Why is Firefly's Cancellation So Unforgiveable?

[Pemmer Harge]

Mr. Laser Beam wrote:

---

Hard core fans of *anything* never shut up. Browncoats don't seem any different.

Nothing against the fans, but that's a terrible choice of collective nickname. Sounds like "Brownshirts".

[Lindley]

Pemmer Harge wrote:

---

Nothing against the fans, but that's a terrible choice of collective nickname. Sounds like "Brownshirts".

There are only so many colors that it makes sense to use for a coat.

[EnsignRicky]

FOX will usually lets a crap show flop around for at least a season or two. In the case of Firefly, they took something that was so obviously good from the start and offered so much potential, and unceremoniously dumped it in just over a dozen episodes. Forget everything else, that's just poor judgment; That's FOX.

[Dusty Ayres]

Frontier wrote:

---

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.

Exactly why we need antitrust to break up these monopolies.

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.

The X-Files was a show for mundanes; that's why it lasted a long time. It wasn't made for sci-fi fans, just mundanes. See any weird aliens in it? Anybody like G'Kar or Zhann? No, and the mundanes liked it that way. Why didn't the Paul McGann Doctor Who movie make it on Fox? For the same reason.

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.

Never underestimate the power of a director/writer who made the most popular high-grossing movie of all time

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.

But that doesn't negate the fact that it's a shitty network all the same, that treats sci-fi like crap.

[FPAlpha]

mswood wrote:

---

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.

Still doesn't explain why Fox didn't renew the show once it exploded onto the DVD market (warranting a 30 million $ movie).

It showed there was tremendous amount of word of mouth (i was responsible for at least 5 DVD boxes bought and had friends telling me of this "awesome show they found" only it to be revealed that it was Firefly without ever having a run on mainstream german TV) and there are very few people who really dislike it.. i sure never have met one who wouldn't watch it.

This right there could have been a gold mine.. interest was there, all the actors were available yet Fox passed on a good show.

This is what i can't understand.. i can understand an expensive SF show being axed for it not being a huge success and watercooler talk for the next day but after it having gained widespread recognition once the DVD box was out and not bringing it back seems like waste.

[Davros]

Fox has canceled more than one great show in it's first season.

[Lindley]

Networks don't really like the idea of bringing something back once it's ended. *Especially* for live action, when there are matters of set rebuilding and the like, and the actors are likely to make higher salary demands the second time around and so on.

[Forbin]

Pemmer Harge wrote:

---

Nothing against the fans, but that's a terrible choice of collective nickname. Sounds like "Brownshirts".

Godwin Award!

"Shirts" and "Coats" sounds nothing alike to me.
If "Browncoats" sounds like "Brownshirts, then "Redshirts" must sound like "Brownshirts to you too?" Or is no one ever allowed to wear an item of brown clothing again thanks to something that happened 70 years ago? How about affectionately calling someone "Hey, browneyes"? Should they think you're calling them a Nazi?

[Lindley]

Is it any real surprise that Captain Kirk let so many British musketmen die on his watch? Face it, Kirk hated British people.

[Smiley]

Actually, Browncoats is not that far off from brown pants, which carries an entirely different connotation. At least the FF people have a catchy nickname, which is more than some big franchises can say.

[blockaderunner]

It's only unforgivable to the few Brownshirt Zealots who carry a torch for it. The rest of humanity has moved on.

[Skywalker]

Lindley wrote:

---

Is it any real surprise that Captain Kirk let so many British musketmen die on his watch? Face it, Kirk hated British people.

Kirk is a descendant of William Wallace and Benjamin Martin!

[Neroon]

blockaderunner wrote:

---

It's only unforgivable to the few Brownshirt Zealots who carry a torch for it. The rest of humanity has moved on.

Look.... you may have a definite opinion about a certain group of fans, but that's going a step too far trying to tag them with the "Brownshirt" label.

[Forbin]

I was gonna wear my brown shirt to work tomorrow, but I think I'll wear the blue one instead.

[Guy Gardener]

[Bill Hicks]Well if it's a concern about shelf life, while you're at it, can y'all stop harping on about that Jesus guy?[/Bill HIcks]

I'm still not sure if I like castle? What the hell was up with a ten episode first season? I thought it'd been cancelled.