GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Reactions to Joss Whedon's recent SFX interview

POSTED BY: APARK
UPDATED: Thursday, September 30, 2010 04:46
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 6874
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, September 27, 2010 1:34 PM

APARK


How do you interpret the comments made by Joss Whedon at this URL?:
http://www.sfx.co.uk/2010/09/26/sfx-whedon-special-preview-serenity-2-
painful-to-think-about-says-joss
/

I commented at this site (see the comments under AmeyPark) but no one has reacted yet and I'm eager to hear how others interpret his remarks. In short he writes that "Firefly will always be unfinished business" and he thinks every day about "the scenes [he'll] never get to shoot".

Our family is divided on these comments. Does he mean that any future FF/Serenities are not going to happen or does he mean that some of the great story lines that he'd have liked to shoot can't happen now because the story line of Serenity means that they are impossible?

I keep thinking that future FF/Serenities COULD happen if the creators, writers, and actors were available; if licensing issues were resolved; if someone was motivated enough to spearhead a movement to bring it back; and if a network or some other source were willing to fund it. But, is Joss Whedon saying in this link that he's done with it?

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

Monday, September 27, 2010 2:09 PM

OUT2THEBLACK


"...If so, why couldn’t someone as creative as Joss Whedon think of a way to film the great scenes anyways? Can’t he say that Serenity wasn’t canon, it was a dream (a la “Who Shot JR?”), or shoot the scenes as flashbacks (e.g., the scenes could be episodes that take place after season one but before the movie)? I’m sure there are at least 20 more possibilities."

This is science fiction , right ?

Anything is still possible. The actors are still 'all in' , in the event new adventures become doable.

One of our bright folk hereabouts once remarked that " there's never been anything false about hope..."

Maintain your best hopes...We're " Still Flyin' ".

If the new Avengers movie does well with Joss at the helm , then that could have an effect on the landscape.


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

Tuesday, September 28, 2010 3:29 AM

GWEK


I think the mistake you're making in reading Joss's comments is in treating FIREFLY and SERENITY as one entity.

By Joss' own admission, FIREFLY was conceived as a 7-year story, which nets out to something like 154 episodes.

Sure, he got to continue the overall story with SERENITY, but a movie is VERY different in tone and content than a TV series. A movie is, for lack of a better term, condensed. There's no room for sub-plots and character arcs that are not directly related to the main plot of the movie. There is no room in SERENITY for the majority of the nuance and detail that would have been contained in another season of SERENITY.

(As an aside, check out my signature for a fan-written project converting SERENITY into a full 22-episode season. You'll see that, with the exception of a few scenes and the introduction of ideas, we didn't really dig into the meat of SERENITY until about episode 11 or 12. The first half of the season was devoted the other arcs that helped build the situation and develop the characters. Anyway...)

So, the way I interpret it is that Joss didn't get much emotional satisfaction out of SERENITY. Sure, he got to tell the story, but not in the way he wanted to, with the level of detail and character development he had anticipated and was looking forward to.

And, really, that's not surprising, since it's a sentiment that I see mirrored here almost daily: "Sure, the movie was good, but it was no FIREFLY..."

So when Joss says he thinks about the scenes he'll never shoot every day, my belief is that he's talking about scenes from the SERIES... Because even if the stars aligned and FIREFLY were renewed tomorrow, it would be a very different animal than it would have been in 2003.

Basically, while the overall story of "Serenity" might continue in some way, FIREFLY is dead, and SERENITY II would just force Joss to re-live that fact on a daily basis.

Indeed, as pointed out, a successful AVENGERS might pave the way for a SERENITY sequel (especially when paired with the long-term loyalty and rabidity of the Browncoat fanbase), but Joss misses THE SERIES.

If FIREFLY was his true love (and I believe it was), then SERENITY was her pretty, shallow cousin.

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

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

Tuesday, September 28, 2010 3:58 AM

DMAANLILEILTT


I'm thinking the only way we'll see more Firefly is if it has a BSG-style re-imagining (hopefully with a better ending) in 20 years or so.

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

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

Tuesday, September 28, 2010 4:06 AM

ZEEK


I think he's saying it's over and he knows it's over and will never shoot any more scenes. Sure he'd go back to it in an instant but look at all the ifs that would take. Not happening.

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

Tuesday, September 28, 2010 6:26 AM

APARK


Thank you so much for this interpretation. This makes a lot of sense to me. Thank you also for the link to the continuing story you (and others) have created. I appreciate your work and look forward to reading the scripts.

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

Tuesday, September 28, 2010 6:30 AM

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.

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

Tuesday, September 28, 2010 6:32 AM

ZEEK


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.


That's just my own interpretation of it. I don't think there's any way for us to know if it's really accurate or not. So, don't get too tied to my post.

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

Tuesday, September 28, 2010 6:44 AM

APARK


To Zeek: Agreed, but it helps to have another set of eyes read and intrepret.

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

Tuesday, September 28, 2010 8:04 AM

GWEK


Some more thoughts:

Let's not forget that Joss has now been burned at least three times by the "establishment," so he's a different man than he was when he created FIREFLY.

In 2001/2002, he was riding the crest of success and popularity. With FIREFLY on the air, he had three different shows on three different networks, all receiving support from fans and general acclaim from critics.

Then the rug was pulled out from under him when FOX cancelled FIREFLY prematurely (yes, the ratings were low, but it was still not given a fair shake) and suddenly all those folk who were happy and anxious to work with him before were nowhere to be seen. I imagine it felt like quite the professional betrayal.

Fast-forward to 2005, and when SERENITY is released, it is the culmination of his promise to fans that the story of the crew would continue in SOME medium--in ANY medium. And, of course, the time wasn't right for SERENITY, so when the movie didn't prove to be a box office success, a potential movie franchise (or even resurrection of the series) died. Second time in three years. Hard enough to see his true love killed once, but now, it had happened twice.

So for the next few years, he dabbled. Did some comics. A few guest spots and side projects. But, I think, the loss of FIREFLY cut him to the core and stole away his heart, or his drive, or perhaps both.

Finally, like a widower ready to date again, he stuck is foot in the water with DOLLHOUSE. In Season One, I think he was largely emotionally uninvested--and it showed. But, seriously, who could blame him for not wanted to dive in again?

And, of course, just as he started to get comfortable--bam! Shot down again!

Can you blame the guy for being upset about some of this stuff?



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

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

Tuesday, September 28, 2010 8:15 AM

STORYMARK


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,"



I'd buy twice, but you can't really blame the studio for the movie not being a huge hit.

"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  

Tuesday, September 28, 2010 8:27 AM

GWEK


I respectfully disagree. If you're going to blame them for FIREFLY and DOLLHOUSE, why NOT SERENITY?



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

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

Tuesday, September 28, 2010 8:34 AM

STORYMARK


Well, lets see, aside from being entirely different studios, they were entirely different situations. No one made him go back and re-do Serenity, as happened with both pilots. No one dictated how the story could play out on Serenity, as was done on Dollhouse. They didn't show the scenes for Serenity out of order, as happened with Firefly. Serenity was not pre-empted in the middle for baseball.

Joss pretty much got to do what he wanted on Serenity, which was very obviously not the case on either Firefly or Dollhouse.

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.

"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  

Tuesday, September 28, 2010 8:44 AM

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.

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).

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.

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:

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.


Which is not actually Whedon's fault. 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.




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

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

Tuesday, September 28, 2010 8:59 AM

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.

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).


Which I see as a catch-all "we don't know why it didn't succeed, so we'll blame this" excuse. I could see that case being made with Firefly. Dollhouse seemed to be advertised pretty accurately. 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.

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.



Well, I don't totally buy the rationale that people just weren't in the mood for Firefly. But even if that is the case, it's not the studio's fault.

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.


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

Quote:

Which is not actually Whedon's fault.


Didn't say it was.

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.



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



"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  

Tuesday, September 28, 2010 3:50 PM

DMAANLILEILTT


Why not Angel?

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

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

Tuesday, September 28, 2010 5:35 PM

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..."

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

Tuesday, September 28, 2010 5:40 PM

GWEK


Quote:

Originally posted by dmaanlileiltt:
Why not Angel?

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



I always forget about ANGEL. I think of it as "more BUFFY." :)

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

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

Wednesday, September 29, 2010 1:05 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Firefly is in his heart, but I think Joss is a realist too.

Not all stories get told. The 'verse continues, but we might never see his version of it on screen.


I've come to accept that.

( and as for Angel ? Sure, it's more "Buffy", but Angel's time line precedes hers by a few hundred years. She's actually a part of HIS story, if you think of it. )

"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal."


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

Wednesday, September 29, 2010 5:10 AM

STORYMARK


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..."





Your argument has devolved into "they didn't magically make everyone want to see it" which is amazingly silly.

"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, September 29, 2010 9:19 AM

SPACEJANITOR


I try not to react to articles like this. If they ever announce more Firefly. Great. If they don't, I have a show I can watch over and over.

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

Wednesday, September 29, 2010 1:57 PM

FIREFLY28


When I first read this I was quite dismayed--I thought that it was Joss saying "Nothing more in the 'Verse."

But I think he's talking very specifically about Firefly, recognizing that the likelihood of a show is about as high as the likelihood of Jayne receiving an honorary doctorate in medicine.

But he's not talking broader about the 'Verse--he separates Serenity from Firefly. And, we can assume, the comics as well. Moreover, the fact that the overall 'Verse is so clearly with him suggests that he would very much like to continue work in it. Whether he will or not is another matter, but it's certainly not waving the white flag to the Alliance.

Of course, we all wish that we had 9 seasons of Firefly, because that would mean over 200 hours of 'Verse shininess. Plots, subplots, etc. We won't ever get that (thanks, Fox). But we may get more comics, and one day, when the economy rebounds and studios loosen their iron grips on their wallets maybe, just maybe...

well, I can dream. The success of Inception should lead any studio executive of reasonable intelligence to realize that there is indeed a market for smart sci fi.

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

Wednesday, September 29, 2010 2:45 PM

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.

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

Wednesday, September 29, 2010 4:25 PM

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.

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

Wednesday, September 29, 2010 4:51 PM

OUT2THEBLACK


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.



The overall message is more like , " Never give up hope."

Sure , there are many potential logistical issues , but business models are changing every day , especially in 'television'. There seems to be a movement away from what is known as broadcasting , and more toward a model that could be termed 'webcasting'.

If there were an entity like 'NBC/Universal' as one example , that would put the word out that they've acquired rights and that they're pitching for fan support to the tune of a dollar per fan per delivered episode , would you throw in ?

I would...Easily , and enthusiastically ! A lot of other Folk would come running , too.

Just because certain of the BDH's have other commitments at present , doesn't mean they couldn't make cameos for now , or be engaged further in the future...The job of the writers is partially to work within existing circumstances at a given point in time.

'Subscriber-supported' may be a viable business model in the near future...

Firefly is just too pretty to let die...Compared to the number of years between classic seasons of Star Trek , and the first Trek movie , we are still way ahead of the curve...

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

Wednesday, September 29, 2010 4:55 PM

FIREFLY28


Quote:

Originally posted by out2theblack:

Firefly is just too pretty to let die...



The last time that was said, the subject of said comment died :(

But you're right that there is plenty of time. Star Trek fans waited quite a long time to get a film. So, there's little reason to give up hope.

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

Wednesday, September 29, 2010 11:13 PM

FEARTHEBUNNYMAN


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.



Sean Maher is on a show now, too (as is Gina). So that actually just leaves Jewel as she's mostly doing TV films (and Summer as her show will probably get canceled...and I wonder how much longer Chuck will last). I think what you're forgetting is that most/all of these actors would be willing to get out of their current projects or do work-arounds if it meant a second shot at Firefly, but that's never going to happen so the point is moot.

I would honestly be thrilled if they did a novel continuation a la Level 26 (where they still shoot short scenes with the original actors, which you can look up online when you get to certain sections of the book, but the story is primarily in novel form). They could totally do that.

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

Thursday, September 30, 2010 4:46 AM

MIKEDINMD


My reaction to all of this is that Joss never says in this, and keep in mind we aren't reading the full article, that he is never coming back to Firefly/Serenity. Just that he shakes his head at the idea of a Serenity Sequel and that Firefly is unfinished business for him. Given his schedule with the Avengers, at the time this interview was done, he probably isn't in a place to think about a Serenity sequel. Given the large scale of Avengers, the amount of trust that is being put in him by Marvel, and the focus he has to put into working with a crew of actors, who by this time are already established in their characters, spending his time focusing on Serenity's Sequel would be a big disservice to Avengers.

It's completely understandable that he feels that Firefly was unfinished business. It ended too soon for him as it did for us.

I think the quote from Galaxy Quest holds true here. "Never give up. Never surrender." We held on for Serenity and we can hold on for more till Joss is ready, if he ever is.

[

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

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

FFF.NET SOCIAL