RoR: Forum

Oops, sorry for the repost, this forum script acts a little bit weird on reload...

Matthew asked:
"is commercial success the sole measure of artistic quality?"

No, by no means. Is a tv show solely a work of art? Again, no, by no means. It's a product. It's sole purpose is to sell soap. High ratings are one way to do so (good demographics are another one for instance). Artistic quality is one of the possible ways to get these good demographics. It's just a means to an end, nothing more. Don't get me wrong, I don't say that a tv /author/ has to think so. The author has to follow his own vision, has to tell the story she desperately wants to tell. But it's the way a tv /producer/ has to think.

Jay-Dubya is both, author *and* producer/showrunner. Therefore he has to make compromises. And he always did. There's a simple way to prove that: If his shows are solely a work of art, why do almost all the big things happen in Nov, Feb and May? Dramaturgical decisions? Artistic visions? Or just sweeps?

A tv show is a product, and we, the viewers, are (indirectly) paying for it. Therefore the first question when measuring the quality of a tv show has to be "does it work as it's supposed to work"? Is it tv for the masses, is it targetting a niche, is it an old show that has to hold its fanbase or a new show that has to find an audience... whatever it is, if a show fails to achieve its prime goal, it's a failure.

And Firefly was a failure, as Buck, Sheridan and Bob have explained very eloquently.

It's bigot to lament about the lack of artistic quality on tv and to clamour art first, ratings last at the same time. If you want better tv, watch tv. Watch the shows that are a step into the right direction, so that they can get better ratings. With that, there will be more shows of higher quality, and so on and so forth. You have to know how tv works if you want to change it. Not that I knew it, but I've learned some basics during the last few months. And one of these basics is, that if it comes to network tv, it all boils down to ratings.

That's why I was very happy about Firefly's bad ratings, that's why I'm so glad about Buffy's 20% ratings drop this season: It's a chance to send Jay-Dubya on a long vacation, so that he can recover from his gigantic egomania and will be able to actually listen to those he works with again. And then, in 5 to 10 years, maybe he has regained enough creativity (and learned some other lessons, too) to come up with something worth watching. Right now, not watching anything produced by Mutant Enemy is the best way to get a better tv.

So there's some hope for 2003, after all. ;-)

Post 41

Friday, January 3, 2003 - 7:01pm

Myopic vision.

When I first heard about this show it was being pitched as the �anti-Star Trek�. My first thought was �good luck�. Trek has thrived for 30+ years because it has something that SciFi fans enjoy. �FireFly� was being pitched as the antithesis of Trek, that is no aliens, no high tech and no hope for the future.

So remove the Trek fans from the list of people that will watch. And that is a large group.

Then the aftermath of the murder of Tara hit the net. Fans are hurt, Joss rubs salt in their wounds by saying basically �she was mine to kill so I don�t care what you say�. Well they had quite a bit to say and they handed ME their worse upset in years. For the first time ME had to go on the deep offensive. Joss spent the summer trying to talk FireFly, but ended up having to say something about Tara and Amber at every interview. Of course he kept talking about how Amber would be back, before he even thought to check with her. Then she told him no, she won�t come back to hurt the fans more.
FireFly was gong to be a casualty of that battle.

Remove the Willow/Tara fans from ME shows all together. And look at the ratings for all their shows too since last year, there has been a rather large exodus of people watching.

Then to make matters worse. Personal friend to Joss Whedon, Gail Berman, yanks �Dark Angel� off of Fox at the 11th hour to provide Joss and FireFly one more chance (since FF had already used up one chance before it ever started). If the Willow/Tara fans were mad, the Dark Angel fans were livid. And they outnumber the fans of FireFly by a considerable portion.

Remove the DA fans.

So Joss came to the plate with three strikes against him.

Then the actual shows started. People watched and left. The ratings for the first half hour ratings were higher than for the second. They saw what FireFly had to offer and they left. They didn�t like what they saw and not hype, or begging by the industry moles and plants could do nothing to change that.

Whedon set out to create a �coyboy space show� or something. Not because it was an idea needed to be done, but because I feel he thought people would watch whatever he put out. His own hubris, the same hubris that allowed him to murder Tara and then claim to be a victim, was that anything he did would work because he was �Joss Whedon�.

Now he is a one trick pony.

Buck

Post 42

Friday, January 3, 2003 - 7:38pm

Star Trek represented hope for the future ?

Pardon me while I go retch...

Post 43

Friday, January 3, 2003 - 7:52pm

BTW if anyone wants blame pissed off Buffy fans for shooting down the Serenity I would point out that over the summer when many were complaining we were basically told if you don't like it don't watch. Can't really blame us if we took the advice. Also if youn are thinking of campaigning for the return of Firefly I wouldn't; Joss has made it clear he doesn't think much of such things in the past and I'm sure he wouldn't change his position just because it would benefit him this time...

Post 44

Friday, January 3, 2003 - 8:02pm

Hi there BBOvenGuy -- sorry I got it wrong before. Being a lover of grilling, I finally figured out the BB .. which hopefully stands for Barbecue. ;)

you began:

"I didn't say that the Western motif would go away. I said it would be smoothed out."

My apologies. :)

You wrote:

"Using outer space as a new stage to act out old Western stories is nothing new, and there's nothing wrong with it, but I thought the original pilot had so many Western affectations that it just looked silly. I'm talking about the banjo and fiddle music accompanying the spaceship in flight,'"

LOL! Awww shucks! I'm generally not much of a fan of country music, but I especially love the music on the show, and the theme song. Very 'soulful' to me.

You also said:

"the people running around saying things like "I reckon," or the fact that Mal was dressed like he was about to go plow the north forty with Michael Landon."

Now that paints a vivid landscape. :) I guess it could seem silly, but I'm not sure I noticed it as there was so much else to absorb. To me, that is trivial to the real essence of the show.

You also wrote:

"The Victorian-era composer Sir Charles V. Stanford once wrote, "If you are going to give a new message to the world, you will do so without being conscious of it yourself. If you set out to do it consciously, you will fail because you will be trying to pose; and the man who poses is insincere."

I agree, but want to explain the context in which I agree. I believe that entertainment should not be didactic. Entertainment should not be a vehicle solely for the purpose of giving some moral message. Entertainment can have that effect at times, but the main function and purpose of entertainment is to entertain. I'm not into morality plays in the least.

However, each artistic creation, whether 'high art' or entertainment must have some basis in consciousness -- it is created in someone's mind. What is created depends very much on what is inside that artist's or creator's mind. Many people have a very chaotic view of the universe and their place in it. Some people see the glass half full, some see it half empty. Some people are ruled by religion, others by politics and others by sex. Some people are ruled by reason and the belief that Man is inherently good, others believe that Man is inherently bad. There is much that makes up each conscious mind capable of producing art or entertainment or crap. To me, the 'artist' that bottles his excrement and calls it art is full of shit. That was what his mind created.

So, I very much prefer art and entertainment created by conscious people and I do favor those who project in their art a positive sense of life. I didn't get the impression that Joss was trying to change the world or even send a particular message though he does -- IMPLICITLY.

You continued:

"To me, the Western affectations fit that idea perfectly. They looked like Joss was trying to pose, which made me doubt the show's sincerity. I thought that in time
the affectations could be done away with, which wouldn't necessarily have meant removing the underlying character elements as well."

That's a valid concern and I don't know how to answer that. Because I didn't notice those elements as affectations, it's hard to say if they disappeared in later episodes. (Just watched "Objects in Space", no affectations I noticed. :) Great episode!!

You went on:

"And the shot of the whole crew up on the Serenity bridge laughing about Mal's prank on Simon was the only time I laughed during the entire original pilot. It wasn't necessarily that I thought the joke was funny. I was just surprised by the audacity of the gag."

*grin* I was too, and then when I thought about it, I loved it even more -- but not as a gag. I did think the joke was funny in the context of his crew saying he was psychotic, but more importantly, I thought Reynolds playing that joke was important for more serious reasons.

From Reynolds' point of view, Simon played fast and loose with all of the crew, most especially Kaylee. She nearly died because of Simon. How do you suppose another person would react, facing the person that caused such a turn of events? What would you feel once you knew that someone you cared about had pulled through, but recalled the callous way this total stranger played with Kaylee's life?

Reynolds basically 'punished' Simon at a level of the punishment fits the crime. Simon tried to barter Kaylee's life for his own. Reynolds gave Simon that feeling as well -- by telling Simon that Kaylee had died, Simon, for at least a few instants knew what it was like to have his life forfeit, in someone else's hands (being spaced) .. just as Kaylee experienced that feeling as Simon was 'persuading' Reynolds to flee the Alliance rather than turn Simon in.

No, not funny at all. And yes, quite shocking. Totally politically incorrect.

Joy :)

Post 45

Friday, January 3, 2003 - 8:23pm

Joy,

You see Mal punishing Simon. I see Joss thumbing his nose at all the fans he's offended with one plot twist or another, one character death or another, over the years. Since Mal basically is Joss, watching him sit there laughing and saying "I'm a bad man!" felt more like I was the one being punished, not Simon. I guess it's a half-empty/half-full kind of thing.

As for Firefly's chances of being picked up by another network, word on the grapevine is that the SciFi Channel has already said no. Meanwhile, two independent postings on two independent boards reveal that UPN is telling Firefly fans not to bother asking them to pick up the show because they're not interested. And as for the WB... well, I strongly doubt they feel like they owe Joss Whedon any favors.

Post 46

Friday, January 3, 2003 - 8:31pm

Okay, I'm getting a bit frightened now. This thing with someone named Tara sounds like the lines between fantasy and reality are getting a bit blurred.

I would like to remind both Kirsh and Buck that this is a discussion forum dedicated to philosophy, not ratings wars, Tara, or Joss's personal habits. Nor is this particular discussion thread about comparing Firefly to Star Trek or Buffy or some Dark Angel thing or anything else. Have I been unclear about that? I distinctly remember posting exactly what this discussion was to focus on.

So, back to Firefly and it's merits.

One of you wrote:

"Myopic vision.

When I first heard about this show it was being pitched as the �anti-Star Trek�. My first thought was �good luck�. Trek has thrived for 30+ years because it has something that SciFi fans enjoy. �FireFly� was being pitched as the antithesis of Trek, that is no aliens, no high tech and no hope for the future."

I'm a bit puzzled. Do you believe that no aliens means no hope for the future? Do you really believe that Firefly has no high tech? Have you ever watched the show? Or did you just read how it was being pitched?

Do you honestly believe that Star Trek holds the ONLY vision for a future? Is there really only one flavor of wine, one author, one scientist, one way of being?

I have enjoyed several episodes of Star Trek, notably 'Darmock' but I enjoyed even more the series Babylon 5. The appeal of Firefly does not diminish my liking for any other science fiction show, I just happen to really like it best so far. Star Trek is not the future -- it is one vision of the future with many fans. And the Federation could just as easily be named the Alliance in principle.

Who creates technology? People. Yes, scientists and engineers create technology. Living breathing people, not aliens. I don't expect aliens to land here and give us technology, I believe we will create it. In case you hadn't noticed .. Firefly is a SPACESHIP. Just thought I'd mention that. Just in case. And that, errr, well, the Alliance ships are huge. And the Ariel place was pretty high tech.

However there is a huge difference between Star Trek and Firefly that is appropriate to this discussion. Star Trek is about gadgets, aliens, and human interactions with non-humans. That is what it is. Those aspects don't appeal to me, though a few episodes dealt with humans interaction with humans, or novel situations as in the Darmock episode. The strength of Firefly is in her people -- people are what makes the world go around. People are the motive force in this Universe and to focus a show on only the products of what people produce or on aliens is definitely a myopic vision in my book.

It's about people. Without people, there would be nothing worth writing about.

Joy :))

Post 47

Friday, January 3, 2003 - 8:42pm

Hi again BBOvenGuy,

You wrote:

"You see Mal punishing Simon. I see Joss thumbing his nose at all the fans he's offended with one plot twist or another, one character death or another, over the years. Since Mal basically is Joss, watching him sit there laughing and saying "I'm a bad man!" felt more like I was the one being punished, not Simon. I guess it's a half-empty/half-full kind of thing. "

Well, I'm a bit flabberghasted at your reply to be honest. I see Mal punishing Simon because that is what occured in the show. I do not see Mal as Joss at all as I have no clue what Joss is like except that I like his writing intensity/creative ideas in various shows. I can't even understand how one can mix up all the shows and discuss Firefly as if it were some other show. I'm very confused.

What does one show have to do with another, or a character's death with anything .. especially if it didn't happen in Firefly? I hate to sound like a Vulcan, but is this logical? Or reasonable? Should I judge others by their brothers, sisters, aunts and uncles, close personal friends and pets to make a judgment on them personally?

Sounds like too much work for me. I'll take the simple, reality based route of judging Firefly on its own merits, without the baggage of other shows and characters. :)

Joy

Post 48

Friday, January 3, 2003 - 9:04pm

Ah, but here's the philosophical question for you, then - is it possible to judge a creative work on its own merits, or does the personality of its creator influence the way a creative work is viewed? I'm a writer myself, in TV back in the 80s and now I'm about to have my first book published. Does my work stand independent of me, or does who I am influence it?

I honestly don't know for sure. I'd like to think that creative works can stand on their own - but I must confess that I have a problem with listening to Richard Strauss's music because he was a Nazi.

And in the case of Joss Whedon, you have the added fact that he has deliberately made himself part of the issue through his interaction with his viewers. He deliberately planted false reassurances about the fate of a certain character and a certain storyline so that he could build viewer interest, especially among a particularly vulnerable segment of the viewing population. He then turned around and killed the character and destroyed the storyline in a manner that was deliberately designed to maximize the amount of pain those viewers felt.

Does that creative work stand on its own? Not when Joss himself was going outside the confines of the work in order to massage its impact on the audience. And what about this new work, Firefly - does that stand on its own? Maybe in the eyes of people who aren't familiar with Joss's history, but what about those people who still remember - and are still hurting from - that earlier debacle? Can you really expect them just to forget? Let bygones be bygones?

I did quite a bit of writing over the summer on the subjects of author and work, creative freedom and creative responsibility. I could point you toward them if you're interested.

Post 49

Friday, January 3, 2003 - 9:15pm

I'm finding this discussion very, very interesting to read. And the debate between artistic merit (if you liked FF), and the role of ratings is interesting.

While in the perfect world Joy, your comment about judging Firefly on its own merits without baggage of other shows and characters - would be true. In the real world I think part, but not all of FireFly's fate is the result of baggage from other shows.

BBOvenguy's comment about seeing Mal as Joss thumbing his nose at fans (or should I say former fans) really makes the point that FF came in with baggage from other shows, and reminded me of an interview with Joss that was in the Onion in 2001. In it he basically said that he knew he walked a tightrope with his fans by getting so invloved with them and by having a cult show as he said:

"You don't want to let them down. The people who feel the most strongly
about something will turn on you the most vociferously if they feel you've
let them down. Sometimes you roll your eyes and you want to say, "Back off,"
but you don't get the big praise without getting the big criticism. Because
people care. So. Much. And you always know that's lurking there. It does
make a difference."

Basically before FireFly Joss won a lot of praise and an intense following based on the success of Buffy. Unfortunately he launched FireFly after the most controversial and least critically successful season Buffy had. At the end of season 6 fans such as BBOvenGuy felt let down and betrayed by Joss for a lot of reasons, the death of Tara, the warping of Buffy's once heroic character, writing that became average, and because somewhere a long the line Buffy lost that humor and optimism it once had.

So when FireFly came along, a lot of those fans were unwilling to get involved in another Whedon show and FireFly needed those fans. Joss needed those fans to watch FireFly and give it enough word of mouth so that it could build an audience. They didn't watch, the reviews weren't great and the ratings suffered.

In the perfect world, baggage wouldn't count, ratings wouldn't count only artistic merit would. But this isn't the perfect world, it's the dog eat dog world of network TV.

An interesting side note - my all time favorite show is Homicide - a criticly acclaimed show that had chronically low ratings on Friday nights that NBC did keep on because it was good - but even it's low ratings were high compared to FireFly. For example in 1998 Nov. 30 to Dec 6 Homicide pulled in a 6.8 - that low rating is still a lot higher than FireFly ever got.

Post 50

Friday, January 3, 2003 - 9:22pm

Friday, January 3, 2003 - 9:42pm

And as has been stated, on top of the Buffy baggage that Firefly had to contend with, there was also the network political baggage that Firefly had to contend with. In order to make room for Firefly, FOX chose to dump Dark Angel, a show that had a sizeable fan following of its own. The person who made that decision was Gail Berman, a friend of Joss Whedon's, and in fact the person who gave Buffy its start on the WB. As I said before, the fact that Firefly got a second chance after the first pilot was rejected was unusual. The fact that the show was picked up based only on the script for a second pilot and not a completed second pilot is almost unheard of. In the eyes of the Dark Angel fans, the decision to cancel their favorite show was an act of blatant nepotism - and I can't really say they're wrong.

It would be very nice if artistic works could be evaluated in a vacuum, divorced from the world around them, but that's very difficult to do - in this case nearly impossible for a lot of people.

Post 52

Friday, January 3, 2003 - 9:53pm

"Also if youn are thinking of campaigning for the return of Firefly I wouldn't; Joss has made it clear he doesn't think much of such things in the past and I'm sure he wouldn't change his position just because it would benefit him this time..."

I'm puzzled by that. I've participated in more than a handful of campaigns, charity and publicity, and have been ruthlessly, thoroughly thanked by Joss and co., personally.

I keep seeing that SciFi has said they won't pick up the show, but the point is really moot, since ME never pitched the show to them, and to my knowledge, never considered it, nor have they considered the WB.

Mutant Enemy is concentrating on UPN.

UPN may or may not pick the show up for its lineup, and either way, it matters not to me. I enjoyed Firefly, I enjoy Whedon's work, and I'll continue supporting the work as a fan, as long as I think it is good.

I still think it is very good work. I didn't enjoy Firefly at first, and thought I likely wouldn't watch anymore until Minear's "Out of Gas" aired, and that episode hooked me in. After watching the pilot air, I thought I likely would have enjoyed teh series to begin with if that episode had aired first. I'm saddened that I will not learn the stories of the characters, whom I was just beginning to love.

I didn't particularly think the first season of BtVS was very good, either. I though it was stale, and watched half-heartedly, and sporadically,as background noise when nothing better was on television. Season Two was what grabbed me, and kept me, as I thought it was exceptional.

I wasn't alienated by the death of Tara, at all. I found the character to be very Mary Sue, and dry. It packed no emotional punch for me. The treatment of the rape was upsetting to me, but nothing on BtVS has ever compelled me to feel happy about the hundreds of people who lost their jobs right before Xmas, or feel like Joss received any "just rewards" due to the cancellation.

I think I'm likely in the majority of television watchers who aren't a part of this sort of backlash against this man, whom I have known to be a good man, a talented man.

Post 53

Friday, January 3, 2003 - 10:22pm

OK - Buck/BBQ Guy/whatever (no disrespect intended, just you sound like the same person) - have to say, that your very logical points (poor ratings/everyone faced same challenges/etc) seem to fall apart when you start talking about Joss Whedon. Sorry - just don't get it. I watch tv for entertainment. Joss can say and do whatever - I will watch if I like it and won't if I don't. So, you want to see him punished because he killed off Tara - or because he reminded people that he was the creator and could make such choices - or both? Guess some people get a whole lot more involved in their tv watching than I can even imagine.

It just all sounds so (too) personal - I'm reading your comments and all I can think is "Gee, was he a writer who did not get a job due to Joss?" or "Was he on Dark Angel's staff and thinks Joss's relationship with whomever lost him his job?" Whatever it is - I hope it is resolved to your satisfaction soon - just don't shoot Joss or maim someone else involved because your nose is out of joint.

I will live if Firefly goes away - even when Buffy and Angel die off. I just will not be watching much tv, if any. Not like I haven't tried - watched Boomtown, Miami CSI, Everwood, Homicide, Hack, Presidio Med this season. None of them took, although I might check in on Everwood sometimes just cause I like Treat. I'll catch Sopranos on dvd - and possibly OZ. What else is on that matters?

Post 54

Friday, January 3, 2003 - 10:51pm

I don't usually descend to this sort of thing, making posts and whatnot, but this is too tempting to pass up.

After reading the above posts on Firefly, I was reminded rather starkly of why I am NOT an "Objectivist" -- because any pretense to "objectivity" in a creature as hopelessly subjective and inherently delusional and irrational as a human being is a farce.

It is interesting that there seems to be two distinctly-divided camps here: those who liked the show and thought it was worth something in its own right; those who hated the show and invoke the "Money is God" argument, as if free market economics was not just a tool but some Path to Truth. It is interesting that these latter folk tend to deny -- or at least complain about -- the two inescapable realities of existence: suffering and death. But, consider the source of this "philosophy": a woman who denied reality at nearly every turn, and rationalized her emotions without relent. And yes, I've read everything Rand ever wrote, and think quite highly of some of it.

I also write regularly for www.thetexasmercury.com and am a huge fan of Firefly. I first wrote about the show in October:

http://www.thetexasmercury.com/articles/parnell/HP20021013b.html

I have written a piece on the show's demise for next week's edition, which will be posted next Monday night, if things go according to schedule, and which will be linked to from the www.fireflyfans.net site when it appears, or so I am told by Haken.

Those interested in my views on Rand, "Objectivism," individualism, politics, life and art should go here:

http://www.thetexasmercury.com/articles/parnell/HP20020929.html

Where I discuss her work and philosophy at some length. I don't mean to sound harsh or cruel; some of my best friends have been and still are "Objectivists," and I was almost one myself when I was younger. Ladies, beware! I do not play your feminist games, and remain a diehard male supremacist.

But I am always sincere. Firefly was the best TV show I ever saw, and I was raised with the Boob Tube stuck in my face, from way back in the 1950s. It's interesting, because this show seems to be a kind of litmus test for human beings: if you like it, you seem to have at least SOME recognition of reality, and a bit of decency. If you don't, you're out there in la-la land in your own head, and, well -- "Money is God," isn't it?

"None of it means a damn thing." -- Malcolm Reynolds

Post 55

Friday, January 3, 2003 - 10:59pm

You know, I'm beginning to suspect that we owe these nice people an apology. Folks from both sides of the larger debate over Joss Whedon came in here with guns blazing, not realizing that the regulars here didn't know about the larger issues.

On behalf of... well, whoever will let me speak on their behalf... I'm sorry.

On the other hand, perhaps this has been illuminating for you. By now it should be obvious that Firefly never had a "fair chance" to be judged according to its artistic merits, however great or small you may feel those were. It was a child of the greater Hollywood scene, and the greater Hollywood scene helped bring it down.

This discussion should also serve to illustrate just how passionate viewers can get about a TV show - especially when the creators of that show go out of their way to generate that passion. It's all very well and good to look down your nose and say, "People shouldn't get so emotionally involved in fictional stories and characters." Perhaps you're right - perhaps they shouldn't. But the simple fact is that people do get involved, and saying it shouldn't be so isn't going to change that.

As I said, I used to be a TV writer, but I gave that up and switched to prose before I'd ever heard of Joss Whedon. That's not my beef against him. I'm just a guy who has spent the last ten months practicing "meatball counselling" on various posting boards and trying to clean up the emotional devastation that Joss Whedon left in his wake. It's left me a little on the edgy side.

Now, if you'd like to go on talking about the philosophical issues of artists and their work, I'd be happy to participate. Otherwise, I think I'll leave you in peace and let you get back to your own discussions.

Post 56

Saturday, January 4, 2003 - 12:58pm

Well.

I have been following this debate back and forth for sometime now. It seems that the fans of FireFly don�t want to give credit to the Nielsen ratings system because it is that system that spelled doom for their show.

So the logic is the Nielsen�s are flawed because it did not give FireFly a chance therefore they are flawed.

Hmm.

On the on other side we have a group, or groups, that are saying �it is the only system we have�.

So since the FireFly fans seem to pride themselves on their intelligence, I post this.

What better idea do you have to measure the success of a television show?

Cause I gotta tell you, I a waiting to hear this one. Nielsen Media makes a ton of money every year with their ratings system. So much that they are branching out into other areas as well. If you, and your years of watching TV, have a better idea I am quite certain they will hire you and give you a nice 6 figure deal.

Other points.
BBOvenGuy and Buck. Same person? Now that is funny. If you knew them both you would never make this mistake, it is quite laughable really.

Allyson: So you are tell us that Joss �I will do everything in my power� Whedon has only talked to UPN? Sorry. Not buying that one. Especially since I have heard from reliable sources they have talked to SciFi and were turned down.
Plus the word from UPN is they are not interested in this turkey. You are not the only one with insider information.

Artistic merits vs the merits of the Artist: So can a piece of art be judged outside of the personal merits of the creator. Maybe, in an utopia, but in this world no. Joss Whedon doomed FireFly the minute he decided to kill Tara. Sorry, but that is the truth. �Buffy� got built up by word of mouth thanks in part to the Internet. FireFly was killed by the same word of mouth. And if that wasn�t enough, pissing off the Dark Angel fans sealed it�s fate.

Unlike Joss I do not take pleasure in the pain and suffering of others. But I took extreme pleasure on hearing that FireFly was canceled. Every day that goes by reduces the chances that this show will ever be back in any shape or form. Joss used up too many favors, second chances and goodwill just keeping it on the air.

Warlock

Post 57

Saturday, January 4, 2003 - 1:05pm

Hi BBOvenGuy,

You raise an excellent question that has come up here from time to time.

You said:

"Ah, but here's the philosophical question for you, then - is it possible to judge a
creative work on its own merits, or does the personality of its creator influence the way a creative work is viewed? I'm a writer myself, in TV back in the 80s and now I'm about to have my first book published. Does my work stand independent of me, or does who I am influence it?"

First of all, CONGRATULATIONS on being published soon!!! That's awesome!

In reality, I doubt that most reviewers or readers of your work will be entirely unbiased, one way or another. Those that know you can probably not help being influenced by how they feel about you.
Ideally, a work SHOULD be reviewed and contemplated entirely upon it's own merit but I would guess that few people are capable of actually being able to pull that off. The best chance for an unbiased review/viewing of a work would be for an unknown artist/author/etc.

Which brings up one of those unanswerable questions -- what would have happened if Firefly had been marketed by some total unknown??? *smile*

But being unknown has its own drawbacks I guess. LOL! There is the 'establishment' (of whatever type) to break into. It just isn't easy.

You also wrote:

"And in the case of Joss Whedon, you have the added fact that he has deliberately
made himself part of the issue through his interaction with his viewers. He deliberately planted false reassurances about the fate of a certain character and a certain story line so that he could build viewer interest, especially among a particularly vulnerable segment of the viewing population. He then turned around and killed the character and destroyed the storyline in a manner that was deliberately designed to maximize the amount of pain those viewers felt."

I'm not familiar with what Joss has done in that regard, but I have to insert something that kind of jumped out at me here. 'vulnerable segment of the viewing population'. Whether or not Joss did whatever, I'm concerned about the implicit responsibility assigned to Joss/others for the feelings of the viewing public. Joss et al can not be responsible for the vulnerability of others! If someone gets too attached to a fictional character, that isn't Joss's problem it is the problem of the viewer. It is a viewer's responsibility to himself to be aware of the difference between reality and fantasy. I'm very wary when people begin to abdicate responsibility for their own feelings. It's why McDonald's is being sued by fat people with medical problems resulting from their own inability to control what they eat. How is McDonald's responsible for what people choose to eat? Responsibility for yourself has to come first, that can't be farmed out to food manufacturers or series creators/writers.

I used to watch Buffy fairly regularly the first few years. I loved the intensity of the characters, I appreciated the issues they struggled through, in their own unique ways. As an older adult (*gasp* I'm over 35 :) I found it refreshing that a cast of young people (highschool to college age) were so passionate about issues of justice, truth, loyalty and so on. That was the appeal for me, it was inspiring for that reason. That aspect was spoiled for me when they brought in the character of Buffy's younger sister. I could not tolerate the whining they had her do and so stopped watching the show.

However, I was saddened by Tara's death, but tragedy is a way that writers move other characters forward. The world is filled with tragic events (unfortunately) but what is important is how that tragedy is handled and it appears that was the main focus. Willow went completely off the deep end, unable to handle grief. The handling of grief is a critical component of human nature, and one that can either destroy a character, strengthen a character or set up the entire scenario of sinking into despair and then some kind of redemption scheme. I don't know how it was ultimately handled, but I was not traumatized by the sequence of events so it never occurred to me to judge Firefly in terms of Buffy.

There is, hopefully still on the front page of SOLOHQ, an article titled Roller Coaster Feelings by Elizabeth Kanabe that is excellent, as is a response to her article by a practicing psychologist (I hope I remember correctly) that is applicable to this handling of grief in both real life and in viewing fiction characters.

In the end, fiction is a selective recreation of reality. In reality, there are tragic events and people really have to live through those events and survive. Some are better at it than others. We don't choose for those events to happen in real life, but often, heroic struggles are the inspiration for recreating such situations in fiction.

Joy

Post 58

Saturday, January 4, 2003 - 2:14pm

"Sorry. Not buying that one. Especially since I have heard from reliable sources they have talked to SciFi and were turned down."

My source is Tim Minear. I would think your reliable sources pale in comparision, and I can name mine.

I suspect, however, that whichever "source" backs your opinion is the one you will believe.

I question the rationale of a person who would throw a party over a show failing...because the creator of the show killed a minor character on another show, a year ago.

Also, keep in mind that Mr. Whedon has a multi-million dollar development deal in which he can develop a dozen series, and they can all get canceled by midseason, but he will still get the checks. I'm sure Whedon isn't weeping into his bowl of Cheerios every morning.

I also question the amount of people with Nielsen boxes who turned off the show soley because a minor character was killed. Recent polls indicate that Spike is the favored character, and gets plenty of screen time.

The cancellation of Firefly has as much to do with a dead charater on BtVS, as the GNP of Uganda has to do with the price of beets.

Post 59

Saturday, January 4, 2003 - 3:22pm