Firefly - Did the name hamper its success?

POSTED BY: MattDillon
UPDATED: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 15:26
VIEWED: 7450
PAGE 1 of 3

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE

MATTDILLON

Friday, July 16, 2004 5:50 PM

Hi, I was just introduced to Firefly by a friend of mine who is a big fan of the Buffy and Angel series. He knew that I would love Firefly based on the fact that I love great writing, character driven scripts, sci-fi and westerns. We watched Serenity and I was hooked. I have since ordered the DVDs and been devouring the episodes.

I think this show is the best science fiction series since the original Star Trek, and has western elements that parallel the great Hollywood westerns like The Magnificent Seven, Gunsmoke, and High Noon. I love it. So why didn't the series succeed initially?

I believe that the answer comes down to marketing choices as simple as the name and the logo used for the title. I know that many people like the name and joke that more descriptive titles seem barbaric when compared the sophistication of the show, but the title fails to communicate the content of the show. When I heard that the creator of "Buffy The Vampire Slayer" had a new show called "Firefly" I incorrectly assumed that it was another "teenagers fight the undead" series. It conjures images of a flying, fire-shooting, demoness (turned-good) fighting crime and vanquishing evil. I immediately forgot about it.

The logo does nothing to dispute this kind of conception. The delicate and fancy script burned onto the screen does not convey the dramatic grittiness of the series. The only way to know about the show is to be told about it and watch it. Based on the fact that Buffy never really interested me I never thought that Firefly would. Boy - I was wrong.

In order to have grabbed my attention the show would have needed a name like "TRANSPORT SERENITY". Had I heard that title it would have grabbed my attention. It conjures an image of a rough and functional vessel, with a purpose, and an emotional depth (conveyed through the ship's name.) If you want to use the delicate script for the word SERENITY then cap it with a rough, square, bolted TRANSPORT above it (in smaller grey letters - overlapping the top of the much larger word SERENITY.)

I don't think it is a coincidence that someone who already loved Joss's work (Buffy and Angel) had to introduce me to Firefly. He knew about it because he was already hooked on Joss's shows because of Buffy. I did not have that advantage, and would only give the show a chance once my buddy explained its virtues. A more descriptive title could have hooked me earlier.

All of this is just my humble opinion. I offer it because I would love to see more shows like Firefly succeed.

BARCLAY

Friday, July 16, 2004 6:02 PM

I think to a point, you're right. The average viewer will not see "Firefly" and think "space western." However, I don't think they'd hear "24" and think "anti-terrorist drama" either. So, it's up to the network putting these shws on the air, if they really want to attract viewers and get people to watch the shows, to market them in a way that shows what the series is about. FuX, of course, didn't do this. In fact, what ads they did show were gross misinterpretations of the true feel of Firefly. Not to mention they didn't air the pilot.

Welcome to the boards, and welcome also, to the Fox-bashing.

CARDIE

Friday, July 16, 2004 6:12 PM

Could I add that "Serenity" as the title of the BDM also worries me, in that it does nothing to tell people who haven't seen the Firefly episodes what sort of movie to expect at all.

I hope that Universal does some really saturation advertising to clear things up, as they did with "The 4400."

Cardie

BARCLAY

Friday, July 16, 2004 6:26 PM

I think the BDM will be different. Even at $2Mil/episode, Fox spent just $26Mil on Firefly, which they could defer from advertizers. However, Universal is spending at least $50mil. on Serenity, therefore, it's in their best interests to market it in such a way that people will be intrigued and have to go see it (enough of them to buy more than $50mil in tickets).

I think also, we'll see a lot made of in the ad campaign, "the motion picture debut of Joss Whedon, creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer." And that's fine by me, considering the fan base of that show.

Firefly CCG Website
http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/FFCCG
Firefly CCG Forum
http://s8.invisionfree.com/FFCCG/

KNIBBLET

Friday, July 16, 2004 8:05 PM

It makes me think of "Baa Baa Black Sheep" which millions of people mistook for a children's show rather than the semi-autobiographical stories of Pappy Boyington.

It was only when the show's name was changed to "Black Sheep Squadron" that people figured out that this wasn't a romper room kiddie show.

"Just keep walkin, preacher man."

EVENTHORIZON

Friday, July 16, 2004 8:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cardie:
Could I add that "Serenity" as the title of the BDM also worries me, in that it does nothing to tell people who haven't seen the Firefly episodes what sort of movie to expect at all.

I hope that Universal does some really saturation advertising to clear things up, as they did with "The 4400."

Cardie

Exactly, with the right ad campaign it would rock. Even if they don't explain why Mal named the ship Serenity in the trailer- from someone who's never seen the show, the irony of "petty" crooks who get into fights all the time, who named their ship Serenity I think would be a draw. It would also hint there's more to them than meets the eye.

That is if most people understand what Serenity is.

"Reason told me it was a little too early to plot anything. Besides, I have never had a deep interest in revenge. Revenge is the concern of those who are at some point beaten. I am not beaten, I told myself. No, not beaten. And victory is far more interesting to contemplate than revenge."

KOZURE

Friday, July 16, 2004 8:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Barclay:
I think also, we'll see a lot made of in the ad campaign, "the motion picture debut of Joss Whedon, creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer." And that's fine by me, considering the fan base of that show.

Not EXACTLY his motion picture debut, since he wrote or co-wrote screenplays for the Buffy the Vampire movie, Alien: Resurrection (bleagh) and Titan A.E.

His motion picture directorial debut.

I think the title had a very small part in its failure as a series. If I had to break it down:

3% Not enough explosions for the typical sci-fi viewer.
7% Unfamiliar genre of sci-fi crossed with western
12% Odd series title
17% Confusing order of airing episodes
22% Bad marketing/advertising
39% Utterly nonsensical scheduling

When it first aired on Fox, I tried, I REALLY tried to watch the show. I liked Buffy well enough, but I loved the concept of a gritty, medium-distant (as opposed to near or far-distant) future where people behaved like people and didn't have everything quite worked out yet.

I saw the pilot, The Train Job. It was a little confusing, but I thought to myself (after seeing Crow kicked into the engine) this series has a lot of potential.

Then, for the next few months, I played "find the show" with it hopping all over the weekly timeslots, and frequently being cancelled/pre-empted by Major League Baseball.

Finally, the show lingered in limbo around mid-December, and then the kicker, a Christmas cancellation present.

I think scheduling was the #1 cause of the shows demise, but by no means the only reason.

Kozure the Kamikaze Highlander

Proud Citizen of Canada-That-Was

HOBBES

Friday, July 16, 2004 8:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Barclay:
Even at $2Mil/episode, Fox spent just $26Mil on Firefly, which they could defer from advertizers.

Two million an episode and twelve million for the two hour pilot.

Oh and as for advertising there is a really old post where I found a futon critic breakdown of how much it cost for advertisers to buy a 30 second spot on various shows. Firefly was in an ok position, 10-odd spots below John Doe. However that price is based (as the guy who runs futon critic informed me) on the show achieving a certain rating as measured by Nielson, which it failed to do. Therefore Fox was forced to pay penalties of some kind to the advertisers.

-------------------------------------------------
May the road rise to meet you.
May the wind be always at your back.
May you be in heaven an hour before
The Devil knows you’re dead.

BROWNCOAT1

Saturday, July 17, 2004 3:41 AM

Welcome to the board MattDillon. Glad to have you w/ us. It is always great to have a new fan sign up and give us their perspective on the show.

As far as the name "Firefly" goes, I don't think the name really played too much of a role in the show being cancelled. Sci Fi in general does not normally draw a huge following like say a reality show or a C.S.I. show. The little marketing that Fox did showed Firefly was going to be a sci fi show, though it left a lot of blanks on what to expect. Only those familiar w/ Joss's work knew that they were really in for a treat.

The BDM title does not worry me. The fanbase has grown by leaps and bounds since the DVD release. I think that the BDM will be a success and that Firefly will be something to rival Star Trek.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

TIGER

Saturday, July 17, 2004 5:45 AM

Firefly as a title never turned me off.

True, it didn't tell me everything about the show before I saw it, but I don't think we should follow the Steven Seagal school of movie titles: Hard to Kill, Under Siege, Out for Justice. They all give you a very good idea of what the movie will be like before you see it, even if you didn't know the star.

Many really good movies choose a title that enhances the story or has meaning in the story itself. Take Martin Scorsese for example:
Gangs of New York - do you think pre-civil war slum battles when you see this?
Taxi Driver - wow, this sounds... exciting.
The Age of Innocence - tells us nothing about the story, but makes sense once you see the movie.

Of course, some really good movies have cliche or obvious titles. I don't think Serenity or Firefly are among them. After somebody sees the movie, they may just think it's the name of the ship, but if they think about it more they may realize it's what the characters were searching for all along. Isn't that what art is all about?

Now somebody tell me how wrong I am...

---------------------------------------------
...The beauty of things was born before eyes and sufficient to itself; the heart-breaking beauty
Will remain when there is no heart to break for it.

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE