Firefly in the Timeslot of death

POSTED BY: Swatter
UPDATED: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 16:45
VIEWED: 15654
PAGE 2 of 5

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE

SWATTER

Sunday, June 2, 2002 8:29 PM

You seriously never seen Two Girl, A girl and a piazza place before or any of their other junk? Go to IMDB.com to look uo their ...umm...work.

SWATTER

Sunday, June 2, 2002 8:30 PM

Fox has a reputation for cancelling shows early. I wouldn't count on Fox being kind. They are desperate for ratings now.

NOVAGRASS

Sunday, June 2, 2002 9:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Swatter:
I say the actors are lacking because I've seen their other body of work and judged it on that. No, I've read it and read the reviews by others who saw it. Even Fox said the first one stunk.

They never made an official comment that they were not pleased with the original pilot. Tim Minear even said the reason that the pilot was initially turned down was because it was *very* intense. Nowhere has a FOX exec. said it was bad. *No one* has said anything even remotely similar to "it stunk" or "it sucked." Since you appear to have an informed knowledge base on the cast, I think you should have a more informed base on the actual show you are criticizing.

--Dylan Palmer, aka NoVaGrAsS--

"Blood just kept pouring out of them, you'd slip in it half the time, find out bloodbath is not just a figure of speech."
-Zoe; Firefly, "Serenity" Shooting Script.

JONWES

Monday, June 3, 2002 12:26 AM

I stayed away from that Two guys, a girl and a pizza place show. Past work isn't always the best gauge of someone's work. If the writing isn't there, then it's hard for the actor to do anything. Even the best actors in the world can't do much without a script.

You know the principal in Boston Public? He does a great job in that show. You know what his previous job was? He played Lincoln's butler on that ill conceived UPN sitcom called "The Secret Diary of Desdmond Pfifer" or something like that.

SWATTER

Monday, June 3, 2002 10:52 PM

Why was Firefly moved from it's original Sunday timeslot to the timeslot of death? Why was it slated to be released at mid season instead of the fall? Why did is Fox paying for another pilot? Networks don't like shelling out money unless they have to.

It's obvious Fox didn't like the original one.

I've never said "it su@ked". I just said it stunk. I've never used a single word of profanity on this board and the word above is a quote from you.

SHUGGIE

Monday, June 3, 2002 11:24 PM

sucked is profanity?

MALCOLM

Monday, June 3, 2002 11:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Swatter:
Why was Firefly moved from it's original Sunday timeslot to the timeslot of death? Why was it slated to be released at mid season instead of the fall? Why did is Fox paying for another pilot? Networks don't like shelling out money unless they have to.

It's obvious Fox didn't like the original one.

I've never said "it su@ked". I just said it stunk. I've never used a single word of profanity on this board and the word above is a quote from you.

FF was never programmed for either a Sunday night timeslot or a midseason release. There was alot of speculation that it would go into the X-Files slot, but that predated the pilot being written. Fox chose to counterprogram a successful comedy (Malcolm)

against three dramas SOPRANOS, ANGEL, & ALIAS (probably a smart move -- damn those ANGEL hating bastards at the WB.)

The midseason replacement show rumor was just that until it was printed in the Hollywood Reporter amid all the new fall season stories.

You're right about Fox hating to spend more money on another pilot, that's why I think they will definitely put the "original" pilot on the air sometime. I hope.

CHARLIEBLUE

Tuesday, June 4, 2002 5:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by malcolm:
You're right about Fox hating to spend more money on another pilot, that's why I think they will definitely put the "original" pilot on the air sometime. I hope.

But if what Tim Minear said was true--the "new" pilot is actually a slightly revamped second episode--is Fox really spending more money on another pilot? It sounds to me like they're spending more money on the second episode, which is common practice. It's not like they probably wouldn't have spent the money anyway.

SWATTER

Tuesday, June 4, 2002 5:55 PM

Oh that why? Okay, maybe I was wrong. I apologize. I just kept reading that it was slated to be a midseason replacement on so many news sites like yahoo tv news, hollywood reporter or tvzap2it.com. Which news site did you say your info comes from?

I'm with you!! They are endangering Angel by putting it up against Alias. Grrr...if they cancel Angel cause of their silly programming move..I think we should sic Conner on them!!

J

Tuesday, June 4, 2002 11:15 PM

Actually, Angel wouldn't go off the air if the WB cancelled it,and I really wish they would, but they won't, no matter what. UPN is contractually obligated to pick up Angel throughout this season if the WB cancels it. Which is why the WB is trying to screw it over and won't cancel it. It would be a boost to UPN (since UPN is the weaker network, ratings-wise) while basically shelving it on a timeslot they're going to lose anyway doesn't hurt the WB. However, they might cancel it at the end of the season because that's when UPN's obligation to pick it up ends. And if Buffy does end at the end of s7, Angel probably won't help UPN out as much by itself. It's unnatural having two shows in the same fictional universe separated by unfriendly networks, but that's how it looks like it's going to be.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE