General Discussions

LETS SHOW THEM HOW ITS DONE!! HEAR OUR VOICES!

POSTED BY: GoddessofChaos35
UPDATED: Friday, May 27, 2011 21:07
VIEWED: 4573
PAGE 2 of 2

LWAVES

Friday, May 27, 2011 12:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Actually, the reason why Dollhouse was canceled was because it didn't have as many fans and the reason there was no campaign to revive it was because the fans felt lucky to get what they did.

I agree that that's why Dollhouse was cancelled and I don't believe I said it was another reason. The fans were lucky to get a second season.
The same applies to SGU. Not enough people watched it and from what I remember reading the ratings were always poor for SGU even on season finales and cliffhangers which usally draw bigger audiences.
IMO both SGU and Dollhouse were shows that were okay and nothing more. They were watchable (and I watched every episode of each) but nothing particularly special or even above average.

Quote:

Judging by the first entry into this thread, there is both sufficient quantity of fans and also sufficient quantity of feeling like SGU didn't get a chance that some want it to continue.

Every show has it's hardcore fans from the worst piece of TV rubbish to the greatest. I can't say for definite how many fans SGU has that are willing to keep it going, probably nowhere near enough as the ratings were poor. I can certainly understand their feelings about continuation. This could mean the end to the franchise or it may not. I'm sure Trek fans felt the same way at the end of Enterprise. But I would hope, like me, they would want it to continue as a success, not just to keep the franchise going.
Another point being that SGU did gets it's chance even if fans don't think so. It was nearly cancelled after the first season but it was given a second one. I also think it got better as it went along but it wasn't a lot better, just a little bit.

Quote:

The argument against helping those fans comes across, to me, as more of a like vs. dislike of the show thing. I mean, we're here on a firefly fan board. Firefly during it's actual run was not very successful, so going by your logic, we shouldn't support it because it's failure is bringing down Joss. We obviously continue to support it because we like it, despite any futility inherent in that.

So your objection clearly is not so much that you think SGU's lack of success is bringing down the franchise, but that you don't LIKE is as much as the other fare from the franchise. Because if you liked it, I can only assume based on your presence here that you would support the show regardless of it's success.

I'll freely admit that I think SGA is the best of the three shows followed closely by SG-1 and then SGU further back. But I still thought SGU was an okay show, it just wasn't great or even above average. If it was continuing I would carry on watching.
Using Firefly as an example isn't really right as it's a one off show that didn't get the chance to succeed (for various reasons). It's not part of a franchise like SGU. Firefly has the 'Joss' connection to Dollhouse and other shows but he isn't a franchise and they are completely different shows. Using your logic we should all support the original Buffy movie just because Joss wrote it. The movie is generally considered really bad and Joss has even made negative comments about it. If Firefly had gotten a second season and still hadn't worked well enough for the networks then it would be only right to have cancelled it. But it didn't get that far and that is a part of why it we keep supporting it because it never got the chance. As I keep saying SGU had it's two seasons, it had its chance.

Quote:

And, as I have said, the problem with taking that stance is this: you want the show to be canceled in the hopes that efforts would be directed at another, better entry into the franchise.

No, I don't want the show to be cancelled - it has been cancelled. As I said if it had gotten a third season I would have watched it. My problem is with trying to keep it going after cancellation. To explain further: SG-1 had it's main story finished up so they had some closure. SGA didn't g

BYTEMITE

Friday, May 27, 2011 1:39 AM

Dammit. Firefox 4 doesn't retain messages like the old firefoxes do when they're lost. it's like they copied all the features of Internet Explorer, even the layout of the user interface, when IE is inferior to Firefox.

Suffice to say:

1) a bomb in a franchise can hurt the continuation of a franchise. We agree. Moving on.

2) Franchise: a) Authorization granted by a manufacturing enterprise to a distributor to market the manufacturer's products

-- Joss franchises his work out to tv and film studios for distribution. Joss is a franchise (and also a writer, whose ability to produce could be damaged by a bomb).

b) a film that is or has the potential to be part of a series and lends itself to merchandising

-- Also applicable to films that have tv series, and tv series that have films. Therefore: Firefly is a franchise.

3) "It almost seems by your comments that you think people that watch a show/franchise should stand behind a failed show and route for it even if it may be at the expense of other, more successful shows in the franchise. That doesn't make sense to me."

This, as I have said, is a logical fallacy known as a false dilemma. You don't have to choose between them, and success in either one improves success for the other.

Your arguments are very similar to Buffy/Angel fans who think Browncoats should give up because firefly was less popular and successful. I tend to disagree with THEM too.

Sidenote: Buffy/Angel, Firefly, and Dollhouse have all spun off comic books as a continuation of the stories. I support all of the comic books, because the Whedonverse in general does well if all of the parts do well. Within a certain certain definitions of successful, obviously comic books will likely not sell as much as tv series or movies as it's a smaller demographic.

I do not fault Joss Whedon for working on Dollhouse, no matter what my personal feelings are about Dollhouse, nor do I fault him for working on Buffy and Angel comics over Firefly comics.

LWAVES

Friday, May 27, 2011 9:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Dammit. Firefox 4 doesn't retain messages like the old firefoxes do when they're lost. it's like they copied all the features of Internet Explorer, even the layout of the user interface, when IE is inferior to Firefox.

Hey Byte, it's me again

Did you write a reply and click the 'Post My Response' button only to have it not post and then everything you did was lost? That sucks.

I've had that sometimes so I've got into the habit of copying my reply to the clipboard before I post it - just in case.

Quote:

2) Franchise: a) Authorization granted by a manufacturing enterprise to a distributor to market the manufacturer's products

-- Joss franchises his work out to tv and film studios for distribution. Joss is a franchise.

b) a film that is or has the potential to be part of a series and lends itself to merchandising

-- Also applicable to films that have tv series, and tv series that have films. Therefore: Firefly is a franchise.

Okay, my mind was so focused on the TV series parts that I completely forgot about Serenity. Oops. This rightly does make it part of a franchise and I apologise for the stupid error. In fairness I also never mentioned the original Stargate movie either but that doesn't really alter the discussion.
The second definition is what I would accept as a franchise for film and TV shows. Ones that bear the same name (Stargate, Star Trek, Star Wars, CSI, Law & Order, Harry Potter etc) or ones that are set within the same universe, maybe using the same characters, settings etc (Firefly/Serenity, Buffy/Angel, the Marvel superheroes films leading into The Avengers).
And whilst there is nothing wrong with the first definition I still don't see Joss as the franchise. I think it may just be us looking at it from two different points of view but, to me, he would be the manufacturer who creates the franchise(s), not the actual franchise itself. The products he creates are the (potential) franchises.

Quote:

3) "It almost seems by your comments that you think people that watch a show/franchise should stand behind a failed show and route for it even if it may be at the expense of other, more successful shows in the franchise. That doesn't make sense to me."

This, as I have said, is a logical fallacy known as a false dilemma. You don't have to choose between them, and success in either one improves success for the other.

I may not have made it clear enough earlier and I did use scenarios that don't actually exist at the current time. I never meant it to seem like it was a case of HAVING to choose between one or the other. There currently is no choice. The SG-1 and SGA movies are shelved and SGU has been cancelled. But, IMO, if fans are going to back anything within the SG franchise then it doesn't make sense to back the lesser entry. It seems like wasted time and effort. You say yourself that any success within the franchise helps the franchise as a whole, not just the individual product. If SGU had been more successful (and been a better show) then fair enough, I would be backing its continuation. But it wasn't, it didn't succeed. It's chances of success, if given a continuation, are very slim with it's current track record. Therefore chances are a continuation would only damage the franchise.

Quote:

Your arguments are very similar to Buffy/Angel fans who think Browncoats should give up because firefly was less popular and successful. I tend to disagree with THEM too.

We agree on this part as well. I love Buffy and Angel and consider myself a big fan but I wouldn't give up on Firefly. Again it comes down to the point that Firefly wasn't given the chance to succeed (or to fail) on it's own terms. Buffy had a great seven year run and had it's main story concluded. Angel got five good years and whilst its ending was rushed it still had some kind of conclusion. Firefly didn't get anywhere near that and I'm sure I don't need to go into the reasons behind it. It'

BYTEMITE

Friday, May 27, 2011 3:42 PM

Quote:

But I'll try to put this again to you with another hypothetical. If the comics had been of poor quality, poor writing etc and they had poor sales, would you really want them to continue just to keep something out there with the name on it? Or would you prefer that they said something like 'Okay we tried that, it didn't work, let's try something else'.

There are a number who think this IS the case for the comics. They refuse to support any of the comics because they believe it distracts Joss from working on getting Firefly back on air, or because comics just can't capture the feel of the tv series and the tv series is much better. A number of people would prefer there to be no comics.

They are in direct conflict with the people who like the comics despite their limitations. I believe something is better than nothing. And even if I didn't like the comics (and I have found some of them disappointing, and I'm not really a buyer of Buffy/Angel or the Dollhouse comics), I would still support their existence for the fans that DO like them, by decrying their cancellation should it happen.

Quote:

I feel like we are just circling around the same points and probably won't agree on the major aspects brought up, even if we can agree on some of the finer details. I do get where you're coming from and agree with a lot of what you say but I don't agree on the other areas.

Sure. We can drop it if you like.

LWAVES

Friday, May 27, 2011 8:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Sure. We can drop it if you like.

Hahaha. That's not what I meant, I was just pointing out that our posts were going over the same areas without really going anywhere. I'm enjoying this and it's nice to have this discussion without it descending into a flame war or an insult match that you get in RWED or other forums.
To me, we started out on completely opposite sides, then we found common ground on some of the points brought up and now we are left with the opposing issue of supporting or moving on from a show. I'm sure neither of us is wrong in our disagreement, it's just two different viewpoints. I do have to say that I applaud you for defending a show you've never seen. Or at least defend the right to try to continue it. I noticed that the OP hasn't been back so I checked their profile and found that they joined that day, made the original post and that's it. I can't say whether they are truly a Browncoat or just used it to try and get support but, personally, I have my doubts about the browness of their coat.

Quote:

There are a number who think this IS the case for the comics. They refuse to support any of the comics because they believe it distracts Joss from working on getting Firefly back on air, or because comics just can't capture the feel of the tv series and the tv series is much better. A number of people would prefer there to be no comics.

They are in direct conflict with the people who like the comics despite their limitations. I believe something is better than nothing. And even if I didn't like the comics (and I have found some of them disappointing, and I'm not really a buyer of Buffy/Angel or the Dollhouse comics), I would still support their existence for the fans that DO like them, by decrying their cancellation should it happen.

See, I can agree with you completely about the comics. As I said I don't buy/read them because they just don't interest me anymore as a format. There's nothing wrong with them, they're just not for me anymore. But I can appreciate that they have their fans and want them to continue for that reason. I'd be all for the SG series continuing in comic form (maybe they do?) even though it's not something I will get. Maybe it's a way for the SGU story to continue?
And this brings me back to my point about SGU and trying to keep it going. I don't even know ball park figures but I'm sure creating a TV show or TV movie is far more expensive than a series of comics. And this is what it boils down to for me. MGM currently have limited money so if they chose to spend some of it on the SG franchise I would prefer it to be on an established, successful product, or something new, that would hopefully continue the success and boost MGM which would in turn boost the SG franchise. Putting more money into something that isn't working rarely, if ever, works. SGU can continue (in another format), I just don't want it to be as an expensive show or movie that would potentially only damage the franchise.
Does that make more sense? Can you see my point even if you don't agree?

Anyone that thinks the comics distract Joss from Firefly related projects is living in another world. I don't know exactly how 'hands on' he is with them but I don't imagine it to be too much, he's always too busy from what I read. I'd be fairly sure in saying that he doesn't write every story (much like the TV shows). I imagine it's more of a supervisory role who okays things and makes notes or changes to other peoples work and occasionally he'll write some.
As much as I love Firefly and would love to see more it isn't currently a practical reality. In the future, who knows? Joss has to continue working in the meantime, which he has done and, as you say, the higher his profile gets in the non-Firefly world, the higher the chance of Firefly returning. Hopefully The Avengers will be a big hit and good things will roll in from then on.

If you reply to this Byte (hope you do), I just thought I'd let you know that a further repl

BYTEMITE

Friday, May 27, 2011 9:07 PM

I have some chores myself that need doing, so that's fine if there's a delay.

You make a good point about trying to appeal to fandoms to rally up help. I guess we won't know unless the thread author sticks around. I suppose I can't blame them for it, there might very well be browncoats here who are also SGU fans, and if you're trying to get a message out you hafta do it somehow.

Hmm. I can see some of your point, though I also imagine SGU fans would rather have their tv show than comics to continue it. I also think that someone having limited money, if they were a network or production studio, then investments is how they make money. But, its also true that production has its costs.