Slashdot Mirror
The Browncoats Rise Again
The Original, One and Only, Hippy of Death writes "There's an interesting read posted on The Weekly Standard website talking about Joss Whedon and the unusual marketing campaign he is waging for the upcoming Serenity/Firefly movie." From the article: "It was ignored and abandoned, and the story should end there--but it doesn't. Because the people who made the show and the people who saw the show--which is, roughly, the same number of people--fell in love with it a little bit. Too much to let it go. . . . In Hollywood, people like that are called unrealistic, quixotic, obsessive. In my world, they're called Browncoats."
Al Gore...is that you?
I've seen it twice and it was great both times.
... and yeah, pretty much everything the article says is right. (How often does that happen?) The crowd was much less over the top than, say, the stereotypical Star Wars / Star Trek / LOTR opening night crowd; very few costumes. We were there to see the movie, and we did, and we walked out grinning from ear to ear. It's great stuff.
Oh, it's not perfect yet (lots of editing still to be done, I think) but it was still, in its unfinished form, the best movie I've seen in a long time. And the fact that Whedon et al. are actually paying attention to the fans -- treating us as part of the effort of making the movie instead of $TARGET_DEMOGRAPHIC -- is really damn cool.
It occurs to me that what's happening with Firefly/Serenity is very similar to what happened with Star Trek way back when. The fans basically kept alive what was originally considered a failed series for over ten years between the cancellation of the series and the greenlight for the first movie. We should count ourselves lucky that things moved faster this time around.
Anyway. This is some of the best storytelling you'll ever see on screen. Don't miss it.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Why is the submitter, the self proclaimed "hippy of death" reading the Weekly Standard?
Monstar L
I really liked it until the last 3 or 4 minutes.
I hope that they change the ending before the final release.
Having the bad guy behave the way he did at the end cheapened the whole 'believe in something' theme that they were trying to push throughout the movie.
It was totally weak for the guy to change his entire world view based on one unsubstantiated news clip.
Other than that, I thought that movie kicked ass.
Jesus used to be my co-pilot, but we crashed in the mountains and I had to eat him.
Doesn't mean it won't be a good movie, either. The odds are very good that it will be a good movie, however. Joss Whedon can write and direct and this isn't just a "let's milk our franchise to death" project. Com'on, be happy!
All women have at least a full C.
I thought a long time about what I'd seen after a four hour drive home from a preview showing, and the main thought I came up with is this. We live in very uncertain times and the main attraction of Firefly that inspired its cult following was the comfort of a family that would weather all dangers. That comfort is gone in this movie. It is a GREAT movie, but it somewhat lacks the core quality that drew people to Firefly in the first place. SO, whether this is just a better than average movie release or the beginning of the pop cultural phenom the fans had hoped it would be remains to be seen.
I promise not to troll. I've seen exactly one episode in its entirety, the one they play backwards with the captain being shot. I've seen bits and pieces of maybe another 2 episodes.
From what I've seen, I wasn't impressed at all, not even a little. Maybe It was the worst of the entire series, short lived as it was. I'll even admit there is 1 B5 episode out there, that if it was the first I had seen, well, it would have been the last.
That said, this marketing campaign doesn't seem all that great. I'm assuming that those of you that have loved the show (and I know you're out there, I once went from 2 to -1, Troll in 30 some seconds on a Firefly story) will go see it no matter what. Marketing exists for people like me. I like science fiction, but need some encouragement to want to see this movie.
Anyone care to try explaining to me what's so great about it, without sounding like you just converted to a cult 2 weeks ago?
Oh and mods, go on, mark this as troll please
http://efil.blogspot.com/
I was so confused, when the Firefly/Serenity stories started showing up on /., because the overwhelming response was along the lines of: "Oh, wow, they're finally listening to the will of the world and making this wonderful, wonderful show into a wonderful, wonderful movie. Oh my God. We all need to decide how to get together and celebrate. And of course it goes without saying that it will be a great movie." And then there would be twenty comments ALL vigorously agreeing.
And I've been a bit confused, because until the slashdot comments, I had never heard of Firefly. I'm still awful lost, but everyone seems to take it for granted, as if it were Star Trek or something. Did I miss something huge? Am I the only one who didn't know about this movie?
And most importantly, why is it so good? All I've been able to tell is that it's (a) a good story, and (b) set in space. I know I need to read plot summaries and all, but can anyone fill me in on why they like this show?
xkcd.com - a webcomic of mathematics, love, and language.
Check out the 1300+ reviews over on Amazon, then spend the best entertainment $30 you will ever spend and see for yourself.
First of all, serenity doesn't care about technobabble, which was increasingly my pet peeve with 'trek.
"The engine is dead." "Well, go 'n fix it, damn it."
Second of all, the universe is incredibly well thought out. It's a universe that actually feels like It Hasn't Been Done Before which this day and age is rare.
Third... It's funny. damn funny. Characterization is awesome, and the use of humor is on the highest level of Whedonness. I remember having diet coke come up my nose when in episode "Jaynestown" the locals on one planet started their tribute to Jayne. (This makes more sense if you see the whole episode - Jayne's not really one you'd expect to have a tribute written for.)
I could go on, but I'm a horrible rambler, so that's it for now.
Actually, through the end of today, there are some 20% off coupons over at Deep Discount DVD that will get you the box set of Firelfy for under $25, shipped.
The coupons are listed at slickdeals.net, if you can't find them.
People like it cos Fox cancelled it. Fox cancels the good shows early on, like Wonderfalls.
Find a friend that has the series on DVD, take a long weekend and sit and watch. The original premise struck me as "Stagecoach" in space, but after three episodes, I got hooked. The acting was superb, the plots just hokey enough to hook and the love of craft shown through like a beacon. Yeah, Fox had Joss for another series, but it was the suits that killed this one. Somewhat similar to "John Doe", it has more bright, shining moments than dull ones.
And watching Inara walk down a flight of stairs more than made up for the weak parts.
Thats something! But I did notice it was slowing down while I was downloading the HD version. Maybe someone should torrent it? I would if I could.
Check out this thread for a good summary of what fans think make this show great:
http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/16688
Did I miss something huge?
...can anyone fill me in on why they like this show?
Yes
Am I the only one who didn't know about this movie?
Yes
Because it's bloody entertaining. Go borrow/rent the DVD and watch it, that'll be worth far more than testimonials.
Oh no... it's the future.
Once upon a time, there was a TV show that was very popular with the geek crowd. It was cancelled two seasons in, then resurrected for one final season (in the worst time slot possible). The fans refused to keep quiet, so four years later the studio created a really bland animated version of the show. That didn't shut them up either; fans still demanded more. Ten years after the show went off the air, a theatrical movie was released. Even though it was a special effects showcase loosely held together with an unlikely plot and really wooden acting, it was financially successful enough that Paramount studios finally gave in and decided that they'd let the fans shower them with money for the next twenty-five years.
I think it's great that Joss found a way to bring back Firefly, but I wonder if the press is taking this serisously is because they've burnt themselves out from thirty-five years of mocking the people who kept Star Trek alive (after a fashion).
"I'm a scientist! I don't think, I observe!" - Dr. Clayton Forrester
That has to be the cheapest box set of an entire show ever. It has to be the cheapest box set of an entire season ever for that matter. Hell, it's only $10 more than a movie. I've never seen a single episode, but at $30 whats the risk?
Why not fork?
Check out the Serenity trailer online.
I had never seen the Firefly series and a friend told me about the Serenity screening (http://www.cantstopthesignal.com/). I went to it not expecting much and not knowing anything of the story. It turns out you don't need to know anything about the series to enjoy this movie. The screening was a great story it was already a well done movie. I enjoyed the movie so much I bought the series on DVD the next day.
When Serenity comes out do yourself a favor and watch this movie. I share many similar interests with other people here on Slashdot and I feel that many of the nerds here will like it.
"Tempt not a desperate man" - Willy S.
I always find questions of this sort fun; they challenge me to examine my own reactions so that I understand them well enough to explain them to others. But what are you asking about exactly?
Are you asking about the series, the promotional campaign, or the film, (which I've not yet seen and so cannot comment on.)?
-FL
Some birds arn't meant to be caged, their feathers are just to bright.
From the article, this sounds like the first time they've "risen". If this was the second Firefly movie, then that would be "again".
However, I have to admit the "Brownshirts rise again" has a better ring to it than "Movie studios realize that nerds are a profitable target demographic."
Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
And it was recycled, tepid, unadulterated crap.
Fox delibrately purchases sci-fi series so it can shoot them in the foot. Which it did to Firefly. It was delibrately destroyed, played in the wrong order, preempted by random shit, not promoted at all.
It's not the least bit surprising you hadn't heard of it.
It had the potential to be the next Buffy, minus the weird image problem Buffy has to this day. Get rid of the silly name, get rid of the silly premise, get rid of the much mocked manner of speakage, keep the important concepts. Instead of the 'best show you're not watching', maybe people would watch it. (And there were a lot of Buffy fans to pull in. Except, of course, Fox never purchased any ads during Buffy or Angel to actually locate them. Not that ads would do any good when you move the damn show around.)
Or it could have been the next Star Trek, written by someone who actually understands characters and plot. (The next next Star Trek, I guess, as B5 would be the next one.)
Or, hell, fans would have settled for a cult classic.
Instead the show got cancelled before all the episodes ever aired. It is possibly unique in TV history for being canceled before the pilot aired, because they showed the episodes out of order.
The only reason anyone heard of it is that fans pestered the studio for months. Not to renew the series, which is hopeless, but to release the DVDs....which they then proceeded to purchase like madmen. They didn't manage to break any records I'm aware of, but they did manage to convince the studio the movie would sell.
And people like it for different reasons, so it's nearly impossible to explain.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
I didn't pay much attention to it until I heard that there was a movie coming out and both comics comics put up strips about the trailers..
Joss Whedon is the creator of Firefly.
Comic on the previews..
Just watched the series a few weeks ago. Downloaded the series and now have the DVD set. Actually, I bought the DVD soon after being disappointed by Star wars...
What I like is:
Fun characters + The way the show wrenches with your expectations all the time + The weirdness of the western in space concept.
I suggest you watch the first 2 or 3 episodes. If you don't like it, then you probably won't end up liking it later.
I haven't seen the rough cut myself, but several friends have, and they're all wildly enthusiastic about it. As in, enthusiastic enough to see it again, for money, when it comes out in a few months.
1. It does everything that Lucas started out with and then changed, right - your main characters are real people, without a black and white worldview.
2. The series tells fun stories, tehre's guys with guns and horses and spaceships and fighting, and oh yeah, whores...
3. And if all you;ve been able to tell is that "it's (a) a good story, and (b) set in space", what else do you really need? Tom Cruise? Michael Chiklis in foam rubber? It's a good movie, built around telling a good story, with shit that blows up and people that fight, and cry, and love, and not based around some star just so they have a movie out...
You hear they're in a spaceship, and it's broke, and you expect all sort of crazy crap, and you prepare by turning off all knowledge of science and technology, and you get:
Catalyzer's broke. Gonna need a new one.
No 'charging the emitters', no gibberish about pulling power from life support, no 'phases', no 'modulation'...it's just 'broke'.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
...and that is the fact that, even if the movie bombs [as the article points out, but even moreso if the movie does well], it will send FOX the message that there's nothing [fiscally] wrong with totally buggering up the handling of a series.
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
Lucas twisted within that rule-set so that a new and effective angle was achieved. He did this: Released Star Wars long enough for some kids to see it during school and talk it up among all the other children. (Schools are the hot-house pressure cookers of 'word of mouth'). Then when the summer holidays began and parents were looking for things to do with their kids, "Star Wars" would come up around the breakfast table.
I don't really know if Lucas planned it that way, but that's how it went down in my family. Regardless, the thing I really like about such a marketing tactic, is that it only works if the film is worth seeing.
The only prejudice I have against Whedon's current approach to twisting within the boxed-rule set has nothing to do with Whedon. It has to do with the sharks.
I hate hearing stories about marketing people speculating on methods of herding the population. Speaking openly about it as though it isn't deliberate manipulation, which it is. I mean, Yuck! A little respect, please. It would be nice if they would at least pretend they're not manipulating people with bullshit about renegades and love for the medium, etc. --Which are both true things in their own degrees! But knowing that there's some money-person at the top of the chain rubbing his/her hands together in soulless glee makes me want to puke. It sullies the fun when money is the prime target. Good stories don't flow from love of money. They flow from love of Story.
-FL
Judging from that trailer, this movie will STINK!
"Hi, we're a bunch of pretty faced americans with soap opera appeal!"
...except it is. A good movie. One of the best I've seen in years. I've seen it twice, and I can't wait for September 30th to roll around so I can see it again. I already want to buy it on DVD, and coming from someone who *never* buys movies (I own like, six), that's saying something. :)
Just because it's an unconventional marketing strategy doesn't mean the movie's not worth marketing.
Good answer, but I'm not certain it's going to change his mind, and I'm not sure it should.
Firefly is a character-driven series, which keeps the stories fairly small. It's a western set in space, a conceit I know some people didn't care for. Its writing is sharp and incisive in that Joss Whedon way, which not everybody goes for.
This guy appears to be a fan of B5, and seemingly nearly episode of it. I'm a Firefly fan and found B5 offensively bad: terrible writing, flat characters, a host of truly dreadful performances, cheesy special effects.
But clearly it appeals to many, many people. I'd say that those are people looking for different things in a TV show. Everybody who likes B5 raves about its long story arcs, which Firefly mostly lacks. There are a few continuing threads, but it doesn't have the enormous sweep that B5 has. Not to mention that B5 has nifty space battles that feel like a Flash Gordon episode (with better special effects.)
I did watch the entire series of B5, and it definitely gets less bad starting around the middle of season 3. I'd go so far as to say it was even OK, and occasionally good. There must be some overlap between Firefly fans and B5 fans, but I'm betting those in the overlap like each for very, very different reasons.
It's entirely possible that this guy would like the series if he saw it from the beginning, but if he wasn't at least intrigued by that one episode, I wouldn't bet on it. To each his own.
Um, no. Marketing does not exist for people who have decided what they like before they've seen the show in question. It exists for people who are likely to be convinced to try something new, and you are not in that group.
IANAM, but I have heard that the purpose of marketing is to reinforce brand loyalty.
I've never seen any of his stuff. I've seen previews and such.
From the outside looking in, it seems like his career is based on setting up situation where a hot young chick in a tight outfit kicks people (and things that aren't exactly people) a lot.
I'm being sincere, here. Are Joss Whedon fans just a bunch of guys with young-hot-chicks-who-kick-a-lot fetishes, or is there some deeper thread I'm missing?
Don't get me wrong, I dig young hot chicks in tight pants. Nothing wrong with that. I'm just trying to figure out what gives him the tight-panted-girl-kicking-a-lot midas touch.
-Peter
It was fun to watch everyone in our theater checking their cell phones prior to the movie starting. We're in one of the most densely populated areas on the east coast, but apparantly "Service not available" was all anyone got. Folks all around us kept commenting on it as they switched their phones off.
Yes, that's right - at the fan preview, somehow they managed to stop the signal.
Peace,
-McD
"Given the pace of technology, I propose we leave math to the machines and go play outside." -- Calvin
Al Gore a brownshirt? So he is a liberal AND a fascist. What's next? Your gonna tell me he invented the Internet?
I always love it and cheer when I see engine and explosion sound effects in space.
Especially when those crafts with wings move around in space with the characteristics of flying in air.
OK, I disdain Fox as much as the next sci fi fan, and they've honked me off too. But this makes no sense: Why would they spend the money just to ditch a show? Is Rupert Murdoch on some sort of anti-SF crusdae?
Firefly got canceled because they expected it to do, proportionally, what Buffy did for the WB -- but since Fox was already established and a much bigger network, that was impossible.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
And I've been a bit confused, because until the slashdot comments, I had never heard of Firefly. I'm still awful lost, but everyone seems to take it for granted, as if it were Star Trek or something. Did I miss something huge? Am I the only one who didn't know about this movie?
If only there was a series of online comics that explained the interest in a humourous way...
You can't take the sky from me...
Until now.
What the producers realize is the blogosphere is practically a synonym for word of mouth. If they think the product is good (which it probably is), then marketing this way is an advanced form of releasing the movie on Wednesdays so word of mouth will help make the opening weekend big.
Ruby on Rails Screencast
Way to RTFA, it's a human interest story, it's not about the movie.
...and that's the end of our show. Donk!
Not to put any spoilserz into this post, but i have been lucky enough to see the movie twice, at the may 26th screening in providence, and then again on june 23rd in las vegas. Let me put it this way, the movie has perfect diolaug, Wash, Jane and River have some great lines that i cannot help but quoting in daily life. The plot is great, it explains any of the major plotholes that were left open in the 14 episodes. River becomes a real member of the crew. But its not a totaly happy movie ether.
Wait And See. Here it Does End Swiftly.
I honestly think it comes down to intelligence.
I just don't think stupid people are capable of gleaning the details that Joss puts in to bring people who haven't been watching up to speed in the middle.
I'm no genius, but why is it that I figured out what was going on in Buffy within two episodes of starting to watch the show?
+++ATH0
But I've heard either Mal or Wash die.
Joss does have a habit of killing off characters. Buffy was always getting killed.
Is Rupert Murdoch on some sort of anti-SF crusdae?
Speaking as a Brit, I can assure you that Mr Murdoch most definitely has got ambitions to shape culture. He is harming ours with all his cr4p on TV and in print. It would not surprise me to learn that he wants to change yours too!.
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
...your getting shit on all the time?
I just dont see this thing taking off in the way fans (?) would like it to. The reasoning being mainly that most often what fans would like to happen usually isnt what they get. Such was the case with HHGG. Also personally, looking at the concept behind firefly I just dont see it becoming the "buffy" of scifi. People shouldnt forget that most of the audience that made buffy the tv juggernaut that it was were girls between the ages of 13 and 18. Creating a teeny-bopper soap opera in space simply for the sake that its in space doesnt make a concept unique or necessarily a good idea. Normally I would stand up for the scifi entertainment community but taking into account my taste for quality and fresh ideas I just dont see serenity/firefly becoming the phenomenon fans wish it to be. sorry guys.
The characters. They were much more interesting than the usual characters in a show because they were balanced. Think about unit balancing in an RTS. Bowman beats pikeman beats horseman beats bowman. The characters were balanced in similar ways. Every character had at least one or two characters who were the exact opposite (and also the exact opposite from each other in some other way.)
Mal, the captain of the ship was former military who fought the Alliance. River is a crazy girl who was basically tortured by the Alliance.
So, there are two characters who hate the alliance more than anybody else on the ship, but one expects people to be disciplined and follow orders, while the other one is an uncontrollable psychotic.
Jayne was a mercenary. In one sense, he has a similar background to Mal. He is handy in a fight, and makes a good soldier. But, he doesn't hate the alliance. He has always been a hired gun, and would try to sell people out if he gets a good offer. (And, did in the series.)
Inara is a "business woman," and she gets the best business in Alliance territory, but she also seems to have feelings for Mal, making fer fiercely loyal. she is wiser than Jayne, but not a warrior.
So, in that random selection of four characters, you have
two characters who hate the alliance, teo who won't mind it
two who are loayl, two who are uncontrollable
two who are good in a fight, two who are hot babes
When you sit down after watching the whole series, you can make a gigantic rock-paper-scissors map on all the characters, and various aspects of their character like violence, and wisdom, etc. The characters weren't just randomly picked to be cool. somebody sat down and really thought about how to get a very diverse set of characters. Not just very diverse, optimally diverse. It makes it interesting seeing how the different characters react to the same situation, and seeing the interaction between the different characters.
There are about four lines of technobabble in the entire series. I love technobabble, but in Firefly it isn't needed. They make the show about the characters, not about the stuff. This helped me massively with suspension of disbelief, because they never got anything wrong, they only mentioned technology as it pertained to the story.
No sound in space. And, it is done to good effect. Helps nail the lonely feeling. Nice music. There are guitars in space.
BrownSHIRTS rising again would indeed be a scary thing. We are BrownCOATS.
;-)
Hahaha. Indeed. When I read his post I about choked on my tea. Suprised no one tried to twist that into some anti-republican propoganda
A preposition is a terrible thing to end a sentence with.
Do a google search for al gore and digital brownshirt and you might get what I meant.
The strength in Joss Whedon's (JW) is his character writing. People love them, because they're typically witty, clever, and/or funny (the "or" covering Jane of course).
The movie works, or least works best, because JW has had 14 hours of TV to build up histories for the characters. But the film seems to angle the Firefly franchise into cinematic waters and away from television. Frankly, while I loved the movie, it will be very difficult to do what JW does best within the framework of 2 hours instead of 14.
So it's my conclusion that while JW wants the movie to succeed, I can't help but wonder if it isn't just one big loving Dear John letter to the fans. JW will have his hands full with Wonder Woman (we would all be so lucky) for the next few years so it's highly unlikely that we'll even see a sequel to Serenity for some time, and especially any kind of television work.
The only alternative is that JW hands the reins of Firefly off to someone else, in which case it might suck.
This should be on the movie poster... Almost feels like a quote from a Kevin Smith movie.
I am billdar, and I approve this message.
Having the bad guy behave the way he did at the end cheapened the whole 'believe in something' theme that they were trying to push throughout the movie.
I disagree with you. The Operative's turn at the end was completely justified. What makes him such an interesting villain is that he knows what he does is evil, but he sees it as a necessary evil.
At the end, when he's lost the battle but still has the opportunity to kill River, he doesn't, because he knows it would no longer be for a "better world."
"But the cars are all flashing me, bright lights are passing me, I feel life passing me by" - Stiff Little Fingers
There has *never* been a movie (before Serenity) that I've wanted to see on opening-night.
Firefly--the series--was witty, entertaining, unique, and charming.
Movie studios need to wake up that while their target demographic may be worth more in numbers, my demographic (I make close to $45/ hr.) has a whole helluva lot more money to spend.
That's your opinion. The Operative's change at the end was not a betrayal of the character. At the beginning of a movie, he was willing to kill for a greater good. At the end of the movie, he would still kill for a greater good, but not for any other reason. When the possibility of a "better world" was lost for him, he stopped killing.
He certainly goes through an arc and change, but it's not a contradiction of the character.
"But the cars are all flashing me, bright lights are passing me, I feel life passing me by" - Stiff Little Fingers
I've heard that the executive that championed Firefly at FOX was ousted in a political battle right before the show started to air. Since it would look pretty bad to have fired the guy who helped create one of your smash new shows, Fox moved it around and basically killed it.
Course, that's pretty much total hear-say and I haven't looked anything up to verify it. But it does sound a lot like fox, and makes sense in a sad and tragic way.
Saying their actions does not make sense is one thing, but I never asserted they did make any sense.
All I said was 'Fox purchases sci-fi series so it can shoot them in the foot', which is demonstratably true.
Why Fox thinks this is a good idea is unknown at this time.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
The study of this would actually make an interesting case study. Most of the people speaking of serenity/firefly are die-hard fans of whedons work. those outside of the fan community for the most part dont know what the hell this is or why they should care. upon reading some of the previous posts supporting the film, it is obvious that said folks are speaking from the perspective of a person who has dissected every ounce of dialogue in the entire series and related material. very few people except the outsiders are looking at serenity and the future of the concept as it is: a movie based on a failed tv series. the chances of serenity taking off are at best 50/50. for more accurate numbers, just take the number of tv series that have been cancelled, count how many of those were scifi/fantasy, count how many later had movies made based on the series and then see how many of those made a comeback or were otherwise commercially successful.... the answers are pretty grim. frankly i dont see anything special about serenity/firefly that would make it throw off the shackled curse of the myriad failed tv series that have come before it. its already had more than most have coming to them, this is its second chance and considering how difficult it obviously is to convince producers to push an idea through (especially if it is beloved), serenity is a real indulgence for joss whedon and fans of the work.
[EDIT/ADD.]
once again, just as with HHGG die hard fans were thrilled to see a beloved hobby (obsession) of theirs thrown up on the BIG screen and considered the result to be totally worth it and would rate the movie as a '10.' however, anyone who has not been making anime drawings of the characters on their peechees for years (the non-obsessed and otherwise laypeople) would see a movie geared toward a specific circle of people. it would take on an inside-joke type of uncomfortability that would leave laypeople looking around them for the right moment to exit and would end up leaving a bad taste in their mouths. if this effect built up enough, it could actually create negative sentiment toward the series as i saw with HHGG. in the end, so many people didnt get it that the mere suggestion of a sequel resulted in a roaring "NO WAY THAT MOVIE SUCKS!" the sad conclusion being that the series would have been better NOT to have a movie as to prevent backlash that ultimately creates negative sentiment. this is a serious risk to the serenity/firefly concept. anyway im done. if you cant tell already, i havent slept! no trollery intended, honest!
I've seen the movie twice now, and if it was only aimed at the current fan base, then I don't think Joss would have went to such incredible measures to make it accessible to newbies.
I went to the June 23rd screening with a couple people who had never seen the series, and they both loved the movie enough to go out and buy the DVD set.
The movie is certainly more resonant if you've spent 14 hours with the characters, but Joss has gone to great lengths to make sure no one's left in the dark.
"But the cars are all flashing me, bright lights are passing me, I feel life passing me by" - Stiff Little Fingers
I second the parent post's suggestion. SUBMITTER: If your article is about some obscure TV show and you think it's possible that you're one of a relatively few slashdot readers who has even heard of it, at least use one sentence in your summary to, uhh, I don't know... SUMMARIZE it!
i watched what they showed on TV, and enjoyed it. my housemate bought the DVD set and it made things a lot easier to follow if you saw the pilot. the episode you saw, as i recall, was kind of unusual how it was done. it might have been the worst to see as your first exposure. it was the only one shot like that. it seems like every tv series does that once.
as the article says, Sci-Fi will run the whole series, in sequence, before the movie opens. that is probably the best promotion for the movie (or people renting or buying the box set). the show was aired on a friday night with is not really a good place to put a show, especially not a quirky one with a target audience that may leave their houses on the weekends (as opposed to pre-teens or younger parents).
Actually, this was one of the few problems I had with Firefly: Joss's complete lack of knowledge about the practical realities of space travel.
He has *claimed* in an interview that there is no FTL in this universe and the entire series takes place in one "really really big" star system.
I'm sorry.
No.
That's just. Not. Possible.
I don't care how much terraforming you do, the band of habitability is just *not* that big.
I have a feeling he's going to have to go back on it when faced with the inconsistencies this is going to build up.
+++ATH0
asserts causality. Rephrased, your statement could, "Because it wants to shoot them in the foot, Fox purchases sci fi series." And I question the causality implied there. I don't think that's the reason that they buy the shows.
It would be different if you had said
which only sets up a timeline: Fox buys sci fi seies. Subsequently, they always shoot them in the foot.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
the comparison to "if Star Wars was based around Han Solo" is a good analogy.... but take out the aliens and super advanced droids.
if you have watched Buffy or Angel, you will be familiar with the dialog style. that being said i know some people that never watched Buffy or Angel and loved Firefly (they own the DVDs).
basically the earth is dead or something and people are expanding to far planets. a lot of the story has to do with the low tech settlers that live like people on the frontier. think space movie without any aliens. a lot of people don't even seem to realize they watched a space based sci-fi show and every living thing is from earth (humans, horses, dogs etc). comparing it to star trek or star wars may be a mistake. it does not have the same Sci-Fi geek factor of aliens and crazy technology. i guess in a way it does not have the learning curve that other Sci-Fi shows do? you do not need to know anything about different aliens or the abilities of certain ships. there is not a lot about space that you do not already know from high school.... except that is is bigger and more inhabitable planets.
Personally, it's not the conceit I don't care for. I just don't care for westerns. I like SciFi, and watched a bunch of Firefly, but concluded it's not, as billed by some, a Sci-Fi Western. It's a Western.
It's Space Cowboys.
If you dislike either things in space, or cowboys, you WILL dislike Firefly. / If you have no irrational hatred of either, you will LOVE Firefly.
That is the magic of the show: It appeals to anyone except those who hate these two things, instsead of appealing only to people who love either or both of these two things.
I've lent my DVDs to be consummed maniacally to geeks and non geeks, men, women, teenagers, chicks who like reality shows and hip-hop, etc, and they all love it.
The only filter I need is to tell them right up front that it's an excellent show about space cowboys. So if they have a problem with space, cowboys, or the combination of the two, they shouldn't bother. If not, they shouldn't miss it.
I have 100% success rate in creating new fans who can't wait for the movie with that formula.
You can't take the sky from me...
I saw the movie at the third pre-screening in Norfolk, VA this week and it was great. I really felt that Joss delivered everything I could have hoped for and the atmosphere in the theater was very unique because of the number of people who *really* wanted to be there. Already I'm recommending the movie to people and it won't be out until 30 Sept.
It definitely helps to see the Firefly series before the movie IF you want to have the same feeling for the characters that other fans have. On the other hand, friends who saw the movie with me were able to confirm that it is still very enjoyable if you have not yet seen the series. The film can stand on its own but it is all the better for the believers.
yeah Fox will make a bundle (relatively speaking) on the DVDs..... but they would have made a lot more if the series lasted a few seasons. they would have had a DVD set for each season. Buffy took more than a season to take off, at first it also had crappy time slots. look how big that got, and how well the DVD sets do, same with Angel.
really, somebody at Fox never liked this show. Fox started Firefly out on Friday nights, which is not a prime slot for a hip new show. it's often saved for shows they are phasing out. then add that they showed the pilot last and ran the show out of sequence. maybe the sequence made sense to them, but not to me as a viewer. maybe it was a scam to get the people that watched it to get the DVDs so they could see it in sequence? whatever the thinking, it was a bad call.
as other people pointed out, Fox has a weird way of scrapping shows it does not understand. if it is not american idol or some half season thing (like simple life, wife swap) they will ride it hard and fast straight into the ground.... then try something new. do they have any long running series besides the simpsons? i don't really watch the channel much so maybe i don't know.
But knowing that there's some money-person at the top of the chain rubbing his/her hands together in soulless glee makes me want to puke. It sullies the fun when money is the prime target. Good stories don't flow from love of money. They flow from love of Story.
The director and the actors and the script writers may work from love of Story, but they wouldn't work on this full time if they had to make a living to feed themselves. The spiffy special effects would certainly not be there without the money.
Because wasting money is so easy, the only people who control the kind of money it takes to make a movie like this are the people who like money, the ones who get excited over ROI.
So, they have their own requirements from a group project. Big deal. So do the actors, script writers, and everybody else. As long as they don't ruin it (= StarTrek), they have their spot. If it's ruined, just ignore the franchise and watch something else.
-- Support a free market in the field of government
I've NEVER heard of Firefly/Serenity outside of Slashdot. The marketing/publicity is non-existant.
It's not "non existant", it's just not launched into full blown marketing blitz yet. The movie only comes out in a few months, they don't start flooding the media with it's promotional material until a few weeks before release.
In the meantime, the word-of-mouth dealy is working, since you have heard of it here, and you're asking yourself "what's up with those fanboys?". Find a local fanboy and get him to loan you his DVDs... some stores have 'em for rent too, if you can deal with Space Cowboys, you won't regret it. If you can't deal with space cowboys, though, spare yourself the hurt.
You can't take the sky from me...
"Brownstains" != "I promise not to troll."
Carthago delenda est!
I've never seen the series. I've never seen Babylon 5, either, except maybe one episode while I was in the joint.
I've seen a FEW episodes of X-Files and maybe one episode (or might have been part of one, I can't remember) of Buffy.
Now I've seen the trailer for Serenity. It was completely incomprehensible to me, but looked interesting. I liked the scene where the apparent villain says, "I'm alone and unarmed", whereupon the hero says, "Good!" and draws his gun and shoots him. Reminds me of Indiana and the guy with the sword in "Raiders". Although I hope the whole movie isn't retreads of stuff I've seen like that.
If I have the money, I'll give this one a shot simply because it's space opera. I've seen the current Star Wars twice, and if I have the money I might see it again at some point - although I think it's going away pretty quickly.
I've seen the entire "Blake's Seven" series, and I think this one probably is on a par with that (with vastly superior special effects, of course!).
My favorite character in Blake was Avon, because he was a computer thief and both ruthlessly selfish and an idealist. My favorite line in Blake is in the episode about the dual between planets where Avon asks Tarrant if he has any compunction against cheating, and Tarrant says, "None whatsoever!", to which Avon replies, "Oh, good!"
If Serenity can match that, I'll give it a thumbs up.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
I'm not so sure Fox doesn't do that.
Fox is not your average network. It's a political movement disguised as a network. Nothing else can explain Fox News. It's not just a company which was set up to play to a certain ignorant demographic.
Murdoch has an agenda and everything he does fits that agenda. So it would not surprise me at all to see him buy a series just to kill it and piss people off. After all, it's one 14-episode series - it's not going to bankrupt the network or him. If he thought it was subversive of his agenda in any way, yes, he'd kill it no matter how much his execs spent for it. And the rumor that the guy who bought it got canned supports that concept.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
And I'll add to that. This reminds me of the "Doom 2099" comic that Marvel put out along with their other "2099" series. Doctor Doom, the premier villain in Marvel Comics, became a critic of the "American Way" in that comic - and it got pulled because of it, the way I heard it.
The entire series got canned later, probably because of low sales, but "Doom 2099" was the best comic in the series and probably one of the best comics Marvel had put out around that time.
The "silent issue" where Doom meditates on his failure in invading and conquering the United States and the potential of nanotechnology to change the world was one of the best comics I've ever read.
They even had him quoting Noam Chomsky and Bakunin in earlier issues!
Obviously somebody thought this was way too subversive.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
I have to start out by saying that my sentiments of shows like Buffy and Angel pretty much consisted of rolling my eyes or running screaming from the room when it came on. However, my wife and son both enjoyed both shows.
/. - that's what people around here do.
Enter Firefly - and Netflix....My wife had seen the series, but wanted to see it again, so put the DVDs in her queue so we could watch them. I watched them with her, and found them quite enjoyable.
The story was pretty straightforward, and I honestly was unsure of the whole "space cowboy" concept, but I found the dialogue to be funny and the characters to be engaging.
Then we got lucky - my wife found out that the movie was going to be previewing in a theater about 5 miles away from us and she purchased tickets.
The film - as we saw it - was about 90% complete. Even after having seen the series, I wasn't sure about the movie, but I was curious enough to find out what happened to the characters to go - and I'm glad I did.
This has got to be one of the better films I've ever seen. It's got a good story, excellent dialogue (unlike the Star Wars prequels - that dialog just plain sucked), and it was very entertaining.
Bottom line - don't judge the film before you've seen it. Oh, wait, this is
Insanity is a gradual process; don't rush it.
The article wasn;t about some obscure TV show, it was about a major motion picture that's coming out, that just happened to have spawned from a less-than-optimally viewed TV show.
/.'ers see themselves, that there'd be 'a relatively few slashdot readers who has even heard of it'.
And I myself am surprised, with as well-informed and knowledgeable about the world as most
Dunno, but I thought mentioning it was about a movie coming out, and then the article linked explaining that movie right off did pretty well in filling in the details.
I myself have twice picked up +5 mods for posting synopses of the show; it's been mentioned about 20+ times on /. - if you haven't heard about it by now, you're just not listening.
And why post this sort of thing anyway? I don't post "why don't you summarize this" everytime someone puts a story about some obscure anime series or video game on the front page. I just assume (from all the comments) there's enough interest in it, and read the postings to decide if it should interest me (and usually it doesn't). I don't whine that I'm being excluded.
Sheesh. These kids.
The short answer is that FOX crunched Firefly and other shows like it because they didn't like the political message of those shows.
But FOX is a large corporation, not a single individual. At the risk of Goodwinning myself, the politics of FOX as demonstrated by FOXnews, or their current darling, 24, is extremely right-wing bordering on fascism: fear, pro-torture, and anti-human-rights.
Shows like Firefly or Dark Angel or even Wonderfalls are championed by younger execs who are not fully indoctrinated in the politics of FOX. Once these shows get started, more and more people in the FOX organization are involved in making decisions that affect the fate of these shows. As the anti-fascist message of these shows becomes more clear to the FOX organization, the shows are silently squashed.
I would be extremely surprised if anti-anti-fascism at FOX was spoken of as such. I very much doubt there was ever a memo that said this show is too anti-fascist, cancel it!. Instead there is a mindset that pervades upper management that finds these shows distasteful but can't explain exactly why.
A very similar thing happened to the US car companies about 30 years ago (as documented by the New York Times Magazine). The upper management of all the US car companies were living in their own insulated world and were totally out of touch with the common-man/woman. So they keep making HUGE cars and got creamed by the Japanese who were making good smaller cars that more Americans wanted.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
Seems like they are just as capable of running a show into the ground through ineptitude; it didn't help that it was a particularly expensive show - they probably could get a whole season of some reality show clone for the price of one or two Firefly episodes.
Anyway, Hanlon's Razor seems to be appropriate here.
sic transit gloria mundi
Wait, are you talking about Buffy or Firefly? In case of Firefly, the premise and the stylized nature of how it looked an how people talked (haven't heard of this being mocked per se) were the best parts of the show! Playing to the lowest common denominator by removing the more unusual aspects is not the way to make a good show. I'd rather have 13 episodes of a great show, than 5 seasons of the same thing as usual, over again.
sic transit gloria mundi
For all we know, it feels horrible about it and has to have a cold shower and a good cry afterwards. I'm just saying that, at the time it purchases sci-fi, it already intends to kill it for some, as yet unknown, reason.
Perhaps because Fox is worried one of them will attract the attention of our secret alien overlords, perhaps it's just to keep them out of the hands of other networks. Perhaps there's an actor someone at Fox dislikes who normally does sci-fi, so they are attempting to destroy the entire market. Perhaps Fox is secretly required by law to purchase every sci-fi show it can, and resents this, so gets around this law by canceling them.
I do not know their motives, nor do I think they are important at this point in time. I just can see the effects. Fox purchases every sci-fi show it can, and then mismanages them, so it will have an excuse to cancel them. Let's move them around randomly, let's air them opposite the Superbowl, let's show them out of order, let's put them on Friday night!
Sometimes it doesn't even bother coming up with an excuse. Sometimes it does completely absurd things like pay for episodes of shows and never air them, which is just unbelievable behavior for any sort of business, and probably grounds for a shareholder lawsuit. And they're doing it with what is traditionally the most expensive genre on TV.
I have no clue of what their motives might be. They can't seriously think that any sci-fi show they air will be successful. Even sheep get the 'Don't brush up against the electric fence' on the second or third try.
You know that expression that 'Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.'?
What's a dozen times? Genocide?
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Seriously. It's exactly those people who complain about the evils of 'Who Wants to Marry a Multimillionaire' and 'The Simpsons' and 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' (1) who watch the damn Fox News Channel, where they call in to complain.
For some reason they're with me when I suggest a boycott, until I point out who'd they'd be boycotting...
I don't think that theory really holds up, because some of the scifi is quite unobjectional even by the most conservative standards, like John Doe. Logically, they should promoting conservative sci-fi, because the market is going to exist no matter what, and other networks will step in to fill it.
Unless they are delusional enough to think they can actually kill all sci-fi, which is just silly, as they have no control over movies or books or comics.
1) Buffy aired on the WB and UPN, but was produced by Fox. But note that, luckily, it's Fox TV that kills off sci-fi shows, quite a lot of which are produced by Fox studios, so Buffy escaped the ax. Fox studios produces great sci-fi, but sadly Fox TV has first dibs on it.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Gawd the previews look like a TV show... Blech.
Have you been asleep the last decade? Do you want a list of all the science fiction shows Fox has cancelled? Does anyone have a list?
Will it fit into a single post?
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
I don't think FOX was being dogmatic. I think it was being stupid, just like the US car manufacturers were being stupid in the 70's.
The car companies pushed large cars in the 70's because those were the kinds of cars the top execs liked. All the people the top execs associated with (big surprise: other top execs) also liked large cars.
One grand-parent of this thread claimed that FOX bought Sci-Fi shows in order to cancel them, some sort of dogmatic anti-Sci-Fi-ism. There is certainly a clear pattern of cancellation of certain types of shows and pushing of others.
I am proposing a mechanism of a certain sort of corporate stupidity that explains the weird pattern of cancellations. If the top execs at FOX find these shows distasteful (much like the top car execs found small cars distasteful) then those shows are not going to get as much of a corporate push as shows that the top brass likes better. Not because the top brass has a dogmatic corporate agenda to cancel those shows (even though it might appear that way), but because they don't think the shows are good.
Some fledgling shows with an anti-fascist message get started at FOX, just like a few small model US cars got made in the 70's. But in both cases the product did not appeal to the top brass and was left to wither and die. And in both cases the same products sold like hotcakes when they were promoted by other companies with a different corporate mindset.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
It did add in new weirdness, like the Chinese expressions and the extremely overt western theme, but they weren't silly weirdnesses, they weren't like the things that kept people from taking Buffy seriously.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
We were talking about a single show, Fox's history of cancelling good shows before they had a chance to develop doesn't seem to run counter to my point.
Incidentally, it is my understanding that Fox goes through half a dozen cancelled shows a season (or thereabout) - is it really true that a disproportionate number of those are SciFi shows?
sic transit gloria mundi
Ah, ok - never seen Buffy myself, so I was confused.
sic transit gloria mundi
I suspect that this was more a victim of Fox thinking they had a clinched demographic and slot. Since X-Files was successful and in that slot, other shows along the same line should also be successful. But, X-Files was moved into that slot bringing its audience with it. None of the other shows them have wedged in there have really had much of a draw on their own.
s " that a number of scifi shows has done.
Also, there is the matter of episode cost. Science fiction is relatively expensive compared to "reality" television and even shows like "The OC". F/X shots every show. Costuming for Firefly was interesting as they did not do the "all-people-of-this-culture-wear-identical-clothe
I suspect that there were a lot of fights that year about "reality" vs scripted shows inside Fox.
I doubt it had anything to do with any political message inside the show itself. It was strictly a dollar issue and lack of patience.
two who are good in a fight, two who are hot babes
Well, of the two hot babes mentioned, one has certainly shown herself to be unnaturally good in a fight (although there may be a problem with consistency), and the other generally avoids fights but has shown herself to be a pretty good shot with a hand laser.
But that's a nit. I agree with all your points, and your argument about character design is well made.
-- Alastair
- Good characterization. One of Joss Whedon's talents is the ability to create characters who you could see yourself sitting down and having a drink with. Or playing checkers, or whatever. Whedon doesn't deal in cyphers or archetypes, although some are recognizable. His characters are people with strengths, weaknesses, flaws, personality quirks and phobias. They have histories which you may never know in full, just like the people that you meet every day. The "good guys" don't always get along with one another, and the "bad guys" aren't always unsympathetic. Yes, the metastories aren't "real-life" situations. (Civil war in a spacefaring society? A blonde, perky cheerleader, instead of being messily killed in the first reel, gets to kick monster butt? Inconceivable!) The characters within those stories, though, come across in realistic ways. There are very, very few two-dimensional portrayals in any of Whedon's worlds.
Obviously, I'm a fan; not only of Firefly, but all of Joss' work. That being said, it took me a bit to warm up to Firefly, because of the way that Fox handled the series. I found it to be well worth the effort, though. All I can say is, give it a chance. If it's not to your liking, you've spent a bit of time that you could've put toward something else. Like reading Slashdot.Doing my level best to piss off the religious right wing...
You're assuming that he was absolutely sure that that was the only secret that River gleamed... She might have had a ton of other secrets in her head...
I respect your opinion, and we can disagree on this, but I felt that the ending was poor, and the villain's change of heart really cheapened his character.
Jesus used to be my co-pilot, but we crashed in the mountains and I had to eat him.
But I've heard either Mal or Wash die
;) )
I heard that River is made of chocolate.
(by the way, shameless plug: Firefly fortune-mod available here. I can't wait to add new quotes from the movie into it
What a crazy random happenstance!
Maybe because it originally WAS a tv show...duh
Is Rupert Murdoch on some sort of anti-SF crusdae?
Wait... does this mean Fox is owned by News International (or one of Murdoch's other holding cos)? That explains a _lot_.
Yes you did, sheesh. That's what "so" means in this kind of construction, especially with "deliberately". (This dictionary defines it as "in order that", in this sense.)
Now, you can retreat to a totally different position:
And of course you'd don't know that and it's an incredibly stupid theory. You have evidence which isn't unreasonable to interpret as Fox deliberately "destroying" Firefly, sure; but you have no evidence they intended to do that in advance (except that they "keep" doing it). Given the reality of stupid politics inside studios, those politics theories seem (a) to explain it, and (b) to make more sense.
Hyperbole.
Fox cancels every single sci-fi show on it. Most before the end of the first season.
Now, Fox does cancel an amazing amount of shows, and it purchases almost all the sci-fi that's for sale, so it's possible that this is some sort of statistical anomoly. If you have all the sci-fi, and an absurd turnover, than logically you will be canceling a lot of sci-fi.
However, that doesn't explain absurd things like Fox purchasing six episodes of season 2 of Tru Calling, airing five, and then cancelling it and not showing the last one.
Or, for example, showing Firefly out of order, and not promoting it to the millions of loyal Buffy fans. Um, duh. Hell, it owns FX, where the Buffy reruns were airing twice a day. Any ads? Nope. Because there were no ads at all!
Or constantly preempting Futurama with football so no one can find the damn thing.
The last two were by the creators of two of the most largest pop-culture phenoms on TV in history, The Simpsons and Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and they threw them away, seemingly delibrately.
The first, Tru Calling...well, okay, that had moderate ratings, and wasn't that amazing...but why the hell did they renew it, and then cancel it? What could have possibly been going through their mind there?
It's not just the cancellation, see? It's the sheer randomness of their behavior.
The ultimate reason here is Fox cannot tell good shows from crap. Thus it purchases and promotes crap, and eventually has to cancel it, and it purchases, fails to promote, and abuses quality, and has to cancel it.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
A very similar thing happened to the US car companies about 30 years ago
/ qid=1119745711/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/103-9300774 -8365429/
Ah the effects of that were already setting in by the mid 1960's, 40 years ago. I strongly recommend "Adam Smiths" amusing and satirical "Supermoney" novel which was published in 72' or thereabouts, it goes into the US automobile situation in quite some detail aswell as his own follys and adventures in the financial world...
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0394479939
Theres quite a lot of contempt still for gas-guzzling US-jeep style cars over here in Britain. People ask why a 4 litre car is needed for the school run and shopping trips when a 1.2 litre vehicle would suffice for a family of 4 easily.
Yet the old naggling Britishness prevails over even this criticism (we moan, and yet do nothing to follow up our moaning), some younger families opt for larger vehicles, more American style vehicles over here now. Also, Chevrolet and Crysler are going ahead with a vast attempt at market penetration.
Problems with consistency? She attacked her own brother! And, I was mostly talking about the series, where she wasn't shown kicking anywhere near as much ass as she does in the film.
You're still not grasping the point. You seem to think I am saying they purchase and cancel shows to cancel shows. Which is just crazy.
They are not. They are purchasing shows so they can cancel them, and the cancelling is serving some unknown purpose. It's like purchasing a car so you can go to work. The point isn't to go to work, the point is to make money. The point isn't to cancel the shows, the point is whatever gain they are getting from that.
I'm just saying that, at the time it purchases sci-fi, it already intends to kill it for some, as yet unknown, reason.
And of course you'd don't know that and it's an incredibly stupid theory. You have evidence which isn't unreasonable to interpret as Fox deliberately "destroying" Firefly, sure; but you have no evidence they intended to do that in advance (except that they "keep" doing it).
Why is 'keep' in quotes? It's about two shows a year, over a period of a decade. I don't know how it's confusing to anyone.
What's a dozen times?
Hyperbole.
John Doe!
Tru Calling*
Futurama#
Harsh Realm!
Lone Gunmen!
Millenium!
Wonderfalls*!@
Firefly*@
Dark Angel
The Tick@
Sliders*!
Brimstone!@
Strange Luck!@
Space: Above and Beyond#
VR 5*@
Kindred: The Embraced@
Point Pleasant
MANTIS!
Roar
Brisco County, Jr.!
Freaky Links!*@
Oops, that was more than a dozen. Shows with a # got run after football, so were preempted often. Shows with a * were randomly moved around or skipped weeks for no apparent reason so no one could find them. Shows with a ! were on Friday nights in the Timeslot of Death. Shows with a @ got less than a full season. There are probably more marks I could add, but frankly I've spent enough time on this post.
But to be fair, scifi shows that were not canceled:
The X-Files!
Just one, but it was in the timeslot of death for a large amount of time.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
I stopped watching 24 because it was fascist. I didn't know how to describe it at first, but I was turned off by the violation of human rights and due process. This is not a good show to be airing while we are at war and violating rights all the time (like in Guantanamo).
Your post makes a lot of sense and should be modded up to +5.
Andrew
I agree that he probably has no plans to bring it back. If he did, then he really hurt his chances by messing with the cast chemistry by killing off characters in this movie.
If there were plans to take it to Sci-Fi or even back to Fox or another network, I doubt Joss would have (or been allowed to) killed those characters.
I have to say I was terribly dissapointed in the movie. It seems like Joss just killed them because he could.
What a sad end for characters I'd grown to like... just because he could.
God I loved that series. So glad to hear I wasn't alone.
The art in the Marvel series is always garbage, but the writing in that series was enough to make me forget it for a little while.
- sarcasm is just one more service we offer -
I think Fox just hates shows that start with 'F'!
Anyway, all I wanted to point out is that this "seemingly deliberately" comment is a bit of a stretch. Sure, as any large organization Fox has various internal forces working against each other, that produce final results which might seem arbitrary. Still don't forget that good shows are expensive and not great money-makers compared to Fox's other fare, and that the shows we (the /. crowd, by an large) enjoy are definitely in a niche market.
As far as ineptitude and mismanagement in marketing, there's plenty of that to go around at any network.
sic transit gloria mundi
I think VR 5 got a full season. Or at least, made it to the season finale.
I loved that show. Really loved that show.
Damn.
Is because the marketing is totally geared towards those who are hard core fans of Whedon. Kind of like the Jobs kool-aide drinkers. Both guys are talented, and both tend to drive away other talent and make big mistakes. This movies seems one of them.
... Pluto Nash which also got dumped in Sept.
Saw the trailer and for the life of me I can't tell you what the storyline is (coming from someone who watched about 7 epis); suggesting there really isn't one in the movie. The characters besides the Captain and the River chick who beats people up are also ill-defined in the trailer; suggesting the same problem in the movie.
Rollout of the film is to the true believers through previews, that's not enough to make it successful Box-office wise. It will probably go even though with DVD sales as long as the price is high enough to soak the suckers/customers/kool-aide drinkers.
Anyone who sat through the Firefly TV series knows what to expect, not even a base of a plot, pseudo-macho posturing (instead of the real Die Hard thing), baby-talk girls who beat people up, icky sex, etc. The last years of Buffy and Angel were total crap, let's face it Buffy falling in love with her rapist or Angel's son impregnating his girlfriend and sacrificing kids isn't good TV; ickiness to be "edgy" because the writer is creatively bankrupt.
(If you believe the Dove Foundation Report; the film's R rating will hurt it; on average between 1989 and 2003; the 1500 odd R movies made 7 million average in box office and the 253 G movies made 65 million average; profitablity was strongly correlated with the closness to Gs; PG was more profitable than PG-13. Explanation was that less strong ratings on average requires better writing and directing, a better story.)
There's BETTER sci-fi out there; War of the Worlds (has Spielberg who's light years better than Whedon), Fantastic Four, Batman, plus on TV Battlestar Galactica. I don't see this breaking through in a crowded marketplace, particularly in Sept. when the good movies have sucked out the $$ from the broad public. I think this is not Blair Witch and more like
Summation: Marketing campaign sucks cause the movie sucks, it will suck the cash out of the kool aide drinker's wallets but not much else; long term Whedon's looking to get his WW pulled when this thing craters box office wise as it will.
(One reviewer likened the movie to a combination of Pluto Nash, Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever; Steel; Paycheck, and Chronicles of Riddick with overuse of cheap soundstages and crappy ass characters like a "Mr. Universe" guy who lives inside a computer)
It's all about WHICH Whedon you talk about. Early on in Buffy and Angel when he had people to work with and tell him "No that's stupid" he certainly DID have a gift for characterization.
But like McCartney without Lennon, his current work isn't very good.
Buffy's last two seasons were all about the minor character Spike, who raped Buffy and somehow had her fall in love with her. Oh, and Willow tortured and killed a guy. All the other characters were pushed to the side; you'd cross the street to avoid Buffy who was an icky, sex-addict cold bitca who couldn't care less about anyone not undead and screwing her.
Angel's last two seasons were just as bad; like Buffy almost every character was turned into a brutal murderer for "fun" and there wasn't any difference between the heroes and the perfunctory bad guys; Henry Portrait of a Serial Killer may have been a great indie but it wasn't what the show was originally about.
Ever hear McCartney's stuff where he produced his late wife's "singing?" Whedon's current stuff is that bad, simply because the characters are cold, unlikeable, brutal, and most importantly AMORAL. They don't actually stand for something, just being cooler than the bad guys.
Besides the movie is a base rip-off of Chronicles of Riddick. Whedon used to be talented but his characterization as of late is lacking. It's the main reason Firefly flopped; it wasn't Fox's fault but Whedon's in thinking people would just worship him without putting out characters people loved and cared about.
I liked Firefly. I've got the boxed set, and I feel it's the best scifi since B5. I like the stories, the characters, etc. But that doesn't mean I worship the ground Joss Whedon walks on.
Unlike most Firefly fans I know. It seems you're not allowed to like Firefly without liking Buffy as well. But I hate Buffy. I don't like Angel either, and that upsets some people. I even had one friend shocked when I refused to attend a Kerry fundraiser held by Joss Whedon. That fact that I wouldn't vote for a candidate that Joss endorsed was outside of his comprehension range.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
It really doesn't hold up now, because even if it is a string of completely amazing coincidences, someone at Fox should have noticed by now and pointed it when they were about to purchase their newest sci-fi series.
Even if they don't realize it's their fault, eventually someone should stand up and says "Wait a minute. All our scifi fails. Maybe we shouldn't purchase any more scifi."
I mean, sure mismanagement and ineptitude could explain the death of shows, but to explain the continue purchase of shows, and for them not to notice the pattern, you're basically assuming the people who purchase shows are too dumb to not drown to death in the kitchen sink.
Or possibly that the people purchasing the shows on Fox have no knowledge of what shows are currently on Fox. Maybe they think all the scifi they purchases had long and fruitful runs. (Hey! That's why Fox purchases episodes it doesn't air! So if the show purchasers hear rumors their show has been canceled, Fox can feed the episode into the TV as the 'newest episode'.)
See, you have to come up with crazier explainations if you think it's an accident.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Well, I didn't see it. Of course, that was probably due to them moving it around randomly. ;)
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Well, of the two hot babes mentioned, one has certainly shown herself to be unnaturally good in a fight...
...and the other generally avoids fights but has shown herself to be a pretty good shot with a hand laser.
Indeed, River would be the gal to have around in a firefight. Another reply to the parent suggests she does some hand-to-hand in the movie. I've always suspected that, when push comes to shove, she's a LOT more functional than she normally appears. There's also the "I can kill you with my brain" thing, which reminds me of the blue-hands guys and their bleeding-out-the-cranial-orifices method of execution. My theory is that River can do that only better, maybe _without_ the equipment, or at superior range (which is, of course, why they're SO hot after her).
While I don't recall this, I'll take your word, and point out Inara's brief scrap with "our Mrs. Reynolds" (who completely held her own against _Mr_Reynolds) and her ability to school Mal (and prolly Zoe & Cobb) in the use of a sword. With rifles at 100 meters, I dunno If I'd want Inara or Jayne (her buddy Mandi was certainly dangerous), but at close range it'd be nolo contendere:
COBB: (takes a potentially face-altering swing at Inara)
INARA: (dodges, giggles, and pulls down the bodice of her dress,
revealing sweet, milky globes)
COBB: (wide-eyed, slack-jawed) "Whoa..."
INARA: (a quick whirl-kick to Jayne's ear)
COBB: (falling to teh deck, unconscious) "Duhh."
Yeah, it's pretty obvious that "the Whore Academy" (I forget its real name) trains its students _well_ in self-defense.
The standout characteristic of the violence tendancies of both babes is that they're quite defensive, as opposed to Reynolds, Zoe, Cobb, and to some extent the Preacher, who are ready to walk into a situation with _intent_ to kick butt.
Simon, Kaylee, and pretty much Wash, OTOH, have all proven themselves rather useless in the fight situations...
This is why I'd pair up (in the first round):
Simon & Kaylee (obvious)
Jayne & River (as unlikely as that sounds)
Book & Inara (already hinted at)
In the second round (third season):
Wash & Zoe split up (over Wash's fear of reproduction, already hinted at)
Reynolds & Zoe (take me _hard_, Captain!)
Jayne & Simon both prove too clumsy to maintain lasting relationships
Inara cries a lot and maybe even leaves
Perhaps a new character to provide romantic interest for Book (a la Oz/Willow or Laila/Wesley)
Third round (fifth season):
Mal & Inara (finally, after five years, like Buffy & Spike)
Jayne marries a cowgirl/merc/whore they pick up somewhere.
Possible major personality changes or additional new characters
for other combinations. Think Gunn/Winnifred & Willow/Tara. Anything can happen in five years on a Whedon show.
Now, that woulda been the _original_ plan, the cancellation and movie may of course accelerate _some_ of that, while simply not leaving time for most of it.
**** MY POINT ****
It's been remarked that Firefly (and Buffy, and Angel) have all been greatly character-driven shows. This is gonna be the tragedy of Firefly's cancellation: without the hundred or hundred-and-fifty hours it'll take to treat them properly, we'll never get to meet say, Book, as well as we've come to know Spike (who never even _showed_up_ in the first season). Zoe and Kaylee simply don't have the _chance_ at as much life as Cordelia and Willow enjoyed, and this is the part that makes me want to cry.
Exceeding the recommended torque is not recommended.
I was talking about the series too, haven't seen the film yet. Recall the scene where, in a firefight, River takes one look at where the 3 bad guys are, picks up the gun Kaylee dropped and, not even looked at bad guys, takes the three out with one shot each.
She also does a fair job of saving everyone else in the last (?) episode where the bounty hunter comes aboard.
-- Alastair
Good points all.
The Inara with a hand laser (in the outback) I was referring to was the episode where we meet "Mrs. Reynolds" again and they steal the Lassiter. Inara doesn't kill anyone just shoots out a piece of hardware from 10 or 15 yards away.
I'd forgotten the other incidents you mention. Time to watch the series again.
-- Alastair
append *Jayne slurring his words* "I'll be in my bunk"
There's also the "I can kill you with my brain" thing, which reminds me of the blue-hands guys and their bleeding-out-the-cranial-orifices method of execution.
Excellent point, hadn't thought of that....ye gawds -not that she'd need such a weapon, she seems pretty deadly without
Cheers!
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
Since scifi makes up only a small percentage of the total number of shows (seriously, how many new scifi shows did they buy in the last five years?), it's not all that surprising if most or all of them fail.
This whole "Fox is out to destroy scifi as a genre!" thing sounds a bit tinfoily.
sic transit gloria mundi
However, this leads to the obvious idea that somehow starting scifi series and then canceling them is profitable for them. That somehow cancelling them before they finish airing is profitable.
When you realize that most of these series are made by Fox studios, then you start to get a clearer picture. They air a series, collect fans, and then cancel it, and then sell the DVDs.
No more of this 'wait for a series to be unpopular' bullshit. By mismanaging it, they can point at ratings. They then do not have to pay to make the series anymore. (As a bonus, the horrible ratings keep other networks out.) No actors, no sets, no production costs...
By being marginalized for decades, scifi fans have learned to put up with any abuse then go out and give money to the bastards who abused them.
You don't even have to postulate this is deliberate. It's just when purchasing scifi, they say 'What if it get cancelled like Wonderfalls or Firefly?' and everyone else turns at them and says 'What are you talking about? The commercials paid for the original airings, and do you know how many of those DVDs we sold?'
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Now I don't feel so bad about getting the DVDs off of bittorrent.
sic transit gloria mundi