Why is Firefly's Cancellation So Unforgiveable?

[The Borgified Corpse]

As far as I'm concerned, Firefly is far from the most painful TV cancellation I've ever endured. Wonderfalls is the one that got truly boned, cancelled after only 4 episodes. I'd certainly choose a 2nd season of Wonderfalls over a 2nd season of Firefly. (But then, I'd choose a 2nd season of Firefly over the 2nd season of Dollhouse that we're actually getting.)

Heck, Firefly has had such enduring popularity, I'm surprised SCI-FI didn't revive it. (Of course, now that's a lot less possible since Nathan Fillion is busy on Castle.)

[Frontier]

For many people, it was just the last straw that broke the camels back. You know?

We had suffered oh so many prior cancellations of good shows that only died because they where on FOX, a network notorious for perhaps the most cancellations per-year in the entire industry. Space: Above and Beyond, Dark Angel, so on and so forth.

Firefly was just the one that happened to be, simultaneously, people's breaking point.

Now I myself didn't like the show when it was on TV. Because it was aired out of order, because it was spotty on times, I couldn't get into it. I saw the first few episodes, I watched the premiere, but without the pilot it failed to click with me. I, like many, where thrown in the deep end without a life vest and gave up quickly. It was only later when I, too, got tired of the browncoats lamenting it's loss, that I was challenged -- and provided with the episodes -- to watch it in order, in full.

I did so. I was intrigued by the end of the pilot. I was hooked by the end of the second regular episode, which I'd seen on broadcast but been lost during.

FOX is... all together, bad.

They're a bad news network. They're a bad TV network. They're a bad business network. They're all run badly.

Network FOX seems to be run by impatient 8 year olds. They got spoiled very early on, which is the root of things. Many FOX station carried TNG in it's first run syndication, when they had little of their own programming. It introduced them to sci-fi and very good ratings. Then they did X-Files, which again, sci-fi and very good ratings. Those two shows basically convinced them, sci-fi was super-ratings. So when they put a sci-fi show on that failed to achieve such heights? It got the axe quickly. Because they couldn't give anything a fair shake.

Hell, the only sci-fi show not to be cancelled on FOX in recent years, prior to Fringe, was Dark Angel. And it only got a second season because it was Jim Cameron's, and he had enough pull to keep it around that long. Otherwise it would have died in season 1 too.

The sad fact is, FOX is the only network to regularly give true sci-fi shows a shake; none of the other networks want to touch it. After LOST in 2004, they all tried here and there, but no one made a complete effort.

[stonester1]

Dennis wrote:

---

I'd be more impressed if the folks who do that championed better shows and better writers than they in fact usually do.

So say we all.

[barnaclelapse]

Jax wrote:

---

No matter your feelings on the show, FOX screwed it up they didn't get it and tried to change it...Critics and fans agree FOX were idiots.

Yeah, but that's pretty much standard operating procedure.

I'm not a huge Family Guy fan, but that bit they did where Peter listed off every new show that came and went in Family Guy's absence was priceless.

[stonester1]

Heck, watching Dollhouse now, the line is CLEAR where Fox is meddling, and where Joss is allowed to pursue his muse with the show.

And when Fox backed off, the show was obviously much better.

[Shakaar]

The problem with Fox is that they don't learn their lesson. They had one of the biggest sci-fi shows ever in the X-Files, a show which had relatively minor ratings at first and no one expected to last long. It wasn't until the second and possibly third season that it became a ratings monster. Then, Fox continually put these new sci-fi shows on hoping to duplicate the success of the X-Files but refused to give them the same opportunity. Leaving aside the whole out-of-order, pre-emption and scheduling issues, many of these shows, like Firefly, didn't even get a full FIRST season, let alone a second. Following this logic, the X-Files would have been history almost immediately.

Then, after all of this come 24. Another show that didn't have stellar ratings at first. It was almost cancelled, but FOX decided to keep it. It turned into a phenomenon in many ways. Yet despite this, FOX still continued to cancel shows before giving them equal time. Now some of those shows, even many, may have been bad, but who knows what another season or even a few more episodes could have done? We could easily have had another major breakout show that everyone would have talked about for years. Hell, even TNG had a pretty bad first season.

Oh, and to the poster complaining about how many times the word Firefly appeared in threads: How many of those mentions were of the negative variety from posters who either don't like the show or it's fans? You can't lay those instances at our doorstep.

[mswood]

Yes but one thing you have to understand the tv business is different then it was in the early 90's. With the cost of production soaring and audience levels dropping (and ad rates not increasing like cost) networks don't have the financial cushion that they once had. They can't give shows a large amount of time to find an audience.

There are a few exceptions, some shows manage huge critical acclaim (Firefly wasn't one of them,it was liked by critics but was not a critical darling). Or they see signs of growth in important demographic groups.

Without us (and we didn't, it wasn't readily available to the general public during this time) being able to track the demographic detail of the audienceweek to week, we can't judge anything besides raw numbers and frankly those don't tell the full tale.

For examples you can have a show with 10 million viewers make less money then a show that has 5 million viewers on the same network. If Firefly's audience didn't fit the demographic makeup that Fox is seeking for its advertisers then Fox isn't going to pursue that property.

For example both Enterprise and Voyager had typically the oldest average age audience on UPN. THose two shows typically made (per viewer) less then almost any other show on UPN. THus they needed to provide much larger sized audiences to be worth while to UPN.

If Firefly for example was similar then it would need to have a much larger then average sized audience. Of course they could have had a young audience, I don't know (again that data was never made public). Of course then their is the gender breakdown (also important) and then the income. Both of which have importance.

You also then have to look at the whole schedule Fox has. Shows live and die on not only their own fortune but the success (or failures) of the rest of the lineup. You would have to see breakdowns of each of those other shows also.

Without that data no one can rationally make a legitimate argument about whether Fox should have kept Firefly. You simply can't.

You can be upset, and hurt. But you can't judge Fox without seeing the full reason why they made their choices.

To do so is utterly foolish.

Of course now days we do have a lot more access to that information. We can usually see demo breakdown among gender and age. They occasionally release ad rates for each show per minute, we also get some info on income level of audience, audience loyalty, more info on foreign rights, ect. We don't get a full complete picture but we get about 8 times the data we used to see.

[mswood]

TNG didn't have a bad first season in viewers (quality was awful). It just wasn't a huge success, yet.

[Cutter John]

Y'know, considering tv is all about 'ratings' these days, I'm surprised none of the networks have announced 'Celebrity Bikini Hot Oil Wrestling' yet.

the Dagman wrote:

---

...but the reason it is unforgivable even to me is that none of the hard core fans of the show will shut up about it even now, years and years later.

Kinda like how I wish people would STFU about football.

[The Borgified Corpse]

barnaclelapse wrote:

---

Yeah, but that's pretty much standard operating procedure.

I'm not a huge Family Guy fan, but that bit they did where Peter listed off every new show that came and went in Family Guy's absence was priceless.

And that list wasn't even complete. (Tru Calling was canceled before that Family Guy episode aired but presumably before it was finished.)

Shakaar wrote:

---

The problem with Fox is that they don't learn their lesson. They had one of the biggest sci-fi shows ever in the X-Files, a show which had relatively minor ratings at first and no one expected to last long. It wasn't until the second and possibly third season that it became a ratings monster. Then, Fox continually put these new sci-fi shows on hoping to duplicate the success of the X-Files but refused to give them the same opportunity. Leaving aside the whole out-of-order, pre-emption and scheduling issues, many of these shows, like Firefly, didn't even get a full FIRST season, let alone a second. Following this logic, the X-Files would have been history almost immediately.

The one I still don't understand is Wonderfalls. I mean, the show clearly had a difficult to describe premise and was going to rely heavily on word of mouth. Yet they canceled it after 4 episodes, choosing to never air the other 9 episodes that were already in the can, and squelched any opportunity for word of mouth to build.

It's interesting how quickly the TV business has changed. It was experimental when FOX released short-lived canceled shows like Firefly & Wonderfalls on DVD. Now it's standard practice. I can't help but lament that 7 Days would be out on DVD right now if only it had aired 6 years later than it did.

[Skywalker]

Eh, I'll take that back. I'm probably wrong.

[FalTorPan]

the Dagman wrote:

---

Actually, I usually do. Only on the rare occasion will I poke my head into one of these threads. This one asked a question in the thread title I had an answer for. And I was actually agreeing it was unforgivable to cancel it. Yet, still you fans have to bust my balls because I don't like the show.

Oh really? Just two? Try using that search feature at the top of the page and type the word "firefly" into the drop down. I count 28 threads active just within the last 24 hours that Firefly was brought up in some way. 28 threads in 24 hours. And 43 threads in the last week alone.

Like I said, you fans of the show never shut up about it.

Wow! 28 threads in 24 hours contain references to "firefly." As of this moment, looking only at the Main Bridge, Engineering, Astrometrics and Promenade sections, there are some 49,250 active threads. The oldest active thread in the General Trek forum received its last post on August 21. For the purpose of discussion, let's assume that all active threads stopped receiving posts on August 21 -- about one month ago.

I just searched for all threads in the last month which contain references to "firefly." The answer: 46.

46 out of 49,250. In other words, on a message board which largely caters to fans of science fiction television and features, 0.093% of threads within the last month contain references to "firefly."

I suuuuure wish those Browncoats would shut up so that it would be easier to avoid references to "firefly."

[Forbin]

And how many of those threads contain references to that damn annoying "Star Trek" series?

[mswood]

The Borgified Corpse wrote:

---

And that list wasn't even complete. (Tru Calling was canceled before that Family Guy episode aired but presumably before it was finished.)

The one I still don't understand is Wonderfalls. I mean, the show clearly had a difficult to describe premise and was going to rely heavily on word of mouth. Yet they canceled it after 4 episodes, choosing to never air the other 9 episodes that were already in the can, and squelched any opportunity for word of mouth to build.

It's interesting how quickly the TV business has changed. It was experimental when FOX released short-lived canceled shows like Firefly & Wonderfalls on DVD. Now it's standard practice. I can't help but lament that 7 Days would be out on DVD right now if only it had aired 6 years later than it did.

In the case of shows that are quickly cancelled, its usually due to them performing terrible, and having considerable drops in the next 2 episodes. Doing so bad that reruns of cheap filler like Cops performs stronger.

The thing about it, is most shows fail. And even if you gave most shows a longer period to find an audience, most never will.

It becomes a guessing game,to what shows might, just might break out to be marginally or hugely successful.

Now days at least they have things like itunes that at least give a barometer on how many people will drop cold hard cash for programming. And unlike DVD sales its immediate. DVD sales never start in the US until after the 1st season is complete, by which time studios have already had to make next years schedule. Then you have no idea of what will be popular overseas,and that usually takes over a year to get the first data back from.

[Orintho]

The problem with Fox is that they don't learn their lesson.

This is the main point for me - incompetence. Why is such level of incompetence tolerated continually in an industry where the right creative gamble can literally yield millions.

It is incompetent because whoever is/was making decisions at Fox lacks any real knowledge of their own products.