Musings on Fox and Firefly. by Cybersnark

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Musings on Fox and Firefly.

POSTED BY: CYBERSNARK
UPDATED: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 12:25
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1600
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, September 20, 2006 6:11 AM

I recently finished reading Jill Sherwin's Sailing the Slipstream: An Unofficial and Unauthorized Guide to Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda, and it made me realize something about the studio/network politics that may have underpined Firefly's cancellation.

To summarize, Andromeda began as a really good show that was derailed by a string of disasters (the show-runner [Robert Hewitt Wolfe] was fired from his own show, two different groups of network suits each tried to recreate the show in their image, dumbing the ongoing arc down to a stand-alone weekly "action-hour," they had very little budget to begin with, and it kept getting reduced as the show went on [even as they were being ordered to do bigger and better FX/action scenes], etc). Sherwin identifies the two main problems as budget (as RHW said; not enough money to execute an actual sci-fi show) and the policies of Tribune/Fireworks, the co-producing organizations.

In Firefly's case, budget doesn't seem to have been a problem, but some of Wolfe's comments about Tribune made me see Fox in a new light.

See, Tribune Entertainment (the dominant half of Andromeda's backing) was initially a newspaper company. Even though they diversified into media and entertainment, they still tended to think like newspaper people.

I'm not up on the Fox Network's history, but when I turn on my TV, Fox News tends to be the most-advertised thing they run. Fox News footage turns up everywhere from CNN to Comedy Central. They're the ones with the political commentary, the government apologists, etc. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that Murdoch (and probably most of Fox's executives) cut his/their teeth in journalism.

The thing about news is that it's disposable. That's why it's so sensationalized; the point is to sell papers. Then, within 24 hours, they'll be wrapping fish in it, 'cause the next edition is coming out. Staying power isn't a factor. It's not that they don't want it, it's that they genuinely don't understand how it could work that way. Nobody talks about last week's headlines. They aren't looking to make a big impression, 'cause they expect that you'll have moved on to the next big thing by tomorrow (as they will have).

This is where the miscommunication (between Wolfe and Tribune, and possibly between Joss and Fox) comes in. Wolfe and Joss were aiming for staying power. They were both crafting shows that people would be talking about years down the road, and could be rewatched regularly, revealing layers of nuance. Shows that could lead to movies, and comics, novels, video games, spin-offs, the works --they were creating franchises.

Tribune/Fox would look at this an just not consider that people would be carrying over from week to week. Their model of viewership just doesn't work like that. They feel they need the weekly SENSATION!!! to grab people's attention, and the question of whether or not they'll tune in next week just doesn't cross their minds. As Joss said, Fox weren't looking for shows that "unfold" --they want the quick payoff, 'cause next week isn't guaranteed.

People have wondered why Fox doesn't seem to have taken notice of the DVD sales (and why The Inside isn't even on the horizon). It may well be 'cause they're not paying any attention. Why would they? It's an old show, and their model just doesn't account for people who would want to go back and watch something that isn't current. They might be aware that such people exist (they probably see the money coming in, if nothing else), but they just wouldn't know how to appeal to them, even if they thought it was worth it. The forms of thought are just too different. Again, think in news terms; news programs aren't collected on DVD, newspapers aren't collected in trade paperbacks. They're archived, sure, but nobody actually re-watches them unless something current needs a sound bite. They're disposable.

This doesn't make it right, of course, but it suggests that these people should be pitied instead of hated. At the very least, it might explain what was going through their minds.

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

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

Wednesday, September 20, 2006 6:52 AM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

An interesting and yet infurriating idea. Thinking like that about something that isn't news is rather stupid. Well, obviously.
Guess you can't teach an old executive new tricks.

http://www.bigdamnthankyou.com - show Universal your gratitude!

The only real failure in life is not to be true to the best one knows. - Gautama Siddharta

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

Wednesday, September 20, 2006 8:40 AM

JOLLY

I have a hard time believing that the network that brought us the Simpsons has no appreciation for the value of a franchise. Fox may well have dropped the bomb on show promotion and development of Firefly, but I suspect that at the time of cancellation, they simply looked at the ratings and decided that the prospects for reaching an audience of sufficient size were slim. Given the failure of any other network to pick up the show, it doesn't look like anyone was willing to second guess them.

Given subsequent DVD sales, why hasn't anyone since picked up the show? Who knows? Speculation on my part:

The projected audience is still relatively small, while the bulk of revenue potential is through DVD sales. Presumably DVD sales go to the production company, so networks, which rely on advertising revenue, have very little incentive to pick up the show. I suppose that if the DVD revenues are truly spectular, some kind of revenue sharing scheme could go forward (or at least a greatly discounted fee for first-time broadcast rights.

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

Wednesday, September 20, 2006 9:35 AM

CHRISMOORHEAD

That's America for you. Always wanting new things, nevermind if it's quality or not. I wonder if there was a sudden fad in suicide, if the same people who watch this crap from week to week would follow in suit.

I hope so.

[IMG]

It motivates me :'(

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

Wednesday, September 20, 2006 10:00 AM

FELLOWTRAVELER

Your dead right on how Murdoch cut his teeth. He inherited his daddy's newspaper Down Under. How he has grown that company since then is nothing short of amazing, but Murdoch is by no means a self made man.

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

Wednesday, September 20, 2006 10:59 AM

DEVONNITE

Quote:
Originally posted by jolly:
I have a hard time believing that the network that brought us the Simpsons has no appreciation for the value of a franchise. Fox may well have dropped the bomb on show promotion and development of Firefly, but I suspect that at the time of cancellation, they simply looked at the ratings and decided that the prospects for reaching an audience of sufficient size were slim. Given the failure of any other network to pick up the show, it doesn't look like anyone was willing to second guess them.

Given subsequent DVD sales, why hasn't anyone since picked up the show? Who knows? Speculation on my part:

The projected audience is still relatively small, while the bulk of revenue potential is through DVD sales. Presumably DVD sales go to the production company, so networks, which rely on advertising revenue, have very little incentive to pick up the show. I suppose that if the DVD revenues are truly spectular, some kind of revenue sharing scheme could go forward (or at least a greatly discounted fee for first-time broadcast rights.

One franchise does not a smart network make.

When you start off a show by refusing to show the pilot, by insisting on more action, by presenting the show out of the designed order, by preempting the show for baseball, by changing the timeslot, then saying that the ratings are bad, you are simply trying to create a failure. No show could go thru that and be successful. NOT ONE SHOW.

No other network picked up the show at the time, true enough, but, after the DVD sales, FOX has refused to sell them or do anything with the property. Why should they? they made an initial investment and are now reaping the benefits without having to promote or market it. Every DVD of Firefly sold now is profit.

By most published accounts, the DVD sales of Firefly have indeed been truly spectacular, but FOX is not going to go back to the series, because that is not their way. Yes they have a way and no it is not better than having a plan.

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

Wednesday, September 20, 2006 12:05 PM

SICKDUDE

Cyber, interesting comments. While I don't quite agree with your argument per se (Fox being into instant gratification), I think it bears some semblance to Fox's thinking. I hope you don't mind some of my own comments. I apologize if this is obvious or unrelated; it is some of my own recent thinkin'.

My controversial theory: Fox was somewhat justified in cancelling the show. At the time, Firefly was losing. Badly. Fox's real sin was not showing faith in the show, something they do quite a lot. (Wonderfalls really got the short end of the stick.)

When you think about it, it is amazing that any shows get made for TV, really. An advertiser needs enough viewers to justify spending a hundred thousand dollars or up on a chance of subliminally influencing potential consumers of the right type in enough quantity to make up their investment in profit margins. This means big viewership. And the show needs enough ad revenue to pay for it's $1-2 million/episode production cost. Plus the profit margin to make it worth Fox's time, and enough to make up for the other shows that will lose money. Three million viewers is a failure; not enough. Five million is a minimum of what they need to justify keeping a show. Twenty million viewers- now you're talking! Firefly would have gotten expensive, too. With bigger and better special effects and a large ensemble cast asking for more salary each year....

Further, type of viewer matters, because the network salespeople have spent a lot of time trying to open doors at certain potential advertisers and cannot change in mid-stream. That is why Fox has consistently tried to get strictly young, male viewers, leaving, say, young females to CW and elderly viewers to CBS. I believe this is why they cancelled Dark Angel and Tru Calling, even though the ratings were decent, they were the wrong group.

The DVD boxsets have sold well. But let's look at that. Before the BDM, we knew there were half a million sold. Considering the DVDs were out a few years before the BDM, I would say the movie probably doubled sales. Optimistically, tripled them. That means 1.5 million viewers. Nowhere near 5 or 8 million viewers that the network would be looking for. (Keep in mind, movies have lower audience numbers than TV does. That's why we got a BDM.)

I don't have the exact numbers, but I believe the actual ratings were low. Around three million or even less. At that rate they were losing money every week.

As to slow development vs quick rewards in the story, it's a balancing act. Obviously, slow development and story arcs can lead to better story. But how much time can you afford to wait? You really need consistent viewership from the start. Maybe you have five episodes or so.

BTW, you may want to check out "Outfoxed" to get some insight into the Fox News world.

"I am your father, Luke. Give in to the Dark Side, you nob!" - Doug McKenzie

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

Wednesday, September 20, 2006 12:25 PM

TOBEDOG

Sick, Nice signature you got there.

As Americans we have been brought up with a "abundance mentality." All the news is going to do is stir emotions by spreading propaganda. I would say that 98.2% of what they "report" is crap to begin with. Like critcs when watching a film. Did they rate Serenity very high, NO! But look, its a great film. Look at the Shawshank Redemption. Horrible reviews by critics and didn't do much in the theater but the film sets records for DVD Sales. What do the reporters and critics know. Nothing more than you or I.

As for FOX, they always axe the great shows. Look at Firefly, and Family Guy. It took them a few years to realize that the Family Guy had a huge following. I predict that it won't be long before someone somewhere (Universal) brings back Firefly. And when it does come back, it will be beyond anyones dreams.

FOX

"Six men came to kill me one time. The best of 'em carried this. Its a Killhan Full-Bore Auto Lock, customized trigger, double-cartridge thorough-gage. It is my very favorite gun."

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

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE