Why is Firefly's Cancellation So Unforgiveable?

[stonester1]

Fannish sense of entitlement, never a good thing, true. But then, neither is a "fuck the fans" attitude.

 

[Myasishchev]

Fans don't understand fiduciary duties to stockholders.

That said, I'll never forgive Fox for cancelling Andy Richter Controls the Universe, the greatest show ever made.

 

[Manticore]

If the Browncoats would be quiet and people stop making threads about the damn thing, you'd never hear me mention it again. At least I said if it was in my power I'd give you people the show back. Anything, just to shut you up about it.

You could always, y'know, just avoid such threads. Just a suggestion.

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.

If the Browncoats would be quiet and people stop making threads about the damn thing, you'd never hear me mention it again. At least I said if it was in my power I'd give you people the show back. Anything, just to shut you up about it.

There have been how many threads about it lately? Two in the last month that I can think of offhand, including this one? Why is this a problem?

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.

Considering that Rojohen was the only person to explain our antipathy for Fox until you said your first "...quiet the bitching.", and the majority of the first page was people explaining why it wasn't unforgivable until you started arguing with Lindley about it, I can't help but wonder where the problem really is.

 

[SeerSGB]

Fannish sense of entitlement, never a good thing, true. But then, neither is a "fuck the fans" attitude.

I don't know, I think sometimes you have to say "fuck the fans" and do what is right; be it for business or just in service to the story.

 

[stonester1]

Fannish sense of entitlement, never a good thing, true. But then, neither is a "fuck the fans" attitude.

I don't know, I think sometimes you have to say "fuck the fans" and do what is right; be it for business or just in service to the story.

Sometimes you do. But let's face it, many of the decisions the suits make for "business" aren't in "service to the story".

Let's not make this a defense of the suits, who don't know DICK about story, yet way too often make like they do.

More often, the suits need to stand the fuck back and let the storytellers tell the story.

Same with the fans.

 

[Harvey]

Let's face it. FOX premiered a semi-serialized television series entirely out of order, often pre-empting it, and gave it little post-premiere media push. It comes as no surprise that the series was quickly cancelled.

But, it's not the most inane series of decisions the network has made (cancelling the well-rated Alien Nation ranks highly there). This is the network that almost cancelled 24, a series that has become its bread and butter, during the show's first season.

And, to be fair, when the theatrical movie was made based on the series, it didn't even break even at the box office. FOX's reasoning was completely off the mark, but in the end, maybe they were right.

Of course, then we get into a whole argument about how Serenity wasn't properly promoted by Universal, but I saw the trailers for several weeks before the premiere, read the decent reviews, and wasn't moved to see it. Hyperactive fans on the internet didn't move me, either. I ended up catching both the series and the movie on DVD. I liked the series more.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

"Firefly" was just the latest in a long series of FOX cancellations of sf shows that had fairly devoted followings - that, along with the tendency of the network to sometimes schedule those shows in a self-defeating way from the outset has caused some folks to wonder from time to time why FOX buys so many sf shows to begin with.

The "new Star Trek series" that eventually evolved into ST:TNG was initially proposed to FOX by Paramount, but Paramount's execs finally concluded that there was not enough commitment to the series on the part of the network to make it worth the studio's while. Smart people at Paramount, in that case.

 

[SeerSGB]

Fannish sense of entitlement, never a good thing, true. But then, neither is a "fuck the fans" attitude.

I don't know, I think sometimes you have to say "fuck the fans" and do what is right; be it for business or just in service to the story.

Sometimes you do. But let's face it, many of the decisions the suits make for "business" aren't in "service to the story".

Let's not make this a defense of the suits, who don't know DICK about story, yet way too often make like they do.

More often, the suits need to stand the fuck back and let the storytellers tell the story.

Same with the fans.

That's only goes as far as the money. If you're playing with someone else's money, you dance to their tune. Now if you have the scratch to fund and market the thing 100% yourself, then you get the luxury of art (story) for the sake of art (story). Otherwise, the man signing the checks is the man you worry about making happy. And that's all television and movies is about 99% of the time: Most cash for least expense.

 

[stonester1]

I don't know, I think sometimes you have to say "fuck the fans" and do what is right; be it for business or just in service to the story.

Sometimes you do. But let's face it, many of the decisions the suits make for "business" aren't in "service to the story".

Let's not make this a defense of the suits, who don't know DICK about story, yet way too often make like they do.

More often, the suits need to stand the fuck back and let the storytellers tell the story.

Same with the fans.

That's only goes as far as the money. If you're playing with someone else's money, you dance to their tune.

If you are going to bother to pay someone for their storytelling skills (which is not what the beancounters are paid for), you stand back and let them DO THEIR JOB.

If the beancounters could do it themselves, they would. But clearly, they can't.

You don't have the writers down there in accounting checking the balance sheets?

Why? NOT THEIR JOB.

Otherwise, the man signing the checks is the man you worry about making happy. And that's all television and movies is about 99% of the time: Most cash for least expense.

And if you need any explanation for the state of "entertainment", you need go no further.

 

[SeerSGB]

Sometimes you do. But let's face it, many of the decisions the suits make for "business" aren't in "service to the story".

Let's not make this a defense of the suits, who don't know DICK about story, yet way too often make like they do.

More often, the suits need to stand the fuck back and let the storytellers tell the story.

Same with the fans.

That's only goes as far as the money. If you're playing with someone else's money, you dance to their tune.

If you are going to bother to pay someone for their storytelling skills (which is not what the beancounters are paid for), you stand back and let them DO THEIR JOB.

If the beancounters could do it themselves, they would. But clearly, they can't.

You don't have the writers down there in accounting checking the balance sheets?

Why? NOT THEIR JOB.

Why hire anyone to do any job? Cause you're expecting them to generate an outcome that you desire.

If you're paying for "X" you expect "X". If you're paying for a show and expecting it to generate "X" amount of ratings, and it doesn't then you're not getting your dollar's worth. And what do you do to any employee that's under performing and costing you money? You cut them loose and bring in someone that can get the desired results.

Otherwise, the man signing the checks is the man you worry about making happy. And that's all television and movies is about 99% of the time: Most cash for least expense.

And if you need any explanation for the state of "entertainment", you need go no further.

Which is why the bulk of my entertainment doesn't come from "Big Media", meaning television and movies.

 

[stonester1]

That's only goes as far as the money. If you're playing with someone else's money, you dance to their tune.

If you are going to bother to pay someone for their storytelling skills (which is not what the beancounters are paid for), you stand back and let them DO THEIR JOB.

If the beancounters could do it themselves, they would. But clearly, they can't.

You don't have the writers down there in accounting checking the balance sheets?

Why? NOT THEIR JOB.

Why hire anyone to do any job? Cause you're expecting them to generate an outcome that you desire.

If you're paying for "X" you expect "X". If you're paying for a show and expecting it to generate "X" amount of ratings, and it doesn't then you're not getting your dollar's worth. And what do you do to any employee that's under performing and costing you money? You cut them loose and bring in someone that can get the desired results.

Or you show the wisdom and patience necessary for a project to bear fruit. For as the history of these things show, quick results are a rarity, especially for quality.

And if you hire someone to do "X" job, you LET THEM DO X JOB!

Otherwise, the man signing the checks is the man you worry about making happy. And that's all television and movies is about 99% of the time: Most cash for least expense.

And if you need any explanation for the state of "entertainment", you need go no further.

Which is why the bulk of my entertainment doesn't come from "Big Media", meaning television and movies.[/QUOTE]

So we agree the bean counters know fuck all about quality entertainment.

Which doesn't excuse them from their fault in the process.

 

[SeerSGB]

If you are going to bother to pay someone for their storytelling skills (which is not what the beancounters are paid for), you stand back and let them DO THEIR JOB.

If the beancounters could do it themselves, they would. But clearly, they can't.

You don't have the writers down there in accounting checking the balance sheets?

Why? NOT THEIR JOB.

Why hire anyone to do any job? Cause you're expecting them to generate an outcome that you desire.

If you're paying for "X" you expect "X". If you're paying for a show and expecting it to generate "X" amount of ratings, and it doesn't then you're not getting your dollar's worth. And what do you do to any employee that's under performing and costing you money? You cut them loose and bring in someone that can get the desired results.

Or you show the wisdom and patience necessary for a project to bear fruit. For as the history of these things show, quick results are a rarity, especially for quality.

And if you hire someone to do "X" job, you LET THEM DO X JOB!

And how long should they be allowed to continue to fail? How much money must one pour down the drain in the name of "wait it out". How much risk should a employer assume before they it's "Fair" for them to get rid of a failing employee.

Otherwise, the man signing the checks is the man you worry about making happy. And that's all television and movies is about 99% of the time: Most cash for least expense.

And if you need any explanation for the state of "entertainment", you need go no further.

Which is why the bulk of my entertainment doesn't come from "Big Media", meaning television and movies.

So we agree the bean counters know fuck all about quality entertainment.

Never said that, now did I? I just happen to find the bulk of televised Entertainment and movies to be vapid wastes of time that is "entertaining" in the same way that cotton-candy is a nice treat at the fair but you wouldn't want to eat it 24/7.

It isn't just the bean-counters, just a large number of "creators" and "visionaries" these days have little to no talent, who just happen to be good at selling their product to the masses.

Which doesn't excuse them from their fault in the process.

If it's a business decision, more power to them. Sometimes you have to cut off a finger to save the hand. If it's some old personal bullshit and "studio politics", they need to grow the fuck up.

 

[stonester1]

Why hire anyone to do any job? Cause you're expecting them to generate an outcome that you desire.

If you're paying for "X" you expect "X". If you're paying for a show and expecting it to generate "X" amount of ratings, and it doesn't then you're not getting your dollar's worth. And what do you do to any employee that's under performing and costing you money? You cut them loose and bring in someone that can get the desired results.

Or you show the wisdom and patience necessary for a project to bear fruit. For as the history of these things show, quick results are a rarity, especially for quality.

And if you hire someone to do "X" job, you LET THEM DO X JOB!

And how long should they be allowed to continue to fail? How much money must one pour down the drain in the name of "wait it out". How much risk should a employer assume before they it's "Fair" for them to get rid of a failing employee.

Well...if it wasn't for those willing to assume such risk...we wouldn't have our beloved Star Trek, now would we?

This is a risky business, ESPECIALLY if you are striving for quality. If one is risk averse, the entertainment world really is the wrong business.

As is anything involving creativity and ideas.

So we agree the bean counters know fuck all about quality entertainment.

Never said that, now did I? I just happen to find the bulk of televised Entertainment and movies to be vapid wastes of time that is "entertaining" in the same way that cotton-candy is a nice treat at the fair but you wouldn't want to eat it 24/7.
[/quote]

Which is not quality entertainment. Again, glad we agree.

It isn't just the bean-counters, just a large number of "creators" and "visionaries" these days have little to no talent, who just happen to be good at selling their product to the masses.

Which is not what we are discussing here it all. We are talking about quality products and who is responsible for producing it, as well as who interferes with it.

If it's a business decision, more power to them. Sometimes you have to cut off a finger to save the hand. If it's some old personal bullshit and "studio politics", they need to grow the fuck up.

And if all you create is a bleeding stump, lotsa good you've done.

Let the bean counters count beans and stay the hell out of storytelling. Hire the right people (their job) and let the creators do theirs.

THEY need to grow up and recognize their limitations.

 

[SeerSGB]

Or you show the wisdom and patience necessary for a project to bear fruit. For as the history of these things show, quick results are a rarity, especially for quality.

And if you hire someone to do "X" job, you LET THEM DO X JOB!

And how long should they be allowed to continue to fail? How much money must one pour down the drain in the name of "wait it out". How much risk should a employer assume before they it's "Fair" for them to get rid of a failing employee.

Well...if it wasn't for those willing to assume such risk...we wouldn't have our beloved Star Trek, now would we?

And look what that turned into, eh? An over saturated piece of pop-culture that pretends to have depth and meaning but has rotted to the point that it barely, when it does, rises above the rest of the noise and clutter out there.

This is a risky business, ESPECIALLY if you are striving for quality. If one is risk averse, the entertainment world really is the wrong business.

As is anything involving creativity and ideas.

Who said that studios strive for quality? What ever gave you that ideal, outside creators spouting off about how their own products? All studios want is eyes on the TVs and asses in the theater seats. Give the masses what they want at the lowest cost for the widest audience and cash the fucking check. Quality has nothing to do with it.

 

[stonester1]

And how long should they be allowed to continue to fail? How much money must one pour down the drain in the name of "wait it out". How much risk should a employer assume before they it's "Fair" for them to get rid of a failing employee.

Well...if it wasn't for those willing to assume such risk...we wouldn't have our beloved Star Trek, now would we?

And look what that turned into, eh? An over saturated piece of pop-culture that pretends to have depth and meaning but has rotted to the point that it barely, when it does, rises above the rest of the noise and clutter out there.

And that's one person's opinion, obviously MANY disagree. Others would say that a lasting franchise was produced that does the amazing feat of providing thoughtful, yet entertaining science fiction adventure that has stood the test of time and undergone multiple resurrections, the latest glorious one taking place this past summer.

This is a risky business, ESPECIALLY if you are striving for quality. If one is risk averse, the entertainment world really is the wrong business.

As is anything involving creativity and ideas.

Who said that studios strive for quality? What ever gave you that ideal, outside creators spouting off about how their own products? All studios want is eyes on the TVs and asses in the theater seats. Give the masses what they want at the lowest cost for the widest audience and cash the fucking check. Quality has nothing to do with it.[/QUOTE]

Never?

If that's the case, then studios would only hire hacks that always aim for the lowest, widest denominator.

But it's clear that such a blanket statement is inaccurate at best.

 

[SeerSGB]

Well...if it wasn't for those willing to assume such risk...we wouldn't have our beloved Star Trek, now would we?

And look what that turned into, eh? An over saturated piece of pop-culture that pretends to have depth and meaning but has rotted to the point that it barely, when it does, rises above the rest of the noise and clutter out there.

And that's one person's opinion, obviously MANY disagree. Others would say that a lasting franchise was produced that does the amazing feat of providing thoughtful, yet entertaining science fiction adventure that has stood the test of time and undergone multiple resurrections, the latest glorious one taking place this past summer.

So, 'Trek has lasted. By that logic I can say McDonald is a 5 star restaurant cause it's been around forever. As for the latest movie, it was a typical modern action flick that looked good, but that was about all it had going for it. It had about as much depth as Transformers The Movie (1985).

This is a risky business, ESPECIALLY if you are striving for quality. If one is risk averse, the entertainment world really is the wrong business.

As is anything involving creativity and ideas.

Who said that studios strive for quality? What ever gave you that ideal, outside creators spouting off about how their own products? All studios want is eyes on the TVs and asses in the theater seats. Give the masses what they want at the lowest cost for the widest audience and cash the fucking check. Quality has nothing to do with it.

Never?

If that's the case, then studios would only hire hacks that always aim for the lowest, widest denominator.

But it's clear that such a blanket statement is inaccurate at best.

Depends on how you define hack. I would firmly slot Whendon into the hack category. With the bulk of his success being on his name and the fact that he sells what tweens and teens want. Most of his work, stretching a prior metaphor further, is the television equivelant of a Big Mac with the realtive entertainment value of said's nutrtional value.

 

[stonester1]

And look what that turned into, eh? An over saturated piece of pop-culture that pretends to have depth and meaning but has rotted to the point that it barely, when it does, rises above the rest of the noise and clutter out there.

And that's one person's opinion, obviously MANY disagree. Others would say that a lasting franchise was produced that does the amazing feat of providing thoughtful, yet entertaining science fiction adventure that has stood the test of time and undergone multiple resurrections, the latest glorious one taking place this past summer.

So, 'Trek has lasted. By that logic I can say McDonald is a 5 star restaurant cause it's been around forever. As for the latest movie, it was a typical modern action flick that looked good, but that was about all it had going for it. It had about as much depth as Transformers The Movie (1985).

Your opinion. We can easily see that that's a minority one.

On the other hand, despite McDonald's success, very few will call it the "best burger" around, or even one of the "top three".

Who said that studios strive for quality? What ever gave you that ideal, outside creators spouting off about how their own products? All studios want is eyes on the TVs and asses in the theater seats. Give the masses what they want at the lowest cost for the widest audience and cash the fucking check. Quality has nothing to do with it.

Never?

If that's the case, then studios would only hire hacks that always aim for the lowest, widest denominator.

But it's clear that such a blanket statement is inaccurate at best.

Depends on how you define hack. I would firmly slot Whendon into the hack category. With the bulk of his success being on his name and the fact that he sells what tweens and teens want. Most of his work, stretching a prior metaphor further, is the television equivelant of a Big Mac with the realtive entertainment value of said's nutrtional value.[/QUOTE]

Again, your opinion.

I would say that "hack" work doesn't get the kind of deep emotional investment from it's fanbase, or extensive scholarly treatises and examinations done concerning it. Because hack work HAS no depths to plumb.

Besides, I'm neither a teen nor a tween, nor are most of the Whedon fans that I know.

 

[Dusty Ayres]

If you are going to bother to pay someone for their storytelling skills (which is not what the beancounters are paid for), you stand back and let them DO THEIR JOB.

If the beancounters could do it themselves, they would. But clearly, they can't.

You don't have the writers down there in accounting checking the balance sheets?

Why? NOT THEIR JOB.

Otherwise, the man signing the checks is the man you worry about making happy. And that's all television and movies is about 99% of the time: Most cash for least expense.

And if you need any explanation for the state of "entertainment", you need go no further.

Exactly why we need antitrust proceedings to break up all of these media monopolies, and soon, as I've said before.

 

[anti-matter]

imo that show had the potential that could have spawned a 20 year Star Trek type of franchise.

That cast in that moment in time achieved critical mass. FOX failed to recognize it or their incredable luck at having Joss Whedon at the helm...and that's supposed to be their business.

Then again I could be wrong but that's what I believe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joss_Whedon

 

[SeerSGB]

If you are going to bother to pay someone for their storytelling skills (which is not what the beancounters are paid for), you stand back and let them DO THEIR JOB.

If the beancounters could do it themselves, they would. But clearly, they can't.

You don't have the writers down there in accounting checking the balance sheets?

Why? NOT THEIR JOB.

Otherwise, the man signing the checks is the man you worry about making happy. And that's all television and movies is about 99% of the time: Most cash for least expense.

And if you need any explanation for the state of "entertainment", you need go no further.

Exactly why we need antitrust proceedings to break up all of these media monopolies, and soon, as I've said before.

Which would solve nothing. All it would do is create more competition, and in doing so drive the smaller studios to take fewer risks and go for what they know is going to sell.

We have to remember sci-fi fans are not the majority of average TV viewers, and hardcore "Save our show" types a even smaller minority of that.