Firefly Marathon on SciFi, September 18th

kulakovich writes, "Hot on the heels of Stargate's cancellation, the SciFi Channel is running an entire season of Firefly starting at 8am (Eastern) on September 18th. This news is fresh from yesterday's posting on the Whedonesque blog. Start making space on the PVR!"

If it's popular on Sci-Fi can we expect more?

[FalconDelta]

I think it's great that Fierfly is going to re-air, but how many times are we going to be able to watch those same initial episodes without wanting so much more? My hope is that they will air the pilot that they failed to air the first time. I know it's probably too much to hope for, but they should really get the cast and crew back together for some more episodes. I don't think it's too far gone yet to do so. I had fun listening to the firefly podcasts people were making. I think the series has a potential similar to starwars if it were developed further. They created the possiblity of a large universe with lots of characters, plot elements, and scenarios. All in all, I can't wait to see what happens.

A little off topic, but an important point.

[ZJVavrek]

Okay, you made a great point about trying to show the popularity of the show by boosting viewership. Unfortunately, I don't have the SciFi channel, so I can't help out. However, a point continues coming to mind:

How do networks determine viewership? Say a million of us tune in to watch the Marathon, half even stay for the entire thing. What is the process by which the networks discover this fact? I'm trying to figure out how much it matters what show I'm watching if I don't have some sort of Nielson box in my house.

Regardless, I'm very glad that enough of the popularity has gotten noticed so that it can be re-aired. And probably in the correct order, too. (This is /., you think I rtfa? Probably was in there, wasn't it?)

Re:Careful

[geminidomino]

Like a war on piracy?
Or a war on slavery?

Precisely. I never said our current crop of asshats invented it, but that doesn't make it not complete BS.

It's hard to think of an SF show that's that libertarian. Most are either Utopian quasi-socialist/progressive (e.g. Star Trek), or have a strong military background coupled with a government ranging from progressive to conservative, but almost never libertarian (BSG, Stargate, B5...). Many feature a rebellion against a totalitarian regime, (Star Wars) but all the rebels typically want to set up a conventional big (though nicer) government of their own ("The New Republic") rather than just fly free ("You can't take the sky from me")

Farscape. Both Firefly and Farscape had at least a semi-totalitarian regime (The Alliance and the Peacekeepers), and the crews in neither are particularly interested in the politics beyond "keep my ass in one peice."

Of course, I loved Farscape even more than Firefly, so that's in no way meant to be a detraction.

Re:NOT Cancelled!

[theStorminMormon]

Yeah, and that was definitely 10 seasons too many.

What is it with sci-fi fans that they turn off their sense of critical appreciation when they turn on the sci-fi channel. Stargate, Star Trek: Voyage, Farscape - the reason sci-fi shows don't stand a chance with the mainstream is that sci-fi fans have their standards set so low! You transport your average sci-fi show to any other channel and it's revealed for what it is: Hercules or Xena with lasers and spaceships.

As an actual sci-fi fan, this upsets me. Then truly good shows (like Firefly) don't make it even when they should. Even I didn't really make time to see it when it was originally on Fox because of all the crappy sci-fi shows I'd seen before (clearly that was a mistake on my part).

As long as sci-fi producers can make money by hiring chimpanzees to write stupid shows acted by mannequins the quality will never improve.

-stormin

Re:Start making space on the PVR!

[QuantumG]

Yeah, he has a curious contract with Fox. People tried to independantly fund him to create a second series of Firefly and he told everyone that he couldn't even accept gifts. Buying him a pint would be fine, buying him a porsche would not.

Advertising

[digitalamish]

I just read this little insight about TV a few days ago (maybe here on /.) that completely changed how I look at TV. Programs are made for the advertisers, and we the viewers are just the product. When it comes right down to it, the sucess or failure of a program is determined by the advertising revenue, not really viewership. It's the amount of viewers that draw the advertisers which pays the bills. Bascially only DVD sales and 'webisodes', which are marketed directly to the viewers, are the only place the advertisers are out fo the process.

Re:NOT Cancelled!

[theStorminMormon]

Oh well gee, I just got called a name by an AC.

That's never happened before.

-stormin

Why can't people use common sense?

[doodlebumm]

Advertising is the reason that the studios want to have DRM-and-no-commercial-skip viewers for their on-line-available content. I'm not opposed to having the commercials in the downloaded versions. I think that if they were smart, they'd have 5 second commercials (not long enough to skip, but short enough to not be bothersome) or "really good commercials" that people want to watch. It's the obnoxious commercials that we all hate. If there were 24 5-second commercials sprinkled throughout an hour and 2 really great commercials that were worth watching, they could probably sell the time for much more, because people would probably see them, instead of channel surfing for a few minutes, or getting up and going to the frig or potty. Four extra minutes in a 45 minute show would be fine. Everyone would win. The advertisers would have their commercials seen. The studios would get their advertising money. The people would get their programming. If they charged people $1.00 for an early download of the show (before the free version is made available, like two days before - If you just have to see what happens on Lost before the rest of the office), that would supplement things a little more, and people would not have to shell out $3.99 for a show, and they wouldn't have to use a DRMed, crappy, viewer. And they could use Windows, MacOS, Linux, iPod, PSP, whatever...

Can't people use a little common sense to come up with alternatives for the current tv model that isn't working for everyone? Give everyone what they want, but do it so that no one is feeling the pain. Common Sense!!!

Firefly Chinese != Real Chinese

[jiawen]

I think the only people who understood that Chinese were the scriptwriters... The Chinese in Firefly makes no sense. See my corrections and notes [jiawen.net].

Re:Why you won't see any more Firefly made...

[Churla]

Good point about Book. But I am willing to place bets Book would have been the foreshadowed version of what would happen/become of the operative they sent after her in the movie. Basically Book is a glimpse 15 years into the future of the operative. (Whedon loves the occasional "it's all a big circle" story)

As a side note, it pissed my wife off to no ends with what happened to Book in the movie. I thought she was going to build a pipe bomb for Mr Whendon after the untimey demise of a certain other character...

Why I won't be watching

[beaverfever]

I really enjoy good sci-fi, but I will not watch anything which is sci-fi just for the sake of it being sci-fi. I am more interested in a quality piece of entertainment than in indulging the genre itself.

I watched a bit of Firefly because it was hyped so much, but to be honest I thought it was just as clichéd as 95% of the rest of the sci-fi tv shows/movies out there and I gave up on it. Perhaps it was marginally better or marginally more imaginative than most shows, but when a genre's fans start celebrating slight improvements or changes as if they were quantum leaps of imagination, then I think there is a problem.

Besides Firefly itself, sci-fi fans keep looking backwards (which funnily enough goes against the premise of being a sci-fi fan), and sinking more and more time and money into the old standards like Star Wars and Star Trek. Think about this; Star Trek/Wars are still at the pinnacle of sci-fi creativity, and they are 40 and 30 years old respectively. At what point do Star Trek/Wars become inherently too old? By its nature, sci-fi shouldn't be stuck in the same creative rut as the western movie genre is. How long will it be until really new ideas surface?

Sci-fi publishing is in marginally better shape with some creative ideas being presented, but there doesn't seem to be the same crossover from printed fiction to cinema in sci-fi the way there is in mainstream fiction. Why is this? Do sci-fi fans read?

For myself, an important part of sci-fi is imagination, and sci-fi tv/movies are no longer imaginative (there is some product which has imaginative concepts but suffers from poor plot/production/other dismal flaws). Sci-fi is a sick animal with its head up its ass, eating its own shit, proclaiming how delicious and nutritious it is. I would think more sci-fi fans would look forward to the day when something fresh comes along.