A proposal for the continuation of Serenity by ShinyHat

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

A proposal for the continuation of Serenity

POSTED BY: SHINYHAT
UPDATED: Monday, April 17, 2006 13:01
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 738
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, April 17, 2006 12:15 PM

Firefly as a television show on Fox was abused by the network and never was given the chance to take off. The quality of the show spoke for itself and justified the production of a franchise-based motion picture to Universal. Even though the quality of the show was great, the film performed on an average level at the box office for a couple reasons. First, the entire cast was relatively new to movie audiences. The television show’s original fanbase showed up in droves, but movie audiences had only seen actors like Chiwetel Ejiofor, Adam Baldwin, Gina Torres, Ron Glass and Alan Tudyk in smaller supporting roles in other films. Universal’s marketing strategy had many difficult hurdles to overcome. The property was challenging to sell because of its peculiar nature having first existed as a television show most people never heard of with the movie being a continuation of it. Getting people to purchase the DVDs of the television show provided little direct benefit to Universal, plus finding and viewing a relatively obscure DVD is a substantial barrier of entry for most people who just want to see a movie on some Friday night. So Universal put their energy into getting people to see the movie as something science fiction based from the creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer which wasn’t a bad idea. The movie itself had a plot that was difficult to sum up in part because of the characters and their prior history and also because it was trying to stuff a whole lot of character development into a very small space. Despite these challenges, the movie was by no means a bust: critics loved it, the fans loved it and the uninitiated who gave it a chance did, too. Many of those who first saw Serenity at the movie theater or on DVD have gone back to get Firefly once they knew it existed. Interest in the property is at an all time high. The quality of the content has never been in question.

So very quickly here’s what I’m proposing: Make this thing into a real space soap opera and bring back the movie serial. Produce Serenity in the same way you would a television show, but for the big screen. Every three weeks a new hour-long episode would be released to the movie theaters. Each time a new episode becomes available in theaters, the previous episode becomes available as an iTunes download and as a pay-per-view movie. You want to create as many exposure points for the content as possible. Allow consumers to get easy paid access to the content and most will take it. Make a season last 12 or so episodes with a double-length finale and then take 3 months off. Box up the whole thing as both DVD and HD-DVD and sell it during the hiatus.

Advantages:
Ownership: Universal does not necessarily need to purchase Fox’s television rights, as they would be making Firefly-based movies which they already have a deal for.

Quality content. When there are characters people can relate to over time, they keep coming back. Firefly as a show worked very well on that level but when aired on television was never given time to develop it with a wider audience. Serenity had to reintroduce all those characters, get uninitiated audiences to care about them, then put them in a story and show how they made out all in two hours. Episodic content gives more time in which to develop characters and plotlines and could work very well on a movie screen.

Consumer-friendly: Consumers always have a choice of paying to see the content. They don’t have to BitTorrent the show if they miss an episode at the theater, and by making it available in iTunes, owners of video-capable iPods are virtually walking advertisements for the show. Making the show available in this way adds more exposure points and reduces to zero the amount of time consumers want to see and pay for content but can’t. Win-Win for everybody :)

Constant exposure: the show is ALWAYS playing at the theater for 36 weeks a year! Casual movie goers will notice that something called Serenity is playing every time they go to the theater possibly to see something else. They could wonder what all the fuss is about and wander in any random week, see something great and get hooked. With the back catalog also always available, newcomers could be brought up to speed at any time. By playing in movie theaters first, Universal could choose to push their other properties whilst getting people into a cycle of going to the theater to see their content.

Theater owners would always have exclusive rights to the video for a limited time. The only place someone could legally see new episodes is at a cinema. This gives incentive to theater owners over other often-heard day-and-date plans that make the pay-per-view and dvd availability dates exactly the same as the release date to theaters. I don’t believe that works for theater owners since it provides little to no incentive for the consumer to leave their own home.

Disadvantages:

New deal with Fox might have to be worked out. I suggest a buy-out of the property. Box up Firefly and Serenity in a single set, call it Serenity: the Movie Series Season Zero and push it out the door in iTunes and DVD/HD-DVD packages. That suggestion may or may not be feasible (probably not).

As an experiment, it’s a little risky. If consumers don’t grasp the distribution model, they could get confused, but that could be clarified at the theater at the end of every show. If the show isn’t terribly compelling, theaters could be stuck in a deal taking up valuable space airing something no one wants to see and the cost of producing the show might never be made back. But given the property’s hereto-for unquestioned critical acclaim, overwhelmingly positive word-of-mouth, and the expected constant exposure that would continuously attract a new audience that concern is greatly lessened.

Coordination: The plan requires a lot of time-sensitive events through several different channels. Everyone in the business of video based sales already gets how to do this, it just hasn’t been tried yet.

Unproven, unmarketed, and untested for this generation but the paradigm shifts never are. The business is changing and new ideas have to be devised.

Movie theaters have an unacknowledged problem. The recent additions of true commercials and up to seven movie trailers before the main feature ensure going to the theater to see a two hour movie will take substantially longer. Most aggravating is that people do not know exactly when the show will start (or when it will end) and have to take a large chunk out of their day to plan for it. The added bonus is ticket prices that are too high for the hassle. People do not want to pay the purchase price of a DVD for two of them to see a show once when it will be available in 3 months for them to view at home without the aggravation. I suggest no commercials and up to two targeted trailers before the show. Anything you like afterwards, but only five minutes of lead-in content. An audience attached to this model will be back to buy more popcorn and bring their friends. Movie theaters need to do more to embrace their customers in an era where the home theater is more convenient, cost-effective, comfortable and time-effective. Movie theaters will see greater success when they stop abusing the consumer and offer something that has greater perceived value. The next episode of the movie serial would have much greater initial value than say the next full length movie in a traditional franchise. It’s one of the great strengths of the proposed model. Today’s movie franchises require years between installments by necessity. Waiting six months to a year for the franchise movie to stop playing at the theater and reappear on DVD has no consequences to the consumer. The consumer misses out on nothing since it will be years before the next installment and the price is about the same with the result being that they can still view the content anytime they like without the commercials, advertising and hassle of the movie theater. Sitting at home with an HDTV and 5.1 or 7.1 surround sound does more than give the theater a run for its money. The proposed model would “punish” the consumer for not going to the theater with a wait time that matters. Even though the wait time for consumer availability is much shorter, there is no time to get up to speed before the next installment would be available. Consumers left with the cliffhanger from the last show would feel compelled to get up to speed and see the next.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 17, 2006 1:01 PM

DUELIST

What in Hades are the studios and networks now but glorified investment banking operations anyway? With such a dedicated and growing fanbase, does an idea like Firefly really need them at this point?

If we're playing with paradigm shifts, why not skip theatre or network TV distribution completely (Down with the MegaMultiPlex Alliance and Blue Screen Corporation!), film the next generation of Firefly episodes entirely in digital, and do the season as a prepaid global subscriber-service webcast in whatever format works best? The budget for each season depends upon the number of prepaid subscribers signed up. Release to DVD at the end of each season, with subscribers getting a discount and pre-ordering options. Include goodies on the DVD set that aren't included in the original webcast to provide added value to the core market base.

Even better, set the whole thing up like an agricultural cooperative, a user-based corporate entity where each subscriber/fan is a shareholder in each new generation of Firefly property. Advertisers could be offered a detailed and clearly defined market profile with a financial interest in providing market feedback via the 'Net, as ad revenues would directly affect the cost to each individual subscriber as well as any dividends paid out once the system reaches profit-making scale. Browncoats continue to recruit new fans, because the cost per fan goes down as more people subscribe, and the value of those eyeballs to advertisers goes up.

Mal don't do his bankin' at First Alliance, why should we?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE