UPN has passed on Firefly
POSTED BY: spav
UPDATED: Sunday, January 12, 2003 04:50
VIEWED: 17910
PAGE 5 of 5
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Also, TV networks are buying and selling art. Really, they really are. The fundamental reason anyone buys or passes on a work of art is simple: they like it, or they don't. Yes, they want to know that the art will sell well, but there is always risk and any network will take that risk for something they believe in. Firefly is not likely to be sold to a network as a guaranteed cash-cow. Firefly is going to be sold to a network because that network believes in Firefly. Our belief in Firefly, therefore, has some juice. We have no juice if it's a purely dollars and cents decission.
I don't want to play the cynic, but we are talking about Commercial Television Networks here, emphasis on the Commercial. We can talk about the art and we can talk about the writing (and I stand behind no one in my admiration of Joss/ME's productions), but in a very real sense episodic TV shows have ALWAYS been a way to sell something, the filler between commercials.
Fox is already making a good amount of money from Mutant Enemy; the 3rd season Buffy is the #3 bestselling DVD on Amazon, as were the two earlier seasons which sold quite well, too. Angel, season one, goes on sale February 11th.
What Fox wanted to see was if Joss's shows could play in the big leagues. That they chose to give the show indifferent support is most likely because of two factors:
1.) They didn't understand it or Joss. They were not familiar with his other shows, just the revenue they were capable of generating.
2.) Joss is not entirely blameless here, either. His source material, the Reconstruction and how people lived through that difficult time, was rock-solid, a rich source of stories and themes. I don't mind the weapons or the horses or the clothing. I fully understand the concept of dramatic liscense. I just wonder if there is another way to show a futuristic frontier that doesn't appear to have been designed by Howard Waldrop (SF author of alternative history stories -- my fave: "Ike at the Mike").Maybe some, but not necessarily all of these elements -- I'm not saying it MUST be so, just wondering out loud...
But Joss has never taken the easy way out and that's one the reasons I like watching his stuff. Firefly was a tough sell because it didn't appeal to a mass audience that wants to watch Fastlane (apparently, those Starsky & Hutch reruns just weren't cutting it) and reality programming, even if you could explain the premise. If Star Trek was Wagon Train in space, the you could say that Firefly was more like Have Gun, Will Travel in space, tha latter show being much more morally complex with a real anti-hero in the lead.
So, let's find some place where we can make those mini-series or periodic tv-movies. Let's try SciFi network, if that doesn't work, maybe the BBC or Telemundo. Let's just get this done!
I'm a mean old man
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by selnyc:
So, let's find some place where we can make those mini-series or periodic tv-movies. Let's try SciFi network, if that doesn't work, maybe the BBC or Telemundo. Let's just get this done!
I'm a mean old man
Has it occurred to anyone that the "Big Three" might actually be interested in Firefly? All the other networks are poor and scrounging for whatever scraps of the viewing public they can get. And most of the shows on those chanels are (or at least look) cheap, cheap, cheap. Firefly has the best production values of any Sci-Fi show I've ever seen. And the most nuanced acting in Sci-fi this side of Patrick Stuart (and even he's only as good as the words he's given to say). The plot lines are as complex and compelling as anything on TV right now. Maybe it belongs on a "real" network, after Alias or The West Wing or something! Maybe, just maybe, we're not setting our sights high enough!
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The big three would be nice, but I doubt it. The 'big three' rarely show Sci-Fi because the audience expectations are so much lower (for the genre) and their ratings expectations are even higher than Fox's.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
then it's not proven that the sky is blue
Well, if you want to get picky about it, the skys not blue.
We see blue sky because of the angle water droplets refract light into our eyes. Hence, red/orange sunsets, and if you look carefully enough, the 'green band' on the horizon when the sun has just set. Once the sun leaves, we see the real 'color' of the sky, which is clear, or you could say greyishly opaque when there is heavy cloud cover.point being, i still have hope
rob
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by gallahan:
They instead are developing a series about intergalactic vampires.
Oh, my God. I haven't laughed like that in weeks. I just keep getting images of that vampire from Buck Rogers. Mixing space and classic monster archetypes usually results in a big stinkeroo.
How the hell did the pitch meeting for this go? Well, you see, it's sort of like Battlestar Galactica, but with bloodsuckers.
At least it's not mummies from outer space. Time Walker had that concept cornered.
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0084796
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME