Fox To Public: We Screwed Up Firefly

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

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5

TALLGRRL

Thursday, January 30, 2003 4:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I sure don't know much at all about the way TV networks do business, but isn't the fact that FOX has felt the need to say anything at all about the way they mishandled Firefly significant? I mean, do networks normally go around apologizing for blunders?

Apparently the fan response caught someone's attention, some questions were asked and Fox felt the need to try to explain themselves.
Believe me, netword don't usually say "We f**ked up."
But they're saying it this time.
Hee-hee!

Tll Grrl
"Take me, Sir. Take me hard."

TALLGRRL

Thursday, January 30, 2003 4:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by talon47:
Um, I just tried to log onto Fox's FireFly site and couldn't. Are we like, toast?

Unauthorized Keeper of Pet Jayne

http://www.fox.com/firefly/index.htm
Still there!

Tll Grrl
"Take me, Sir. Take me hard."

SPETHARUKAI

Thursday, January 30, 2003 7:54 AM

From my perspective, the reason Firefly didn't get the ratings was because hardly anyone even knew about the show. As a long-time sci-fi fan, having travelled in sci-fi circles, I know literally dozens of people who would love this show. How many of them (as far as I knew) actually watched it? Only about four or five. Clearly, this disproves Fox's claim of "heavily" promoting the show.

But even some of the people I knew who knew about Firefly and were interested had just never "gotten around" to watching it. Why? It was on on a bad night. When will the networks -- all of them -- learn that science fiction shows simply don't do well on Friday (or Saturday) nights? With the exception of The X-Files and (for a while) Farscape, I can't think of any sci-fi or fantasy show that lasted on Fridays -- and there have been innumerable attempts (such as Max Headroom, the newer Dark Shadows, American Gothic, and now Firefly). All were first-rate, top-notch programs. None lasted longer than a season, if that. (The only other exception is Dark Angel, but that failed after they ruined the show.)

Fox also seems to have forgotten that The X-Files wasn't an immediate success. It did very poorly in the ratings its first season, as I recall. In fact, no one I know who watched it started watching it the first season, myself included. Shows as unique as The X-Files and Firelfy need to be nurtured. If Fox had promoted Firefly as much as they do Joe Millionaire and all their other trash shows, I'm certain Firefly would've become their next X-Files. The really sad thing is that Joe Millionaire is on twice a week! Fox has so much room in their schedule that they repeat shows! And yet, quality, ground-breaking programs like Firefly don't get a fighting chance.

I can't remember the last time I was this upset about a show being cancelled. Perhaps it's because there hasn't been a show this good (that's been cancelled) in a very long time. If networks could learn to be patient, I think they'd make out much better financially in the long run. They just need to learn how to recognize quality when they chance upon it, and how to schedule and promote their shows properly. Sadly, early ratings are too often given undue weight.

TALON47

Thursday, January 30, 2003 1:03 PM

Thanks Tallgrrl! I'll visit there now and then. Think this is my new home, tho. I prefer the way this site functions.

Unauthorized Keeper of Pet Jayne

ATOMICBLONDE

Thursday, January 30, 2003 4:07 PM

Well!! At least they can admit it!!!!
I cant tell you how furious I was with Fox for jammin the show like that. If John Doe wasnt such a babe I'd have been done with them.. LOL
There is hope..
Thank God
I was just getting over missign the show too..\

XED

Sunday, February 2, 2003 3:52 PM

The problem isnT just that Fox network screwed up Firefly (which they did, and royally, and in multiple ways -- don't air the pilot, air episodes out of order, yank the show to substitute baseball, then put it on hiatus)...
The real problem is that Fox network appears to have developed a bad habit of brutally mistreating and then axing excellent show.
This isn't just my opinion. It's been commented on by professionals, by critics, by industry observers.
Consider
http://www.michigandaily.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/01/10/3e1e5123a8
97a

"What is wrong with FOX? It has the best show on network TV right now (`24'), arguably the greatest show of the last 15 years (`The Simpsons') and not much else - although a case could be made for `King of the Hill,' `Andy Richter Controls the Universe' or `Boston Public.'
"So why cancel Joss Whedon's `Firefly,' its best hope for the future? What's wrong with you, FOX?" (10 January 2003)

These aren't just FIrefly fans talking.

Or consider this attack on FOX network by a pretty prominent TV critic:

from

http://www.teevee.org/archive/2002/06/03/

"So we move to the portion of the program where we look at the new programming Fox has lined up for the fall season. Or, as it's known in the Michaels household, who in the hell cares? It's not like I can seriously expect Fox to come up with six more shows I want to watch. And even if it did, it already waxed three of the programs I liked to watch last fall, with a fourth one in its crosshairs. Why should I waste my time taking an interest in any of the new shows if, assuming they're any good to begin with, when Fox will just toss them out with the melon rinds and coffee grinds come this time next year." (June 2002)

And notice the eerie accuracy with which this critic predicted Fox would trash Firefly (the guy predicted it last June!):

"There's always a possibility that America could embrace Firefly... (..) The show, which airs at 8 p.m., is created by Joss Whedon, who has a nice little program called Buffy the Vampire Slayer to his credit. Hopefully, Fox executives will let him down easy when they cut his legs out from under him." (June 2002)

Remember, that was written back in *June* of last year. And this guy is not a Firefly fan. Too many impartial observers have noticed Fox's pathological behavior to simply chalk it up to "disgruntled Firefly fans."

Bottom line?
Fox is trying to make a quick, buck by dumping shows on the air, then yanking them after only a ahndful of episodes if they don't show huge audience numbers. But this is stupid and destructive. Why? Because in the end it alienates the audience.
Why should anyone bother to watch anything on Fox? After all, if it's any good, we know it won't last -- they'll just abuse the show, pre-empt with the roller derby or "World's Funniest Self-Mutilations" and then yank it after 6 episodes.
Someone asked why Fastlane, which gets worse numbers than Firefly, is still on Fox.
Answer:
Because Fastlane costs a lot less to produce. For a science fiction show you need compositing, CGI, elaborate sets (like the Firefly interior) -- all big bucks.
For Fastlane, whaddaya need?
A couple of cars, some bimbos, a pair of Gen Xers, some cheap borax furniture and 3 plywood flats for the sets. Oh, and pyrotechnics. Lots 'n lots of pyrotechnics. But they're cheap. Just gasoline 'n black powder.
Sadly, science fiction or fantasy will _always_ cost more to produce than shows like "Celebrity Boxing" or "Fastlane." So things don't look so great for sci-fi on TV. Especially when wacked-out networks like Fox are doing their very best to alienate their audiences by yanking every one of their shows that's worth a damn.

SAILOR

Sunday, February 2, 2003 5:02 PM

Hear, Hear

TYLOR

Monday, February 3, 2003 2:48 AM

Quote:

What could Fox possibly do to "tweak" this show?
They can lose any of the characters:
Mal - He's the Captain. Plus he's handsome and strong and flawed and has steaming sexual tension with the courtesan...and maybe the 2nd in command.
Zoe - She's the 2nd in command. Gotta have a first mate. She's got brains, she's strong, and the woman playing her is gorgeous.
Wash - He's the pilot. Can't lose the pilot.
Kaylee - Can't lose the engineer. It's already been established that she knows more about the ship than anyone.
Inara - Please. And lose 1)a call-girl who's; 2)gorgeous and who; 3)takes men AND women as clients and who; 4)has steaming sexual tension with the Captain? I'm thinkin' no. Can't lose Inara.
Jayne - The muscle and possible turncoat at any moment. And he's funny. And he's a hunk.
Shepherd Book - Man of mystery. Possible former Alliance, moral core, good in a fight in a pinch. Great foil for Jayne & Captain.
Simon & River - Can't lose 'em. Can't lose the ship's medic. And the 'fugee' backstory is great.
Plus Simon is a great foil for Jayne...and sometimes the Captain.
NONE of these characters is expendable.
It's like 'Life Boat' or 'Stage Coach': Each is an important element to the on-going story.
They can't possibly make it more 'action' oriented. There's plenty of action: there was never so much gunplay in 'Star Trek.'
The show has a perfect blend of 'comedy' with the drama.
I could go on, but well...that's how I see it.

With apologies to What's New Starring Phil and Dixie, the tweaking Firefly joke:

Three characters discussing which character should sacrifice himself to the gods of TV show tweaking

Mal: I'm not leaving the show, I'm the captain.

Wash: Me neither, I'm the pilot.

Jayne: Well, I'm not leaving either... I've got a loaded machine gun pointing at the two of you.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5