Whedon Calls Death Knell For Firefly 641
Ant writes "Entertainment Weekly is reporting on the end of Firefly." From the article: "Alas, Whedon's fond memories are also tainted by Serenity's status as a franchise nonstarter; despite Universal's best marketing efforts, the film only mustered $25 million. 'In the end, it was what it was: a tough sell,' says Whedon, adding that it appears the Firefly saga has reached its conclusion. He has no regrets -- and he's moving on."
Just a thought.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Why go straight to a movie? Why not back to television. With a movie you only have one chance at redemption. With a series you have several. Make a few more episodes, get picked up by the SciFi channel and let it ride. I loved the Firefly series, but I didn't care for the movie. Yeah, it had great parts (so do some ugly hookers), but overall it both sucked and blowed!!
I guess I will be looking for that made for TV movie of Angel. And don't tell me it will never happen, because I already know.
I guess that stuff like this is the reason they make scotch.
Re:Just a thought.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sci Fi channel is owned by NBC (Score:5, Informative)
Sci Fi is not owned by Fox, it is owned by NBC [nbccableinfo.com].
Re:Sci Fi channel is owned by NBC (Score:5, Insightful)
SciFi got a deal to run the reruns, just like Cartoon Network got Family Guy reruns. But the rights to make new episodes are still tightly guarded by Fox.
Re:No rights for it (Score:5, Informative)
It would've been wonderful for more episodes of the show but the moguls wouldn't have it.
Ah well, it was a great show and it was fun while it lasted. I've got no regrets for supporting the show as much as I had.
You can't take the sky from me.
Re:No rights for it - Translation (Score:5, Insightful)
We won't make it and we can't take the chance that someone else will make it, it will be a success and we will be shown to have made yet another bad decision.
If we don't want it no-one can have it.
Re:No rights for it - Translation (Score:5, Informative)
This is the standard attitude among publishers of pretty much anything.
Re:No rights for it - Translation (Score:3, Insightful)
Come on. It sucks that the show is dead, but Mr. Whedon did make a deal, and he did make a lot of money. When Josh sold Firefly to Fox he was just coming from Buffy and Angel, both very succesful (Buffy more so, of course.) I guarantee his deal was for six figures, if not seven.
Re:No rights for it - Translation (Score:5, Interesting)
For example, it's a rather well-known (in the industry) fact that "Dark Angel" wasn't cancelled due to ratings but because a certain powerful executive (a woman who still works in the business) harbored a very public hatred of Jessica Alba. Public in the sense of that it made the rounds in business as a recurring bit of gossip, not public in the sense that you, Joe Smith, know about it. She made it one of her primary goals to sink that show any way she could. What's mildly amusing about this is that she's acquired a reputation for doing this sort of thing, and at least a half-dozen cancellations are attributed to her vindictiveness because the shows featured a woman she didn't like. Not that she doesn't like Ms. Alba because of some unpleasant personal interaction (they've never met, to my knowledge), but because Ms. Alba is extraordinarily gorgeous - and she despises gorgeous women. Especially strong-willed gorgeous women, and most of all strong-willed gorgeous women that fellow male executives drool over and talk about to each other within the range of this vipers hearing.
No names, but her pecadillos have reached the point where a bit of google searching can turn up the very same info I've just related, along with some of the shows that've been on her hit list (apart from "Dark Angel").
This is not an unusual thing. Many shows do just fine ratings-wise, yet get cancelled despite the fact that they make money. The reasons are usually rooted in the malicious behavior of executives more enamored of power than of money. Others are appalling (e.g., "Enterprise") but are kept because someone on the show (in this case, Berman) knows where some very, very embarrassing bodies are buried.
When it comes to television, don't attribute to stupidity what can instead be ascribed to petty evil. Nine times of out ten the reasons are firmly rooted in petty evil.
Max
Re:No rights for it (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No rights for it (Score:5, Funny)
Stood up to the man, and gave him what for
Our love for him now ain't hard to explain
The hero of Canton, the man they call Jayne!
(sorry - you sing your song, I'll sing mine
Re:Made for TV (Score:5, Funny)
Come on, what kind of browncoat are you? The appropriate responses would be:
"If wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak right now."
or:
"If only I had a magical wish-granting plank."
fortune-firefly [daughtersoftiresias.org] is your friend [pbone.net].
Re:'Firefly' not said in Serenity (Score:5, Informative)
"Ensign: We got a pos on a retinal--man carrying her out is Malcolm Reynolds, captains a Firefly-class transport ship 'Serenity'. Bound by law five times..."
It's in the script. I'll check my DVD when it gets here this week.
Re:Just a thought.... (Score:5, Informative)
Double-checking, I'm wrong, it's $2 million per episode [petitionspot.com] in production costs for Firefly... That's almost as much as ABC's Lost, and there they have a huge audience and marketing engine behind the show. They only got $38 mil total for the Serenity [boxofficemojo.com] movie, about $ 3/4 mil short of the public production costs.
In my humble opinion, Joss should be seeking to release an adult-level animated series, similar to WB's Batman, or even an anime-style futuristic romp. The level of detail, varied scenery, and scale of the sets are just too big for production offices these days, and if you can't film it, you can certainly draw it.
Re:Just a thought.... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Just a thought.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Double-checking, I'm wrong, it's $2 million per episode in production costs for Firefly... That's almost as much as ABC's Lost, and there they have a huge audience and marketing engine behind the show.
It's interesting you should make that comparison. It is very hard to rate the popularity of TV shows, since there is no direct purchase involved. Nielson type ratings are questionable in reliability. DVD purchases are actually one of the best measures. If you take a look at Amazon's top DVD sales for today you'll find that Lost is the second most popular TV series... right behind Firefly which is the most purchased TV series. Now, the price of Lost is higher than Firefly by about 25%, and they don't have specific statistics on how many have sold total. Nonetheless I think the runaway popularity of Firefly DVD sales speaks to its potential as a show that has an audience willing to support those production costs, if only given that option.
Re:Just a thought.... (Score:4, Informative)
It didn't stay in theaters long (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It didn't stay in theaters long (Score:4, Informative)
So we have to make this movie a MOVIE success on DVD, or it's curtains for the series for good.
Re:It didn't stay in theaters long (Score:3, Informative)
It's tough to sell your friends on a movie thats gone by the time you convince anyone to see it.
Despite Universal best efforts, i think i only saw one or two trailers for it. And they werent really very compelling trailers a
Re:Just a thought.... (Score:4, Informative)
58% of the critics on that site gave it their highest rating (for comparison: 21% for Phantom Menace and 65.95% for the original Matrix). Less than 10% felt it was below average; only 4.5% said that Serenity was "total crap."
Re:Just a thought.... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm one of those that protested that loudest that killing Wash was a stupid, stupid move. There were a variety or other problems Firefly fans had with the movie (eg turning River into "River the Reaver Slayer") but I think that was really at the core.
Wheddon created a series that a lot of people fell in love with and they rallied after it was cancelled to bring it back to life. Killing Wash in a way that many felt was pointless was a slap in the fact to a lot of fans that had worked, struggled, evangelized and pretty much gone above and beyond to bring their show back to life.
I think he made a fundamental miscalculation in thinking that his Firefly crowd would stick with him while he reached for a broader audience. Given how he's revered by Wheddonites who also love Buffy and Angel, I'm not surprised he erred on the side of appealing to a broader audience. But a lot of the fans of Firefly were no fans of Wheddon, and so they were completely unwilling to go follow him just because he's Wheddon. They saw his treatment of characters (Wash in particular but also others) as wanton disregard for their beloved franchise, they spurned the movie, quit trying to bring their friends, and went home to watch their Firefly DVD set one more time.
The remaining Wheddonites who crowded into the theaters night after night and dragged friends and relatives along were just not quite the critical mass needed to really get the show to break out. Whether or not things would have turned out differently had Wheddon not killed Wash - no one will ever know. I think the chance was there to make a new Star Wars (the original) mega-hit and that that was the mistake that cost him, but I'm sure there are plenty of Wheddonites and others who disagree with me.
In any case, I'm sad to see it go, but I won't be eager to catch the next Wheddon project anytime soon. As far as I'm concerned Wheddon and Lucas are just proof-postive that talent is a fickle creature and some creators clearly create works that far outsrtip their own understanding. Just because the muse visits, doesn't mean she'll stay.
-stormin
Re:Just a thought.... (Score:5, Insightful)
If anything I felt that it showed the core audience that this was not an episode of a TV series, where much could be expected to end up the same at the end as at the beginning. New viewers would not know of their earlier contributions to the story and would be much less attached to them.
I don't see how new viewers can have been a factor in the decision to let them die. New viewers would have gotten the same effect of seriousness if new characters had been added and then killed.
Also, River had been shown as having a 'super weapon' mode in the Firefly series, where she closed her eyes and killed three armed troops with three shots in about one second, so the movie was not 'turning' her into something new.
I loved the movie and will own the DVD today (first day out). If nothing else, you finally get to see what a Reaver really looks like.
Re:Just a thought.... **SPOILERS** (Score:3, Interesting)
1. If anything I felt that it showed the core audience that this was not an episode of a TV series, where much could be expected to end up the same at the end as at the beginning.
I suppose that's valid, but people campaigned hard to get Firefly back. Serenity was not Firefly. For some people that's fine. For others it's not fine: the loved Firefly and they missed those aspects of i
Re:prepare to mod me redundant... (Score:5, Insightful)
But I think that's really superficial. First of all, realism isn't the goal of entertainment. Realism is boring - we spend 1/3 our lives unconcious. That's real. Try that for a movie. When people say they want a movie to be "real" they mean they want it to be an immersive experience. This is something that fans of schindler's list and braveheart have in common with fans of the original star wars: we all want the movies to SEEM real, but not really be real.
And so the problem with killing Wash to me was that it DIDN'T help immerse me in the world. We've already seen one village decimated by reavers, the recording of another woman raped to death by reavers, AN ENTIRE F***ING PLANET where everyone's dead, every one the crew has ever met has died, one of the crew die, a lot of extra people die, and we're about to see Mr. Universe die. Oh and by the way the captain has threatened to start shooting his own crew. So for me, anyway, the whole "dangerous world" point had already been made.
What really bugs me, however, is that people act as though realism means people dying. How many people die in a real war? That are shot, I mean. In Iraq there's like what, 9 injured that survive to every one that dies? And yet in movies it's binary. You are shot and you either live or you die. So to me it seems amazingly hollow and superficial to be like "people dying is realistic". No, people GETTING HURT is realistic. When was the last time you saw a show or a movie where a main character got hurt and had to learn to live with the disability. I mean aside from the sub-genre where that IS the plot most characters exist in this crazy world where you're alive or you're dead. Could Wash have been paralyzed, lost an arm or a leg? THAT would have been realistic and challenging - but the truth is that that's not what we want in our movies - no matter how dark of a tone we're after.
I'm not desperately trying to say "why did they have to kill him", I'm saying that a world where bullets either kill you or you make a full recovery is just as escapist as a world where none of the hero's die. I would like to see a movie, this or any other, where a character suffers a serioues, permenant injury and the show goes on. That's not the whole plot, he never recovers, he just learns to live with the disability and the rest of the characters learn to deal with it.
In America we all avidly follow the body count in Iraq, but when we see someone without a limb or in a wheelchair we either stare or look away and in the end go back to our escapist world where you're either whole or gone. That's not reality at all.
-stormin
Re:Killing characters... killing Firefly (Score:3, Insightful)
If there is one thing that Joss loves to do, it's to get people really engrossed in the characters and then kill them off. Both Buffy and Angel have each died twice and many other side characters have bit the big one in many ways; some very touching and others just pointless.
Joss even teased [fireflyfan.net] us with Mal's death in the movie back in June 2004.
Without advance spoilers, I watched the movie knowing full well that
Re:prepare to mod me redundant... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:prepare to mod me redundant... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm just trying to say that if you think about it carefully and weigh the benefits of killing Wash to the cost -
Re:Just a thought.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I came out of that movie thinking, gee, that was a hard-hitting movie. The fact that Wash got killed, and the way that he did, was in the forefront of my mind when I thought that.
Did I like it that Wash died? No! But I think it helped make for a great film. I didn't like it in the sense that I liked Wash and wanted him not dead... but I didn't think that it made the movie bad, nor
Avast! Spoilers ahead! (Score:3, Insightful)
In short, that character was the author's voice.
Killing Wash established that "all bets are off." It was just about the last thing any fan of the show expected, and Whedon had to do something on that scale of unexpected tragedy to change the tone and make it clear that you weren't just watching a two-hour TV epdisode and paying eight bucks to do so.
It's also typic
Re:Just a thought.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Then you were full of false hope. Joss Whedon only got the movie deal by signing an agreement not to bring it back as a TV show. Furthermore, he had been expressing an interest, ever since the "Firefly" cancellation, in getting out of the TV business entirely and just doing movies. Notice how he hasn't started anything new in the wake of both Buffy and Angel ending?
If "Serenity" did really well, it might have
Re:Just a thought.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually I AM watching it very carefully - and that is why I dislike it so much. Here's something for you to consider:
Re:Just a thought.... (Score:3, Insightful)
We got to catch glimpses of it, such as the scene when he locked Jayne in the airlock, but for the most part "Captain Thight-pants" was a rather happy-go-lucky character on the TV series, and it suffered for it.
I loved the series, but the movie finally allowe
Re:Just a thought.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Firefly/Serenity is an interesting case. To fans Wash was indispensable. So for fans, it was successful to shock them. But those fans are the same ones that were fans OF THE TV SHOW. And therefore a lot of them - not all of them - were not happy to see their TV show treated like a common action movie.
Because newbies to the show had no way of knowing how indispensable Wash was - and so as far as they were concerned he was as dispesable as any of the c
Re:Just a thought.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Goddamn, you can stop repeating that any time now, it won't make it true.
Wash's death served the purpose of moving the story to where the storyteller wanted to move it. Just because the purpose was lost on you (because it crushed your fantasy of the show someday coming back on TV with all your favorite characters intact) doesn't mean that the purpose wasn't there.
I *loved* the series, and Wash was my second-favorite character after Kaylee. Women in the cr
Ironic timing.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Ironic timing.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Joss realizes that this news will get out to the rabid fans IMMEDIATELY BEFORE RELEASE OF THE DVD... Is it coincedence?? I don't think so.
Re:Ironic timing.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ironic timing.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Kind of like I do reading "A Game of Thrones" despite the fact that I loved the book.
Re:Ironic timing.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Viral marketing?
Bueller?
Re:Ironic timing.... (Score:5, Interesting)
From the guy himself (with typical sarcasm):
All right, now I have to jump in and set the record straight. EW is a fine rag, but they do take things out of context. Obviously when I said I had 'closure', what I meant was "I hate Serenity, I hated Firefly, I think my fans are stupid and Nathan Fillion smells like turnips." But EW's always got to put some weird negative spin on it. But so we're clear once and for all: If you read a quote saying "I'd love to do more in this 'verse with these actors in any medium" all I'm saying is that Nathan has a turnipy odor. It's not his fault, he doesn't eat a lot of them but everyone else in the cast noticed it and tht's not really something I'm prepared to deal with any more. And Jewel said outright she wouldn't do scenes with him except stuff like the SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER funeral scene which was outside in a high SPOILER wind. So if I do manage to find another incarnation for my beloved creation, it will have been totally against my will.
I hope that clears everything up. Oh, and when I say I want to do a Spike movie, it means I have a bunion on my toe.
-joss (by which I mean Tim)
(no, actually me.)
@whedonesque [whedonesque.com]
If you want something more verifiably him, I posted a couple of quotes [slashdot.org] from newspaper interviews a couple of hours ago and quite a bit farther down the page.
I don't care that I can't read the EW article... (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmmmm. You don't think they timed this, do you?
Re:I don't care that I can't read the EW article.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Huh? What the hell are you on?
Don't get me wrong, I don't think of Firefly as the TV version of Christ's second coming, but what exists on TV that's worth watching? And what shows exist in sufficient quantity to warrant the "all kinds of" label?
Whenever I flip through the major network stations, all I see is new reality shows and faceless "family dramas". Surely you're not suggesting anyone watch that crap?
Only new show this season I watched
Re:I don't care that I can't read the EW article.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, Serenity was *in* BG.
see: http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=15563 [fireflyfans.net]
Re:I don't care that I can't read the EW article.. (Score:3)
Re:I don't care that I can't read the EW article.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Absolutely, I'm a fanboy. (Score:3, Insightful)
You, my friend, are lucky. I guess I was too old when they came out to see them as anything but LCD pandering.
Joss Whedon really came into his own when he made Firefly. Hopefully its financial tanking doesn't set him on a backslide.
Dude! Get it on iTunes! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Dude! Get it on iTunes! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Dude! Get it on iTunes! (Score:3, Interesting)
Jesus Hairy Christ, a thousand times yes! I will pay $10 per episode no problem for Firefly. Is there anyone at Fox listening?!?!?! I will wager there are perhaps 50,000 others exactly like me, and 100,000 more who will pay $2 per episode. If they can find a way to cut their production budgets a tad (and why not? they've already shot a bunch of footage they can use for stock; they've already made the CGI models and tex
Re:Dude! Get it on iTunes! (Score:5, Interesting)
Haha, good one. Seriously though, they're sitting on Firefly RIGHT NOW. Even if they were listening, they're not going to be swayed by a bunch of people saying "I'll pay 10 bucks!" They still probably blame the show's failure on the show itself instead of all that wacky episode order timeslot crap they pulled, and remember, this is Fox we're talking about. They cancelled Family Guy and Futurama, and they fought tooth and nail to stop Star Wars (Star Freaking Wars, the first one) from ever being made. They're not #1 when it comes to doing things that fans would love.
It is a sad thing... (Score:2, Interesting)
The series had a lot of potential, and in trying to please too many folks, the movie lacked the ability to measure up to it.
I saw it once, and would rather watch the episodes of the TV show...
Re:It is a sad thing... (Score:3, Interesting)
The whole concept of the show was about a series, not a movie. The progression of characters and particularly their own opinions on one another, was the meaning of their "team" of sorts. The movie completely threw this away. Instead, we got star wars with different characters.
For example, in killing the pilot and the preacher, there was only suspense and emotion. There was no time for the charact
Re:It is a sad thing... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:It is a sad thing... (Score:3, Informative)
/pedant
Re:It is a sad thing... (Score:3)
Re:It is a sad thing... (Score:3, Funny)
Ya know, usually when a person says a character is their favorite, they at least know the name of that character....
DVD set? (Score:2)
No way related to DVD sales? (Score:3, Informative)
Personally, I liked the show, I really liked the movie, and I can see why both failed in the financial sense (bad marketing for both, episodes out of order and plot development much too slow in the show).
Re:No way related to DVD sales? (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually I think this could have a negative effect on sales. The fanboys were already planning to buy multiple copies of the DVD (as gifts to family, friends, strangers on the street-corner...), all in hopes of pushing sales high enough to get
Whedon's last words (Score:5, Funny)
"It was a leaf on the wind." *CRUNCH*
Re:Whedon's last words (Score:5, Interesting)
Wash: Oh yeah? I am a leaf on the wind, watch how I soar!
Giant Spike: You're a dead leaf now, dude.
Wash: *TOTALLY UNEXPECTED IMPALEMENT*
Fans:
Zoe: No way did that just happen. Simon can fix this!
Fans: OMGWTFFJDIAJDJASKDJAKLDJA
Mal: Run like hell now, strangle Joss Whedon later!
Fans: *WEEP*
Re:Whedon's last words (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Whedon's last words (Score:3, Interesting)
More importantly though, it showed that the deep magick that typically protects the protagonists had failed. It made the rest of the film much more exciting.
Re:Whedon's last words (Score:3, Insightful)
No, you don't. It was a stupid, arrogant descion by Mr. Whedon that had no greater effect than to alienate most of his audience. It doesn't cause the audience to believe that all of the rest of the characters might die. It doesn't do anything to give heighted meaning to anything that happens in the rest of the film. And it doesn't allow for any character development in the others whatsoev
Well, (Score:3, Interesting)
Sci-Fi is about breaking the constraints and tired plots of conventional stories. This means fantastic things like aliens, robots, artificial intelligence and time travel. Not rehashing the stale concept that the rest of the universe really isn't so different from home and we'll never really evolve past the emotions and biases we've got right now.
Re:Well, (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not just "cowboys in space". It's about a man who is struggling to stay true to his heart. It's about the crew that grows up around him. It's about extreme civil disobedience in an opressed society. It's about doing what's necessary and about doing what's right. Space is just the scenery.
And THAT is why it failed. (Score:3, Insightful)
Fairy Nuff. (Score:3, Interesting)
In general, I dislike sci-fi that says "this is utopian" and/or "this
Re:Well, (Score:3, Insightful)
This is one of the things that made Firefly so great. These days, aliens, robots, artificial intelligence and time travel are the tired plots of conventional stories, and the concept that the universe really isn't so different from home and we'll never really evolve past the emotions and biases we've got right now was a very new and different presentation of our future. It's a refreshing take on the genre that I always thought they pulled off brilliantly.
I hope that this is just a marketing gimmick, but
Re:Well, (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, wait... I guess we can't.
Cheers.
I guess (Score:5, Funny)
Text of TFA (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Text of TFA (Score:5, Insightful)
''I should say I'm above reading reviews,'' he says. ''But I would be lying.''
''In the end, it was what it was: a tough sell,'' says Whedon
As for Serenity, ''I have closure,'' he says. ''And now, I can have it in my home which means that finally I can actually stop working on it.''
Wow, how enlightening. Not a fucking word outta Joss's mouth about the end of Firefly (as opposed to Serenity - the movie.) Sure we have some screwball reporter's interpretation of whatever was said in the interview. Some say [whedonesque.com] the reporter is paraphrasing him when he said that even if there is no more Firefly, the movie at least has some closure. For the number of times Joss talked about ideas for the future (ex. about Jubal Early - "Oh, I know he survived.") and how DVD sales will help determine Firefly's future, it's hard to imagine him totally giving up on the Firefly universe. Until I see exactly what Joss said, I have a real hard time swallowing this story whole.
On a side note, I am a rabid fan. Firefly is Joss Whedon's masterpiece so far. Astonishing X-Men is alright, Angel was good, and Buffy never really drew me in, but I do plan to watch my brother's copy of the series sometime. But if Joss is giving up on Firefly for good, he is throwing away the crown-fucking jewels , imho (which matters not, i am well aware...)
Thanks for letting me rant. This article is just really ticking me off right now.
Firefly :: BSD? (Score:5, Interesting)
Even Joss' comments must be taken with a grain of salt. I sincerly doubt that this will be the end of Firefly - considering that currenty, Amazon.com ranks Serenity as the #1 selling DVD, with the complete Firefly series coming in at #6 (again). DVD sales on this franchise are through the roof, and have been the fulcrum upon which the future of the franchise balances.
Call me what you will, but I don't think we've heard the last of this yet.
But of course, I could be wrong...
This is just another step along the path (Score:3, Interesting)
Production values won't be what you'd like them to be but they'll be damned close. Actors will get (low paying) work on these shows and some of them will go on to bigger and better things. It will be like a step below working in soaps or something.
Firefly won't be the show that does this because it's owned by Fox and so you can't keep it alive without paying them. This business model doesn't allow for that or, at the very least it doesn't allow for it on the scale that Fox is expecting bank. It'll be more like Open Source Television.
Fans of Science Fiction should just get together and cut the studios out. It needs to be an original story. Nothing studio owned will work. The guys getting traffic doing Star Trek episodes for free are the place to start. If people can get together and make fan based shows like New Voyages then they can use that as a stepping stone to an original story Sci-Fi pay per episode series.
Very misleading (Score:5, Informative)
Uh, yeah, bit misleading (Score:5, Informative)
"It would depend on huge numbers from the DVD," writer/director Whedon allows. "Obviously, we are still shy of making our money back from the box office. But we are within shouting distance. Still, it would have to blow up pretty huge for a sequel to be called for.
"Mind you, stranger things have happened. And they do seem to happen to me. So it's not like I'm shutting the door." -- Toronto Star interview [thestar.com]
"The, um, the movie is finished. And the story is told. The world is not finished. There's more to tell, but that's always the case with everything I do and whether I get the chance to tell [it] or not it is up to somebody else. So I made sure that this movie had completion and didn't feel like a glorified prequel. It's its own piece and it wraps everything up. I have a sense of closure that I never had, and I can walk away satisfied. But if somebody tells me not to walk away, I'll turn right back around." -- Comcast Movies interview [comcast.net]
This EW article seems to take the stance that since Whedon is working on projects other than Firefly/Serenity and is taking a realistic view towards their finances, he clearly has abandoned them, despite the fact that his other projects have been in the pipe for some time.
A perfect example of how stupid Fox is (Score:4, Interesting)
Some people think that a la carte cable is bad for consumers, but I'd gladly pay $30 for Sci-Fi, Cartoon Network, Comedy Central, the History Channel and MusicChoice. That'd be only $20 less than full digital cable, and if they'd throw in a "Sci-Fi 2, 3, 4" like they have with MTV, I'd glady go up to $40. The TV and movie studios are phenominally stupid, such as the case of Firefly where they spent obscene amounts of money producing it only to let some executive rip the sequence to shreds for shits and giggles.
Re:A perfect example of how stupid Fox is (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:A perfect example of how stupid Fox is (Score:3, Insightful)
The truth is that they probably have no idea how to make a product work and they're just fishing around hoping to make it work out right for their bottom line. There's probably a good deal of petty squabbling and bureaucratic squabbling that gets things pushed around more than the merits
Marketing? (Score:5, Interesting)
I call bullshit on this one. Most people I know never heard of the movie. When I went to the theater, there was no movie poster nor a listing on the Marque. The screen number that it was showing in, rather than having a lit sign over the number, had a hand written tag taped to the light, and this is no "small" theater. This was the largest in the area.
I'm not even going to defend the movie, because it had it's critics, but it's certainly far better in many ways to other very popular films this year, and it had a psychotic fanbase. The fact that I know several Firefly fans that didn't even KNOW the movie had already come and gone before they found out about the DVD just further goes toward making me think their "best marketing efforts" were utter rubbish.
If I were the the paranoid type I'd say Hollywood intentionally made it a point to show fans with this movie that yelling loudly about the things you want to see will get you what you want. They tell YOU what you're going to watch, not the other way around. It's the only way they can use the media to brainwash the masses. It just doesn't work as well when we actually get some say so in the matter.
Re:Marketing? (Score:4, Interesting)
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire: 3,858 screens.
Now granted, no studio in their right mind would expect Serenity to need as many screens as something like a new Harry Potter movie, but that still doesn't compare too favourably, especially considering that it wasn't opening against much competition at the time. I think 'Flight Plan' was the big movie from the previous week - nothing major opened the same week as Serenity.
Universal FIlms Tend To Do Badly (Score:3, Informative)
Serenity got near to no publicity here. I go to the cinema most weeks through the Summer and only knew thw film was coming out because I read Slashdot and PA. Universal really didn't do their job here.
Probably a good thing (Score:5, Funny)
It's a good thing, I think. (serenity spoilers) (Score:3, Informative)
That said, after seeing Serenity, I felt it is a great ending to Firefly.
The big dark secret of the Alliance was revealed (although im sure there are others, and this finally explains the reevers), they're no longer going after Simon and River. We find out a bunch of stuff about River. River finally has a real place in the crew (as the new pilot) and it seems she is less insane now that the truth about the reevers was revealed
While I'd love to find out more about Book, it seems pretty clear he was like the assassin in the movie before he became a shephard, i still feel Serenity was a good ending and it left me satisfied.
The only part im sad about is it seems Joss had plans for 2 more and if thats true then there must have been more plot to explore but now we'll never know
Musings about Inara (firefly & serenity spoile (Score:3, Interesting)
This reminds me of something which others here might find amusing... after having recently watched the Firefly episodes, the episode commentaries, and the movie, I somehow got the half-baked idea that Inara is a vampire, or a succubus, or some other sort of supernatural creature. Whedon's other shows, Buffy and Angel, are pretty obviously in the same unive
Re:Musings about Inara (firefly & serenity spo (Score:3, Informative)
Although, an "Inara" _is_ the Hindu goddess of rain and lightning and the Japanese god(dess) of rice/food
From what you have pointed out I would think more along the lines of genetic experiments/modifications(*).
Stuff like this is mentioned in the series (not only River), it could easily explain old-age-but-young-looking and could also tie in nicely with the "Blue Sun" storyline.
A
Joss Whedon's comment on this article - MOD UP! (Score:5, Informative)
Link (Score:3, Informative)
(Spoilers) I blame Whedon's salt-the-earth plot (Score:3, Informative)
Okay, I'm the last person to feel like we need to have cushy Star Trek rules where everyone lives that's a main character and only nameless red shirts die. I'm perfectly fine with major characters getting axed in a series...although you always hope it happens on the writer's terms and not because one of the actors dies (so sad, West Wing). But killing off a main character to fans is the like charging $20,000 on your credit card. That better be a damn spectactual investment that pays dividends in the long run that make up the cost. Otherwise, you've left a real goodwill vacuum.
Personally, I was I think most upset that Shepard Book was killed off. He was a great character, an walking apparent contradiction between his current peacemaker role and apparently some military past life (showing his ID card to the Alliance doctors to get someone medical treatment). The character Book gave a nice calm anchor to provide sage advice and comfort. Who would take his place? Is Jayne going to wax poetic when they face some great evil? So, killing of Book...which I would totally accept on its own...was a really ballsy move. The only way to make up for it would be to introduce a new "father figure" or similar replacement. But the movie didn't do that, or even hint at it.
Then they killed off Mr. Universe or whatever his name was, and a host of virtually every other bit character from the original series. This is the salt-the-earth style I'm talking about. Maybe none of those characters were worth a spit, but they were established coordinates on the Firefly roadmap. The movie only really introduced one new location, and it was devoid of human inhabitants. So it's like Firefly might as well be alone in the galaxy as far as relative relationships. If the movie had done well and a new series was greenlighted...it would have literally been like day one having to introduce a raft of new characters to replace all of the ones you wastefully killed off. Again, it could be done, but...only if the payoff is worth it.
And finally, killing off Wash. And doing in the most offhanded, insulting "ooga boogy" way possible. "Well I guess we're all OKAYAAAAAAAAAAHOMG (die)" That was just crap writing. And Zoe who was willing to storm the citiadel of some well armed private army to save him, just turned and walked away leaving his corpse to well known reaver necrophiliacs? One person who saw and early screened said..."I would have totally bought his death 100% if like at his gravesite Zoe had calmed cut off her ring finger with wedding ring and left it on his grave" I totally agree. It was like he was a total minor character in how his death was handled. And, maybe he wasn't a major character, but his marriage to Zoe had to at least elevate him higher than Simon, River, or even Jewel.
So, in my opinion, what killed Firefly is that as a mainstream movie, it didn't have the trite happy ending that the mainstream wants. And as a fan movie, it burned a season worth of fan goodwill for absolutely no reason at all. It had the plot of a mid-season extended episode, but it had the resolution of a series finale. And so, that's what it became. As a true Firefly fan...I honestly don't know if I would want whatever Firefly series would have had to follow that movie. If I were to close my eyes and dream at all now, it will be for a Firefly prequel about the war and the history Browncoats.
Firefly, in the end, was like Cowboy Bebop...an amazing ride, but written in such a way that when its over...its over.
- JoeShmoe
False (Score:5, Informative)
http://whedonesque.com/comments/9027 [whedonesque.com] and
http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=22059 [aintitcool.com] (look towards bottom of article).
Re:it just wasn't that good (Score:3, Informative)
It is this decades babylon 5. It just didn't last as long.
Re:it just wasn't that good (Score:4, Funny)
1) You are not a geek. You do not belong here. Stop reading stuff from this website. Go to Kuroshin or Technocrat. Shoo.
2) You do not deserve your girlfriend. Smurfs need to date Smurfette, you on the other hand can easily get by on standard issue female.
Oh, why am I falling for this ruse? Your girlfriend obviously only exists in your Sybillike mind.
Re:it just wasn't that good (Score:3, Insightful)
My opinion of Firefly was that it was briliantly written, excellent *realistic* dialogue, and very witty.
I'm also of the opinion that most other SF shows are crap. Finally Firefly gave us a show that was action-packed from beginning to end, unlike those shows that wallow in political "intrigue" trying to
Re:it just wasn't that good (Score:4, Informative)
It was poorly planned. They tried to keep too many secrets from the audience, which just wound up making the show hard to get attached to. Compare it to lost: lost only gives you a few mysteries at a time, and always wraps up a few before delivering the next batch. Firefly really needed better writers and better planning.
You couldn't be more wrong. I've seen both shows. Lost has mediocre writing and weak character development. I have not seen a single innovative element to the writing of Lost. Firefly had excellent and innovative writing, including some of the the best examples of characters not understanding one another without dumbing it down so much as to seem unbelievable.
The reason Lost is a success and Firefly is not is because Lost is marketed to hell and back by some fairly sharp people. Firefly was intentionally sabotaged by executives with a grudge. Do you really think Lost would be a success if they aired the episodes out of order and changed the time it was on three times during it's first season, and they pre-empted it with sports multiple times?
Re:it just wasn't that good (Score:3, Insightful)
Which mysteries have they wrapped up exactly? Do we know what the island is? No. Do we know why there are polar bears there? No. Do we know who The Others are? No. And these are all mysteries that were introduced in the first season.
Lost is pretty popular and I used to like it a lot, but I stopped watching because the writers NEVER resolve anything of real importance.
Firefly, OTOH, was cancelled
Re:Josh takes his marbles and goes home. (Score:4, Insightful)
Firefly is obviously not a huge hit.
Firefly the series is the 6th most popular DVD sale at Amazon.com and Serenity is the most popular DVD sale on Amazon.com today. How do you define a hit?
Re:I'm a little shocked... (Score:5, Informative)
Actually the movie has grossed 38 million, one million short of the budget. Heres the industry rule of thumb. Box office is 1/5 of the total income from a movie, once you include DVD sales, and showings on television. Production budget is 1/3 of the cost of the movie once you figure in marketing and distribution costs. So the movie cost 117 million and will make about 190 million when all is said and done. Rumor has it they skimped a lot on the marketing, so it will actually be quite a bit more profitable than that. Also, Serenity is the number one DVD sale on Amazon today, so DVD sales may be a lot more than expected. Anyone who thinks it was a "flop" does not know what they are talking about. Not that it was a huge success, as movies go.
Re:Yeah but you liked Battlefield Earth. (Score:3, Funny)