A 'Bring Back Firefly' Petition URL is anyone is interested

POSTED BY: RGCheek
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 2, 2005 14:37
VIEWED: 10917
PAGE 3 of 4

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE

QBEAM

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 1:06 PM

I think you've put your finger on something important, here. I think part of what makes Firefly so great requires the TV series format. In the same way that "The Waltons" let you know, and made you feel, like the episode was just one piece of the ongoing life of the family with the "goodnight Johnboy" ritual at the end, something about the "family around the table" on Serenity is going to be lost on people who see the movie without watching the series first. I predict a lot of people whose first Firefly experience is the movie are going to come out saying, "That was pretty cool, but I don't understand what all the fuss is about." For us, it will be like coming home from school, but for them, it will just be another movie.

Great movies revolve around great plots; great TV shows revolve around great characters. Most movies can only spare a few minutes--literally, three or so--for character development. But in TV shows, it's the character development that keeps people coming back. There's just no way for a movie to do both, given today's expectations. Either it will be an action-packed block-buster, or it will be "kinda boring" to people who don't already know the characters. Heck, go back and watch the 2-hr pilot again, and see how much it tells you about the characters--and that wasn't written to stand alone.

So sign me up with the "bring Firefly back to TV" group. For the people who want to dismiss it as impossible, I pitty them--I think it's just a defense mechanism. (Can't get hurt if you never hope for anything.) It's useful to consider what the obstacles are, for the purpose of figuring out a feasible way around them--so far, I haven't heard any that couldn't be gotten around.

QBEAM

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 1:15 PM

"Fox (the network) Can't bring it back either. Once they canceled it, they lost any rights or interests in the show."

Huh? How did that happen? Firstly, that's not how it usually works. But if the contract were drawn up that way, then presumably the rights would revert to Joss. (Theoretically the contract could give them to a 3d party beneficiary, but I can't imagine why they'd do that.)

In short, the TV rights have to belong to someone. There's no legal reason why, whoever that is, they couldn't make a new series. I suspect you're mistaken, and it's Fox, but it could be Joss, who could go to anyone--most likely the Sci-Fi channel. I believe it was you who advanced the theory that they wouldn't do so, because that would increase Universal's profits on the movie. (Apologies if I've got you mixed up with someone else.) The fact that they sold them the rights to the movie in the first place shows that's wrong. So where's the problem?

I'm afraid you sound a bit too emotionally invested in the "not possible" theory. Maybe it was a defense mechanism, but in this post, it sounds more like a "they should get what they deserve for cancelling the show" vibe.

QBEAM

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 1:24 PM

"Even if the movie is the big hit we expect, that won't be an easy sell. Network execs know that movies don't always make for sucessful series."

Oh, come on! Now I know you're rationalizing! Obviously, movies don't always translate into good TV shows, but this isn't just a movie--it's already a successful TV show! In fact, the question is whether this successful TV show can translate into a successful movie.

"Universal has to approve the series, and they will also want their cut."

Says who? Why? Why on Earth would Fox, Joss, or anyone have granted them such rights? And why would Universal want any such rights? It makes no sense to split the rights to future TV shows between two parties that way. If the movie rights alone weren't enough, then do the deal for both TV and movie rights.

I think we need some sourcing for your factual assertions, at this point.

QBEAM

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 1:50 PM

"'The deal they have with Universal precludes another TV show - so a revival ain't gonna happen. The plan is, if the film does well enough, to have a trilogy of films.'"
- Source: www.darkhorizons.com/news04/040503c.php

So far no-one in this thread has this pointed out. Correct me if I'm wrong but to my understanding, Universal has banned Fox (or any subsequent TV rights holder) from ever exercising their right to make more TV serials while a movie deal with Universal is in place. Sorry to say, but the success of the above petition is close to impossible with this and all other existing legal and resourcing obstacles.

I've tried, and so far I can't find a second source for this quote, which was submitted by Garth Franklin to Dark Horizens. I've found this one source quoted dozens of times on the subject, but I can't find any authority to support it, and I can't find any other reporter corroborating it. I'm not saying it's not out there, but, at least so far, I haven't found it.

As I've said in other posts, this makes no sense to me, unless what Garth meant was that the deal precludes Universal (or possibly Fox) from making another TV show. I just can't think of a good business reason why such a deal would preclude anyone from making more TV shows. But I suppose it is possible--I'm no network exec. Still, if it were true, you would think that someone other than Garth would say so. Can anyone just ask Joss, strait up?

DAZ

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 2:27 PM

Hey Qbeam. I was about to write again that Fox had the TV rights, Universal the movie rights and that Universal is locking down Fox from reviving the TV series. And that Fox wasn't going to sell their TV rights to anyone until it expires in 10 years. Then I found this:
http://whedonesque.com/comments/6152

So the legal/contractual situation appears to be decidedly grey, not black and white as I previously thought.

Also as a bonus, you have the answer directly from Joss to the question you wanted to ask. But then again, his answer is decidedly non-committal. Still, good enough to instill hope in the TV petitioners.

But (and this is now just a personal opinion) I don't think the TV show will come back for all of the practical reasons already put forth by alot of people, authorative or otherwise.

I guess we'll see but I'm not going to hold my breath.

DAZ

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 2:40 PM

More "might, might not" speculation. This time from a more (though not the ultimate) authorative source and Hot Off The Press:

http://www.cinescape.com/0/editorial.asp?aff_id=0&this_cat=Television&
action=page&type_id=&cat_id=270355&obj_id=49138

DAZ

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 2:35 AM

More befuddlement (and more than just a hint of resignation):
http://whedonesque.com/?comments=7187

Take it as you like.

CALHOUN

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 5:48 AM

TV rights... Movie rights... legalities... pfft!

Why dont Joss and co just move to Switzerland or some other neutral country and make more Firefly TV there? It would be a bugger to watch with subtitles but hey..

Seriously though, I understand Firefly isnt very likely to have a TV revival but I have no problem in holding onto hope. Sometimes unlikely things happen.

P.S I see more and more Uber-Dweebs frequenting this site lately, whats with that?

QBEAM

Thursday, July 14, 2005 2:58 PM

I see a number of practical problems, I agree. But nothing looks insuperable to me, and this one seems fighting for.

I was a fan of Buffy and Angel, but honestly, Firefly blew both of those away. And Firefly has far more commercial potential, because it's got a wider demographic. Battlestar Galactica is mostly going to play to men. The genuis of Buffy was that it played to both men and women, but mostly in the 15-30 age group. What prompted me to go out and buy Firefly were three separate glowing reviews, from a hard-core sci-fi fan, a 20-something single girl, and a 50+ married woman.

When I was leaving the theater after Dune, I overheard a guy telling his date, "If you liked Robin Hood, you'd like Star Wars, but you had to be a real sci-fi fan to get that [Dune]." Firefly has StarWars demographics--and much better writing.

Put that kind of money-making potential together with Joss's apparent devotion to the project, and I don't see any reason why another Firefly series is unrealistic. The most serious practical problem is keeping enough of the orginal cadre of actors involved.

I only saw Firefly on DVD, and so I was startled how many actors were recycled in other M.E. shows. After becoming a Firefly fan, I think I understand why--Joss was keeping the actors in a holding pattern, while he shopped Firefly around. I don't see those actors in a holding pattern any more, so the odds of putting all the pieces back together seem longer. But then, maybe I'm wrong; are they under a contract to make the subsequent Serenity movies? On the other hand, it wouldn't take all nine of them to keep the show going, right? Heck, Joss has quite a history of killing off major characters, anyway. I was a little startled we made it through 15 episodes without losing one. (And it looked like we might be losing Inara, at that...but I wasn't buying it... "You keep telling yourself that, Inara...")

SCREWTHEALLIANCE

Saturday, July 23, 2005 10:02 PM

I refuse to accept this. Legal issues are tangled, it is true, but just lok at the Disney/Pixar problems that are being untangled to produce sequals to Incredibles, Toy Story, et. al. If there is cash to be made -- and as much as a DVD of Serenity will pull in, TV Box sets ala Buffy and Angel have proven far more lucrative than the a single theater released movie -- they will find a way to hack through the legal problems and make it happen. It will probably involve Fox taking a cut, or selling outright to Universal, the TV rights, but it will happen.

Especially if we plauge everyone involved. Fox, Universal, Joss, the actors, if we raise enough of a fuss, they will find the will to do it.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE