Reactions to Joss Whedon's recent SFX interview

POSTED BY: APark
UPDATED: Thursday, September 30, 2010 14:46
VIEWED: 8825
PAGE 2 of 3

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 NEXT PAGE

STORYMARK

Tuesday, September 28, 2010 6:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GWEK:
Some more thoughts:

Let's not forget that Joss has now been burned at least three times by the "establishment,"

I'd buy twice, but you can't really blame the studio for the movie not being a huge hit.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

GWEK

Tuesday, September 28, 2010 6:27 PM

I respectfully disagree. If you're going to blame them for FIREFLY and DOLLHOUSE, why NOT SERENITY?

www.stillflying.net: "Here's how it might have been..."

STORYMARK

Tuesday, September 28, 2010 6:34 PM

Well, lets see, aside from being entirely different studios, they were entirely different situations. No one made him go back and re-do Serenity, as happened with both pilots. No one dictated how the story could play out on Serenity, as was done on Dollhouse. They didn't show the scenes for Serenity out of order, as happened with Firefly. Serenity was not pre-empted in the middle for baseball.

Joss pretty much got to do what he wanted on Serenity, which was very obviously not the case on either Firefly or Dollhouse.

Context counts for a lot. As popular as it is to put Joss on a pedestal and pretend everything that doesn't go according to plan is the fault of the evil suits, the fact is - outside of the established fanbase, very few were interested in seeing Serenity.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

GWEK

Tuesday, September 28, 2010 6:44 PM

Quote:
Joss got petty much got to do what he wanted on Serenity

Obviously not, because what he wanted for 6 more seasons of FIREFLY.

I would actually say that the thing that all three properties had in common is that they were poorly marketed (although SERENITY got the best treatment of the the three, it was still pretty poor).

Regardless of what FOX did to undercut FIREFLY, the ultimate failure lies in the fact that the audience simply wasn't there. That close to 9/11, people didn't want to see something as dark and brooding as FIREFLY. (I am also willing to blame Joss himself a bit more than is commonly done on this board.)

By 2005, however, cynicism had started to set in again. More importantly, SERENITY came out on the heels of the last Star Wars movie. Any well-marketed sci fi flick should have been able to ride that wave. In 2005, the audience DID exist--it just wasn't engaged.

The problem with DOLLHOUSE, ultimately, was DOLLHOUSE. I think the biggest mistake FOX may have made there was in renewing the show for a second season.

Quote:
Context counts for a lot. As popular as it is to put Joss on a pedestal and pretend everything that doesn't go according to plan is the fault of the evil suits, the fact is - outside of the established fanbase, very few were interested in seeing Serenity.

Which is not actually Whedon's fault. He created a movie that was visually compellling, with a strong cast and an interesting (and, arguably, socially appropriate) story. It SHOULD have found it's audience.

But because of a number of factors--I would say questionable marketing chief among them--it did not.

www.stillflying.net: "Here's how it might have been..."

STORYMARK

Tuesday, September 28, 2010 6:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GWEK:
Quote:
Joss got petty much got to do what he wanted on Serenity

Obviously not, because what he wanted for 6 more seasons of FIREFLY.

Yeah.... which Universal (you know, the studio that made Serenity) had nothing to do with. They couldn't give him 6 seasons of Firefly - period.

Quote:
I would actually say that the thing that all three properties had in common is that they were poorly marketed (although SERENITY got the best treatment of the the three, it was still pretty poor).

Which I see as a catch-all "we don't know why it didn't succeed, so we'll blame this" excuse. I could see that case being made with Firefly. Dollhouse seemed to be advertised pretty accurately. Serenity, I thought had pretty representative ads, and I personally saw a lot of them. Perhaps you didn't, but that's a matter of what stations and shows you watch. They can only put so much money into marketing, which means being selective with where they advertise. And like it or no, from a business standpoint, there was no justification behind a huge marketing push which would have cost more than the film itself.

Quote:
Regardless of what FOX did to undercut FIREFLY, the ultimate failure lies in the fact that the audience simply wasn't there. That close to 9/11, people didn't want to see something as dark and brooding as FIREFLY. (I am also willing to blame Joss himself a bit more than is commonly done on this board.)

By 2005, however, cynicism had started to set in again. More importantly, SERENITY came out on the heels of the last Star Wars movie. Any well-marketed sci fi flick should have been able to ride that wave. In 2005, the audience DID exist--it just wasn't engaged.

Well, I don't totally buy the rationale that people just weren't in the mood for Firefly. But even if that is the case, it's not the studio's fault.

Quote:
The problem with DOLLHOUSE, ultimately, was DOLLHOUSE. I think the biggest mistake FOX may have made there was in renewing the show for a second season.

I agree that Dollhouse was a flawed concept, but that had a lot to do with the network demands on the show.

Quote:
Which is not actually Whedon's fault.

Didn't say it was.

Quote:
He created a movie that was visually compellling, with a strong cast and an interesting (and, arguably, socially appropriate) story. It SHOULD have found it's audience.

But because of a number of factors--I would say questionable marketing chief among them--it did not.

All arguable points, but outside of the already discussed marketing excuse, that's not the fault of the studio.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

DMAANLILEILTT

Wednesday, September 29, 2010 1:50 AM

Why not Angel?

"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?"

GWEK

Wednesday, September 29, 2010 3:35 AM

Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by GWEK:
Quote:
Joss got petty much got to do what he wanted on Serenity

Obviously not, because what he wanted for 6 more seasons of FIREFLY.

Yeah.... which Universal (you know, the studio that made Serenity) had nothing to do with. They couldn't give him 6 seasons of Firefly - period.

Didn't say it was Universal's fault, just that Joss didn't get what he REALLY wanted out of the movie (which is pretty germaine to the original post, although we've largely drifted away from the original intent of the thread).

Quote:
Which I see as a catch-all "we don't know why it didn't succeed, so we'll blame this" excuse.

It is indeed a catch-all. Given that I was looking for a pattern among the three works, it is, pretty much, by definition, a catch-all. I don't, however, agree that it's an excuse.

I'm pretty sure I know why FIREFLY and DOLLHOUSE failed (at least a number of the significant, contributing factors in both cases), although I'll admit that I'm a bit more fuzzy on SERENITY.

I was looking for the major factor that they all had in common.

Quote:
I could see that case being made with Firefly. Dollhouse seemed to be advertised pretty accurately.

"Advertised pretty accurately" and "advertised well" are not necessarily the same thing. FIREFLY's advertising was ridiculously bad AND inaccurate. DOLLHOUSE's may have been fairly accurate to what the show was about--but that wasn't doing it any favors.

Many of Whedon's properties are "almost high concept" (where they appear to be fairly straightforward and marketable, but are actually quite difficult to package) and DOLLHOUSE is probably the most extreme of those.

Quote:
Serenity, I thought had pretty representative ads, and I personally saw a lot of them. Perhaps you didn't, but that's a matter of what stations and shows you watch. They can only put so much money into marketing, which means being selective with where they advertise. And like it or no, from a business standpoint, there was no justification behind a huge marketing push which would have cost more than the film itself.

Yes, I saw a fair amount of commercials for SERENITY, and the majority of them began with phrases like "From the mind that brought you BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER..."

Now, I'm not trying to blame SERENITY's failure on BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER, but I think it's a terrible way to market the film (particularly since SERENITY and BtVS have little in common other than some themes and Joss's trademark clever/arch writing).

Invoking BtVS immediately limits the audience, because people who know what BtVS is (and would care about that mariketing angle) fall into two categories:

1) People who know and like BtVS... the majority of whom already knew about FIREFLY and had probably already made up their minds on it, one way or another.

2) People who don't like BtVS, either because it just wasn't for them, or because they thought the concept was stupid.

One of the other lynchpins of the ad campaign was to "subtly" invoke the spirit of Star Wars (not a terrible thing) by using the words "rebel" and "empire."

So, basically, the ad campaign boiled down to something like "Here's a Star Wars rip-off by the dude who created Buffy the Vampire Slayer."

Again, a fair amount of commercials doesn't necessarily equal a good marketing campaign.

Quote:
Well, I don't totally buy the rationale that people just weren't in the mood for Firefly.

Could be that you don't remember what 2001 and 2002 were like in the United States (I can't speak for other countries).

Although there are certain ideas that are universal in terms of time, for many great ideas, the difference between success and failure is timing. Five years earlier or later for Star Wars and it would have been laughed out of the theaters. In 1977, though, brilliant. Put X-FILES on the air when Reagan was president (and popular) and it would have bombed. There are socia

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

GWEK

Wednesday, September 29, 2010 3:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dmaanlileiltt:
Why not Angel?

"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?"

I always forget about ANGEL. I think of it as "more BUFFY." :)

www.stillflying.net: "Here's how it might have been..."

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, September 29, 2010 11:05 AM

Firefly is in his heart, but I think Joss is a realist too.

Not all stories get told. The 'verse continues, but we might never see his version of it on screen.

I've come to accept that.

( and as for Angel ? Sure, it's more "Buffy", but Angel's time line precedes hers by a few hundred years. She's actually a part of HIS story, if you think of it. )

"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal."

STORYMARK

Wednesday, September 29, 2010 3:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GWEK:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by GWEK:
Quote:
Joss got petty much got to do what he wanted on Serenity

Obviously not, because what he wanted for 6 more seasons of FIREFLY.

Yeah.... which Universal (you know, the studio that made Serenity) had nothing to do with. They couldn't give him 6 seasons of Firefly - period.

Didn't say it was Universal's fault, just that Joss didn't get what he REALLY wanted out of the movie (which is pretty germaine to the original post, although we've largely drifted away from the original intent of the thread).

Quote:
Which I see as a catch-all "we don't know why it didn't succeed, so we'll blame this" excuse.

It is indeed a catch-all. Given that I was looking for a pattern among the three works, it is, pretty much, by definition, a catch-all. I don't, however, agree that it's an excuse.

I'm pretty sure I know why FIREFLY and DOLLHOUSE failed (at least a number of the significant, contributing factors in both cases), although I'll admit that I'm a bit more fuzzy on SERENITY.

I was looking for the major factor that they all had in common.

Quote:
I could see that case being made with Firefly. Dollhouse seemed to be advertised pretty accurately.

"Advertised pretty accurately" and "advertised well" are not necessarily the same thing. FIREFLY's advertising was ridiculously bad AND inaccurate. DOLLHOUSE's may have been fairly accurate to what the show was about--but that wasn't doing it any favors.

Many of Whedon's properties are "almost high concept" (where they appear to be fairly straightforward and marketable, but are actually quite difficult to package) and DOLLHOUSE is probably the most extreme of those.

Quote:
Serenity, I thought had pretty representative ads, and I personally saw a lot of them. Perhaps you didn't, but that's a matter of what stations and shows you watch. They can only put so much money into marketing, which means being selective with where they advertise. And like it or no, from a business standpoint, there was no justification behind a huge marketing push which would have cost more than the film itself.

Yes, I saw a fair amount of commercials for SERENITY, and the majority of them began with phrases like "From the mind that brought you BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER..."

Now, I'm not trying to blame SERENITY's failure on BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER, but I think it's a terrible way to market the film (particularly since SERENITY and BtVS have little in common other than some themes and Joss's trademark clever/arch writing).

Invoking BtVS immediately limits the audience, because people who know what BtVS is (and would care about that mariketing angle) fall into two categories:

1) People who know and like BtVS... the majority of whom already knew about FIREFLY and had probably already made up their minds on it, one way or another.

2) People who don't like BtVS, either because it just wasn't for them, or because they thought the concept was stupid.

One of the other lynchpins of the ad campaign was to "subtly" invoke the spirit of Star Wars (not a terrible thing) by using the words "rebel" and "empire."

So, basically, the ad campaign boiled down to something like "Here's a Star Wars rip-off by the dude who created Buffy the Vampire Slayer."

Again, a fair amount of commercials doesn't necessarily equal a good marketing campaign.

Quote:
Well, I don't totally buy the rationale that people just weren't in the mood for Firefly.

Could be that you don't remember what 2001 and 2002 were like in the United States (I can't speak for other countries).

Although there are certain ideas that are universal in terms of time, for many great ideas, the difference between success and failure is timing. Five years earlier or later for Star Wars and it would have been laughed out of the theaters. In 1977, though, brilliant. Put X-FILES on the air when Reagan was president (and popular) and

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 NEXT PAGE