Noel MacNeal wrote:

This was, without question, one of the best acted, written, directed, and shot series EVER. The very fact that it was wasted on Fox and their complete impatience and ignorance in dealing with a show that had more depth than "So you think you can dance" (but then a child's wading pool has more depth) taught us never to watch a series on Fox until after it has come out on DVD. (Case point; those poor souls who actually watched the series "Reunion" only to have the rug yanked out from under them midway.

All hail Joss!

posted at July 20, 2006 07:08 PM

Dave wrote:

Well I watched the firefly marathon on sci fi one day at work and man it ROCKED. What a great show, hell I even stayed after hours to watch the end of it. I did not know there was a movie, but I will be surely looking. What a great show and cast of characters. Great lines, great props, and realistic themes.

posted at July 20, 2006 08:58 PM

Courtney wrote:

It's always a shame when brilliance is not recognized by the big studios. So many of my friends adore this show, and it's sad that no new episodes will brighten our lives. Kudos to SciFi for running the show in the weeks prior to the movie release, though. We can always count on SciFi!

posted at July 21, 2006 09:37 AM

Usama A wrote:

As a Whedon fan I watched the show (in its original order) and fell in love with it immediately. Of course it seems the show has no chance of being resurrected but it is still fun to at least introduce this show to those who missed it. This does not always work out for the best, one friend was upset that I got them hooked on a show that wasn't on. Anyway, thank you to the cast & crew of this show for creating a wonderful show.

posted at July 21, 2006 05:52 PM

retro-yoshi wrote:

Guys, Fox is the channel that asked Chris Carter, producer of "The X-Files", to come up with a second follow up after "Millenium". The result was "Harsh Realm", and what did they do with it? They cancelled it after THREE FRICKIN' WEEKS. This is the most trigger happy network on TV. They want an audience right NOW, or your show is dead. I'm convinced that "Arrested Development" only survived as long as it did because it had very powerful and very rich fans.

posted at July 22, 2006 12:16 AM

Elise wrote:

I saw Serenity thinking that it was going to just be another space movie that wasn't very good, but I loved it. I shortly learned afterwards that there was a show. My brother said he liked the show. I finally got to see about 6 episodes of it on the Sci-Fi channel the other day. I was just shocked that such a great show got cancelled. I thought it was a good show that was not anything like all those other space shows or sci fi shows like Battlestar Galactica or some of the others, it was different and I loved it. I am so sad that there will be no more episodes to watch. When I saw the show it made me love the movie ten times more. I just want more of it.

posted at July 23, 2006 01:06 AM

Mykah wrote:

OMG I wish that the series would be able to be remade through someones else's eyes just to see more of weldons thoughts in new episodes.hell jsut new episodes in general....but I will have to be content with the box set and movie

posted at July 23, 2006 10:49 AM

Kyla wrote:

Firefly is the best television series ever aired. I will never understand why so many people love shows like Buffy, Ameican Idol, and the miillions of others that have no depth to them. Firefly was so brilliant. Serenity was wonderful. I'm heartbroken that its over. But I hope someday there will be a new show that is as wonderful as Firefly.

posted at July 23, 2006 03:03 PM

jeffiner wrote:

Firefly is by far my favorite show EVER. [or WAS, since it's been cancelled, or IS since it's so far being shown on SciFi]. I love the dynamic between every character, the awesome and indepth storylines, and the entire idea overall. Firefly was unjustly cancelled and Fox should be ashamed. [Arrested Development? Futurama? Family Guy?! etc...]
Maybe one day another network will realize the greatness that is Firefly and call them back..
until then...

posted at July 23, 2006 10:41 PM

Lady Muck wrote:

Firefly was spectacular television. It is testimony to the love and devotion of Whedon and cast that the show still lives on in the affection of many people. A great pity and a huge missed opportunity that it wasn't allowed to grow and develop.

FOX clearly have no taste in shows seeing that cancelled this show and yet keep the mediocre madTV for season after season, ad nauseum.

posted at July 24, 2006 03:31 AM

pisher wrote:

Um, didn't you forget to mention that the movie flopped worse than the show? I guess Universal didn't get it either? Frankly, neither did I, and I was into Buffy from the first episode (though not by the last one, I must confess--Angel ended much stronger).

It's more of a shame when cleverness is mistaken for brilliance, IMO.

Firefly failed because people didn't like it. Serenity failed because people didn't like it. Word of Mouth can save a badly promoted series or film--why didn't it in this case? Because word of mouth was bad. Why don't people who loved the show and the film recognize that word of mouth was bad? Because they only tend to talk to people who share their tastes--or want to avoid hurting their feelings. Because they live in a bubble, to avoid reality. So they can pretend they were worshipping greatness, while they were actually just wasting time online, congratulating themselves for watching a TV show. ::sigh::

posted at July 24, 2006 04:06 AM

Diane wrote:

I was introduced to Firefly shortly before the movie came out.. the SciFi channel ran a marathon.
I fell in love instantly with this show. It's amazing story telling with characters you will never forget. Reminds me of the first Star Wars films.. only better.

This show and the movie does deserve another shot and it's only right that fans are working hard to make that happen. We've done it before.. "Done the Impossible" the fans story of just that has been released and it just inspires me to do more of what it takes to get this show/movie understood and liked by all.

It is a unique vision of space and space travel.. interesting and thought provoking. On a human level. That is rare and I think there ought to be more of it.

posted at July 24, 2006 08:09 AM

CJ WIlliams wrote:

Wow, thats all i can seem to say. a friend of mine borowed me his box set of firefly, i saw the movie serenity and was interested, to say the least. that was only a few short days ago. I know sit here, tired, hungery, and in need of a good shower. i sat up straight watching the whole thing, front to back (no small task let me tell you) I am now craving to see more. Even with the inclusion of the movie 'Serenity', i feel this storyline could go so much farther. I've always digged stories with true and characters, ones with emotion and real depth. I also have (previously) watched the entire series of Angel, that, and buffy, made me fall in love with Joss Whedon's work. That love broke my heart today when this series came to a screeching hault. i assumed maybe closer or something, but realized any story worth telling, is worth being told right. and any story told right, must not be rushed. i would love to see more of this, i mean, cowboys in space, how go'ram sweet is that!! I will now apoligize if any of this is non-sensical or gramatically incorrect as i had aformentioned, im kinda tired. need sleep. and food. G'night! Joss Whedon, your still the best!

posted at July 24, 2006 08:38 AM

mlgm wrote:

Why, oh, why can't one of these reviews ever even consider this idea: Firefly failed because it was a bad show. No, Fox did NOT kill it. This is simply factually wrong. Fox started the advertizing blitz for Firefly within a week of the May upfronts. It did not bury it. It gave it X-Files original time slot. It advertized on many cable networks, in print, and on the Internet. I simply can't think of any show except for Lost that got similar treatment in the last ten years. And Lost was a winner straight out of the box.

Firefly? Started OK, but the more people saw? The more they didn't like. Check the ratings. Second half-hour always got lower ratings than the first. And the week-to-week were almost steadily downward.

The writing was never about developing characters, but always about showing how very, very, clever Whedon and his writers are. And Nathan Fillon's incrediably bad acting job, his usually mumbling copying of Han Solo, was the final nail.

You liked the show? Happy for you. But most people that say it, didn't. They didn't tune in again. And not because of Fox which did everything possible to promote a very expensive show. But because the show wasn't very good.

posted at July 24, 2006 08:51 AM

Sprunkner wrote:

No, Firefly failed because Fox showed most of the episodes out of order, starting with the second episode and showing the pilot last, bumped the show for sporting events, and didn't give it more than a half-season's chance.

You don't like Whedon's writing, then that's fine. But when I've shown this show to twenty different people who all loved it, many of whom were never Whedon fans, it's stupid to assume that the show failed on its own merits. I'll agree that it was much smarter than an average TV viewer could get. But Gilmore Girls, Veronica Mars and Buffy itself succeeded based on a more intelligent demographic. Fox should have had some faith in Joss Whedon, of all people!

posted at July 24, 2006 10:16 AM

bluesun wrote:

mlgm, you have no idea what you're talking about. Yes, they started advertising Firefly in May. Yes, they gave it the X-Files old time slot.

BUT they didn't continue supporting it! They didn't show the actual pilot which gave all the backstory until after the show was over. They dropped episodes that were crucial to the storyline. It was a brilliant show - Fox gave up on it too early. The DVD sales and completely sold-out showings of the movie should prove that to anybody who actually pays attention.

posted at July 24, 2006 10:52 AM

Tom wrote:

mlgm, imagine if abc never aired the pilot for "lost" and just started with the second episode. People would have no idea what's going on, and most likely would be turned off from the get go. Well, that's what fox did. It's hard to get into a show when the entire backstory is never really explained.

posted at July 24, 2006 11:55 AM

mlgm wrote:

Actually bluesun, I know exactly what I'm talking about. You are missing some facts. And being personally insulting. And showing your own ignorance and undercutting your own argument.

Fox continued to support the show after Whedon didn't bring the pilot either on budget or on schedule. They continued to support it after the reviews from critics that had seen the pilot all went exactly like: it's not very good but I like Joss so I'll give it a couple of shows. I invite you to do your research on the reviews. And yet Fox continued to widely advertise and talk up the show. Only after the ratings tanked again, and again, and again was the show canceled. Firefly received more support than any show I can think of until Lost. The simple fact is this: despite massive promotion, the ratings started middling and got worse every week.

Serenity had a few sold-out previews. But most of the actual showings didn't bring enough money to keep the movie held over the second week. I invite you to talk to theater managers. As for DVD sales? OK, but no Family Guy, Simpson, or Futurama. Good, solid; but then what genre show isn't? Genre folks buy DVDs at a higher rate than sitcom and soap opera fans.

First, I know they didn't show the pilot first. Most shows don't. And Lost is built on the premise that we don't know the backstory and it is doing just fine.

Second, I watched both Buffy & Angel. I enjoyed Whedon's writing until he became convinced of his own godhood.

You know people that liked Firefly? I believe you. But I'll bet you know quite a few that didn't and just ignore that fact. But why don't you believe the people that stopped watching? The ratings went down show to show. They went down half-hour to half-hour. I know many genre fans that watched a few, and never went back. To say somehow you're more intelligent than people that dislike it is incredibly vicious, and simply unknowable.

I know that Firefly fans liked the show; but the truth is simply this: a great many more people didn't. Yet these same people like X-Files and Lost, two complicated shows. Intelligent, thoughtful people watched Firefly and said: self-indulgent writing, ridiculous premise, bad acting.

Yes, people every bit as intelligent you held that opinion. And when you talk down to them, and hold yourself superior? You simply make them all the more certain in their opinion.

posted at July 24, 2006 02:10 PM

pisher wrote:

When people say "They didn't promote it properly", they're ignoring two things:

1)Two entirely different companies BOTH somehow failed to promote it properly--FOX (which is known for superb promotion), and Universal (whose promotion was hailed by fans as brilliant until AFTER the movie flopped, at which time they quickly went from saviors to scapegoats).

2)Ultimately the quality of the promotion depends a great deal on the quality of the show/film. Not quality as defined by a handful of diehard fans, or worshipful critics, but quality as defined by the people actually spending their time and/or money to see a show or film. I look at Firefly/Serenity, and I pity the hell out of the poor promotional people at FOX and Universal. How on earth do you market this thing? No stars, silly-sounding concept, lame titles, unimpressive visuals. You can say Joss Whedon did it, and that does get the interest of a fair number of people--myself included, because he's done some things I really enjoyed--okay, he did one thing I really enjoyed, and I stopped enjoying it after the fifth season, but that's SOMEthing. It just wasn't enough. Very few people are interested in paying ten bucks to see "A Film By Joss Whedon" when that's all they really know about it.

Which is precisely why he's clinging so desperately Wonder Woman, in spite of interminable delays. He's hoping that he can prove himself commercially by attaching himself to a 'brandname' people have heard of. And this is the best one he could get. There's nothing happening with this movie now--he could do something else, like "Goners" (assuming Universal actually is willing to make that, after Serenity's failure, and I've heard no confirmation of that, from Whedon or Universal). But if that failed, he'd be a goner himself.

He really does need to swallow his pride, and go back to television--and look in the mirror every morning and say "I am not a genius auteur--I am not a genius auteur--I am not a genius auteur."

Oh, and he also needs to never go on the internet again--not on his fansites, anyway. ;)

posted at July 24, 2006 04:00 PM

Trace wrote:

Actually mlgm (does the "m" stand for Mitch permaybehaps), you may know what you claim to talk about but you're lying. Or ignorant. Or both.

The pilot, "Serenity", was in the can and ready when the FOX suits (who didn't "get it"... see also their question about why there were horses) gave Joss and Tim about 72 hours to come up with a 1-hour pilot to replace what they had already done.

They then, as already stated, repeatedly rearranged and pre-empted airings until most folks who were casually looking for it gave up trying to piece it together.

THAT is NOT how you build a following for a show.

But thanks for playing. That part you said about how networks don't show the pilot first- comedy GOLD!

posted at July 24, 2006 04:50 PM

madmolly wrote:

mlgm- Fox didn't like the pilot, said it wasn't in your face action enough for them. So they went with the Train Job first. It had nothing to do with budget or timeframe.

And of all the people I have shared my DVDs of Firefly with (about 15), only one has not been hooked. Everyone else has always turned to me by the fifth episode and said "Why did they cancel this show?" And then they have proceeded to go out and buy their own set.

Comparing LOST to Firefly is just ridiculous. Two completely different shows. And you don't need the backstory to LOST because it is told in segments every week. That is their hook.

posted at July 24, 2006 04:53 PM

Shiroiko wrote:

I don't know about anyone else, but I felt like this show wasn't promoted well.

Yes, I remember the onslaught of ads for it, but they really didn't appeal to me and I purposely chose to not watch the show because the advertising had me CONVINCED it was insipid.

So years later I was bored, had Netflix, ended up renting the series, and found I loved it. I felt a connection with it that the ads led me to believe could never be there.

You can throw money at ads, but if they aren't good and don't communicate clearly what a show is no amount of advertising will work (honestly, I don't feel that Serenity was promoted well either).

Yes, every channel does this, but Fox does this a bit more than average. The promotional campaigns for most of Fox's querky shows have a nasty habit of not understanding the intended audience (Wonderfalls is a prime example of this... there were a sea of ads that said next to nothing about what the show was like).

Also, Fox has a strange habit of getting excited about odd little shows and then not being patient enough to see them through. X Files and Buffy (some of the most influential sci-fi shows of recent times) took awhile to build up their core audience. This does not happen overnight except on the rarest of occasions (I would suggest Lost was a fluke... a fluke that I'm happy about, but a fluke nonetheless). Showing the episodes out of order on a show that was more sequential than not (you can't watch the episodes in broadcast order and not feel significantly more confused than the intended order leaves you) and messing around with the broadcast schedule does not help a show build a loyal fanbase.

Would Firefly have ever pulled in the amount of viewers that many hit shows do? Probably not. But it would have likely built the stable fanbase that many other Sci-Fi shows develop over time. And a stable fanbase means a stable income from a show. A more modest yet stable show can, over time, be almost as valuable an asset as a hit seres (especially considering how often "hit" shows fizzle out).

posted at July 24, 2006 06:43 PM

Pseudothink wrote:

I got all worked up for the series back in 2002, thanks to Fox's hype machine, but without the backstory of the "true" pilot episode, the first episode's character dynamics and universe made no sense to me. I turned it off about halfway through, went online, and posted in the same forums where I'd hyped it up earlier, saying that it was a big disappointment and to not bother watching it. I wrote it off and never saw it on TV again (easy to do on Friday night at 8pm!).

I ended up buying the DVD series about a year and a half later, after noticing nothing but praise for it from Slashdot users over that time. I realized I must have gotten the wrong first impression, watched the unedited series in the correct order, and I've been a diehard browncoat ever since.

My only complaint with the movie was that the trailers made it look like a somewhat cheesy sci-fi action flick. I admit, though, I wouldn't have enjoyed it even half as much without having seen the series first. Thankfully I did, and seeing the movie in a theater full of hundreds of other fans was an amazing experience. Definitely watch the series before the movie, though, or you'll spoil both.

posted at July 24, 2006 08:10 PM

DAVE wrote:

Actually, mlgm, you don't know what you're talking about- repeating that you do 5 times will not change the facts, which are well known by now. Here are some- the order in which Fox actually aired the episodes (from the DVD packaging) - 2,3,6,7,8,4,5,9,10,14,1. Episodes 11-13: never aired. Episode 1 is the 2-hour pilot, which sets up a rather complicated premise. Shown 3 months after the series "started", and dead last. There were 3 weeks in there with no shows, for the World Series and such, and it changed air time and night. The narrative flow of the series is as important in Firefly as in Lost- if you don't know this you haven't watched the show (which frankly is obvious from your posts)- do you honestly believe anyone would have understood what was going on in Lost if ABC had shown Lost's episodes in the above "order"? Nonsense. How was Firefly supposed to find an audience?? Lost would have died with the same treatment. Of course the ratings stunk at the time.

As for the movie Serenity, again for some "real" facts (from Boxofficemojo.com), the movie cost $39M to make and made $38.85M in worldwide boxoffice- very respectable and hardly a disaster financially- it made back what they spent. It was in theaters for seven weeks, not one. From Wikipedia: "Serenity won film of the year awards from Film 2005[2] and FilmFocus.[3] It also won IGN Film's Best Sci-Fi, Best Story and Best Trailer awards and was runner up for the Overall Best Movie.[4] It also won Nebula Award for Best Script for 2005." Roger Ebert loved it, and Manohla Dargis (main reviewer of NY Times) said it was "everything Star Wars III was not") ie, having a head and a heart, and characters you care about.

I happen to believe that Universal completely blew the trailer campaign for Serenity- they were far too cute by half, showing what amounted to a series of arch one-liners that only the "Browncoats" would appreciate or get... I am a huge fan of the series, but found myself cringing when the trailer came on TV. I knew it wasn't the way to go. And I'm guessing that's what you're basing a lot of your opinion on- you've seen neither the show or the movie- or, if you tuned in the show when it was first shown and was hopelessly confused and frustrated by it (like everyone else)- well, that is totally Fox's doing.

posted at July 24, 2006 08:56 PM

Melissa wrote:

First, I know they didn't show the pilot first. Most shows don't.

Um, what? Since when do most TV shows not show the pilot first? I was under the empression that they did because that is what a pilot is.

posted at July 24, 2006 10:31 PM

Mac wrote:

To mlgm:

There are people in the world who do not like Shakespeare and think his plays are poorly written.
I would submit to you that, based on the large sale of DVD's of both the series and the movie, there is a very large supportive fan base for "FIREFLY" and "SERENITY" I do not watch "LOST" because I find it boring; but that's my opinion. I know of some people who can't stand "The Andy Griffith Show".
Your postings sound like you are desperatley trying to convince someone of your position (perhaps yourself).
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion and, by all means, back it up with what ever statistics you can avail yourself of.

Just be aware; you are outnumbered in this.

posted at July 24, 2006 11:26 PM

John wrote:

Okay, first, how is airing episode out of order promoting it? Episode 2 "The Train Job" aired fist, Episode 3 "Bushwhacked" aired second, Epsode 6 "Our Mrs. Reynolds" aired third, Episode 7 "Jaynestown" aired forth, Episode 8 "Out of Gas" aired fifth, Episode 4 "Shindig" aired sixth, Episode 5 "Safe" aired seventh, Episode 9 "Ariel" aired eighth, Episode 10 "War Stories" aired ninth Episode 14 "Objects in Space" aired tenth Episode 1 "Serenity" aired eleventh Episode 11 "Trash" never aired, Episode 12 "The Message" never aired Episode 13 "Heart of Gold" never aired.This is according to the order on the back of the DVDs. I can't wait to see how you justify THAT.

posted at July 25, 2006 12:05 AM

Rose wrote:

"Most shows don't" show the pilot first? What shows do you watch? Just curious.
And calling us "genre" fans is quite insulting. I never did like westerns.
Bad acting? I'm not sure what you're referring to.
No, I don't know anyone personally who does not like this show. I know a few that haven't seen it, but I don't know any who have seen it and hated it. Obviously they exist, but there are plenty of people who don't think Bob Dylan is a poet. Lots of people don't get Family Guy. But, as you said, the DVD sales for Family Guy are good.
The DVD sales for Firefly are very good, by the way. Years after its cancellation it's still ranked #23 on Amazon, with an average rating of five stars. Compare that to Family Guy volume 3, with a current ranking of #257 and a rating of four stars. Volume one is doing better with a ranking of #177 and a rating of four and a hlaf stars. How is this show, then, doing better than Firefly?
And the fact is, the fan support of this show was enough to have a movie made. Those who love it really love it.
And the "sold out" showings referred to were a few weeks ago, on June 23rd, charity screenings for Equality Now, which raised over $60,000 dollars.
I am a member of fireflyfans.net, and I've seen our numbers rise every day there. We now have more than 21,000 members. Compare that to almost any other fansite. One Tree Hill's biggest fan site has something like 5,000 members.
The fans are there, the support is there, and the love is there. Whatever your personal opinion that I very much disagree with might be, you can't deny how many people love this show, this movie, these characters and the actors who portray them, and the writers who made it all possible.

posted at July 25, 2006 12:34 AM

awkwardjonas wrote:

mlgm, I wasn't a fan of the show at all until quite recently. I watched the first few episodes and then walked away.

My friend sat me down and I spent one entire day at her house, watching the episodes in the proper order and fell in love.

The pilot wasn't over budget, nor past any deadline. FOX thought it was too long and boring. Whedon and Tim Minear had one weeked to write a shorter, more action packed pilot episode. The result was the Train Job, by far the worst episode IMHO.

Also...bad acting? You were watching the same show I was right? Just checking.

And yea, Fox promoted Firefly like there was no tomorrow. I remember the promos, and frankly they weren't very good.

I respect your opinion, you are entitled to one after all, and you expressed it intelligently, but the one thing I can not accept is someone so blind to the fact that Fox messed this one up. Fox does have good shows on it, it's not that bad of a TV station, but they messed up when it came to Firefly, simple as that.

Have a nice day.

posted at July 25, 2006 01:55 AM

tmonsta wrote:

I say this as a simple refute to the above

Yes I tuned in when firefly first aired. I've never been a Whedon fan, never watched Buffy or Angel. Could have cared less.

The shows I saw were heavy handed and lackluster, but then, here it is a few years later, and after being begged by a friend to give it another chance, and to watch it in order, I have to say, it's damn good stuff... no, not good, exceptional

Fox was stupid for not playing it in order, as when I watched the first episode, I had no clue who these people were or what was going on. Having seen them now in order, I bought my own set, and Serenity.

Fact is, Fox has never handled sci-fi well, from X-files overstaying it's welcome, to Strange Luck, Sliders Millenium John Doe etc. They either want to dumb it down, or action and sex it up... They don't get the audience, and the Fox formula is ratings hit, or gone in half a season...

Just glad FOX didn't get BSG.

I'm also pretty sure that the anti-theist view of many of the characters on the show didn't sit well with the bible beater fox execs (see fox news) and I'm sure that effected how they chose to handle the show.

this is one of those movies like Blade Runner and the original Trek. It will be a cult classic and a mainstay for a long time to come, and weirdly, it keeps getting a larger and larger audience...

mlgm, watch it in the order of airdates, then rewatch it in the order it was supposed to be aired... you think screwing up the introduction to characters might affect how an audience relates to a TV show?

posted at July 25, 2006 02:48 AM

zoid wrote:

I'm a 48-year old male. I remember feigning slumber and then sneaking from my bedroom to hide behind my father's recliner to watch the original "Star Trek" (I'm pretty certain he knew I was there). I remember the glory days of of "Gunsmoke", of "M.A.S.H.", of "Cheers". In short, I've seen a lot of television; but I've never seen anything that approaches the artistry of "Firefly".

The characters were realistically drawn, multifaceted, and worn like a second skin by the actors. The dialogue was witty, but not in the typical TV definition of 'witty': The characters were funny in the same way that you and I are funny, in our day-to-day lives. With characters and dialogue that are natural, humor that is *unforced*, "Firefly" is simply the best TV ever aired, and a paragon of dramatic virtues.

So, why did the *movie* fail? No one else will say it, but I will: It opened on the 30th of September, 2005, less than a month after Hurricane Katrina demolished the American Gulf Coast. Gasoline was $3.40 (an increase of $1.20) per gallon. Movie theaters -- and the malls surrounding them -- were literally ghost towns. Ever had to get out of your car to see if a Walmart was unexpectedly closed in the middle of a weekday, only to find that, nosir, we are *most definitely* open for business, and step right this way!? It was... Eerie.

A final thought: The movie industry is changing. Animation is cheaper than live action, so there's more of it. People can't afford to see as many movies in a theater as they'd like, due to high ticket and concessions prices. So, they wait for DVD releases, while many movies open and close within 2 weeks.

TV is likewise changing. With so many channels to choose from, the wheat frequently gets irrecoverably lost in a sea of chaff. And of course, there's the entire phenomenon of Shi-, er, 'Reality' TV.

Ergo, Hollywood desperately needs a new business model, and a new scheme for distributing their products. Producers, directors, writers and actors *desperately* want to create 'deep art' that touches people in the way that only moving pictures can. But, the ability to do so in today's economy -- and have it flourish in an entertainment-glutted culture -- is at an all-time ebb tide. The only things marketable are testosterone-or-estrogen and adrenaline fests.

...And I ain't keen on having my glands massaged while my wallet is lifted -- not my soul -- and Art is totally dismissed as unprofitable.

posted at July 25, 2006 03:05 AM

Colin Campbell wrote:

It's tough to take seriously any comments from a person who claims other people are ignorant, yet includes the sentence, "First, I know they didn't show the pilot first. Most shows don't."

You made some good points -- but c'mon, this one is way off base.

posted at July 25, 2006 04:08 AM

Ray wrote:

It puzzles me why certain people are so intent on rubbishing such a brilliant show as Firefly. Isn't there a little hypocricy from the above critics who accuse the shows followers of holding themselves superior? Has anyone here suggested you must be stupid if you don't like Firefly? But then compared to alot of the cr*p that seems to get shown on Fox, Firefly does require a fair amount of brain input to understand.
There's an accurate timeline for Firefly (which I'll do a search for) when it was originally screened back in 2002 and shows the total incompetence involved with it. Including preemting an episode with a re run of The Brady Bunch Reunion for absolutely no reason. Infact Fox did everything they could to discourage viewers from staying with it, yet the viewing figures actually began to increase. They commissioned another several episodes to be filmed and then cancelled it the very next day. Now there's a network that really knows what it's doing.
Firefly was the very 1st Whedon series I'd ever watched and I've never before been agrieved at the loss of a mere TV show, but when it was announced, on SciFiUK, that OIS was the final 'ever' episode... I was. I even spent £800 on a PC to get online and find out more about it.
I'll be honest, I don't like Buffy, sorry... but I don't. I have no interest in Angel either. They do nothing for me. But I'm certainly not going to visit a Buffy forum to say why I didn't like them and rub salt in the fact that Angel was cancelled. I just won't watch them or buy the DVD sets.
I also loath the Star Trek spin offs which I find duller than ditch water and are an insult to the original series, cast and crew. Again, I'll simply avoid watching them. I'm not going to visit a Star Trek forum and start explaining how bad they all were and why their precious franchise has ended.
As fans of this show, we want to bring it to as many people as possible, let them watch it, and let them decide for themselves.
It mostly seems to be disgruntled Trekkies and Star Wars fans who are intent in trying to stop that from happening.
Firefly is in the top 5 best ever selling TV to DVD boxsets so I think they have quite a job on their hands.

posted at July 25, 2006 07:37 AM

pisher wrote:

[quote]As for the movie Serenity, again for some "real" facts (from Boxofficemojo.com), the movie cost $39M to make and made $38.85M in worldwide boxoffice- very respectable and hardly a disaster financially- it made back what they spent.[/quote]

Okay, this is why it's so exhausting to argue about box office.

Let's assume the entire production budget was 39 million dollars, even though it was almost certainly more than that.

Let's assume that since the movie got an international release, the studio's total expenses, including promotion (there were ads on Monday Night Football), release, striking thousands of prints for a worldwide release, etc, their total expenses were around 80 million--that's being pretty damned conservative. The 39-40 mil you see listed is ONLY for production. And it may be a lowball figure. I heard it might be closer to 45mil. There's really no way to know for sure (even Whedon wouldn't know for an absolute fact, because he's a producer, not an accountant), but we can be pretty sure it's no LESS than 39mil--it was probably at least a little more, so we should probably say 40mil.

A movie studio gets around 55% of the total worldwide gross, on average (why do people keep thinking 100% of the money gets sent back to the studio?). That is to say, if the worldwide box office was 100 million dollars, they'd get back 55mil--60 mil tops. The total worldwide box office was 38.8 mil--anybody here good at figuring percentages? Let me save you the trouble--SERENITY FLOPPED.

The bottom line is that for a studio to even try to pretend a movie they released isn't a flop, its domestic gross has to at least equal what they claim the production budget was. They claim it was 39mil. Serenity didn't even make 39mil WORLDWIDE.

And that's why Joss Whedon has made it clear, over and over, that there aren't going to be any more Serenity movies. Because he knows if he brought it up with Universal, they'd never stop laughing.

posted at July 25, 2006 11:14 AM

zoid wrote:

Yo, pisher:

The majority of movies these days make their money in DVD sales and rentals, not theatrical runs. Take "Underworld", for a well-worn example. You're so knowledgeable, I won't even recount that tale except to say that a sequel got made strictly on the strength of DVD sales...

Firefly *will* return, either as a series/mini-series on SciFi/NBC, or as a theatrical release. I predict principal photography will begin as early as 3Q/2007, not later than 2Q/2008. Mark my words. My crystal ball has never failed yet, and it sure won't here; this one's a *slam dunk* (and a 'facial' for you)...

Cordially,
zoid

posted at July 25, 2006 03:21 PM

Dave wrote:

Dear Pisher: "Okay, this is why it's so exhausting to argue about box office." No, it's indescribably boring to have to argue against the idea "Box Office=Quality". By your standards, we can expect an Adam Sandler sweep at the next academy awards... good grief. Funny, I'm not aware of that having happened so far.

No one is saying Serenity didn't disappoint at the box office- that's kinda beside the point. We are simply saying Firefly was one of the best shows ever, and most of the critical evidence is on our side. And people yammering about, "Fox canceled it, and the movie tanked, so therefore Firefly stinks" is simply childish and uninformed.

Serenity was a "success" because it came very close to meeting it's modest expectations financially, and the people it was made for LOVED it- along with most (I said most) of the critics who saw it - a number of respected critics thought it was a better film than SW III. You want to talk flops? How about Poseidon, The Omen, Mission Impossible III - far below expectations, and the films themselves blew...

For that matter, The Matrix II & III: made some $$, but the fans HATED them . Most of the critics, too.

On the face of it, Firefly is a difficult proposition - why do they all look and talk like cowboys and frontier folk? Why does EVERYONE curse in Chinese? It's supposed to be Sci-Fi- where are the Aliens and laser beams? And yet the story arc, and the unique universe are very carefully crafted- anyone who is not profoundly moved as River Tam's story slowly comes to light , must have a heart of stone... it all makes perfect sense soon enough.

Keep an open mind, borrow the DVDs- or, if you must, rent Serenity I/II (pilot), Our Mrs. Reynolds, Jaynestown, Out of Gas, Ariel, Objects in Space- some of the best stand-alone episodes. This is a series, however, that richly rewards watching all of them, in order. Not to mention that the DVDs are widescreen and very cinematic.

posted at July 25, 2006 05:24 PM

pisher wrote:

zoid, you need to send your crystal ball to the shop for some finetuning. And Whedon himself would tell you that, if you asked him. Universal has no interest in doing another one, and Whedon himself is going to be tied up with Wonder Woman well past the dates you mention, assuming the project doesn't get shelved indefinitely, or Silver doesn't replace him, which I'm assuming you don't want to happen, but you never know with Browncoats. ;)

Will it make a small profit eventually, counting in DVD profits? You can't prove it, because those figures aren't available. It's certainly possible it'll earn a small profit when all the beans are counted, but a small profit doesn't get sequels made. A small profit is failure, because the movie biz is expensive, and you need large profits to cover the overhead. And Serenity's DVD profits were nothing special. It did great on Amazon (still does), but Amazon is only a small fraction of the overall market. In the realspace stores, its sales were mediocre at best. It wasn't one of the top-selling titles of the period it was released in. It disappeared quickly from the Billboard DVD sales chart.

As to Underworld--do you even bother to check up this stuff? Underworld has a listed budget of 22 mil, and made 95 mil worldwide. Serenity has a listed budget of 39 mil, and made less than that worldwide. And YET, the strong DVD sales (stronger than Serenity's) were still necessary to greenlight the sequel. Good point. Why didn't I think of that?

By the end of this decade, not one frame of a Serenity sequel will have been shot. If Whedon makes it big--REALLY big--and feels like failing again--he can always use his newfound clout to get another one made. So all the people who hate him, and want his career to end should encourage him to do precisely that.

posted at July 25, 2006 07:57 PM

Christina Arasmo wrote:

I saw the movie last year and loved it. Now that I have iTunes, I'm watching the series in the order intended. It's brilliant!

posted at July 25, 2006 09:01 PM

awkwardjonas wrote:

pisher, the total amount spent on the film was somewhere around $49 million that's filming and marketing together.

Serenity flopped in theatres. Universal did it's best to market it, but it's a tough film to market. And for that I think Universal did an amazing job.

But the DVD sales are skyrocketing. I don't know about sequels (We can only hope!) but Universal is definitely making their money back now.

posted at July 26, 2006 01:22 AM

pisher wrote:

awkwardjonas, you don't know the total amount, unless you're an accountant working for Universal. It's simply not possible they could have spent ten million dollars promoting and distributing a movie that was released in 18 countries, and flopped in all of them (Serenity actually did much worse in the UK than it did stateside, even allowing for the difference in population--the film's overseas performance was truly beyond pathetic).

Never mind that striking off prints alone costs millions, and isn't included in the production budget. No, sorry, but 49mil isn't correct. You have bad information. But even if you were right, the movie didn't come close to breaking even at the box office. Universal couldn't have gotten much more than 20 million dollars back from the total worldwide box office receipts. Maybe not even that. Most of their share of the DVD profits went to making up their b.o. losses, and paying off their investors (people tend to forget that nearly all movies are made with money borrowed at interest, and profits for the studio don't start until the investors are paid off).

Dave, I've had this argument about many other rotten failed movies, and I'm not surprised to hear the same tired arguments--"You're saying box office equals quality". No, I'm really not. But can we just accept this wasn't some arthouse indie? This was a commercial movie, and it was supposed to make money. Will it be remember as Great Art a hundred years from now? A better question would be will it be remembered at ALL.

But then you pull Adam Sandler on me. I hate to say it, but he probably WILL win an Oscar someday, though probably not next year.

But since you've just equated Oscars with quality, can I just ask--how many Academy Award nominations did Serenity get? How many Golden Globe Nominations? How many critic award nominations? Give up? The answer is 1)Zero., 2)Zero, and 3)One nomination from the Online Film Critics (oooh, so prestigious) for Fillion as "breakout performer" or something like that. He lost to the kid from "The Squid and the Whale". I doubt he was even in the running for third place.

Serenity got good reviews (many of which were not from the critics of record at various major newspapers, a large percentage of whom chose not to review it at all)--but not really great ones. It's not one of the 100 best-reviewed movies of 2005, according to Rotten Tomatoes. As far as 2005 movies in wide release went, it came in at #13--behind "Red Eye". So I guess that proves "Red Eye" is a timeless immortal classic that will stand the test of time? Reviews written by hack second-string critics on a deadline who are disproportionately likely to be Joss Whedon fans prove quality. Sure. Of course they do.

People can like what they like. But please--keep your sticky fingers off the facts. Firefly failed. Serenity failed. The promotion wasn't the problem. The product was the problem.

And anybody who thinks either qualifies as Great Art really needs to take a reality check.

posted at July 26, 2006 09:26 AM

zoid wrote:

pisher:
Done and done. I've bookmarked this page. I'll see you here, mid-2008. I'll bring the cheese, you bring the *whine*...

Knowingly,
zoid

posted at July 26, 2006 10:10 AM

pisher wrote:

zoid: Serenity WAS the cheese, and you've already brought the whine. :-D

posted at July 26, 2006 10:40 AM

Ray wrote:

Pisher, dude, you really need to get a hobby.

posted at July 26, 2006 01:52 PM

pisher wrote:

Wow. A Firefly fan is telling me to get a life. I may never stop laughing. :-D

posted at July 26, 2006 04:33 PM

Amber wrote:

"This was a commercial movie, and it was supposed to make money."

So you're saying that a movie without a single name based on a failed TV series was planned out by the brilliant minds at Universal to bring in the big bucks? That's an interesting theory.

The series was brilliant. The movie was brilliant. I know other people think so because it is listed on a website called Brilliantbutcancelled.com. It has managed to produce a growing number of dedicated fans despite Fox and Universal. People don't get it. People didn't get Van Gogh or Poe either. That doesn't make them ignorant it just means they don't necessarily appreciate that type of art. Stop going to fan sites and telling all the fans they are wrong.

posted at July 26, 2006 04:57 PM

PopsKrock wrote:

Pisher you are devoting way too much time to hate. Hate is not very constructive. Didn't you listen to Yoda.

posted at July 26, 2006 08:53 PM

DAVE wrote:

Pisher, you're gonna quote Rotten Tomatoes at me? Now you've gone & done it. Do your homework, my friend. Serenity's Rotten Tomatoes rating is 80% "Certified Fresh"! Out of 158 reviews, 127 "real" reviewers liked the film- only 31 did not.

'nuff said.

Here's a choice one from the Miami Herald: "A lot more sweaty fun than the last three overhyped, sterile, for-dorks-only Star Wars cartoons." Which I know you loved, 'cause they made a lot of coin.
"Serenity got good reviews (many of which were not from the critics of record at various major newspapers, a large percentage of whom chose not to review it at all)--but not really great ones."

Huh? it's cream of the crop rating is even higher- 87%. What are the cream of the crop reviews? From Rotten Tomatoes: " "Cream of the Crop" is where we place popular and notable critics from the top 20 US newspapers and top 5 Canadian newspapers by circulation. Popular magazine, web, TV, and radio critics are also included. This area has its own Tomatometer. Critics in this area are also accounted for in the overall Tomatometer."
In case you don't get it, these are the reviewers from: Salon.com, NY Daily News, Washington Post, NY Post, Village Voice, Ebert & Roeper, NY Times, LA Times.... on & on.

Pisher. Dude. They all liked the movie. And are more qualified to comment than you.

Case closed.

posted at July 26, 2006 09:07 PM

Dave wrote:

Sorry everyone, I just can't resist. My last post, I promise.

"Serenity is made of dubious but energetic special effects, breathless velocity, much imagination, some sly verbal wit and a little political satire." -- Roger Ebert, CHICAGO SUN-TIMES

"Joss Whedon's unassuming science-fiction adventure is superior in almost every respect to George Lucas's aggressively more ambitious screen entertainments."-- Manohla Dargis, NEW YORK TIMES

"Whedon knows that he's blazing down a well-worn trail, but he addresses that by deftly adding elements of humor, action, romance and horror and continually confounding audience expectations."-- Kevin Crust, LOS ANGELES TIMES

Um, Pisher, you HAVE heard of at least a couple of these folks, yes?

posted at July 26, 2006 09:23 PM

Dog Surfer wrote:

So, Firefly left you yearning. Here's more that may be worth looking into. Consider the 2005 & 2006 seasons of the BBC Dr. Who. Also, Tim Minear, the executive producer of Firefly also produced "Wonderfalls", available on DVD. Neither of these are Firefly. Both are excellent, imaginative, fun, well written, and have enthusiastic fans.

posted at July 26, 2006 10:18 PM

John wrote:

From Wikipedia:

Serenity won film of the year awards from Film 2005[2] and FilmFocus.[3] It also won IGN Film's Best Sci-Fi, Best Story and Best Trailer awards and was runner up for the Overall Best Movie[4] (Batman Begins received first place). Won the 7th annual 'User Tomato Awards' for best Sci-Fi movie of 2005 at Rotten Tomatoes. It also won Nebula Award for Best Script for 2005. Serenity won the 2006 viewers choice Spacey Award for favorite movie.

posted at July 27, 2006 01:45 AM

netrunner wrote:

http://www.sliceofscifi.com (in the archives)

There's your proof that you say doesn't exist about the DVD sales, pisher.

The entire Star Wars prequel sucked HARD compared to Serenity. It just had George Lucas' clout and MASSIVE amounts of CGI and money.

posted at July 27, 2006 09:12 AM

pisher wrote:

netrunner, I'm almost sorry to have to be the one to break this to you--but if you'd only taken a closer look, you'd realize this brilliant financial analysis was written by some fanboy misinterpreting numbers on a message board. And on the Newsarama page where this misinformation first appeared, there's a link to Whedonesque, where better-informed people (who love Whedon to bits) basically took his figures to pieces. The studio's costs, above production, were obviously far higher than ten million, the and he was counting rental revenue that doesn't even go back to the studio. And the ten million for advertising was only for the U.S. It didn't include overseas promotion, not to mention distribution expenses, not to mention the striking of prints. Geez, man--you can't do a wide studio release in North America, and then distribute the movie in 18 foreign countries, for ten lousy million. And you know what the total take was for those 18 foreign countries? A little over 13 million.

http://whedonesque.com/index.php?comments=9577

The redfaced Mr. Fabb admitted he was totally wrong, and apologized.

Now would you care to do the same?

posted at July 27, 2006 10:52 AM

Obsidian wrote:

"he was counting rental revenue that doesn't even go back to the studio."

Must be a nice fantasy land you are living in.

Are you really really stupid enough to think that studios just GIVE AWAY their DVDs to rental places?

No. They don't. The retal place BUYS the DVDs to rent out, and the money for those copies goes to *shock**gasp* THE MOVIE STUDIO.

Furthermore, when the rental place sees that a movie is popular and well-requested, they tend to order additional copies of it which means that... wait for it... the movie studio gets even MORE money.

This is a simple equation that anyone capable of logical thinking could figure out. Too bad you aren't included in that company.

This is also one of the reasons why the DVD sales are so important. Because the studio makes money from every copy sold. And yes, even copies sold to video places. Your desire for that not to be the case doesn't make it so.

posted at July 28, 2006 12:04 AM

pisher wrote:

Dave, sorry to neglect you.

Yes, Serenity had a decent Tomatometer score--as did many another mediocre film, including many you despise, I have no doubt. You can say ROTS got a higher Tomatometer score because the critics took it easy on Lucas--well, that's how Serenity got such a high score--because the critics reviewing it were mainly fans of Joss Whedon--and in many cases, using their reviews less to review Serenity than to diss the recent Star Wars films. This little bit of critical schadenfreude didn't exactly help Serenity at the box office.

In spite of the fact that it was reviewed almost entirely by critics who went in sympathetic to Whedon and his failed franchise, at the end of 2005, there were over 100 movies with better Tomatometer scores. But Serenity was definitely in the Top 200. I'm sure Whedon brags about that frequently to his colleagues.

Roger Ebert gave Serenity three stars--the same rating he gave "Into the Blue", which came out the same weekend. You sure it was a good idea to bring that up? Get well soon, Rog.

Manohla Dargis is currently the #3 critic at the NY Times, which is certainly a prestigious position for a critic to hold--one of her senior colleagues gave Revenge of the Sith a great review, which I guess means it was a terrific movie?--you could say otherwise, but I suppose you'd have to admit this person is better qualified than you to comment. ;)

She did like Serenity--she also said it was less cinematic than the series (which she had been a fan of, unlike most people, but in fact most of the critics who reviewed Serenity admitted they were Whedon fans). In spite of her starry-eyed fandom, she said the actors 'borrowed rather than owned' the screen. She basically used the review to praise Whedon himself, while none-too-subtly suggesting he should go back to television where he belongs.

IMDb doesn't count most of the awards John mentioned, because they're mainly meaningless fanboy awards, determined by online voting, which can easily be rigged by a small but determined fanbase. They exist mainly to promote fansites, and bear no indusry prestige whatsoever--if Whedon mentioned them in the circles he moved in, he'd be mercilessly ribbed.

The Spacey award was determined by online voting--however, in the "Space Choice" category, where the people behind the awards pick the winner, it failed to win anything.

The Film Focus award was kind of weird--basically, they made up the award, which they had never given out before, so that Whedon would come and talk to them, which he did.

But the Nebula script award, which is a real award, recognized by IMDb, he didn't even show up to claim. Nor did he send anyone to claim it in his place. Nor did he send a written or videotaped acceptance speech. Even though he was contacted months in advance of the awards ceremony, and the only other competition he had in that category was two Battlestar Galactica scripts, and no teleplay has ever won that award. He did show up at the Saturn Awards to collect Summer Glau's best supporting actress award on her behalf.

Dave, I have to ask--if critics liked this movie so much, you'd think it would have garnered at least one or two critic awards--there are dozens of them across the country, and it received precisely one nomination--from the Online Film Critics. And it was for Fillion, and Fillion lost. And it was about the least important award the Online Film Critics give out. Oh yeah, Serenity was absolutely a critical fave.

Oh but that's right--you won't be posting on this forum again. You said so. ;)

posted at July 28, 2006 04:34 AM

pisher wrote:

Obsidian, why don't you click on the Whedonesque thread, and just read over the very reasonable critiques of Mr. Fabb's figures made by people who are bigger Firefly/Serenity/Whedon freaks than you'll ever be, and who wanted this movie to succeed more than anything.

Gossi (one of the film's biggest boosters online) says he thinks it might be in the black about two years after its release.

Rental revenue goes to the rental chains. Yes, of course the studio makes money--by selling DVDs to the chains. But will you please try to THINK for once? Okay, say Serenity took in ten million in rental fees. If the rental chains didn't spend a LOT less than that obtaining the DVDs from the studio, wouldn't that make Serenity a horrendous failure on DVD?

And in fact--it was. It did absolutely horrible rentals, and you can check that out at videobusiness.com, anytime you like.

The DVD did okay sales, horrible rentals, and Universal should have recouped their losses within a few years of releasing the film.

And Joss Whedon has made it very clear Universal isn't going to underwrite another film.

And this doesn't mean you didn't like the movie, or the series.

It just means most people didn't.

posted at July 28, 2006 09:33 AM

Elise wrote:

pisher, I really don't see why you care what we think. If you didn't like the show then thats fine, but there are a few people who loved it and you can't deny that. I don't know if it could have had better ratings with time, but I think it could have been possible. I just heard about this show like 3 months ago and didn't see it until about a week ago. So I don't see how it was promoted well. I watch the Fox station a lot, I always have. So I don't see how I missed advertising. When I saw previews for Serenity I was not interested, but then it was forced upon me and I really enjoyed it. Everyone I know and have mentioned the show/movie to say they have never heard of it. So how can you expect people to rent something they've never heard of. To most people it doesn't look appealing by the box cover, it didn't to me anyway and I love the show. Of course, I tend to like things that many people don't.
Ps,
If anything I said is something that was already said or something of that nature, I am sorry. I was trying to read all the posts but that was just taking way too much time and I just kinda skimed the rest.

posted at July 28, 2006 12:59 PM

Iris wrote:

I recently rented the movie hoping it would be worth it and if not it would be something to watch and help pass the time. To my surprise I loved it! My brother told me afterwards he'd heard that it was based on a cancelled show -- which I immediately purchased on Amazon along with the movie. No regrets on that decision, I've seen it a dozen times it seems, and I've only had it a few weeks.
Firefly is definitely the best show I've seen in a long time. It's brilliantly written, I love the cast, the opening song...I can't say enough about it. My only regret is that I didn't hear of it sooner...all that wasted time!

posted at July 28, 2006 09:11 PM

bbvdrone wrote:

I work at a rental store and Serenity was rented out completely for over a month when it came out. Unfortunatly we were only sent around 6 copies which meant tons of angry customers. Months later we were sent more copies but by then most of the "hey, this looks interesting" rush had died down. Most of the people who rented it had never even heard of the show but ended up going to the local indie store to rent it. We were never sent any copies of Firefly. My coworkers and I even talked about how badly handled the whole thing was. I have yet to meet a person who has watched the show (in order) who hasn't loved it, including people like me who can't stand Joss Whedon's other series. Personally I thought the movie was mediocre but trying to finish the storylines in two hours must have been grueling.
I guess I'm just trying to say that with the "smaller" titles, distribution controls rents more than you'd think.

posted at July 29, 2006 12:03 AM

deepgirl187 wrote:

Pisher, I (along with everyone else here) can see that you don't seem to like Firefly or Serenity. Fine. But why waste copious amounts of energy bashing it? The site name says "Brilliant But Cancelled Shows". Call me crazy, but I thought we were supposed to be here expressing our appreciation for shows we loved that met an untimely demise. Wouldn't it be just a tad more constructive to find a show you actually like and support it. You're not going to convince any of us that your right. We like Firefly for our own reasons, and all your really doing is being irritating.

posted at July 29, 2006 03:42 AM

Ray wrote:

Oh man. Pisher, what is it you're trying to achieve here? What is your motive for all this dissing & negativity? Are you really (as has been suggested) a devoted Star Wars fan boy? A disgruntled one? Just like mlgm, wouldn't be surprised if you're both the same person. As Mac said earlier, his posts -just like yours- smack of desperatley trying to convince people that Firefly & Serenity are scifi of the lowest quality and are not worth our time and money.
Geeze, for you to go to all this trouble, submitting all those boring overly long posts, this little series and subsequent big screen follow up must really be a serious threat to your precious Star Wars franchise. Why else would you be here.
If your trying to convince anyone new not to bother watching the movie or the series, I think I can safely say that your increasingly obsessive posts will be having the opposite of the desired effect. There is after all only one kind of bad publicity, and that's 'no publicity'.
Thankyou, I've enjoyed watching your credibility ebb away with each successive post.

posted at July 29, 2006 09:41 AM

kaelor03 wrote:

When I first saw the ads on Fox for Firefly, I didn't have any interest in a Whedon made show set in space. And I love SciFi, so I should have given it a chance. I didn't. Until I found some references to it on websites, long after it was cancelled, and followed up on those ref's. After that, I decided to Kazaa the episodes and watch them. I was really surprised at the quality of the series. I enjoyed it and when the DVD's came out, bought a set. My friends never watched it either. I preached to them the virtue of the show, and eventually they all watched it too and loved it just as much. Some of them saw Serenity first and thought it was good, then watched the series. Either way, they liked it too.

posted at July 30, 2006 10:52 AM

Mar wrote:

Great show. It's a shame that they cancelled it after so short a run.

posted at July 30, 2006 04:24 PM

pisher wrote:

Ray, I didn't even go see Attack of the Clones (gee, that would have been a good title for Serenity) when it was in theatres, and I waited months to see Phantom Minus and ROTS. I've enjoyed some of the Star Wars movies (like about 90% of the planet), but I found the prequel trilogy deeply flawed and disappointing, and even the first two films are not the masterpieces some people think. George Lucas is massively overrated, but at least he doesn't suck up to his pathetic fans the way Whedon does. If you want to find my cinema idols for purposes of petty childish frustrated revenge, you'll have to go back a lot further than that, kid. ;)

Now let me just check your last post--don't remember which one you were--oh right--hmm. Seems to me you were less interested in praising Firefly/Serenity in your boring overly long posts than you were in bashing Star Wars and Star Trek fans for liking what THEY like. And this, of course, is the classic Browncoat double standard.

I like Star Wars films when they're good, which the last four were not. I like Star Trek shows when they're good, which the last two shows were not. I actually decide what's good or bad based on the show/film itself, as opposed to who made it. Too radical a concept fer ya? ;)

I was hoping Firefly would be good, because I was a big fan of Buffy the Vampire Slayer (for its first five seasons, anyway). It wasn't good, and I said so. And the only reason I'm still talking about it now is that I ran into a wave of nigh-religious intolerance that rivals that of the Taliban and the Moral Majority. I had heard from some online friends that Whedon fans were the worst nutballs on the internet, and that they made the most freaked out Trekkies look normal by comparison--but I never believed it. Not until I saw the online temper tantrums that greeted Firefly's perfectly understandable and inevitable demise.

Then I watched you guys gloat about how Serenity would prove FOX was wrong to cancel the show. Well, gee--how'd that work out?

The reason so few people watch this franchise is that most people don't enjoy it. All the online testimonials in the world don't undo the fact that it failed TWICE. Once at 20th Century Fox. Once at Universal. Bad luck? Bad promotion? Or just a bad BAD idea? Universal obviously favors the third option.

The reason Browncoats are so despised by other genre fans is that they attacked other fanbases for no reason--and made enemies for Firefly/Serenity, and for Whedon himself. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen Serenity fans spoken of contemptuously at various spots online. Frankly, if you'd just SHUT UP about the damned movie, it might have done a little more business.

Oddly enough, when you slam Star Wars and Star Trek online, you don't get flamed nearly as much--gee, could that be because fans of those franchises feel just a TEENSY bit more secure about their future? ;)

posted at July 31, 2006 08:36 AM

pisher wrote:

Oh, and deepgirl, I did notice the title of this forum is 'brilliant but canceled'--did you notice the subtitle is 'pop autopsy'?

Generally speaking you do autopsies on dead things.

Call me crazy, but I thought the purpose of a discussion thread was for people holding differing opinions to--you know--discuss them?

I'm having a hard time thinking of anything more pointless than yet another thread where fans of a failed TV show get together to talk about why it shouldn't have been canceled. It WAS canceled. The movie DID flop. And don't say "We accept that", because obviously some people on this thread still haven't accepted it.

Firefly is dead. Serenity is dead. Neither was much of a loss. Don't tell me to let it go, when you're obviously still unwilling to follow your own good advice. ;)

posted at July 31, 2006 10:09 AM

nonny wrote:

After I saw the complete boxed Firefly episodes, I quickly became an ardent fan. While awaiting the movie Serenity, I would log into a movie review website(IMBD, I believe). (Forgive my memory, I'm battling early senility.) There was one person who posted under numerous names who delighted in bashing Firefly and Serenity and who used box office figure quotes and the word "flop" continually. The sole purpose of these posts seemed to be to goad the fans. I suspect "Pisher" has resurfaced here. The best way to handle it is as it is with all "bullies"-ignore and don't comment!!!! Nonny( to the site owner_feel free to edit if I have incorrectly named the movie review web site).

posted at August 1, 2006 09:28 AM

pisher wrote:

For the record, I did post some negative comments about Serenity at IMDb. I didn't post under multiple names, though--I've only posted at IMDb under one name. There were many other people who posted negative comments about that movie, and who do so to this very day. I know it's a fond delusion of Browncoats that there were just a tiny handful of 'trolls' who disliked the movie, but the box office would tend to belie that. And I'd be fine with people ignoring me here--which sure isn't what 'nonny' has done. ;)

posted at August 1, 2006 12:13 PM

s wrote:

You know, I'm not one for box office receipts, which seems to be a focus of a lot of the controversy on this thread. All I know is that Firefly spoke to me in a way most TV shows don't. The characters were well drawn, the dialogue snappy, and the premise interesting. I grew up on both Bonanza and Star Trek reruns (and loved both of them) so you can imagine my delight in the series. I tend to agree that Fox didn't do such a hot job in handling Firefly. I was a huge Buffy fan when it came out, and when I heard Joss was doing another series, I danced with joy and got my remote ready. Unfortunately, I was disappointed by what happened. Oh, not with the show itself, but how the show was presented. The promos didn't really give all that tantalizing a glimpse into what Firefly was really about. And don't even get me started on the order they showed it in. How can you gain fans quickly (as is Fox's mission in life) if you don't give them a chance to understand what it is they're seeing? Now, I understand Firefly may not be for everyone. But I resent the implication that because one person may not like it (okay, that was a passive aggressive jab at pisher, I admit it. I'll stop doing that now.) that the series is without value. Now, I'm not saying Joss Whedon is the Second Coming or anything, but I do believe that he made something beautiful in Firefly. And to address the issue of Serenity and its success, I have one thing to say: I don't really care how it did at the box office. A film's box office receipt does not its quality tell. It tells of its marketability and very little else. I mean, if we go by box office receipts as out measuring rod for whether a movie is good or not, movies such as Waterboy would be winning Oscars. A film may be underappreciated and still be good and worthy of praise. I understand that people dislike Firefly and Serenity, and more power to them! But to insinuate that another's opinion is invalid simply because it differs from yours is ludicrous. I have no problem with anyone disliking my fandom. What I do have a problem with is people telling me I shouldn't like it myself. So, I guess what I mean to say by that is that while discussion and varying opinions are a vital and necessary part of a healthy intellectual diet, sometimes you just have to shut up and eat your metaphorical brussel sprouts. Even if you hate them.

posted at August 2, 2006 02:19 AM

Rowan wrote:

All hail Joss Whedon. I'm a HUGE Buffy fan. Season 1 through 7. You HAVE to love them all. (ok, well Season 4 was kinda...ewww.) when Firefly came out I admit I wasn't into it. I went to see the movie with my in laws and I LOVED it. The strong character yet crushing vulnerability of River Tam...shades of Buffy. The brutal and quick killing of a main character (can't remember his name..but he drove the ship) shades of Anya's quick and shocking demise at the end of Buffy.
I'm glad Joss got to wrap up the story in a movie after the show got cancelled. Do you realize he wrote Buffy season 1 - 7 before the pilot even aired? He writes a story..he weaves webs of intricate measure in his work. That is what makes him the genius that he is.

posted at August 2, 2006 04:13 AM

Ray wrote:

Thankyou Nonny, Amen to that. Just for a giggle though, type "Pisher Firefly" & or "Serenity" into google. At Scalzi.com/whatever (Yes he's there too) you'll find a link to another forum where Pisher has around 130 posts 'mostly to himself', and this is dating back to last year. I rest my case. Bye all.

posted at August 2, 2006 04:52 AM

pisher wrote:

::chuckle:

So only one person didn't like Firefly or Serenity.

And that's why Firefly was canceled less than halfway through its first season, and Serenity couldn't even manage 39 million dollars in 20 countries, including the U.S. and Canada. That's why Serenity didn't even manage to make five million dollars in the UK, where there was supposedly a huge rabid fanbase for it, and the PR campaign was reportedly quite good. It made a little over half a million dollars in France--they must have spent more than that promoting and releasing it there. Most of the overseas releases probably lost money for Universal.

I'm not even the only person on this THREAD who didn't like it.

And geez, that thread at scalzi has been dead for months now. I'm literally not talking about Firefly/Serenity anywhere else on the internet but this thread. And I'll go right on talking about it here, as long as you keep talking about me. So guess who's to blame for my continued presence? As always, the Browncoats prove to be their own worst enemies. :-D

posted at August 2, 2006 08:31 AM

Scott Ellington wrote:

I like the fact that pisher provides an alternate view of the failure of SereniFly. Having been addicted only since last February, I've no valid opinion regarding the promotional efficacy of television networks I don't care to watch (four years ago).
I think the numbers measure popularity of a couple of media in wild transition, and that I've spent a hell of a lot of money since February following up on leads and allusions scattered throughout the series and the film.
That the video card, the books and the 95 DVDs I've purchased (since somebody loaned me his copy of Serenity) have NO recognized impact on the BDM's bottom line is unfortunate. The fact, nonetheless, is that NOW I measure everything I see against the standards set by SereniFly.
My bottom line is that the movie is shockingly great, and that the series is of significantly greater value than I can express.
Clearly, the numbers really DO matter, but the scales are in fundamental flux, and the people who use them to make important, executive decisions aren't looking for quality or inspired/inspiring art so much as popularity and big bucks. Caveat pre-emptor; networks also have the right to be wrong.

posted at August 2, 2006 09:18 AM

pisher wrote:

My bottom line is that I've seen literally thousands of better movies in my life. I simply do not understand why a tiny handful of people refuse to accept that the fact that this franchise tickled their fancies (and their vanities) more than anything else they've seen recently doesn't mean that it's great art. It simply means they need to get out more.

Joss Whedon says there's no more coming, so enjoy what you got.

posted at August 2, 2006 09:50 AM

Giselle wrote:

As a huge fan of Joss Whedon and probably one of the only original viewer of Firefly I personaly thought that the show and the movie were briliant. The whole soci-political commentary of the lengths a Society will go thru to make there people conform to what they deem is right is the most masterful script writing I have ever come across. Browncoasts Forever!

posted at August 2, 2006 07:28 PM

Jennifer wrote:

Through my entire college career I had a blue glove pinned to my front door of my dorm room... It always made people ask what it was for... I'd invite them in to watch an episode of Firefly and they were hooked. In a college of only about 2,000 people, most of the dorms knew about Firefly by my senior year. I saw Serenity five times in theater. This is the most amazing show/movie that I've ever seen. The cast and everyone involved in the making of it all, especially Joss Whedon are simply brilliant. If you believe in something, hold onto it until it grows wings, because something like Firefly could have really had the chance to fly.

posted at August 2, 2006 07:44 PM

Chad Huffman wrote:

Is someone seriously talking about the box office as a litmus test of quality? Is it not now common knowledge amongst intelligent persons that the masses are incredibly stupid? Don't Britney Spears' pregancy photos and Brangelina's baby encompass 90% of what the average American cares about? Firefly (and Serenity by extension, though to a lesser extent) is classic Joss, which is to say Brilliant Entertainment. I capitalize both of those words for the combination of meanings they bring forth. They are campy and pop-culture relevant, as Buffy and Angel were, but--much like both aforementioned series--they have relevant, meaningful characters and situations that put forth more engaging and emotive moments than any dozen box-office successes of the past several years. Barring a small handful of commercially successful TV programs and movies, there is little of substantive quality on celluloid these days. Firefly and Serenity as a package give you characters you can care about, stories that can entertain, dialogue that can make you laugh and cry, and a world that tickles the imagination. Anyone who fails to see the value in this franchise is the one who loses, not the rabid fans who recognize its greatness.

posted at August 2, 2006 09:23 PM

Erika wrote:

OK, pisher, I can understand that you didn't like the show/movie, but I have some serious issues with what you say. First of all, I don't quite understand why you seem to devote so much time to something you don't like. Are you so insecure that you need to continuously mock people who like things you don't? It's a television show, for crying out loud! I love TV (which, by the way is what this forum is about; the TV show, not the movie) as much as the next person, probably moreso, but it's not something to get that worked up about.

My real problem, however, was your following comment: "I didn't even go see Attack of the Clones (gee, that would have been a good title for Serenity)..."
What, exactly, is Serenity a "clone" of? Like it or don't, criticize the acting or the writing or it's "success" (or lack thereof, which, as has been pointed out, is NOT a measure of quality, although neither are award shows), but I haven't seen anything like it, before or after. I can't see how you can justify calling it a clone of anything. It may have failed in the economic sense, and you (and others) may not have liked it, but it was original.

I could say a lot more, but quite frankly, I have better things to do than argue with someone who has nothing better to do than argue about a TV show.

posted at August 2, 2006 09:24 PM

Marie wrote:

I tried reading al of the comments, I really did. Tehn halfway through I just got sick of the bickering.

I like Firefly, and yes, that's present tense. I still haven't seen all of the episodes, let alone in order. Still, it's an entertaining show and I love the characters.

It's quirky and it's not for everyone. There is no way I can pinpoint why exactly I like it, but I do. That may be a large part of the problem with getting this series (and movie) out there, because it is hard to sum it all up nicely.

And perhaps advertising was an issue. Personally I don't remember seeing anything for it, but then again I never did watch FOX very much. When they started to air House I didn't get into it because of their focus on the drama, not the characters. Now I'm a big House fan because I saw the right advertising for me (on USA), and the show matched those commercials.

posted at August 2, 2006 09:32 PM

Ithyrin wrote:

IMHO, fans post to this and similar site because they miss the series they loved and lost. Misery loves company and talking about Firefly with other fans is consoling.

So what's with the repeat trollish posters? I think it's either a kind of cowardly sadism--like torturing your little brother by reminding him how his teddy got left in the motel and it's probably in the garbage.... Or it's a kind of libertarian fundamentalism: Thou Shalt Love Only What the Market God Rules Worthy!

Loved the original Trek for years and years. It gets harder to watch as the world has changed so since I first loved it. Loved Twin Peaks, DS 9 and, after years of dismissal, Buffy when I let myself finally watch it. Now I'm a Whedon freak and of course I love Firefly and Serenity.

The western theme threw me at first. I've never accepted the theory I've heard (mainly from people who hate Sci-Fi) that Sci-Fi is just a cowboy movie in strange clothing. I never liked westerns much, except a brief period when I had a crush on a rider in High Chaparral. And I had trouble with Caleb as Mal because I really hated his misanthropic behind in Buffy Season 7. But I got past both those obstacles after 5 minutes of Firefly (Netflix-in order).

So to all those who miss it, I give you the words of Thornton Wilder, from The Woman of Andros: "You were happy with her once; do not doubt that the conviction at the heart of your happiness was as real as the conviction at the heart of your sorrow."

That's way over the top for a cancelled show...but it's the thought that counts. Sorry for the long post.

posted at August 2, 2006 09:39 PM

ixidro wrote:

I wasn't introduced to Firefly until after the series was cancelled. I was able to watch the series DVDs before the movie came out, and I was hooked by episode 3 or 4 (in order).

I can't say how thrilled I would've been about the show had I been forced to see it out of order and having to hunt it down to watch the show. I probably would've given up on trying to see it. (Bless you, Tivo, now I don't have to.) They do the same garbage to other TV shows, and not many survive it.

I also happen to be a relatively big Star Wars fan compared to most people. (I bring up SW only for a timeline comparison to make a point. I'm not going to debate how good or bad SW is here.)

I have no difficulty with saying that I believe that Whedon's story plans for the entire Firefly series (of which he wrote out the main plot points for multiple seasons in advance before he shot any of the TV show, if I heard correctly) might be one of the most masterfully told stories and beautifully crafted universes ever to exist, if we ever get to see the whole story that is. Why bring up SW? I think Firefly (and Serenity, which I've heard was essentially the main plot for season 2 of Firefly) has the potential to be as great and as remembered as Star Wars. And I think Firefly was cancelled before it reached its prime.

If George Lucas had made 'The Phantom Menace' first, we'd have likely never known the whole story because 'Menace' wasn't strong enough alone to get you interested in the characters to see what happens next. Lucas started in the middle of the story, not the beginning. The beginning is setup and setup can take a while sometimes before a story comes into its own. In the case of SW, the story didn't really get into the heart of the matter until Ep 3.

I'm not suggesting that people judge Firefly for "what it could have been", because we could go on endlessly about that. I'm simply saying that it was still in 'setup' phase, so take that for what it's worth. Should it have gone faster with its setup? Debate that all you like, but it's another moot point. It is what it is.

So, I can live with the people who dislike Firefly for whatever reason. Your opinions differ from mine, and people with strongly held opinions seldom change them once they're made. I don't think Fox did Firefly justice by making the plot harder to follow by re-arranging episodes and changing airtimes and skipping dates. Note that the same thing happened to '24', but it's still on the air though, so there obviously wasn't something in the mix for Firefly that it needed to maintain. Therefore, there are correct arguments for both sides of this coin.

However, I hope someday to understand River's fear of 'two-by-two, hands of blue'.

http://www.fireflyseason2.com/

posted at August 2, 2006 10:40 PM

Nara wrote:

I've been a huge fan of Firefly from the beginning, even though I've never really been one for SciFi or Westerns. But I was sorely dissapointed by the movie. It was far too action oriented for my taste. In my oppinion, they did not tie up any plot threads, let alone all of them, they only created more that will sadly never be dealt with. Although if I had to choose between nothing and another dissapointment like Serenity I'd choose nothing in a heartbeat.

posted at August 2, 2006 10:44 PM

Emily wrote:

A friend of mine bought the box set to the show. I watched every episode at least three times. The dialouge is amazing and less superficial then most crap shows out now adays and it is sad, but not surprising that it was canned. But at least I never had to say "remember season one? It was soo good what happened?!"

Ok so I dont actually think that was what happened. Anyway Great show totally worth watching. Enjoy

posted at August 2, 2006 11:56 PM

Kalani wrote:

"It simply means they need to get out more" - Pisher.

:chuckles in return:
um, who had the time to argue point after point, even research other peoples "bad" information, just to say he didn't like anything? go play dungeons and dragons and let people enjoy something without fear of cynical, (and hypocritical) commentary. We just wanted to have fun talking about something we love and hope for more. We don't need you telling us there isn't any, even if there isn't.

posted at August 3, 2006 12:02 AM

kestrel wrote:

Firefly was a great show, but it never found an audience. Fox screwed it up, but Fox has always had difficulty introducing new shows because of the World Series. Fox didn't help matters by messing the order of the show, but its hard to say if it would ever have found a big enough audience to keep it alive. If Firefly was released today on the Sci-Fi channel, it would probably find an audience and stay on the air for four or five years. While I loved Firefly, I thought Universal was insane for making Serenity. I wasn't surprised that it didn't make any money. Of course, I loved the movie. I kinda felt like Wheedon pulled a fast one on Universal. Good for him.

Serious sci-fi is a hard sell. One of the best and most influential sci-fi movies of the past 40 years (Blade Runner) was ignored by audiences, slammed by critics and messed with by its studio. While I think BSG is the best show on television it will probably never consistently attract more than 3 million viewers a week. BSG would never survive on network tv. It doesn't matter how many Peabodys it wins.

Firefly was part serious Sci-Fi, part western, and part ensemble drama. That's an even tougher combo to sell to audience that was being forcefed reality television at the time. Firefly was truly brillantbutcancelled.

Pisher, your entitled to your opinion, but I have hard time believing that you have seen thousands of movies or Sci-Fi movies better than Serenity. If you are comparing movies, you have to stay in the same genre. As much as you may want to compare The Third Man, the General or Citizen Kane to Serenity, you can't. It's apples and oranges. I think Serenity compares very well with classic sci-fi movies such as The Day the Earth Stood Still, Forbidden Planet, and Blade Runner. It's a good sci-fi movie and I think it will age well. Pisher, how about you tell us why you think Firefly and Serenity do a disservice to the Sci-Fi genre. Give us an idea what you think good sci-fi is, cite some movies or television that you think represents the gold standard for sci-fi. Mabe then, we can have an actual discussion about the merits of Firefly and Serenity and its place within the sci-fi genre.

posted at August 3, 2006 12:29 AM

pishaw wrote:

please, pisher, don't leave us! if it's true what you say, that you won't stop ranting about firefly, serenity, or joss whedon, until we stop talking about you, well then, you wish is our command!
by far, your detailed, descriptive, denigrating anti-serenity posts are truly the cream of the crop!
who wants to read about how they liked the show, when they can read how much you hate it? everyone must have come here, and continues to come here, to read YOU pisher!!
wait...are you trying to convince anyone of anything? i must have missed that bit of drool coming from your typewriter, because it sure isn't working! 'pop autopsy' or not, you truly are wasting your talents here! maybe hollywood needs a script titled 'how i became truly condescending'!
it could star...YOU!!

posted at August 3, 2006 02:32 AM

starlet wrote:

Pisher, I do not understand why you keep bashing Serenity and the people that love it. You've made your point. We get the fact that you didn't like it, nor do you like us. Wonderful, now move on. And let the rest of us enjoy something we love without you telling us that we're stupid and that our opinions don't matter. Because even if they don't matter to you, they obviously matter to some people. Otherwise there wouldn't be a site like this, a following this large (even though you call it a tiny handful), or a movie that was made after the tv series was cancelled.
And I would like to point out, because I just can't help myself, is the fact that you continually make jabs at us by telling us that we don't have lives and the we need to get out more, when you are spending a great deal of time and energy on this. You've checked in everyday, sometimes several times a day, for at least the last week to write a comment on this blog (it could very well go much further than that, but I didn't check). So I suggest that YOU get out more in order to live your obviously fascinating life and leave the rest of us to our existence that you find to be so incredibly boring.
Now on a much more pleasant note, Firefly ROCKS!! :) I have to say that I'm not a sci-fi person by any stretch of the imagination, and I love-LOVE this series and the movie. I was somewhat ambivalent to it at first because I wasn't much of a Buffy fan. I appreciate Buffy, but wouldn't be classified as a die-hard fan. But I thought that Firefly was incredibly original and vastly entertaining. One would think that cowboys in space wouldn't work at all, but they go surprisingly well together at least in the imagination of Joss Whedon. The show and movie were humorous and really moving, though they succeeded in doing so without taking itself too serously. It makes me extremely happy that there are so many others that feel the same way.

posted at August 3, 2006 02:40 AM

Daniel Vandersall wrote:

It's so very rare to find a good sci-fi series; probably the hardest thing to find on TV. While there are some very good ones out there, like the new "Battlestar" and (in some people's opinion) the array of "Stargate" shows, I've always been dismayed by the fact that none of them have been successes. Not really.
Keep in mind that even "Star Trek" failed in the short-term--three seasons. Only the devotion of its fans saved the show from becoming just another cancelled series.
I won't badmouth Fox network too much--but if they're hiring, I have actual taste. Where do they get their focus groups--trailer parks? Apparently their opinion of television viewership is the lowest common denominator is always the best choice--and sadly, the ratings of "So you think you can dance" or "Idol" seem to bear that out.

Sci-Fi channel--if you could get these actors and the writers--this could be a jewel in your crown...

posted at August 3, 2006 04:56 AM

tom wrote:

i don't like westerns
i don't like spacey shows
i never really got into buffy or angel properly
but i loved firefly.
i watched it on dvd (thankfully) and it was incredible.
for one very short lived show to change a persons views completely on like 3 things is pretty damn good.
and as for whoever said the advertising of the film in england was apparently quite good, living here myself i can say it wasn't great at all. A short advert on tv shown every now and then isn't "good" advertising.
oh well atleast i can look back on my dvds and watch them knowing that i've seen something very special indeed.

posted at August 3, 2006 07:11 AM

Solaris wrote:

Firefly was a great 50's B-movie Western dressed up like a Sci-fi show. It seems, from the 13 shows we have, that Whedon was working in elements from other genres [romantic comedy, government conspiracy thrillers, oppressive sci-fi dystopias] to tell a larger story similar in style and depth to the one from Babylon 5 but was not given the time to develop those threads.

Lots of reasons [shows out of order, too many people in the cast, No hit show lead-in to buy it time to develop, constant shifting/pre-empting of time slot, etc.] all give clues that FOX exec. didn't really get this show. To be fair they are not in the business of "getting" shows but making money for investors so getting angry with them or thinking of them as something evil is kind of pointless. All they really wanted and expected was something more like a hip, ironic Star Trek crossed with the a sexy O.C. kind of thing and hoped to get it from the same guy who wrote a coming of age drama and dressed it up like a supernatural suspense/Dawson's Creek/hip-young show. Looks like the execs. thought "Blasters and Whedon, what more do we need to sell it?"

The show just did not deliver the Fox vision of it nor, alas, on the dollars they were spending on it and they axed it. I am glad they at least took it out of devlopement and took a chance on it. For me and millions of others [as can be attested by DVD sales] the show was good stuff and lots of fun. I am just glad it got aired and I have my box set of DVD's.

BTW, on the topic of evil, phisher, dude, if all you want to do is spend your days watching the BBCancelled boards and pulling the dusters off browncoats, as it were, then you can have the last word and be much smarter than the rest of us. I guess.

posted at August 3, 2006 07:54 AM

Scott Ellington wrote:

A guy named Malcolm attacked a place called Dunsinane with an army cloaked in the guise of Birnam Wood.
Another Malcolm brought to bear the hostile denizens of the Burnham Quadrant on the defenders of a guilty governmental secret.
Distrusting the chain of command, John Reynolds didn't accept Lincoln's offer to lead the Army of the Potomac against Lee's Army of Northern Virginia prior to the Battle of Gettysburg. (I'm not holding out for a sequel.)
That battle inspired Michael Shaara's book, The Killer Angels, that inspired both Ken Burns and Joss Whedon to do what Murrow told us the medium of television Can do...and usually Doesn't...TEACH.
The belief that Firefly and Serenity are a couple of dead ends may be entirely true, but they came from fascinating works of art that are highlighted everywhere in the series and the movie, whetting appetites.
As I've learned more about SereniFly, unexpected interests have proliferated, and two of the people who taught Joss, Jeanine Basinger and Richard Slotkin, are famously in print. Tons of avenues for exploration present themselves between premiers of the works of Whedon.
"Follow the money", is great advice in most pursuits, but everybody knows there's no payday at "the end" of a satisfying education.
And maybe that's why Firefly didn't (fly and pay off for The Suits). Maybe it was just too good for us, like green, leafy vegetables and homework.

posted at August 3, 2006 08:49 AM

Noelle wrote:

I dont see how anyone could suggest that either Fox or Universal "promoted" this movie or television show.

I had NEVER HEARD of it. Never seen a trailer for the movie or a promo for the television show until serenity was actually in theatres. And it was brought to my attention by a flyer. A flyer that a browncoat had made giving directions to his "Serenity Viewing Party." I couldn't attend the party, so my first introduction to the series was when my husband recieved the DVD set of the show for Christmas this past year.

I was hooked.

My husband and i have proceeded to introduce our friends and family to Firefly, and no one who has seen it has not enjoyed it. In fact only one person was not LOVED it.

Perhaps, just perhaps, it is a fault of marketing, and not one of quality? I know that is a controversial point of view with some people here...but just thought i would throw that out there.

Also, i wonder if *some* people here have seen the movie? or the show? or did they just watch 30 minutes of The Train Job, get confused, and leave?

posted at August 3, 2006 08:58 AM

red_and_brown wrote:

This is the only thing I'm going to say (for now, anyway) - there was a comment waaay up there that said something about Fox giving Firefly plenty of money. My question for this person (and hopefully it will be pisher, so that I can have it answered) is this: why did they (Firefly costumers) have to rent Starship Trooper costumes for the Alliance in "Train Job" if Fox was supposedly giving them so much money?

Oh, and by the way, I love the show. I love the movie. And, nothing you ever do or say will make me change my mind.

posted at August 3, 2006 09:41 AM

Seth H wrote:

This has to be the best Sci-Fi show of all time! The great mix of humor, drama, and western is awesome! I hope somebody will bring it back!

posted at August 3, 2006 10:48 AM

Alatariel97 wrote:

Firefly is one of those shows that can appeal to a lot of different people. Writing, acting, concept.. . it was all brilliant. I was hooked from the moment I saw the pilot. Kept me going with a sense of "What's going to happen next?" all the way up to Objects in Space (the last episode chronologically), where I had to remind myself that, sadly, there was no more. Why, exactly, will never be completely certain. I know who I like to blame (*cough* FOX *cough*). I love Firefly and I love Serenity. That being said, I know that there are people who don't. Sci-fi just doesn't appeal to some people and for others, Firefly mightn't be their cup of tea. OK. Fine. I don't really care all that much. I'm not going to shove info down their throats to convince them otherwise. That also being said, I would expect that they would do the same for me, and not try to convince me that the show I love is a piece of crap and a failure.

Firefly had such a brilliant cast. They completely sucked me into their world. I wish there could be tales of further adventures. For instance, what's Shepherd Book's real background? Will Mal and Inara ever get together? Will River ever fully recover? The storylines are limitless, and I mourn the fact that they may never be explored. Firefly was just amazing. It was more than amazing. It was SHINY.

posted at August 3, 2006 10:52 AM

pisher wrote:

Way too many comments to respond to.

So I'll leave it at this.

It's true that a lot of good shows and movies flop--so do a lot of bad shows and movies, ALL of which have 'rabid fans' (hey, a Browncoat said it, I merely repeat it) who are convinced it's great art, and that all the people who dislike it are mindless plebes. And you've all taken shots at these people. Well, guess what--you ARE these people.

You want to seek vindication for this failed franchise by shouting me down? Gee--guess that means you think being in the majority is cool.

How ironic.

:-D

posted at August 3, 2006 11:38 AM

ManySkills wrote:

I remember searching and failing to find promotion for the Firefly Movie in the local papers. Every other movie had a big stirring picture and plaudits from the critics. How was anyone to even know this movie was coming out?

Similarly, every time I asked someone at work if they were going to see the movie, or if they had already, invariably the answer was - 'Serenity? Never heard of it'.

Someone, I don't know enough about the industry to know who precisely, chose not to invest the same big bucks in the promotion of this movie as they do for other movies.

It did not compete on a level playing field. Doomed from the start unless you were already a fan.

posted at August 3, 2006 02:04 PM

Chud wrote:

I would like to start by saying that I am not (in general) a big fan of television. I would also like to add that, prior to April of this year, I had absolutly no experience with internet fan sites, chat rooms, or discussion groups.

I am a fan of Firefly. I watched Serenity in the theaters, I saw bits of the show when it first aired, I own both the series and the movie on dvd.

Now, having said all this, I would like to point out that both the major view points expressed in this forum have some merit.

Yes, the series and the movie have a very loyal following (and I include myself in this group). Yes, I think it would have been nice if the show had not been canceled. Yes, I would like to see more of this story.

The sad fact is that the show was canceled because Fox (for whatever reason) did not feel that they could make a profit. I also realize that the movie did not do well enough at the box office to warrant a sequel.

Now, those of us who are fans can complain that the suits didn't show the episodes in sequence, that the movie didn't receive enough promotion, that it wasn't given enough of a chance.

But in the end I think that we ought to realize that the entertainment industry is, in fact, an industry not a charity. The folks who decide wheather or not to green light a project are gambling (with rather substantial amounts of money that isn't theirs) that the project is going to turn a substantial profit. If (for whatever reason) a gamble dosen't pay off as they would like, these folks aren't likely to take the same risk again.

None of this, however, effects how "good" a show is. In fact, there is no real objective guage for how "good" a show is, because the only person who can really decide if a show is good or bad is the person watching it at the time. All the other things that have been mentioned here (awards, revinues, critical acclaim, overall number and rabidity of fans) are really just other ways of measuring how profitable a show/movie is.

Just a couple last thoughts and I'll shut the hell up.

First, it is nearly impossible to change what another person thinks. If a person strongly holds a belief (and it dosen't matter what that belief is) then trying to force that person into believing something to the contrary is really an exercise in futility.

Second, (and possibly most important) all of the shows and movies that have been mentioned, compared, attacked, defended, advocated, or despised here have one very important thing in common.

They are light entertainment.
(relax folks, have some dip, in a thousand years nobody will have heard of any of it:D )

posted at August 3, 2006 02:28 PM

red_and_brown wrote:

Oh, and another thing - I was alive in 2002 and I was alive in 2005. I never heard of the movie or the show. Remind me again how that qualifies as good advertising?

posted at August 3, 2006 03:08 PM

Donna Jones wrote:

I am a 50 year old grandmother who has never posted anything anywhere in my life. I just had to respond to this site for some reason. I am not a Joss Whedon fan. I never watched Buffy or Angel or anything else with demonic themes. I like the original Star Trek and also Enterprise for the same reason, character developement! I am not a rabid fan of anything in particular but I love Firefly! I tried watching when it was aired originally and fell in love with the writing and characters even when I didn't understand what was going on. Now I know why! It was sheer bliss to see the episodes in order. I missed a few because of not being able to find it so I lost interest when it was on t.v. I love the interaction between the characters and that is what drew me to this show. I don't watch a lot of stuff on nowadays I don't get the sci-fi channel. I just know what I like. I don't care what genre a show is as long as I can care about the people. I do with Firefly. Thanks for listening.

posted at August 3, 2006 03:35 PM

Tink wrote:

I have watched every episode of this amazing series, as well as the movie and the only reason it failed is