat each other up... Enough all ready!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zoe: Don't think its a good spot sir, she still has the advantage over us.
Mal: Everyone always does; that's what makes us special.

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

Thursday, May 1, 2008 9:09 AM

JONGSSTRAW


Didn't The(new)Outer Limits start off on Showtime, and then end up on Sci fi channel? Those anthology episodes were certainly not cheap to make, and Sci fi ran production on them for a couple of years after Showtime axed it. I would kill to see Firefly end up on HBO or Showtime....just imagine the 'verse in an un-censored & commercial-free environment.

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

Thursday, May 1, 2008 9:30 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by Penthos:
Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
The unfortunate reality being, if that happened, their revenue would go down, which would make them more inclined to do even more cheap programming.



I don't buy it... if SciFi can afford to produce shows like BSG, Eureka, and Stargate SG a-z, then SciFi can afford to produce Firefly...

They need get off the pot and buy the Firefly rights from FOX instead of feeding us roid-raged rednecks in leather boots and sequened speedos pretending to beat each other up... Enough all ready!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zoe: Don't think its a good spot sir, she still has the advantage over us.
Mal: Everyone always does; that's what makes us special.



Uh, I didn't say they couldn't now....

I said if everyone stopped watching. that leads to fewer ad buys, which means less money to do high-cost shows. Fewer viewers would result in cheaper programming. Pretty simple cause and effect situation.

"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, May 1, 2008 10:54 AM

PENTHOS


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:

Uh, I didn't say they couldn't now....




I understand, I shoudn't have quoted you for that last post as I started to type one thing then my thoughts changed to something else...

The point to me is, its been proven that we have enough fans to flex some muscle.

A nicely written letter from the Browncoat nation to SciFi (Universal\NBC) insisting they do everything in their power to get Firefly\Serenity flying again one way or another or run the risk of losing us as viewers altogether might make them actually consider it... I know it's a reach but what can I say, Firefly has turned me into a professional straw grasper.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zoe: Don't think its a good spot sir, she still has the advantage over us.
Mal: Everyone always does; that's what makes us special.

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

Thursday, May 1, 2008 8:26 PM

RAYCHEETAH


Firefly may not have been Skiffy's cup of tea, back in the day after F*X screwed Joss, but, now, even if they wanted it, they likely wouldn't cough up the cash to make it.

Firefly is moderately expensive to make; not sure where it falls in the Stargate/BSG scale, but, I get the impression that it's somewhere near or in that range. So, one might reason that, when BSG has had its day, Firefly might get a chance.

Not with BSG Prequel series Caprica...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caprica_(TV_series)

...on the way. I'm not gonna go into the pros and cons of whether or not this is gonna be a good show; it's simply a matter of how many pennies there are in the piggy bank.

Also, there is the Jericho factor. Skiffy picked up the rights to air the existing eps of Jericho, and, at least according to the scuttlebutt, are haggling a deal to possibly make more new eps. Well, given their budgetary inclinations (anybody see the re-imagined Flash Gordon?), I sincerely doubt Skiffy's sincerity in paying serious money for new eps of a show which, like Firefly, could seriously boost their viewership.

More likely, they're playing the Rangers along for as long as they can until they have to fess up that they're not gonna become Jericho's new home. They even played shell-games with the airing schedule for the Jericho re-runs right out of the gate, proving that they respect the Rangers about as much as they do the Browncoats, that is, not gorram much.

So, what's all that mean for Firefly? It means that Skiffy will gladly pick at the bones of the show by occasionally airing some of the 14 eps, but, they have no interest in taking it over from F*X.

Personally, I would rather a show I seriously love end up just about anywhere, including a (theoretically) rehabilitated F*X, than at Skiffy.

Just sayin'...

-Raycheetah =^[.]^=
The enjoyment of any good thing is only enhanced by sharing it with others.

http://fans4writers.com/ support the WGA writers strike



http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=30176

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

Sunday, May 4, 2008 2:35 AM

PARTICIPANT


Quote:

Originally posted by Penthos:
Quote:

Originally posted by BookReader:
Quote:

Originally posted by participant:
Scifi channel would rather air wrestling



It is more profitable for them. The ratings for wrestling are pretty good, and the cost is dirt cheap. They are in business to make money and they make a lot of it with wrestling.



Exactly, don't blame scifi for showing wrestling, blame the wrestling fans... that's what I do.



but it is meant to be a science fiction channel. Imagine if National Geographic started airing horror movies or porn or something.

People are right to complain about skiffy

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

Sunday, May 4, 2008 4:28 AM

PENTHOS


Quote:

Originally posted by participant:
Quote:

Originally posted by Penthos:
Quote:

Originally posted by BookReader:
Quote:

Originally posted by participant:
Scifi channel would rather air wrestling



It is more profitable for them. The ratings for wrestling are pretty good, and the cost is dirt cheap. They are in business to make money and they make a lot of it with wrestling.



Exactly, don't blame scifi for showing wrestling, blame the wrestling fans... that's what I do.



but it is meant to be a science fiction channel. Imagine if National Geographic started airing horror movies or porn or something.

People are right to complain about skiffy



If you read a couple posts down from where you quoted you'll see I pretty much said the same thing you just did.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zoe: Don't think its a good spot sir, she still has the advantage over us.
Mal: Everyone always does; that's what makes us special.

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

Sunday, May 4, 2008 5:12 PM

THOLO


I think a campaign to get an answer from scifi might help?

lets send in a email forwarded to every bc fan and see if that will help. does anyone know someone in hollywood? maybe a trip to scifi's home office and asking to speak to someone with answers? or camp out in front of the home office until we get a "real" answer as to why they wont pick it up as a show?

heck i dont know why they cant make a statement for us to let us know. it would allow most of us to sleep at night, eheh

thanks


Keep Flying!!

Please listen to our internet radio talk "Unnamed Geek" show on Friday Nights @ 8:00pm central. http://radio.tstc.edu


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

Sunday, May 4, 2008 5:40 PM

CALHOUN


Quote:

biggestdamnhero wrote:
Saturday, April 26, 2008 13:35

I think the "women as bad-asses" obsession is unrealistic and tiring. Starbuck from BSG being made into a woman?



I'm with biggestdamnhero!! Women should get back in the kitchen and stay there!....

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

Sunday, May 4, 2008 5:41 PM

PENTHOS


Quote:

Originally posted by Tholo:
I think a campaign to get an answer from scifi might help?

lets send in a email forwarded to every bc fan and see if that will help. does anyone know someone in hollywood? maybe a trip to scifi's home office and asking to speak to someone with answers? or camp out in front of the home office until we get a "real" answer as to why they wont pick it up as a show?

heck i dont know why they cant make a statement for us to let us know. it would allow most of us to sleep at night, eheh

thanks



I'm sure at least a few posters will tell you its "not worth your time", or "its been tried", or "they wont listen".

Well I'm here to tell you I am ALL FOR IT. Even if it has been tried, I don't care... try again... If you're serious, I'm serious so let's figure out a way to make it happen... Where there's a will, there's a gorram way. PM me and we can start planning. ANYBODY interested in getting active about this PM me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zoe: Don't think its a good spot sir, she still has the advantage over us.
Mal: Everyone always does; that's what makes us special.

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

Wednesday, May 7, 2008 6:40 AM

SMAUG


Couple of quick thoughts:

First of all.. I believe BSG is actually split between Sci-fi and the BBC (if not the BBC, then someone else.. it's definatly split between two entities). Both of them equally sharing in the cost of production. This has helped for two reasons.. One, each entity only has to pay half of the production which if that wasn't the case, imagine BSG being done on HALF the budget? Secondly.. since it's not owned by just ONE company.. the Sci-fi channel does not have the authority to go in and mess with it any way they wish! Now imagine that.. the writers and Ron Moore have much more freedom to do what they want with little (or at least a lot less) studio involvment and we get one of the best shows on tv out of it!


Ok.. then about Firefly/Serenity. When I look at the big picture.. the biggest "problem" with Firefly is it doesn't have a single saleable premise. Now that's the very same thing that makes our beloved show what it is. But what I find out time and time again is that I simply can't seem to "sell" anyone on the concept, no matter what tactic I take. If I go uberfan on someone.. they get turned off. If I casually tell someone they should check it out it's really good.. they never get around to it.

The ONLY people that I can sell it on are the few people out there that are MAJOR sci-fi geeks who for some reason or other haven't seen it.. a very strong recommendation in seeing it and that I know they will love it is usually enough to get them to actually check it out.

Now the frustrating part is when someone you have been working on FINALLY watches it.. they inevitably say "OH MY GOD!! WHY DIDN"T YOU TELL ME HOW INCREDIBLE THIS IS?" And I just want to pull my hair out saying "I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO TELL YOU FOR THE PAST YEAR!!!".

About the best approach I have found for non-sci-fi geeks is to simply say "Look.. you may not LOVE this like I do.. but out of ANY form of entertainment on this planet that has ever been known to man, plays, books, movies, shadow puppets.. whatever.. out of ANY entertaiment ever.. this is the ONLY thing that I will personally guarentee that at the VERY least you WILL be entertained." Then I tell them to go buy the boxed set.. and if they truely hate it.. I will buy the boxed set from them. I've never had to buy a boxed set... but also.. it's still a slim percentage of people that actually do go but the boxed set after telling them that.

Which I believe comes down to the idea that it simply doesn't have a simple saleable concept.

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

Wednesday, May 7, 2008 5:29 PM

JOLLY


The old timers will tell you that a movie deal was in the works before the DVDs were released. Maybe the agreement with Universal precluded production of additional episodes for television for a specified period?

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

Thursday, May 8, 2008 6:39 AM

FUTCHFACTOR


"we get plenty of Frakkin' ghostfacers(Supernatural is awsome)"

OMG, how funny was GhostFacers? I never laughed so hard. GhostHunters is such a pile of sh!t.


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

Thursday, May 8, 2008 7:23 AM

PENTHOS


Ghost Hunters IS in fact a ridiculous show....

"oh my god! I felt a cold spot"...
"Something touched my shoulder!"

I don't care if they want to investigate Ghosts, or UFOs or the Loch Ness Monster, that's cool with me, but make it a seasonal special. Hell, make it two hours if you want and present your BEST evidence instead of an hourly show every week filled with dramatic editing of fuzzy hand held footage along with wild speculation that in the end basically says, "well, we still have no evidence of anything..."

I guess like all "reality " and pro-wrestling shows, these shows are CHEAP AS HELL to produce and for some reason people still watch...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zoe: Don't think its a good spot sir, she still has the advantage over us.
Mal: Everyone always does; that's what makes us special.

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

Sunday, November 6, 2016 10:33 PM

THGRRI


Quote:

Originally posted by Strangebird:
Quote:

Originally posted by rickker:
because Firefly is a non-reality sci-fi show. It costs money to make and the sci-fi channel can't spend money on sci-fi programing cause it costs to much. theyll spend it on nonquality crap programming rather than quallity, if it has quality they cancel it quick; Farscape, Stargate SG-1, Battlestar Galactica, Dresden Files. And to a lesser extent of quality First Wave and Invisible Man. But we get plenty of Frakkin' ghostfacers(Supernatural is awsome) / ghost hunters, and destisnation crap.




Ok I agree with you on Farscape and Dresden.... but SG-1?? Canceled QUICK? Probably just poor choice of words. That show got more of a chance than any other Science Fiction show that I can immediately think of. Besides Doctor Who. I enjoyed SG-1 greatly since it's inception but the last two seasons had far more bad than good. Sure they made some big mistakes with cancelation. It should have been canceled after season 7 or so, so they could pick up the originally planned Stargate Command(or whatever they were going to call it) series which would have starred the cast SG-1 had in it's final couple seasons. Then it may have run for even longer. But ofcourse they wanted to go for longest running series and got greedy.

Anyway this is a thread about Scifi picking up Firefly so I'll have to say I agree with ECGORDON that it was the expense of the show and it's poor ratings that sealed it's doom. Didn't matter that the ratings were due to poor advertisement and scheduling issues.

There's still hope for more 'verse. And it most likely lies with either the internet or Fox, unless Uni decides to make further films. Joss's new series Dollhouse will, if a big enough hit, renew his standing(in the eyes of the big wigs) as a money maker. I won't say if it'll be a continuation of Firefly(Very unlikely.. though one can hope) or a new series set in the 'verse. All I hope is that Joss can pull it off and make it stick.



I ran into this guy in chat. His name was still visible but I think he was gone. I checked him out and he turns to be an old acquaintance of this site.

____________________________________________

Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719

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

Monday, November 7, 2016 12:09 AM

WISHIMAY


Browncoats never really go away, they just go into intermittent hibernations...

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

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

FFF.NET SOCIAL