RoR: Forum

One of my favorite little details about that show is how the characters always swore in Chinese. It added an interesting feel to the world, let the characters swear whenever appropriate, and didn't bother the censors.

Firefly, in my opinion, was one of the best shows on recently. Excellent article, Joy. I guess this all goes to show that sometimes (surprise!) great art is not appreciated by the mainstream.

Post 21

Friday, January 3, 2003 - 5:18am

Never watched Buffy. Had no clue who Whedon was.
Watched Firefly, almost didn't watch again trying to figure it out. But I did. The 3 teens, hubby and I all did. We stayed home on Friday to watch it. We still talk about it all the time. And now my 16 and 19 yr old are doing what I did so long ago...lobbying to bring back a little appreciated show against all odds. Boy did people laugh at Star Trek back then...and me for thinking it was a great concept. I guess the sages are right...history does repeat itself.

Post 22

Friday, January 3, 2003 - 7:47am

Hi Jeff!

Yes, I totally agree about using Chinese to curse in! I love it. Plus, they made up a few words I think. Rutting isn't Chinese as far as I know. :)

'Gorram it' has a good solid ring to it and isn't offensive .. well, unless you life in a Chinese household I guess. *grin* I had to be mindful of the kids when we had guests recently as one guest would have understood the words. ;)

The other thing related to this is their 'terse' use of language in the dialogue. They express so much with so few words. I just happen to like that aspect, and have a great respect for it as I tend to ramble on. LOL! Some of it has it's roots from fiction about the Old West, were men were men and often laconic as well.

Alex, I totally agree. It pains me to think that Firefly may not continue, but on the other hand, I am certainly much richer for having viewed what was aired.

Darlong, it's become a part of our family life as well. LOL!

We quote from it all the time, talk about it, and we've done our fair bit of activism for it too. There aren't too many shows around that have that kind of impact on our household and I'm thrilled that others have the same appreciation for the wonderful work everyone on Firefly has done.

Thank you everyone!

Joy :)

Post 23

Friday, January 3, 2003 - 8:58am

FireFly was a failure.

I any way that is important, FireFly failed. It was a critical failure and a ratings abyss. Sorry, but in the real world where people have to use money, the only measure that matters is the ratings.

Cult status does not pay the bills; Viewers in terms of ratings and what the networks can charge advertisers do.

Face it, FireFly was not up to that. Whedon can't eat at the big kids table yet, maybe not ever now.

Not once did FireFly�s ratings ever reach above 4.0 National. In the exact same time slot last year Dark Angel Never scored below 4.7 on first run. And yes, both shows had to deal with baseball, so don�t bring that up, it is a non-issue. (Source Nielsen Media, Futon Critic)

If the show was good more people would have tuned in, they didn't. In fact more people sampled FireFly and left. Even a simple glance at the ratings will tell you that. Numbers for "Dark Angel" and even "Happy Gilmore" show that there are people at home on Friday nights and they know where Fox is. They just didn't want to waste it on FireFly.

Fox gave Whedon every chance. When the critics were all asking why the show had not been canceled, Fox orders more episodes. When Fox canned David E. Kelley�s �girls club� it still got higher ratings. And DEK actually has shows that are ratings successes, unlike Whedon.

In the end, they did to it what every network executive has to do with an expensive, under producing show.

The bottom line is always about the bottom line. FireFly was keeping Fox in the red. Letting it linger on was only compounding their losses. It would have got to a point where no amount of building would have recouped the losses.

UPN is in the market to develop their own shows (most recent Hollywood Reporter), I doubt they want to pick up a Fox cast off right now. Plus UPN is also looking for branding, and right now young urban comedies seem to be what is working with them. "Buffy" and "Enterprise" are drastically underperforming (Entertainment Weekly, website and TV year end analysis).

So don�t look to UPN to save FireFly, they are already loosing money on �Buffy�, why would they want to pick up another loser? In fact there have been many instances to show that UPN is NOT interested in FireFly and even in this week�s US magazine there is a new word being used in conjunction with Buffy too. Canceled. Yes, according to this new report UPN is considering canceling Buffy because it is performing so poorly.
(US Magazine, article title �Bye, Bye Buffy�.)

FireFly was a mishmash of bad ideas, clich�s, bad writing, sub-par acting and myopic vision.

If Joss is going to eat at the adult table, then he needs to stop acting like a spoiled, petulant child. Do you hear David E. Kelley or Chris Carter complaining? No. They went back to work. Kelley at least remembers to put effort into his other shows as well.

All stories end. Firefly�s just ended sooner.

Buck

Post 24

Friday, January 3, 2003 - 9:00am

Friday, January 3, 2003 - 9:08am

I think there is actually a large group of people who want quality programming. Unfortunately, none of us have those despicable Neilson boxes!

I thought some of the posters here might be interested to know that Harry Knowles over at Ain't It Cool News listed Firefly as the #4 show of 2002. He had some very nice things to say about the show, too.

http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=14108

I found this by way of Fireflyfans.net. The posters there are great. I don't know how they find out the things they do. (They are the reason I found your article, Joy!)

I think it's great when an entire family can enjoy a TV show. I think that says a lot for Joss Whedon. Not many people can create a show that appeals to such a wide demographic. I'm 35 and actually got my parents (who are in their early 60s) to watch Buffy! My dad, who is extremely hard to please, liked Firefly. I think it was the western overtones that appealed to him.

And, I'll say it again, excellent article. Thanks.

Misti

Post 26

Friday, January 3, 2003 - 9:13am

For everyone who said "FOX gave Firefly every chance", what exactly are you smoking?

FOX barely mentioned Firefly! I've seen more idiotic commercials for dreck like Joe Millionaire during one hour of FOX programming than all the commercials for Firefly for the year! The only reason I even _knew_ about Firefly was from pre-season buzz on TWOP. They couldn't have hidden it better if they made it wear a fake mustache and a hat.

Post 27

Friday, January 3, 2003 - 10:04am

To address some points made here:

"It was a bad slot."

That's as maybe but it did consistently worse than Dark Angel in the exact same slot, and John Doe did substantially better in the 9:00 pm slot straight after.

"Fox didn't promote it enough"

I was still in the UK when the show was being launched and I still knew when and where it was on. There were a number of promotions during the run and all the promotion in the world cannot overcome bad word of mouth.

"Fox didn't give it enough of a chance."

After spending a fortune on the first pilot and not getting what they wanted they paid out for another one, usual practice would be to drop the whole thing. They also continued to commision episodes after every critic was saying they expected the show to be cancelled, how much more can a network do?

Firefly failed for the simplest reason in television; not enough people wanted to watch it. Sorry but that's the cold hard truth.

Post 28

Friday, January 3, 2003 - 10:40am

I'd also like to chime in on the "FOX didn't give Firefly a chance" claim. It simply isn't so.

Regarding the rejection of the original pilot - in Hollywood, that sort of thing happens all the time. Networks routinely green-light more pilots than they have room for in their schedules. When the pilots have all been made and watched, some make the cut and others don't. It's a typical business practice.

What's not typical is for the person in charge of a rejected pilot to get a second chance and win a spot in the lineup based on the script alone. It's well-known that the original Star Trek also got a second chance after its original pilot was rejected, but they actually had to make the second pilot. Joss didn't. FOX put Firefly on the schedule based on Joss's name, reputation and script alone. That's very unusual.

And what about once the show was on the air? I don't know what people are talking about when they say they never saw any Firefly promos, because I saw plenty. They were all over the place during the baseball playoffs and the World Series. The Firefly logo was prominently displayed as one of the computer-generated ads behind home plate for several of the games. FOX even sent the cast to one of the games, so the announcers could point them out in the stands.

And what about baseball? As others have said, every show on the FOX network has had to deal with baseball playoffs at one point or another ever since FOX got its baseball contract. Other shows have come through it with much better ratings than what Firefly was getting.

To me, the telltale sign is that Firefly's ratings consistently went down from its first half-hour to its second half-hour. It was the only show on Friday nights to have that happen. The promotional campaign brought new viewers in, but a large chunk of those new viewers tuned right back out. They didn't like what they saw.

And yet FOX continued to keep the show on the air, well after other shows that were getting better ratings had been cancelled. It was the lowest-rated show on the four major networks in some of the weeks, and nothing anybody did was changing that.

Matthew asks, "Is commercial success the sole measure of artistic quality?" Of course it isn't, but guess which factor network executives rely on when they make their scheduling decisions? FOX isn't like HBO or Showtime, where the executives don't care how much people actually watch their shows as long as those people pay their subscription fees. On FOX - just as on any of the other five broadcast networks - the fate of the shows lies in the ratings boxes. Right or wrong, that's the bottom line.

Post 29

Friday, January 3, 2003 - 11:49am

BBOvenGuy wrote:

Matthew asks, "Is commercial success the sole measure of artistic quality?" Of course it isn't, but guess which factor network executives rely on when they make their scheduling decisions? FOX isn't like HBO or Showtime, where the executives don't care how much people actually watch their shows as long as those people pay their subscription fees. On FOX - just as on any of the other five broadcast networks - the fate of the shows lies in the ratings boxes. Right or wrong, that's the bottom line.

Now, while I don't watch TV I do have a basic understanding of how it works. I know that network execs look for shows with high ratings because they can charge more for ads played during high-rated programs. Personally, I'd like to see series like Firefly released directly to DVD; I'd much rather buy a series or two on DVD than pay $75/month for 150-channel cable TV that mostly sucks -- when all I want is Firefly or Sex and the City.

Post 30

Friday, January 3, 2003 - 12:12pm

Releasing FireFly directly to DVD is a pipe dream that will never happen.

Their *might* be an interest out there to put out the episodes allready aired, but nothing new. There is no money for it. Fox still has to recoup the losses they have incured before they think about running more into the red.

Besides, Fox has already given Joss the permission to shop it around. That is tacitly washing their hands of it.

SciFi is not interested in it. UPN is not interested in it. Fox got rid of it. WB has hits of their own, they won't pick it up.

FireFly's story is over. Or is it.

Yes it is.

Buck

Post 31

Friday, January 3, 2003 - 12:21pm

Hi Misti,

You hit the nail right on the head when you wrote:

"I think there is actually a large group of people who want quality programming."

Amen to that!

Thankfully, I believe the number of disenfranchised television viewers have many more outlets (especially via the Internet) to express their desires, their lack of interest in popular television fare and eventually that will be heard. Probably not in time to save Firefly, but maybe the next series, or the next.

That was the one of the major reasons I chose to praise a show I love.

Any piece of art, television, music or whatever will only appeal to a certain segment of the population. There is no one piece of any kind of art that will appeal to EVERYONE. It may only appeal to a handful, or maybe a large percentage of some demographics. None of that alters the actual creation itself, it stands on its own, unaffected by the perceptions of those who view it.

The enjoyment of art, is very much in the eye of the beholder, or more correctly, in the mind of the beholder. It is also a highly personal choice based on many factors including a person's view of the world, his place in it and his relationship to the world.

It is why matters of art often generate quite passionate discussions. *grin* I'm reminded of the many discussions of music here on SOLOHQ in the past. :) Nothing seems to stir personal passion more than discussing art, except maybe politics with sports a pretty near third. One man's caterwauling (I still can't spell that word!) is another man's music.

I personally don't expect everyone to agree with me, I am expressing my own opinions for the enjoyment of those that also agree or even those who disagree that are interested in discussing why they perceive the show differently.

My praise for the show is based on the fact that it presents important life affirming values in an integrated and consistent way. I find the characters refreshing and sympathetic and I personally love the laconic nature of the dialogue to mention but a few points.

It's hard for me to argue whether or not Fox promoted Firefly as I only ever watch Fox for football games. I did not see any ads for Firefly at that time. Fox has nothing else to offer me in terms of enjoyable television programs. Firefly was a notable exception, an anomaly I think. LOL!

I would love for Firefly to find a new home, preferably a home with other enjoyable shows for a discerning audience that isn't interested in wanting to be a millionaire, or marrying a millionaire or whatever it is they are hawking these days.

To me, discussing the merits of art or entertainment isn't a regurgitation of figures concerning it's popularity. It's about the work itself, in it's own context for the purpose of exploring how it affects the senses, the mind, and what we get from the experience of viewing it. Art and to some extent entertainment is designed to touch the senses, stir the soul, make some impression on those viewing it. It isn't about wearing a little ribbon that says you only watch the most popular shows, as if identifying with that show will make YOU popular. *grin* (Hi Eric, just couldn't resist using your line here :)

Comparing Firefly to other shows is rather pointless unless the sole interest is in marketing strategies. Each show of any kind is unique and will appeal to a particular kind of audience. That is the way it is.

So, now that I've clarified that and set the context, I'd like to comment on Buck's synopsis of Firefly.

He wrote:

"FireFly was a mishmash of bad ideas, clich�s, bad writing, sub-par acting and myopic vision."

Okay, now we have something to discuss. :)

Bad ideas? Such as? That it was set 500 years in the future? That the Alliance took over? That the Serenity is funny looking? That they don't have a transporter? That they are in the trading business? That Reavers exist? What exactly is a bad idea?

Ditto with cliches. I'm not sure what would be considered a cliche in the show. That they use horses sometimes? Or four wheel ATVs? Or 'ray guns'? That there is conflict? That there are good guys and bad guys? That there is a respectable whore? Considering that humans have a history going backing thousands of years, certain themes and ideas are bound to resurface now and again. :)

Bad writing? I would have to disagree with that as I particularly enjoy the terse style, the plot twists, the integration of ideas. How could the writing be improved? What would be different? I enjoyed it especially because TV seems to be overrun with either pot shots the characters take at each other for the entire show or else long, whiny, angsty emotionally overwhelming speeches about the injustices of whatever.

Sub-par acting? I'm not sure how it's judged by others, but if the story and its characters can make me suspend disbelief for the duration of the show, if they can make me interested in the personalities and futures of the characters, I'd judge that to be great acting. I didn't find any distractions in the acting and I greatly enjoy all the characters and do care what happens to them.

I'm confused by myopic vision .. to what does that refer? Not their marketing strategies I assume? As it stands, each of these characters has the potential to fulfill any vision. I see theirs as a journey of both personal growth as well as perhaps the chance to take back a bit of what was taken by the Alliance. What would be an example of a more lofty vision?

Thanks,
Joy ;)

Post 32

Friday, January 3, 2003 - 12:44pm

Hey, Buck, how many times to I have to say that I DON'T WATCH TV?

Post 33

Friday, January 3, 2003 - 12:47pm

It looks to me like what we have here are two groups of people - one saying, "Forget the ratings! Look at the artistic value!" while the other says, "Forget the artistic value! Look at the ratings!"

I actually got a copy of the rejected original pilot in its original form, and I didn't think it was that bad. It was dreadfully slow in places, and the Western motif annoyed me, but those were both things that could have been smoothed out in time. The reason I never watched the show on the air didn't have to do with artistic merit as much as it had to do with the personality of Joss Whedon. By his own admission, he loves to draw viewers in with a sympathetic character and then inflict the maximum amount of pain on those viewers by doing something horrible to that character. And sure enough, the one character I instantly connected with in the original pilot got shot in the gut and spent half the story in agony - and oh yeah, there was a big joke about her dying, too.

If that's the way Joss Whedon wants to tell his stories, then it's his right to tell them that way - but the business realities of Hollywood are going to limit how far he can go with it. You're not going to survive on broadcast television if you make a habit of alienating large portions of your viewer base. If you try it, your ratings will drop and the suits will can you. Look at what's happening to Mutant Enemy this season - Firefly is already gone, Buffy is being given a 20% chance of survival and Angel is described as being "on the fence." Too many people have decided they've had enough of Joss's "creative vision."

I've actually been thinking for a while now that perhaps the best thing for Joss would be a move to HBO or Showtime, where as I said the executives look at subscriptions more than viewers. That might be a win-win scenario for everyone involved - Mutant Enemy, the people who still want to watch their shows, and the people who don't.

Post 34

Friday, January 3, 2003 - 12:54pm

Friday, January 3, 2003 - 4:03pm

"SciFi is not interested in it. UPN is not interested in it. Fox got rid of it. WB has hits of their own, they won't pick it up."

It was never pitched to SciFi or the WB. And, who is it that you know at UPN? I don't know that they aren't interested as a hard fact, the network has made no statement one way or the other, so you are speculating.

Post 36

Friday, January 3, 2003 - 4:04pm

Matthew,

"have you ever heard of word of mouth?"

Funny that you mention it, since one of the reasons why Firefly tanked so dramatically in the ratings was exactly this: word of mouth. About the general quality (or the lack thereof) of Joss Whedon's recent work, for instance.

How about "cult classic"?

I love cult classics, like the movies of Edward D. Wood. Do you really think Firefly is /that/ bad?

Joy,

I don't think I have to explain why I dislike Firefly, because you did it so much better than I could ever do (and believe me, I've tried). Just read your own article again - I criticise every single point you praise. Yes, it was meant to be offensive, but you took it with a LOL - my deepest respect for that reaction!

Back to business:

If you /really/ liked Firefly, you're doing something wrong here, JMO. The show is a dead horse, that's a fact. Even without the bad worth of mouth (which includes the boycott of the show from two well organized fan groups), it doesn't have the chance of a snowball in hell to find a new home (this comes from very reliable sources close to Mutant Enemy - Whedon himself seems to be the only one who isn't ready to face reality). The main reason for the demise of Firefly can be found in the ratings. Not the total number of viewers (which is a desaster in itself), but the fact that the show lost viewers during almost all its airings. Fox did everything a network can do to promote and help the show, but most of the viewers who gave it a chance didn't like it and switched away again. This won't change with a better time slot or some more millions to hype the show - this is a problem of the show's quality itself.

Yes, it's the quality. A few years ago, when Whedon's shows were on The WB and Whedon was still capable to produce quality tv, BtVS and Angel had a lot more viewers on their small network than FF had on Fox. This shows that there /is/ an audience for quality tv, an audience that knows Whedon's name and should have been eager to watch his new creation. Which was the main reason for Fox's development deal with Whedon that made Firefly possible, by the way. The awful truth is that Firefly didn't manage to convince enough of Whedon's own fans to justify its continuation. Either that, or there are just not enough Whedon fans left after his destruction of BtVS since its move to UPN. For clarification: When I use the term "Whedon fans", I mean everyone who likes his personal style of characterization and story telling - including those who never heard of his name.

Sorry, but I came to the conclusion that it's more likely that there's something wrong with the show than with the audience. :-)

And that's why I think that over-the-top praising of Firefly doesn't help at all. The show is dead, both other shows of Mutant Enemy are dying (their ratings are awful), it's time for Whedon and company to /learn/ from their mistakes. You enjoyed Firefly, so I assume that you'd like to see something similar again, preferably from the same author(s). Imagine I had to decide about investing money into a new show from Whedon. And I read your article: There was /nothing/ wrong with Firefly, it was wonderful, brilliant and perfect in every single detail. No way to improve it. But at the same time it was the biggest commercial desaster of the season. My decision? No cent for a new show. If there isn't room for improvement, it will be the same failure again.

It's funny, isn't it? Right now, even brutal criticism can be more helpful than a heartful praising. If you want more tv like Firefly, more from Whedon, from Mutant Enemy, it's time to face the awful truth, to look Mr. Nielsen into his beady eyes and to think about what actually can help. In the current situation, they need every help they can get...

Post 37

Friday, January 3, 2003 - 4:24pm

Hi BovinGuy,

You brought up some interesting points regarding the Western motif, which you found annoying but thought would go away in time.

By this did you mean that some of the worlds are definitely not flush with modern technology or did you mean that the crew and ship were following some Western motif in the way they acted?

In general terms I'd agree that some of the worlds exhibited a wild West nature and that seems reasonable to me, especially if they got short changed on technology. But I will admit I'm biased in this regard as I admire the history of our own Western days and so don't mind it. It was born of necessity and it isn't inconceivable that it would again take on a life of it's own when there aren't many other options. Horses are pretty convenient transportation if you don't have reliable and replenishable fuel sources or the technology to keep them going.

Many who follow the history of the American West find much to value and appreciate. Those that went West went with very little knowledge of what was out there, had to depend solely on their actions, their perceptions and their own minds and muscle to surive from day to day so I personally don't find that offensive in the show. I would imagine that even 500 years from now, tales of American Cowboys would still be pretty popular. It has that allure because it was born of a specific kind of spirit, that of taming the wild frontier. Those that would have become pioneers in the future would likely have some knowledge of the West.

As for the crew, well, if you mean they represent the essense of what people of the West might have been like, I would agree. Interestingly enough, many who went West were fleeing more civilized areas (and oppression), were seeking new opportunities, were building new lives for various reasons, were seeking their fortunes. The West also tended to cull those who couldn't survive on their own pretty quickly. But that atmosphere also created a dynamic where people were inclined to benevolence in most cases. Many a man staked another when he was down on his luck ... err, by staked, I mean that one man would loan or give another man some money or some chance at work to get him up on his feet - not a wooden dowel through his heart! LOL! The only payment many asked where that when the person got on his feet, he'd repay the debt by helping out someone else in need. Pretty nice system if you ask me. :)

So, I can't really argue with you there. I quite agree it has a Western flavor, but I do not agree that it is a Western. In fact, I think they took the best parts of history from the American West and applied those values and virtues to a whole new future generation.

And yes, Kaylee was shot, and yes, she survived and yes, Captain Reynolds made a joke about it.

That was a very interesting scene in fact.

That scene told me that Captain Reynolds, despite his protestations, is in fact a nice man, just as Kaylee accused him of being. It showed the depth of feeling Reynolds has for her (and the rest of his crew) and it showed he wasn't too proud to make Simon's life rough and making him 'pay' for even suggesting that he would not save Kaylee's life.

As you will recall, Kaylee was shot when the Alliance Officer got 'twitchy' and shot her as he was trying to get Simon to 'stand down'. Reynolds at that point had every reason to detest Simon and being the butt of such a joke is probably a bit too far by today's politically correct climate, but I thought it was a hoot. Simon deserved that for his devious actions and his refusal to help Kaylee when she got shot on his behalf. To barter someone's life, a life that was in peril by his actions to begin with, is despicable and he deserved a lot more than Reynolds gave him.

But don't get me wrong, I like Simon now. :) But in the context of those events in that episode, the joke Reynolds played on Simon by telling him Kaylee had died was priceless. Especially because Simon knew that Reynolds would space him if Kaylee did die. It was a small bit of revenge for the trouble Simon heaped on him and his. :)

And Kaylee still has a crush on Simon regardless.
Joy :)

Post 38

Friday, January 3, 2003 - 5:26pm

The most telling fact about FireFly and its' ratings is that week in week out more people were watching it from 8 to 8:30 than watched it from 8:30 to 9:00.
People sampled it, people didn't like it, people turned it off before the episode was over.
Like Buck said, it's all about numbers when you play with the big boys.
Unfortunately with high production costs and low ratings, FireFly's future on another network doesn't look too good.

Post 39

Friday, January 3, 2003 - 5:30pm