Star Trek & FF/Serenity- an analysis of the popularity differences

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Monday, September 1, 2008 00:28
VIEWED: 8959
PAGE 5 of 6

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE

SUASOR

Friday, August 29, 2008 5:30 PM

Star Trek was in syndication for over five years, in a market where there was not a lot of competition (cable didn't get big until the 1980s). All those local stations had lots of dead air to fill, because the networks didn't provide enough content to cover the 18 hours a day most stations were on the air. Trek pulled good ratings for a syndicated show, and it built a huge fan base while it was doing it.

FF sells lots of DVDs, gets some "syndication" action, but, overall, is not getting as much exposure as Star Trek did.

But that's why we have to keep the lights on, vote in polls, post messages and be (not-too-annoying) pests about it.

RALLEM

Friday, August 29, 2008 6:29 PM

I think we should be pesky but polite in all of our attempts to get Firefly back on the air. ANother problem with trying to get Firefly into syndication is that it does not cover a full season, let alone three like Star trek.

http://swyzzlestyx.com/index.html

TEXARCANA

Friday, August 29, 2008 8:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rallem:
I think we should be pesky but polite in all of our attempts to get Firefly back on the air. ANother problem with trying to get Firefly into syndication is that it does not cover a full season, let alone three like Star trek.

Agreed.
It needs to be run as a short-run "miniseries" format on channels like SPACE/SCi-Fi/SKY, right from the Pilot through Serenity.

MIIKE

Friday, August 29, 2008 8:56 PM

i pesonally don't really like startrek next gen ,too much talking for me to get involved with it and really disliked the portrayal of a one world government and system that everyone in their verse had to buy into,much prefered original startrek with kirk and spock as they seemed to play opposite parts of one psychee a kind of scifi yin and yang ,the reason startrek is so big i personally believe is that at the time of startrek there was a lot fewer channels on tv so people had less choice and thus high ratings ,firefly had to compete with bad scheduling in a world with distractions such as the internet where most scifi fans now seem to reside ,plus firefly had hardly any promotion except for word of mouth by the fans,and are bdm can hardly be considered a flop on the sales of the dvds ,it was also the main reason a lot of people bought into hd dvd ,anyhow peace miike

October 12th, 1985. Dog carcass in alley this morning, tire tread on burst stomach. This city is afraid of me. I have seen its true face. The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood and when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown.

RALLEM

Friday, August 29, 2008 9:16 PM

I understand the next gen had a pretty messed up portrayal of the government but I liked it never the less.

http://swyzzlestyx.com/index.html

JOLLY

Saturday, August 30, 2008 2:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
As much as I'm grateful to Universal for making Serenity, there's no doubt that they gave it the "D" list treatment. What made anyone think a movie could be successful without some big-time Hollywood stars in it? Even the lousy Star Wars had Natalie Portman & Ewan McGregor, two popular movie stars. Serenity could have used some star power to attract new viewers.

The "star" argument has always struck me as empty. Short of recasting the main characters, how do you effectively include a big name actor and still make Mal and River the main characters? I don't buy that having, say, Wesley Snipes, as the operative would have made any real difference, and probably would have required sufficient rewrites of the movie to give him adequate exposure. If the comparison is Star Trek, where are the big name actors that helped launch the movie franchise?

My guess is that Serenity suffered from not really being written for the largest movie demographic. It's too adult for the younger viewers (I'm thinking of my cousins, all under the age of 13, who don't see a noticeable quality difference between Star Wars and Phantom Menace) and probably not really geared up for the sensibility of the teens and younger adults that frequent the theatre. Could better marketing have increased the audience? Probably, but I doubt it would have turned it into the success that browncoats want to believe it could have been. Not much point in spending another 20 million on marketing for another 10-30 million at the box office.

JOLLY

Saturday, August 30, 2008 4:21 AM

As to the "D-treatment." Well, of course. You've got a little known television show, a director/writer with limited motion picture success, and a set of television actors. You really think the studio is going to sink a lot of resources into that? Up the budget, and my guess is something bad happens...either Joss loses creative control (a la Wonder Woman) or re-casting happens and Hugh Jackman is playing Mal, along with Ron Perlman as Jayne and Katie Holmes as River. I'm glad we got the movie we did.

BORIS

Saturday, August 30, 2008 7:30 AM

Firefly bothers some people because it is inherently a pretty accurate description of the world as it is now, and what will become of it if people don't pick up their game...Star Trek, is a lot more fanciful...another difference between Star Trek and Firefly are the "hardcore" fans Hard core Trekkies Are way way scarier than hardcore Browncoats...prove me wrong and I will take it back. All of the die hard trek fans I know will not entertain the notion of indulging in other shows or interests. your average Browncoat, though intensely loyal, has multiple interests and they tend to be friendlier and more welcoming...Browncoats usually see the Characters in Firefly as their buddies in arms etc. militant Trekkies have an almost god-like reverence for their charactres. I'm not saying it's all of them, but I have met a frightening few...Browncoats are usually more grounded in reality.

RIVERLOVE

Saturday, August 30, 2008 2:37 PM

I just think Serenity's mass appeal problem has to do with people not understanding the subject and scope of the movie.

IMNOTHERE

Saturday, August 30, 2008 4:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Riverlove:
I just think Serenity's mass appeal problem has to do with people not understanding the subject and scope of the movie.

One problem is that what publicity there was made it sound far too much like "Buffy in space".

In the UK it did well in the first week then got knocked off the top spot by Wallace and Gromit. A worthy adversary and a clean, honourable death :-)

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE