OT: Movies You Have Seen Lately

[Baron Munchausen]

You do have to wonder if the decision to take the 'Star Wars' universe into television had something to do with the recent boom in television SciFi. If so, then surely he would use his leverage to squash a competing show right under the same corporate umbrella.

[Caduceus]

Fox also had Space:Above and Beyond cancelled after one season. A show that I really enjoyed, so I feel your pain with Firefly.

I don't care if Lucas likes or doesn't like Wheadon. For the studio, it is all about dollars. If it doesn't sell advertising space, forget it. This was several years before Lucas considered bringing Star Wars to television, so I don't buy that arguement unless he has a ten-year plan (which they may... "We'll release the ORIGINAL version of SW with the SPECIAL EDITION in 2008 on HD-DVD!!").

You can bet if Wheadon had made a movie that grossed $150M after costing $40M to make, there'd be a sequel in the works.

The show may have been shut down due to influence, I can't see the links on the wikipedia so they could be to Martha Stewart reruns (TV Guide). But nobody has shown that the movie wasn't promoted. It was HEAVILY promoted to the markets that would theoretically find it appealing - SciFi channel, sporting events and wrestling on TV, I saw an ad in Entertainment Weekly, there was a feature on TV Guide. It simply didn't make money because it didn't have a wide appeal for whatever reason.

I watched one show, the first one that was on, and decided that I liked it, but never saw the second episode because I thought it wasn't going to make it.

[Hunpecked]

Slynky: "It's easy for a person who doesn't care about a particular show to not care much about why it was canceled."

Certainly not enough to look beyond the obvious reason--low ratings--and come up with a VLWC ("Vast Lucas Wing Conspiracy") to explain it.

"Be sure to click on footnote #5 for information that contradicts your insinuation that the show didn't have much of an audience."

Um, the show was popular with TiVo users? Sure sign of a blockbuster, that!

How about this: "Back in 2002, Firefly was one of the beleaguered Fox network's many casualties, ranking 66th in the Nielsen ratings for its first episode and quickly descending to around 100th place for the rest of its run." -- http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=1910&p=.htm

Maybe Fox should have handed out more free TiVo units?

"It's all about making money fast. If it isn't made fast enough, then don't "get behind" the series and push it, NO, by all means, just cancel it!"

This suggests to me that Slynky is well aware of the show's precarious ratings, and is merely criticizing Fox's reluctance to take a bigger risk on it. Series DVD sales suggest Fox may have make a mistake, but the film's lukewarm reception indicates the TV series may never have appealed to more than a niche audience. In any case, Fox's bottom line is enough to explain the cancellation, so I'd need more than just Lucas' alleged trash talk to hang a conspiracy theory on.

BTW, now that Battlestar Galactica is poised for a third season, isn't it about time Lucas turned his Jedi mind control on the Sci Fi network?

[Baron Munchausen]

So far as I know, the SciFi channel is not in his reach. He is making his deal with Fox, right? The SciFi Channel is currently owned by NBC/Universal. He'd have to sue outright in open court like he did with the original, and that is now widely recognized as a very stupid move. Even George Lucas must know better than to walk right into a buzzsaw?

[Atrocities]

The thing is, Lucas waved the Star Wars TV series in their faces like then after he got what he wanted, the fat prick, he changes his mind and decides to "hold off" on the idea for a few more years.

About Fox, Family Guy, nuff said.

As to BSG, if we get a full 3rd season I will be impressed after how horribly they diluted the story line in the last half of the second season. An opinion shared by many, is that there will not be a fourth season.

[Black_Knyght]

Hunpecked said:
Several posters have leaped to the defense of the Firefly series, claiming I've "missed the point" of the show. Unfortunately these people seem to have missed my point: yes, I didn't "get" the show, but guess what? Neither did a lot of others. THAT is why the series was cancelled after half a season and that's why the movie tanked. There's no need to invoke conspiracy theories to explain the demise of an unpopular show.

As for the "realism" issue, yes, Firefly is probably no more "unrealistic" than Star Wars, Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica (don't get me started), or Armageddon, the movie that set out to prove Hollywood could make a film even worse than Deep Impact, and succeeeded. But a story that stretches the audience's credulity has to have something else for people to "get", and unfortunately Firefly doesn't seem to have that, at least for most people.

Uhhhh...., Hunpecked - That's not entirely accurate. One major point concerning Firefly/Serenity was the matter of who eventually owned the rights to it. Joss Whedon and FOX had a serious falling-out, and as a result his shows were cancelled on that network. When he was "released" from his contracts with FOX he lobbyed hard to get the rights and control of the Firefly property. FOX executives agreed, but later, after it's surprising revival on the big screen, tried to claim a part of the proceeds from the movie and series DVD sales. They dropped the matter VERY quickly when it was made clear in court WHO owned the rights and who DIDN'T. The executive who signed off on those rights was himself later "released" as well.

[Hunpecked]

I see. The series' ratings were actually stellar, so Fox and Whedon argued over the piles and piles of cash the show was earning, so Fox killed their golden goose to spite Whedon and suck up to Lucas? Interesting take. Too bad Fox pissed off Whedon, because that left the door open for Universal to make a fortune on the movie. Oh, wait...

Actually, Fox may have (accidentally?) made a very good business decision with Firefly: save money by killing the series, then make money on the DVDs. I'd be curious to see Fox's bottom line on the whole Firefly affair.

So who owns Whedon's other properties (Buffy and Angel)? Whedon, or the networks?

[Black_Knyght]

Never said the ratings were stellar, but neither were they as bad as some other shows that were kept in the line-up by FOX. It simply came down to a dispute between FOX and Whedon, and FOX threw their weight around and canned Whedon's projects.

No one knew then that he'd manage to revive the property well enough to get Universal to back it being made into a movie. When it did make it's cinematic comeback FOX tried to claim they still held a portion of the rights, and lost that bid when it was determined in court that they did not, having signed off on it at Whedon's released from contract.

I can't say what the legal status of the other properties is, as I never really heard much about them. I was somewhat involved, indirectly, in some of the interplay with FOX and Whedon, though. I was working at the FOX studios when some of the conflict between them overflowed into the stage areas. Later, we were read an "OFFICIAL" statement by FOX management concerning the issues.

[Atrocities]

Well, what was the "official statement?"

[Black_Knyght]

The statement we were read was that "due to unreconcilable differences of opinion between Mr. Joss Whedon and FOX studios, the stage area was going to be closed and all production would be ended". The stage areas were cleared and the doors locked, and it was time to find a new job elsewhere.