Fox To Public: We Screwed Up Firefly

POSTED BY: BrownCoat
UPDATED: Monday, February 3, 2003 02:48
VIEWED: 22022
PAGE 1 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE

BROWNCOAT

Tuesday, January 21, 2003 12:12 PM

http://tv.yahoo.com/news/ap/20030120/104308284000.html

Last few paragraphs are most interesting:

----

Last year, the News Corp.-owned network
staggered its fall launch, airing a few new shows fortwo weeks in September before pulling them off
the air in October to make room for baseball. Fox
then rolled out the remainder of its shows in
November, one of the most competitive months in
television.

As a result, Fox's new shows have been slow to
catch on, and two of the network's most heavily
promoted David E. Kelley's "Girls Club" and
Joss Whedon's "Firefly" already have been canceled.

****"This network is in a state of transition. It's rebuilding," Grushow said. "To put new shows on for two weeks and then take them off for four weeks for baseball is not a particularly effective launch strategy." ****

Instead, Fox will get a six-to-eight-week head
start over its network rivals, who plan to stick withtradition and introduce their new prime-time
programs in late September

---

I don't know about this bullcrap calling Firefly "heavily promoted". I only really knew about it because a friend of mine brought it to my attention.

I read about the reports of Gail Berman's relationship with Joss being strained at this point over the whole Firefly incident. Well guh! Did she smile while she twisted the dagger in his heart? Did she say "Hey, no hard feelings, right?" when Fox promised to give Firefly the full run of Decemeber, heavy promotion, and a new time slot, only to reneg not two weeks into the month? Didn't she pest after him for years to bring a show to Fox? And after he does, she kills it post-haste?

Yeah, I'd be a little bitter about it too. But Joss still has to keep working with these people. I'm not so sure I'd be able to do it myself, but he's probably a more laid back guy than me. :)

LOSTANGEL

Tuesday, January 21, 2003 2:45 PM

Unfortunately, they were big enough *this big=__* to admit that it didn't work, but not big enough to admit that they didn't even try.

And, this doesn't help us get our Firefly back on the air. I will think about Fox every time I watch my DVDs of Firefly, and everytime I hand over money when Joss pulls out his Crazy Ivan.

I will think of Fox and LAUGH!!

______________________
Lost Angel

WASH: Psychic, though? That sounds like something out of science fiction.
ZOE: We live in a space ship, dear.
WASH: So?

BROWNCOAT1

Tuesday, January 21, 2003 5:57 PM

Fox Television Entertainment Chairman Sandy Grushow said:

Quote:
"This network is in a state of transition. It's rebuilding," Grushow said. "To put new shows on for two weeks and then take them off for four weeks for baseball is not a particularly effective launch strategy."

Well, all I can say is that at least she is big enough to admit that they screwed up. They preempt the show to try to snag some ratings w/ baseball ( I sport I do not at all care for ) and thanks to that "brilliant" (please note heavy sarcasm) tactic, the show gets cancelled.

Great job Fox. Keep up the horrible work. I am sure the other networks appreciate all your effort.

ALLRONIX

Tuesday, January 21, 2003 6:17 PM

And Fastlane...ye, Gods...

We lose Firefly and get "lesbian bank robbers" in return?

(wince)

Inara Sera has class, at least.

Co-founder of the Evil Writing Crew - causing hell, one hero at a time!

DUNDEE

Tuesday, January 21, 2003 7:43 PM

Quote:
"This network is in a state of transition. It's rebuilding," Grushow said. "To put new shows on for two weeks and then take them off for four weeks for baseball is not a particularly effective launch strategy."

Translation:

We here at fox are happy to announce that we personally bent over Joss Whedon, everybody at ME and thousands of fans. Why because we are dumber then our own socks

"that is not a particularly effective launch strategy"

thats one hell of an understatement... it seriously makes you wonder what exactly where they thinking at fox , or more importantly WHERE they thinking at all.

Dear diary, Today I was pompous and my sister was crazy,
Today we where kidnapped my hill folk never to be seen again, it was the best day ever.

RUXTON

Tuesday, January 21, 2003 7:55 PM

In my middle-aged cynicism I had strong suspicions (and voiced them to personal friends) there was a female executive behind the screwing (yes, rutting) of Mr. Whedon's latest masterwork. Now I have had my ignorant eyes opened, and learn there are no fewer than two involved: Gail Berman and Sandy Grushow. I have nothing against competent women, but suspect these two are less than competent.

All my male friends who are active outdoorsmen, avid shooters, and who have sufficient intelligence to be able to read a book from time to time, absolutely loved "Firefly." Some who haven't seen it are crazy-eager to see it, just for the old-time Western flavor, and the happy fact the characters use real guns, not laser-shooters. Could it be that the above-named Fox women don't like guns? Could it be that gorram simple?

But that doesn't fully explain the clumsy handling of the show. Could it also be that the captain of "Firefly" is a competent man's man? Capt. Reynolds would surely kick some of the characters of "Fastlane" through the engine almost as fast as I would. Could it also be that there was some problem with the man's men of the show? Or did they simply resent the awesome ability of Mr. Whedon? I have a strong feeling, based on my having worked with many women executives over several decades, that there was some strong resentment toward the Whedon camp by someone holding a lofty position within Fox. I don't think the massive waste of money was an issue. I suspect there was something very personal involved, with making Joss look bad for some petty reason. Nothing else makes sense.

The proper home for "Firefly" may not be Fox, but perhaps a determined assault on Fox in light of their recent admission they screwed up, might just give the show another chance on that network. I suspect the dismal showing of "Fastlane" in the Friday-night slot might also have opened the eyes of these execs. Let us furiously hope.

MATWANG

Tuesday, January 21, 2003 8:03 PM

And how many millions of bucks did they waste to make this great show and then hide it from a potentially huge, young fan base?

How hard would it be for them to run the episodes they have financed over and over again, late at night or whenever, and see what kind of response the public might really have if they ever get the chance to see this amazing story?

Fox management just simply has no clue.

If they own the rights to Firefly, then they should do something worthwhile and profitable with it. They've already paid for most of the expenses. It's a crime to let it sit on a shelf.

And please, don't anyone post anymore lines about "Well Firefly just didn't connect with audiences..."

Yes, the target audience never even knew about it.

Everyone I know adores the show. What's wrong with Fox? If they were offered the original Star Trek they'd say, "Oh it was nice, but it didn't connect with audiences."

And guess what Fox, the money won't connect with your bank account.

ST didn't become a hit until it went into syndication 5 years after the show was cancelled. At least they got 52 episodes.

Keep your apologies, Fox. Do something intelligent for a change.

Put Firefly back on the air.

Keep lookin' up... the bugs are flyin!

MaTwang

RUXTON

Tuesday, January 21, 2003 8:24 PM

What we're seeing from Fox is what's called a "limited hangout." They admit to part of the problem, which gives them enough credibility to deny accountability for the major problem -- which is actually all theirs.

Let's suppose Fox read my suggestion about a class-action lawsuit against them. To appease everyonw, they decided to accept part of the blame, as we've seen, and thus hope to get the heat off themselves. It doesn't really help anybody, but could reduce the anger among those who are unhappy with Fox.

Does M.E. and Company have a valid right to complain about their mishandling by Fox, much less sue?

Let's suppose you're a successful and well-known painter. A company is constructing a new building and hires you to paint a mural to decorate a hall within the new building. Your work consists of ten or twelve panels of the finest artwork you can produce. The panels tell a story, and MUST be displayed in order.

The company who paid you installs the panels in random order because they think the colors or shapes look better their way. Do you as an artist have any reason to get upset and complain? You'd better believe it. (I speak as one who has sold artwork to various highly visible companies and organizations.) You as the artist have a reputation, and can't sit by and let that reputation be sullied by those who buy your work. The panels you painted are an extension of you, their display reflects on you directly, and is a very important part of the transaction. When the company displayed the panels out of order, it was a huge slur to you, the artist. You not only have a right to complain, you MUST complain or other artists will lose their rights to have their work properly displayed. You must also demand the clear and open display of your name on the work and must see to it that the public gets a chance to see your work (i.e., proper advertising and promotion). That's part of the game and Fox knows this.

Fox had an obligation to display Whedon's work in the correct order, and to promote it as well as they could. After all, the livelihood and success of everyone working on "Firefly," including all the actors, crew, writers, and even the kid who goes for doughnuts depended on Fox's promotion and proper display of the artwork. Fox failed, Mutant Enemy knows this, and M.E. has (I believe) a legitimate right to request redress of grievances.

Hence, the limited hangout.

KETHRYVERIS

Tuesday, January 21, 2003 8:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:
In my middle-aged cynicism I had strong suspicions (and voiced them to personal friends) there was a female executive behind the screwing (yes, rutting) of Mr. Whedon's latest masterwork.

Well . . . I just have to say something. Ruxton, you're certainly entitled to your opinion but I sense a bit of female bashing in your post that I just have to respond to. I'm a woman and while I'm not an executive at an entertainment company I am a manager at an aerospace company. I also dislike westerns except for "Blazing Saddles", "The 'Frisco Kid" and "Wild, Wild West" (the TV show, not the movie) and I love Firefly. So much that I went to a lot of trouble to obtain a copy of "Our Mrs. Reynolds" when it was preempted where I live for baseball and recopied my tapes so that I could watch the episodes in the correct order. I certainly don't feel threatened by the "man's men" especially since 90% of the people I work with every day are men and I don't find them particularly imposing. I don't pretend to understand the lunacy that led Fox to treat this great show the way they did but I don't agree with your implication that it was a women vs. men thing.

Kethryveris

PERSEPHONE1113

Wednesday, January 22, 2003 12:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:

Let's suppose you're a successful and well-known painter. A company is constructing a new building and hires you to paint a mural to decorate a hall within the new building. Your work consists of ten or twelve panels of the finest artwork you can produce. The panels tell a story, and MUST be displayed in order.

The company who paid you installs the panels in random order because they think the colors or shapes look better their way.

Gustav Klimt? :)

I agree with you, none-the-less. All types of artists have been the underdogs for years, and it sucks.

"Heavily promoted?!?!?!" PLEASE...I see ads for crap like 'American Idol' and 'Joe Millionaire' all the time that it has became annoying....thats "Heavy promotion". I'm honesty disgusted.

-Persephone1113

*KEEP FLYING*

1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE