Exploring why FF/ Serenity wasn't more popular...
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Monday, April 10, 2006 01:38
VIEWED: 5177
PAGE 1 of 3
Joss had Buffy going-a big hit. Angel was launching, it ran 5 seasons.
Then Joss got it into his head to create something quirky, yet somewhat more serious. He decided to take a chance, and develope a show that explored a larger world(s), and by extention, bigger issues.
He created real people, not just heroes and villians. In short- it was a fluke it was made. Good timing.
Buffy and Angel had their day, and Wonder Woman will surely soar to great (and profitable) heights, but, with FF/Serenity, Joss took his shot at what might be the most personal statement that we will see in his work, for the time, anyway.
Personel freedom is important and sometimes in danger; Governments and corporations see you as a means to an end and no more.(My take, for what it's worth)
He didn't make FF or Serenity to make money, so they didn't. He made them to be great, which is not always easily recognized by the general public.
Some more Hollywood clout later, he may do it again, but for now, FF/Serenity will be doing a 'Blade Runner', that is, slowly building in cult status untill it is inevitably realized as the high water mark that it is.
Thoughts?
Chrisisall, a dandy, but good with his feet
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I agree w/ you Chris. I believe you are right on w/ your assessment of Joss's message, as that is what I got out of it:
Personel freedom is important and sometimes in danger; Governments and corporations see you as a means to an end and no more.
Of course I would take it one step further and say that Joss wanted to show us just how important that freedom is and how if taken for granted we might very well lose it.
I do think that Joss focusing on creating a quality show instead of the typical Hollywood eye candy is part of why it was not more popular. To me Firefly was visionary, ahead of it's time, and the american viewing public was not ready for it. Viewers today seem to be more interested in T&A, sex, violence, reality tv, and huge explosions then they are witty writing, great chemistry in the cast, relatively unknown actors/actresses, and sci fi.
I think the blending of the sci fi & western genres hurt us a bit too. I personally love westerns, but I am the minority these days. Westerns have been on the decline in popularity since the 70s and let's face it, if it is not Star Wars or Star Trek the general population is not really interested in sci fi. Add the two together & it will chase off all but the most open minded.
__________________________________________
"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."
Richmond, VA & surrounding area Firefly Fans:
http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/richmondbrowncoats/
http://www.richmondbrowncoats.org
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:My best friend is one of the not-so open minded, it seems.
Originally posted by BrownCoat1:
I think the blending of the sci fi & western genres hurt us a bit too. Add the two together & it will chase off all but the most open minded.
I must admit, seeing 'Train Job' before the pilot was what had me miss FF on it's initial run. The characters are SO important, that not 'getting' them made the show hard to watch (plus having a baby at the time made my TV viewing incredibly selective).
*positive note*
There seems to be a slow but sure Browncoat virus goin' around the local college, tho.
Non-inocked Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If I may add own experiences:
How to make this a short story? Okay: Trip down memory lane, year 2002. This Joss Whedon guy has all this fame and fortune from Buffy and the Angel spin-off, which I'd never really watched but knew it was pretty successful.
And he's got this Firefly show coming out on Fox. Kind of an ugly ship, a captain with a rather memorable nose, and Hel from Cleopatra 2525 :) Actually, I remember being pretty excited. Didn't have Sci-Fi channel anymore, so I was suffering from Farscape withdrawal, and it was about time we got another good science fiction show on a network channel. Looked like an interesting take on the genre.
Now, I work nights. I had to tape it, but I never remember to set my VCR. So, missed Train Job, but did catch Bushwhacked, which is not the best opener to the series. Knew I was missing something, but liked what I saw. Funny, dark, and that mechanic chick was cute. Tried to tape some more eps, but kept missing them or getting the date wrong. Plus IIRC they kept moving the showtimes around, which is really easy to keep track of when you don't have internet, cable, or TV guide :) Wasn't too worried though. I figured this Whedon guy already had two hit shows under hit belt, so this must be a done deal. Surely there'd be a second season. I'll just catch the reruns in the off-season before season 2 starts up.
So, I was wrong. Obviously. 
I just sort of figured it was a sure thing. Sure, in hindsight I know what I was missing. I wouldn't be suprised, though, if I'm not alone in my experience. I kept waiting for them to rerun the first episodes so I'd know what was going on (and I also thought I was alot further behind than one episode) :)
For me, I sorta wished they'd kept the airing dates a tad more regular. And I also agree, things may have gone differently is they'd opened the series with a "special television event" of the pilot episode and hyped the living frell out of it.
(hmm... that wasn't such a short story... )
________________________________________________
You can take my hope when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
My best friend is one of the not-so open minded, it seems.
I must admit, seeing 'Train Job' before the pilot was what had me miss FF on it's initial run. The characters are SO important, that not 'getting' them made the show hard to watch (plus having a baby at the time made my TV viewing incredibly selective).
*positive note*
There seems to be a slow but sure Browncoat virus goin' around the local college, tho.
Non-inocked Chrisisall
In a way I'm sad that I didn't catch FF on it's first run. I would have loved it from that time through now, and would have been gorram angry to find it cancelled. Then again, I'm glad that I missed it. Since Fox had such a bunch of dim-wits for program execs, showing a series out of order and all, I got to see FF in Joss's intended order. Shiny!
___________________________________
Mal:Define interesting.
Wash: Oh God, oh God, we're going to die?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I didn't even know the show existed until I saw the movie. Poor advertising on Fox's part
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I disagree that FF/S was “somewhat more serious” and “dealt with bigger issues” than “Buffy” and “Angel,” nor that the characters on those two shows were any less “real people.” I see no huge change in the depth of theme or characterization between the FF/S and the Buffyverse. And Joss doesn’t make any of his shows to make money, he makes them to be great—he assumes that if they’re great, the money will follow. (“Buffy” was never meant to be a cash cow; he didn’t even think they’d survive past their first season, he thought his concept might not pull people in). I remember an interview somewhere in which he says that he’d learned from “Buffy” and “Angel” just to make a great show and that was all he needed to do—with “Firefly,” he found out that just being a great show wasn’t enough.
What we need to do is step back a moment and look at Joss’ previous two shows. They were successful, yes, but where were they successful? On the netlets (WB & UPN), where a cult audience can (generally) keep a show afloat. Where was “Firefly?” On FOX, a network with bigger ambitions and thus bigger expectations. If you look at “Firefly’s” ratings, they were better than “Buffy” and “Angel”—“Firefly” would’ve been a break-out hit on a netlet with those ratings (of course, a netlet couldn’t have afforded to make the show, but that’s another matter). But they weren’t good enough for FOX, the network that had bungled any chance to pull in a wider audience with its poor advertising, poor scheduling, and general mismanagement. Whether “Firefly” could bring in more people even if it hadn’t been screwed up by FOX is an interesting question. (I suspect it may have ended up like “Angel,” a show that brought in a steady but moderate amount of viewers, but was perennially in danger of cancellation—until the damn WB finally axed it).
I mean, Joss’ two big “successes” were both essentially cult shows—“Buffy” managed to have a wider impact on popular culture, but its actual audience base was much more limited. Basically, none of Whedon’s shows has ever reached beyond a cult audience. This is despite their high quality, which leads me to wonder about the audience. Because I see no real difference in the “seriousness,” the “quirkiness,” and the “characterization” of all three shows, I begin to suspect that Whedon’s style in general may be off-putting to many people. I’ve read elsewhere that most TV writers operate under the concept that their audience is only half-watching anyway—Joss is one of the few who demands your full attention. I suspect folks who are used to only vaguely watching programs might find this irksome and decide the show is asking too much of them, that it’s not worth the effort. That’s one theory, anyway.
And of course, we must never forget the outside factors that helped reduce viewership: FOX’s gross mishandling, and several serious mistakes by Universal. And given the poor advertising for FF/S and the netlet status of the Buffyverse, it could be said that none of Joss’ work ever had an opportunity to appeal to a mass audience.
As for “Firefly,” it will of course keep pulling people in. I just made a few new converts last weekend; we’ll be having another Shindig this Saturday. Joss no doubt wants to return to it, but he also has plenty of stories to tell outside the ‘verse. Remember that besides Wonder Woman, there’s also Joss’ original movie Goners that he’s going to be making. We’ll see how things go a bit later—hopefully Joss’ style will impress the mass audience much better in the theater, paving the way for more successful work on the small screen—and perhaps a return to the ‘verse.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think you guys are on to something with the audince.
The show was character driven, and like another poster said quite well, they are PEOPLE, not characters. That's a departure from most television offerings. There were great plot-focused episodes like Ariel and Trash that I believe would have entertained the casual viewer, but with the mishandling of the show, there was never an opportunity to catch those television lurkers. While I grossly diagree with everything FOX 
has done and ever will do in relation to this show, I think they might have had an idea when they asked for something more aciton related at the beginning of the season. I think the Pilot was essential, as many have pointed out. It lays the groundwork for the whole thing. But if they had followed that with more caper-centric episodes like Train Job or Ariel (this is hypothetical of course, there's not way to do that now, but at the beginning there was more flexibility) I think they would have been able to capture the attention of the average viewer.
Then, once the action and fun brign them in, you have the opportunity to focus more on character relationships with Out of Gas and Jaynestown.
Do I think Joss and Tim made any mistakes in the process? Absolutely not, they made one of the most sublime stories in recent TV history, not to mention enduring PEOPLE that we can identify with. But in terms of keeping the show on the air, I think these suggestions have merit.
That, and half of the world's TV viewing audience has had their minds labotomized by The Real World
, and a whole host of other crapola that prevents them from seeing genius in its true form. I can only be civil and have perspective for so long.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Customizeable handmade baby gifts personalized by my wife! Check them out at www.baby-bobo.com. All proceeds go towards international adoption.
Leaning into the wind that used to carry me-Stavesacre
That's why I don't kiss'em on the mouth- Jayne Cobb
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I meant that FF was about adults in more realistic(!) life and death situations, no monsters or invisibility. And the issues were freedom and 'family' and government corruption.
Originally posted by StakeTheLurk:
I disagree that FF/S was “somewhat more serious” and “dealt with bigger issues”
You must admit that (on the surface at least) Buffy was basically a teen show. More fantastical might been a better way for me to phrase it.
Quote:
I’ve read elsewhere that most TV writers operate under the concept that their audience is only half-watching anyway—Joss is one of the few who demands your full attention. I suspect folks who are used to only vaguely watching programs might find this irksome and decide the show is asking too much of them, that it’s not worth the effort.
You nailed it, I think.
Somnambulist Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Huh?
Originally posted by milford:
That, and half of the world's TV viewing audience has had their minds labotomized by The Real World
I'm sorry, what did you say? I was watching a show about transvestite Scottish folk who like bowl on freeways during rush hour...
Head in the game Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME