GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Serenity the Sequel or TV show?

POSTED BY: TRAGICSTORY
UPDATED: Monday, April 12, 2004 10:18
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 7295
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, April 9, 2004 9:11 AM

TRAGICSTORY


Which do you think is more likely to happen? A sequel or the TV show? Thinking about this from a Universal's exec point of view would you make a sequel or hand it over to Sci-Fi or UPN to start up the series again?

I personally think that they (evil execs/hollywood types) are stringing Joss along promising a TV sereis after in order to get him to write an open ended movie which can then be "plugged" with a hack job of a sequel before it is buried for good.


Yes, I know I am cynical and thinking evil thoughts, I learned it from Fox.

-----------
"Societies are supported by human activity, therefore they are constantly threatened by the human facts of self-intrest and stupidity." --Peter Berger

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

Friday, April 9, 2004 9:31 AM

BROWNCOAT1

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.


See to me it doesn't make much sense to spend the money on a movie and gamble it is a success, just to hope to make sequels. It also doesn't add up that Universal would ask Joss to rewrite his script to act as a "springboard" for a television series if they only intend to make movies.

Since Universal owns Sci Fi channel, and with Stargate SG1 going into its final season this fall, I think Universal will be looking to add a show like Firefly, which comes w/ an established fanbase, to its line up in 2005 or 2006.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."


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

Friday, April 9, 2004 9:56 AM

TRAGICSTORY


1. They are not gambling that the movie will be a sucess. I guarantee they have done front end evaluation and have the data to back up that this will make them money.

2. Joss wanted to wrap things up in the BDM. EVERY movie after Porky's 2 that made any decent profit has spawned a sequel. If Joss wraps things up, then it it very hard to make a sequel. "And they lived happily ever after..." doesn't cut it as far as moeny making sequels. So what do the Execs do? Blow smoke up Joss a** telling him what he wants to hear so he will rewrite the movie with an open ending. He thinks he is getting his show back, the execs know they are getting thier sequel.

3. The real question towards your line of arguement is "How well do the different branches of the Universal family work together or is there real rivalry?" (I would guess the latter) Do you think that Universal would give up a practically guaranteed money making sequel for a TV show that would profit another division or do you think it more likly that the CEO of Universal will keep this little cash cow for him/herself?

4. Sci-fi has lots of options to go with. Right of the top of my head I would say they could go in the direction of Adult Swim and Toonami (both of which have VERY strong numbers) I don't see them realistically giong for a show that was previously cancelled when there is so much already made material out there. You have to remember that this is going to be decided on numbers and reputation and not a lot of weight is going to be given to talent. Joss and Tim (assuming Tim is aboard the tv series again) now booth have a record/reputation of flops which makes getting sponsors hard as they too only care about numbers.

So with all the things against it, I see the simplest and most lucrative solution (for the execs) is to just make a sequel and not a series.

****I am playing devil's advocate so no hate mail please******

Now two questions:
Anyone know of a series that was turned into a movie and then ressurected as a series?

Who owns the rights to Firefly or better yet, how much control does Joss have? Can he just take it and walk or does it no longer belong to him in any way?



-----------
"Societies are supported by human activity, therefore they are constantly threatened by the human facts of self-intrest and stupidity." --Peter Berger

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

Friday, April 9, 2004 10:09 AM

ASTRIANA


Quote:

Originally posted by TragicStory:
****I am playing devil's advocate so no hate mail please******

Seriously, no snarkiness intended here... If you're playing devil's advocate by arguing AGAINST a new series and in favor of a sequel, could you also flip the coin and argue FOR a new series AND a sequel?

~A~

...I'm still free,
You can't take the sky from me.

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

Friday, April 9, 2004 10:19 AM

JGSUGDEN


Quote:

Originally posted by TragicStory:
****I am playing devil's advocate so no hate mail please******

Now two questions:
Anyone know of a series that was turned into a movie and then ressurected as a series?

Who owns the rights to Firefly or better yet, how much control does Joss have? Can he just take it and walk or does it no longer belong to him in any way?

--Peter Berger

Networks are intereted n series that can go 100 episodes and do well in syndication. That is why Angel was cancelled this season: It reached 100 episodes, but it looked to be failing as a syndication option, so it was bypassed. Fox would have been far wiser to hold off on syndicating it until it could be paired with Buffy on FX, reenergizing the Buffy viewings and supporting a stronger base for Angel views ... Anyhoo ...

Series -> Movie -> Series? Charlie's Angels is returning as a series. Mission Impossible may soon return as a series (3rd version). You won't find many, if any, more examples of this (especially involving a series that didn't reach a full season in its first run), but there are a plethora of series which inspired a very similar movie which inspired a very similar series.

The problem with that idea is that movies are more profitable than TV. If it is a success as a movie, they'll rarely be able to steal the rights away to make a series. Here, if Joss manages to hold onto enough of the rights or the actors are *unwilling* to make more movies (in favor of a series), you might be able to see something happen. Might.

Joss owns very little of Firefly. As I understand it, he is deeply attached emotionally and creatively, but other people make the creative calls and have the ability to bury Firefly if they choose. I'm not fully briefed on the situation, but as I understand it, if Universal decided that a new Firefly series might get in the way of one of their series, they could keep Firefly down, even if another network was ready to pay a gross amount to put a new series on the air.

Firefly was designed to be a series. It was designed to last a number of years. Joss thinks years in advance for shows (as the Dark Willow saga of season 6 Buffy was hinted at in season 2). Joss is writing this movie to wrap up a number of those lose ends, but there will still be plenty of things left unwrapped.

We'll know what River is by the end of the movie, but we won't know everything she'll do with her abilities. We'll know who Book really is, but we won't know if our trust in him is wise. We'll know the secrets of Inara's past, but we won't see her and Mal reach a happily ever after. There will be a lot of stories left unfinished, ripe ground for a sequal or a series.

If you're looking for a future series, you want to hope for a movie that does moderately well: well enough to almost warrant a sequal movie. There is a very narrow range where it is not good enough to hold over for a sequal movie, but good enough to try throwing it out there as a series again.

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

Friday, April 9, 2004 10:29 AM

SAMURAIX47


Battlestar Galatica... series, one season, cancelled.

BSG miniseries on Sci-fi.

coming soon
BSG series on Sci-Fi.

It took them long enough.

Jaymes

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

Friday, April 9, 2004 10:31 AM

LIZ


Quote:

Now two questions:
Anyone know of a series that was turned into a movie and then ressurected as a series?



well star trek of course, though not in the same incarnation, but that's it. I read alot about this sort of thing after Family Guy came out on DVD because it was the first time ever that a tv show that was cancelled came back to tv due almost exclusively to sales of copies of that show (the DVD set). i know it's not back yet but it is already in production.
what it comes down to is that media is changing and so it would be perfectly reasonable for Universal to bring Firefly back to tv, as long as that is the most lucrative choice.

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

Friday, April 9, 2004 10:40 AM

SPOOKYJESUS


Like everything else in show business it comes down to money.

As I'm sure I've posted elsewhere - Serenity has to gross 105 million dollars (35m X 3) for it to be considered profitable, much less a success.

If the movie makes that in it's first week, and more profit there after, we'll be getting a movie franchise and not a TV one - end of story.

If the movie makes say 90 million and picks up the other 15 mill in DVD sales a TV series is likely - but so's a lower budget sequel commissioned with the expectation that sequels make more money than the original.

If it makes around 80 mill + another 10 mill in DVD sales a TV route would be more likely. But we'd be waiting a few years for that to happen.

Also, remember two things -

1) Fox still own the TV rights to Firefly (I think anyway.....

2) Movie Directors rarely do TV work outside of the executive prod. catagory - but then again Joss isn't like most other directors (yet). I don't know, I've been watching alot of Steven Speilberg movies lately and Joss directs a lot like him - I MEAN A LOT! (the lighting, timing of jokes, iconography ect.) - so who knows where his career will go.......

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

Friday, April 9, 2004 11:04 AM

EMBERS


are we sure Fox owns the rights to a Firefly TV show? I thought that when a network cancels a show this quickly they lose rights and the show belongs to the original producers...

of course I guess these things can differ a lot from one contract to the next..

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

Friday, April 9, 2004 11:10 AM

MISGUIDED BY VOICES


Quote:

Originally posted by Spookyjesus:
As I'm sure I've posted elsewhere - Serenity has to gross 105 million dollars (35m X 3) for it to be considered profitable, much less a success.



That's US - if it breaks $100 million in the US, they'll be singing in the aisles because you can double that world wide and with DVD sales.

Quote:


If the movie makes say 90 million and picks up the other 15 mill in DVD sales a TV series is likely - but so's a lower budget sequel commissioned with the expectation that sequels make more money than the original.



The general rule is the sequel makes less and costs more - save that they now start locking in the stars for two or three movies when they sniff franchise. Will Spidey 2 be a failure if it doesn't break $800 mill? No, but its going to have to go some to repeat the orignial's success. The usual rule is more money to make the sequel if the first did okay, but not great, on the basis that you have a running start.





"I threw up on your bed"

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

Friday, April 9, 2004 11:21 AM

MISGUIDED BY VOICES


Quote:

Originally posted by TragicStory:
2. Joss wanted to wrap things up in the BDM. EVERY movie after Porky's 2 that made any decent profit has spawned a sequel. If Joss wraps things up, then it it very hard to make a sequel.



The story Joss and co came up with was due to run for 5+ years on TV (or else why bother). Wrapping up the story? I doubt it - the movie will be self contained, but there will be options for sequels aplenty. The movie is designed as a franchise, TV or otherwise.

I hate to say it guys, but if Serenity does well enough to warrant a movie sequel, we are unlikely to see it back on TV - time taken to film a series - 8-10 months. Time for a movie? 2-3 months at most. Pay for the movie likely to be the same as for the series, if not more, and exposure to audience hopefully even bigger. Who would choose to go back to a TV series?

Quote:


Anyone know of a series that was turned into a movie and then ressurected as a series?



Star Trek.

Firefly:The Next Generation

Quote:


Who owns the rights to Firefly or better yet, how much control does Joss have? Can he just take it and walk or does it no longer belong to him in any way?



I've read a JMS quote on this (re:B5) that I'm guessing will be the same here, but nada, zip, sweet fa etc. The series creator has no right to say they can't make the series without them (see Chris Carter and X-Files when he said he was leaving but the show might go on), and the copyright they own is limited - if I can fish out the JMS post I'll put a link up.




"I threw up on your bed"

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

Friday, April 9, 2004 12:31 PM

TRAGICSTORY


Quote:

Originally posted by Astriana:
Quote:

Originally posted by TragicStory:
****I am playing devil's advocate so no hate mail please******

Seriously, no snarkiness intended here... If you're playing devil's advocate by arguing AGAINST a new series and in favor of a sequel, could you also flip the coin and argue FOR a new series AND a sequel?

~A~

...I'm still free,
You can't take the sky from me.



OK My arguements FOR a series:
1. Awards. Firefly would get an ASSLOAD of awards. Execs would grab their ankles and lube themselves up for an award.

2. Merchandising. Nothing makes more money than Merchandising and as has been told to me on a previous thread, "rehashed crap slapped with a "serenity" sticker" would sell like crack in a ghetto.

3. Money. If, I REPEAT if, done right, this thing will make many people richer than God. See #2.

4. This is the most original, insightful and believable sci-fi story ever brought to the screen. (but we all know that Fox didn't care about that)

-----------
"Societies are supported by human activity, therefore they are constantly threatened by the human facts of self-intrest and stupidity." --Peter Berger

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

Friday, April 9, 2004 12:35 PM

TRAGICSTORY


So here is my idea. If God forbid, I am right, I suggest kidnapping Joss, the actors and several bottles of good scotch and having an old fashioned campfire story telling. How much would you pay for a chance to hear Joss spill out 5 years worth of ideas in one night amidst 40+ proof bottles and some pipes of "special tobacco"?

-----------
"Societies are supported by human activity, therefore they are constantly threatened by the human facts of self-intrest and stupidity." --Peter Berger

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

Friday, April 9, 2004 1:29 PM

ZOID


Prediction:

Firefly: Serenity will be a top-ten grosser for the year 2005.

Why? Because "Star Wars III: The Inevitable Conclusion" will bomb. Remember -- those of you old enough to remember the first trilogy of the SW saga -- that Anakin becomes Darth, the universe is plunged into the utter darkness of evil, the Jedi are destroyed ("You are the last of that dead religion, Lord Vader", cough,cough, choke), Amidala dies/runs for her life with her twins Luke and Leia because of Darth, etc. Total downer ending for the franchise.

The next factor: In addition to the growth of the civilian fanbase of Firefly through DVD sales, proselytization by fans (me included), and the efforts of sites like FFFn (good job Haken!), our military men and women have found a resonance in Firefly's story and characters and will be at theaters in droves. It'll be a love-fest between Browncoats and our heros of American freedom.

So, between the spillover of those disappointed by the stilted dialogue, wooden acting and utterly depressing conclusion of Star Wars wanting to see thrilling, thoughtful, and witty sci-fi, and the turnout of Firefly Faithful and their beloved American heros, I think we'll get boffo box.

I also believe it will then return to network TV. Universal said, "Write it for return to TV", and then Joss did. As to whether FOX owns it or not, I know JW/ME shopped it around to other nets; so is the argument that he was shopping it for Fox? They must have given him the release to try to sell it to others...

That's my prediction, and you can throw it up to me anytime you like. Anybody who disagrees, just let me say, "I find you're lack of faith... Disturbing".



Respectfully,

zoid
_________________________________________________

"River didn't fix faith. Faith fixed River."

- Senator Richard 'Book' Wilkins, Independent Congress
author of A Child Shall Lead Them: A History of the Second War of Independence

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

Friday, April 9, 2004 2:02 PM

HUMBLE


With regards to the movie, I think it will be a big hit. With Joss at the helm, how can you go far wrong? Universal Studios is a well respected and credible company that puts out some top-notch flicks. UPN will most likely pick up an updated version of the tv series after the first movie has grossed over 100 million dollars. Production of tv series eps will start about one year after movie release. With the sluggish scifi activity on tv and the movies lately, I think Firefly will be a breath of fresh air. With the amount of time that has passed since F-- Network cancelled the show, I think audiences will have a fresh perspective on Firefly. Lets face it, Firefly was and is a good show, we all know it! I look forward to seeing my favorite show on the big screen soon. (Also, on the small screen if all goes well.)

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

Friday, April 9, 2004 2:22 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by TragicStory:
Now two questions:
Anyone know of a series that was turned into a movie and then ressurected as a series?

Who owns the rights to Firefly or better yet, how much control does Joss have? Can he just take it and walk or does it no longer belong to him in any way?

Big Screen movies? I think the closest analogy to Firefly would be Battlestar Galactica. I think, however, that many (some?) of you may be a little young to remember the original. Once upon a time, there was a TV serious called Battlestar Galactica loved by Star Wars fans nationwide. Then it was cancelled and later came out at the theaters as Battlestar Galactica the Movie, which was really just the premier touched up for the big screen. I remember seeing it at the drive in theater. Later, I believe, it returned to TV as the widely unsuccessful Galactica 1980. Not really a glowing endorsement of the Firefly to come, but hopeful Firefly will have better success then Galactica.

As far as who owns Firefly, I think that largely depends on how the contract was written, but since the movie is being made, I would think that Universal currently owns it. The amount of freedom they offer him is directly proportional to how big they expect the movie to be and indirectly proportional to how much money they are putting into it.

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

Friday, April 9, 2004 8:20 PM

MACBAKER


This is what I understand about this. Universal wanted Joss working for them. Fox has exclusive TV rights with Joss and Mutant Enemy, so Universal made a movie deal with him. He pushed for Serenity as his first movie project, and after seeing the success of the DVD set, they greenlighted the film.

Here's what I think will happen. If the Serenity is a success (and I believe it will be), Joss will lobby for another Firefly/Serenity(?) series. If that is to happen, it's up to Fox to greenlight, not Universal. Universal may have the movie rights, but Fox still retains the TV rights. It's complicated, and we don't know the details of either contract, so we'll just have to wait and see.

Personally, I hope that Firefly is given a second chance, and that it ends up on a network like Sci-Fi, where the ratings demands aren't as strict as with the major networks. WIth a home like that, it will have time to build a wider audience.

I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.

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

Friday, April 9, 2004 9:07 PM

SADLITTLEKING


There is a third possibility: TV movies. Smaller budget than a big-screen movie and takes just as short a time to film. Plus, Joss can string together a series of TV movies over the course of a few years or so.

Also, I'm sorry, but I don't see Serenity being a huge success at the box office. If I'm correct (and judging by the series I think I am), the story will be deep, chalk full of interesting characters and dramatic situations with some nice action here and there...not the kind of shallow rollercoaster ride movie-goers flock to see. Serenity will be overshadowed by the likes of Star Wars Episode III and the vast amount of fans so blinded by loyalty that they couldn't tell how crappy Episode II was. I think Serenity will do well enough, but I don't think it'll be a huge hit.

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

Friday, April 9, 2004 9:29 PM

MACBAKER


Quote:

Originally posted by SadLittleKing:
I don't see Serenity being a huge success at the box office. If I'm correct (and judging by the series I think I am), the story will be deep, chalk full of interesting characters and dramatic situations with some nice action here and there...not the kind of shallow rollercoaster ride movie-goers flock to see.




Your description of Serenity could be used for some very sucessful movies like:

Titanic (where the only action really happens in the last reel). World-wide Box Office $1,835,300,000

Forrest Gump. World-wide Box Office $679,400,000

The Sixth Sense. World-wife Box Office $661,500,000

Ocean's Eleven. World-wife Box Office $444,200,000

Etc., etc., etc. The list goes on. Sure, big action movies do seem to top the box office, but there are plently of exceptions. There's a little movie that none of the studios thought had any chance for decient returns, that's currently on track to beat Titanic, called "The Passion Of Jesus Christ". Now I don't want to start a theological debate, but it's hardly a "shallow rollercoaster ride movie".

I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.

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

Friday, April 9, 2004 10:02 PM

INVISIBLEGREEN


Quote:

Originally posted by jgsugden:
Networks are intereted n series that can go 100 episodes and do well in syndication. That is why Angel was cancelled this season: It reached 100 episodes, but it looked to be failing as a syndication option, so it was bypassed. Fox would have been far wiser to hold off on syndicating it until it could be paired with Buffy on FX, reenergizing the Buffy viewings and supporting a stronger base for Angel views ...



Actually that has nothing to do with why Angel was cancelled. Angel has been airing in syndication this past year, since September, after striking a deal last May. Angel reruns were put into syndication after only 88 episodes, IMO due to the influence on DVD's on television.

Angel was cancelled because of Twentieth Century Fox's high and rising licensing fee, the high cost to ratings ratio (especially taking reruns into account), and the WB's strategy for revamping their network.

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

Friday, April 9, 2004 10:11 PM

INVISIBLEGREEN


Quote:

Originally posted by embers:
are we sure Fox owns the rights to a Firefly TV show? I thought that when a network cancels a show this quickly they lose rights and the show belongs to the original producers...

of course I guess these things can differ a lot from one contract to the next..



The FOX network (a.k.a. Fox Broadcasting Company, or FBC) originally aired Firefly. Twentieth Century Fox [Television] was the production studio for the series. FOX and Twentieth are sister companies, both owned by Rupert Murdoch of NewsCorp, but they do not work together. A Twentieth show can air on any network, and FOX can air shows from any studio. When you bought your Firefly DVD's, you were supporting Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment, not the FOX network.

FOX the network no longer has rights to air the series. Fox the studio does own the episodes. I don't know if Fox would own a return to the series, which could technically count as a different series; I'm not sure how that works.

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

Friday, April 9, 2004 10:19 PM

INVISIBLEGREEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Misguided By Voices:
The story Joss and co came up with was due to run for 5+ years on TV (or else why bother).



Have you ever seen any of Ken Finkleman's TV series. "More Tears," "Foolish Heart," and "Foreign Objects" all only had 6 half-hour episodes each, and were only meant to. Just because something's intended to have a shorter run doesn't mean it's crap. Do you hate miniseries, too?

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

Friday, April 9, 2004 10:42 PM

MACBAKER


Quote:

Originally posted by InvisibleGreen:
Quote:

Originally posted by embers:
are we sure Fox owns the rights to a Firefly TV show? I thought that when a network cancels a show this quickly they lose rights and the show belongs to the original producers...

of course I guess these things can differ a lot from one contract to the next..



The FOX network (a.k.a. Fox Broadcasting Company, or FBC) originally aired Firefly. Twentieth Century Fox [Television] was the production studio for the series. FOX and Twentieth are sister companies, both owned by Rupert Murdoch of NewsCorp, but they do not work together. A Twentieth show can air on any network, and FOX can air shows from any studio. When you bought your Firefly DVD's, you were supporting Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment, not the FOX network.

FOX the network no longer has rights to air the series. Fox the studio does own the episodes. I don't know if Fox would own a return to the series, which could technically count as a different series; I'm not sure how that works.



As I understand it, Fox still has an exclusive deal with Mutant Enemy on any TV productions. Universal's deal is just for movies.

I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.

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

Saturday, April 10, 2004 7:36 AM

YANKSNO1


Quote:

Originally posted by TragicStory:
Now two questions:
Anyone know of a series that was turned into a movie and then ressurected as a series?


Now the closest anology to Firefly would be Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Joss first did the movie with Kristy Swanson and Luke Perry that flopped big time and then revamped the show to become the best show on TV (IMO). Now Joss is trying to a reverse Buffy with Firefly.

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

Saturday, April 10, 2004 8:59 AM

PUDOR


Quote:

...the WB's strategy for revamping their network.


"The WB's strategy for de-vamping their network", surely?

(oh I wish I had something interesting to say... :>)

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

Saturday, April 10, 2004 9:29 AM

MEREN


Where do you find out who owns what licenses?

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

Saturday, April 10, 2004 10:08 AM

THOREAU


as to ownership of Firefly, I think this has been explained over and over. Fox, the production company, owns Firefly. Fox, the television network, does not. It's that simple. You can watch any network on tv and see that Fox production company logo at the end, it's not tied to the Fox television network.

t

*note: by tied i mean compeltely tied to. there is a connection, both owned by the same umbrella company, but no more than that.

Jayne: "These are stone killers, little man. They ain't cuddly like me."

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

Saturday, April 10, 2004 1:33 PM

MISGUIDED BY VOICES


Quote:

Originally posted by InvisibleGreen:
Have you ever seen any of Ken Finkleman's TV series. "More Tears," "Foolish Heart," and "Foreign Objects" all only had 6 half-hour episodes each, and were only meant to. Just because something's intended to have a shorter run doesn't mean it's crap. Do you hate miniseries, too?



Wow. Misguided anger much?

Maybe I missed the meeting, but Firefly wasn't designed as a mini or maxi series, nor as a "very special television event" as I believe TNT labelled Crusade. It was designed as an ongoing series, and by definition, to last 5 years or more.

Don't believe my post suggested anything like you read into it - if it did, mea culpa. I like a good mini-series - can't wait for Farscape.

"I threw up on your bed"

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

Saturday, April 10, 2004 1:57 PM

INVISIBLEGREEN


Quote:

Originally posted by pudor:
Quote:

...the WB's strategy for revamping their network.


"The WB's strategy for de-vamping their network", surely?

(oh I wish I had something interesting to say... :>)



Actually, "re-vamping" is more accurate, with The WB's new "Dark Shadows series premiering in the fall.

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

Saturday, April 10, 2004 2:03 PM

INVISIBLEGREEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Misguided By Voices:
Wow. Misguided anger much?

Maybe I missed the meeting, but Firefly wasn't designed as a mini or maxi series, nor as a "very special television event" as I believe TNT labelled Crusade. It was designed as an ongoing series, and by definition, to last 5 years or more.

Don't believe my post suggested anything like you read into it - if it did, mea culpa. I like a good mini-series - can't wait for Farscape.

"I threw up on your bed"



Sorry if I seemed angry. I know that "Firefly" was intended to run more than 15 episodes. And I "Crusade" was a full series, meant to run longer than 13 episodes. There are even three unfilmed "Crusade" scripts.

"Crusade" and "Firefly" actually have a lot of simularities. "Crusade" was shown pretty much completely out of order by TNT, like FOX's airing the pilot last, and both series have a couple of unfilmed scripts.

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

Saturday, April 10, 2004 2:10 PM

MISGUIDED BY VOICES


Quote:

Originally posted by InvisibleGreen:
Sorry if I seemed angry.



Apolo-gee accepted - was more a chance to pun on my name that I couldn't pass by

Quote:


"Crusade" and "Firefly" actually have a lot of simularities. "Crusade" was shown pretty much completely out of order by TNT, like FOX's airing the pilot last, and both series have a couple of unfilmed scripts.



Let's not forget the studio interference. TnA wanted a space whore, gun fights and action, Fox wanted less Western - does anyone think they could just have swapped series and both been happy?





"I threw up on your bed"

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

Saturday, April 10, 2004 4:54 PM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.


Quote:

Originally posted by Astriana:
could you also flip the coin and argue FOR a new series AND a sequel?



I like your thinking.

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

Saturday, April 10, 2004 5:41 PM

LANEYCLASSIC


I'm just hoping for 'Serenity' to be a success, so we may get another movie. It seems unlikely that it'll come back to TV, ever. Unlike 'Family Guy', Serenity/Firefly need the actors who would, by then, have moved on to other projects.
A case in point, Gina Torres's signed on for one of the leads in a new ABC pilot 'Gramercy Park'. I hear ABC are serious about this, as they've been trying to get it going for the past year. I googled around, and found some spoilers. Family drama, strong role for her. A surgical nurse married to a heart surgeon. Second in command of a dysfunctional family. A little like Zoe, actually.

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

Sunday, April 11, 2004 5:29 PM

SADLITTLEKING


Quote:

Originally posted by MacBaker:
Quote:

Originally posted by SadLittleKing:
I don't see Serenity being a huge success at the box office. If I'm correct (and judging by the series I think I am), the story will be deep, chalk full of interesting characters and dramatic situations with some nice action here and there...not the kind of shallow rollercoaster ride movie-goers flock to see.




Your description of Serenity could be used for some very sucessful movies like:

Titanic (where the only action really happens in the last reel). World-wide Box Office $1,835,300,000

Forrest Gump. World-wide Box Office $679,400,000

The Sixth Sense. World-wife Box Office $661,500,000

Ocean's Eleven. World-wife Box Office $444,200,000

Etc., etc., etc. The list goes on. Sure, big action movies do seem to top the box office, but there are plently of exceptions. There's a little movie that none of the studios thought had any chance for decient returns, that's currently on track to beat Titanic, called "The Passion Of Jesus Christ". Now I don't want to start a theological debate, but it's hardly a "shallow rollercoaster ride movie".

I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.



The difference with Serenity is that it doesn't have any big-name celebrities. Titanic had Leo DiCaprio, Gump had Tom Hanks, Sixth Sense had Bruce Willis, Ocean's Eleven had a bunch of big names, and Passion of the Christ has The Big Name, Himself (in a sense) and being directed by Mel Gibson probably didn't hurt.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Serenity will bomb (I'm very much rootin' for it), but I don't think it's gonna be a huge draw since the movie itself is without a huge draw.

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

Monday, April 12, 2004 7:08 AM

JGSUGDEN


Quote:

Originally posted by InvisibleGreen:
Quote:

Originally posted by jgsugden:
Networks are intereted n series that can go 100 episodes and do well in syndication. That is why Angel was cancelled this season: It reached 100 episodes, but it looked to be failing as a syndication option, so it was bypassed. Fox would have been far wiser to hold off on syndicating it until it could be paired with Buffy on FX, reenergizing the Buffy viewings and supporting a stronger base for Angel views ...



Actually that has nothing to do with why Angel was cancelled. Angel has been airing in syndication this past year, since September, after striking a deal last May. Angel reruns were put into syndication after only 88 episodes, IMO due to the influence on DVD's on television.

Angel was cancelled because of Twentieth Century Fox's high and rising licensing fee, the high cost to ratings ratio (especially taking reruns into account), and the WB's strategy for revamping their network.

My understanding, based upon a JW interview, was that the low syndication value they were able to generate for Angel was the reason Angel was doomed. TNT is paying next to nothing to show those reruns ...

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

Monday, April 12, 2004 7:13 AM

JGSUGDEN


If you're looking for a 'level' of success they're hoping for, compare it to other Sci-fi films without big stars (at least, not big at the time). They're not looking for a blockbuster (though they wouldn't turn it down either). They're hoping for a solid performer - middle of the road.


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

Monday, April 12, 2004 9:30 AM

BROWNCOAT1

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.


Though I can some of the well thought arguements for why some think Firefly will never again be on TV, I still feel that film would not be a sufficient medium to tell the story of this ship or crew the way Joss intends it to be told. Sure, a movie is better than nothing, but I think it is just the hook for the return to the TV. One hour a week on TV is a far better way to convey a story than 2 hours every 2 to 3 years.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."


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

Monday, April 12, 2004 9:44 AM

JGSUGDEN


Double post

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

Monday, April 12, 2004 9:44 AM

JGSUGDEN


Quote:

Originally posted by BrownCoat1:
Though I can some of the well thought arguements for why some think Firefly will never again be on TV, I still feel that film would not be a sufficient medium to tell the story of this ship or crew the way Joss intends it to be told. Sure, a movie is better than nothing, but I think it is just the hook for the return to the TV. One hour a week on TV is a far better way to convey a story than 2 hours every 2 to 3 years.

Far better for who? Us, the fans? Joss Whedon and the acotrs? Or the people that make the decisions - the people that hold the rights. Regardless of what will tell the best story, the people that have a money stake in Firefly/Serenity are interested in money. If they think a second movie will be more lucrative than a series, there is no chance for a series. If they think they can get more money back by doing neither and investing in another project, Firefly is a goner.

Movies and tv are businesses. They are there to make money. Everything they do, they do because somebody in a suit thinks it is the best way to make money.

If you want to see Firefly make it back to tv, you have to hope it is successful enough to warrant a series, but not successful enough to spawn a sequel movie. That is a very narrow range.

To add onto the difficulties, the actors and actresses that worked on Firefly have taken on other series work. They're not going to leave their new series to return to Firefly. If Firefly were to return as a series right after the movie, it would be without Gina Torres as she is in an ABC project that is receiving favorable treatment from the network and will likely be around for at least 2 years. Others took a shot at some pilots that didn't pan out, IIRC. They can sneak free to film a movie, but the days of doing multiple series on different networks are over ...




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

Monday, April 12, 2004 10:03 AM

BROWNCOAT1

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.


JGsugden wrote:

Quote:

Far better for who? Us, the fans? Joss Whedon and the acotrs? Or the people that make the decisions - the people that hold the rights. Regardless of what will tell the best story, the people that have a money stake in Firefly/Serenity are interested in money. If they think a second movie will be more lucrative than a series, there is no chance for a series. If they think they can get more money back by doing neither and investing in another project, Firefly is a goner.


Better for Joss, to tell his story and do all he wants w/ Firefly. Better for the cast by giving them steady work on a show they all profess to love. Better for the us the fans by giving us more of what we want without the wait for movies. Better for new fans by having Firefly in their homes every week, not something that crops up every couple of years that they may forget or lose interest in. Better for the powers that be by giving them a product the consumers (us) want and are willing to pay for.

Quote:

Movies and tv are businesses. They are there to make money. Everything they do, they do because somebody in a suit thinks it is the best way to make money.


Not to be rude, but Duh! I think we all know that TV networks and movie studios are in the business for money, not simply to entertain the public or answer our whims.

Of course this does not mean that these "suits" make the best decisions or that all their decisions are the most profitable. They are afterall, only human.

Quote:

If you want to see Firefly make it back to tv, you have to hope it is successful enough to warrant a series, but not successful enough to spawn a sequel movie. That is a very narrow range.


I am not so sure that there is this narrow range where a property like Firefly can be too successful in theatres to go back to the big screen. A successful movie will draw interest and insure ratings. Look how many movies have spin offs to TV after successful stays in the box office.

Quote:

To add onto the difficulties, the actors and actresses that worked on Firefly have taken on other series work. They're not going to leave their new series to return to Firefly. If Firefly were to return as a series right after the movie, it would be without Gina Torres as she is in an ABC project that is receiving favorable treatment from the network and will likely be around for at least 2 years. Others took a shot at some pilots that didn't pan out, IIRC. They can sneak free to film a movie, but the days of doing multiple series on different networks are over ...


Some of the actors have work, but how concrete are those projects? Everyone was certain Nathan was locked in at NBC, but after the pilot taping NBC cancelled the project. That is the one thing you can rely on w/ network TV, that you can rely on nothing.


"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."


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

Monday, April 12, 2004 10:18 AM

ZOID


Browncoat1 responded to JGSugden thus:

Quote from jgsugden:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you want to see Firefly make it back to tv, you have to hope it is successful enough to warrant a series, but not successful enough to spawn a sequel movie. That is a very narrow range.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Quote:

I am not so sure that there is this narrow range where a property like Firefly can be too successful in theatres to go back to the big screen. A successful movie will draw interest and insure ratings. Look how many movies have spin offs to TV after successful stays in the box office.


And lest we forget, Star Trek was a series, got killed, did movies, got reiterated on TV -- what? 4 additional times? With movies and TV series still in existence.

X-Files was TV, got cancelled by Fox (soft 'u' sound), got reiterated, made into a movie while still on TV.

A successful movie version of an episodic tale can boost TV profits in feedback loop with subsequent movies.

The sky's the limit, and 'they can't take that from us'...





Respectfully,

zoid
_________________________________________________

"River didn't fix faith. Faith fixed River."

- Senator Richard 'Book' Wilkins, Independent Congress
author of A Child Shall Lead Them: A History of the Second War of Independence

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

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Joss was right... Mandarin is the language of the future...
Sat, July 20, 2024 08:40 - 14 posts
Serenity is a Fantastic Movie.
Thu, July 11, 2024 07:30 - 6 posts
Why isn't this a bigger story?
Mon, July 8, 2024 08:27 - 3 posts
The Running of the Jaynes is a Virtual Run/Walk 5k between July 13th and July 28, 2024. A CSTS affiliate charity event.
Wed, July 3, 2024 03:43 - 1 posts
Browncoat Ball PA October 25th - 27th 2024 t-shirts available.
Sun, June 30, 2024 23:00 - 1 posts
In your opinion is there a perfect movie?
Sat, June 29, 2024 23:08 - 82 posts
Dystopian movies which are no longer Dystopian
Tue, June 25, 2024 14:09 - 2 posts
Why most Hollyweird 'Actors' (polanski defenders) are just messed in the head
Mon, June 17, 2024 20:25 - 14 posts
The one fim you want released on dvd!
Fri, June 14, 2024 11:06 - 34 posts
Victorian Female Batman???
Tue, June 11, 2024 04:31 - 48 posts
5 Reasons it sucks being a Joss Whedon fan
Sun, June 2, 2024 03:46 - 23 posts
Top 10 sci-fi battles
Sun, June 2, 2024 02:45 - 13 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL