Firefly 11/15/02 "Ariel" (and cancellation rumors)
 

I was just going to post the cancellation article, but I figured I might as well combine it with the "official" thread for tomorrow's episode. Here's the latest:

http://www.syfyportal.com/article.php?id=929


'Firefly' Cancellation Looming
Author: Michael Hinman

If the current rumor is true, "Firefly" creator Joss Whedon should just remember two words: "Girls Club."

Of course, that was the title of the latest David E. Kelley series that got axed by the Fox network after just a couple episodes. Of course, Kelley provided Fox with hit series such as "Ally McBeal" and the current Jeri Ryan (Seven of Nine, "Star Trek: Voyager") vehicle, "Boston Public."

A Fox source has told SyFy Portal that the network will be announcing the cancellation of "Firefly" as early as next week.

"We are excited about 'Firefly,' but it's having trouble holding on to its existing audience, let alone growing in the key demos," the source said. "Joss is very talented, but (Fox's) excitement has turned more toward 'John Doe' than 'Firefly.'"

"John Doe" is the series that "Firefly" leads into on Friday nights. That show recently was picked up for a full season. "Firefly" had only three more scripts ordered a few weeks ago, but since then has tanked in the ratings. "John Doe" has received some 2 million more viewers each week than "Firefly" has.

Please note that information regarding the fate of "Firefly" have not been confirmed by Fox officials, and should be treated as any other rumor.

Whedon is best known for his two hit series, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" on UPN and its spinoff, "Angel" on The WB. "Angel" has seen a ratings jump this past season, while "Buffy" has continued to struggle since finding its way to UPN from The WB more than a year ago.

For the love of Pete, the viewing public doesn't know quality programming if it bit them on their left teat. John Doe is okay, but down the road, if Firefly is allowed to continue on, it'll have a larger impact than a one-season wonder that John Doe will be remembered as.

That would really suck... I would have to say the only reason that "it's having trouble holding on to its existing audience, let alone growing in the key demos" is because FOX f-ed around with the episode order from the get go! First skipping broadcasting the 2-hour pilot and then skipping at least one other arc plot development episode. Should they expect to loose an audience that is confused by all this jumping around?

Like they're gonna find something better to put on at 8pm on a Friday night that's gonna get decent ratings... oh wait, there's always "When Animals Attack (fill in the #)".... :rolleyes:

[Insert Rant Here]

das

Kaylee!!!! nooooo!!

Maybe since John Doe is doing better in the ratings, they should run that at 8pm so Firefly could benefit from the lead-in?

I always thought networks liked to start the night with their stronger shows, since people are apt to stick around for the show that's on afterwards.

If this is true I hate Fox.

This is the only week day show I watch on the Networks. Man, this will bum me out if its true.

Oh, no. I HOPE this is not another one of those "it'll get better" whines. Why does every SciFi show [not that this is one of them] have to "take a year to get off the ground?"

I think this is one of the Three Lies. Lotsa folk say that -- after year 3 or 4. How many say that during year 1 of a successful series, Voyager and Enterprise notwithstanding.

This is one confused mess that, if not for the creater's name, would prolly have never made it to air. Now, if there were Trek somewhere in the title, that would be a different situation.

I'm gonna miss Kaylee. :(



[das, was it Rant A, or Rant B? ;)]

Is there any chance they could shop it around to other networks? If anybody would have it that is.

Not every show can be a hit straight outta the box. Some shows need some time to develop their rhythm.

In today's disposable TV atmosphere the shows unfortunately don't have this luxury...

Very true. Those shows are called duds.

The other shows have names, such as 24, West Wing, Alias…

Let’s face it. There’s no market for a western these days.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wizdar
Very true. Those shows are called duds.

---

Yep. Two of the biggest being the X-Files & Seinfeld. -rolleyes- Though, i'm sure some other knowledgeable TV historian can come up with a few more...das? [BTW...i'm speaking strictly by Nielsen's standards.]

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wizdar
Let’s face it. There’s no market for a western these days.

---

Yep. We could definitely use more Law & Order's, more CSI's, & more "pseudo-celebrity" reality shows. Hell we could definitely use more reality shows! -rolleyes-

Oh wait...that's what the networks would have us believe...

I never REALLY got into Firefly-- the whole "space cowboy" thing just flopped to the ground and lay there, motionless, for me. (Now, if they had tried the "gangster of love" angle...) I could watch it-- but no big deal if I missed an episode. Judging by how very quckly networks pull shows these days, I'm frankly suprised that Firefly lasted as long as it has.

Yes, because pointing out the two biggest success stories makes your point? -rolleyes-

Why no mention of Conrad Bloom, Union Square, etc, etc, etc, shows that despite years on the air would have never been good.

Some people just don't like to call a dud a dud because it came from Lord Whedon. Not everything the man touches is gold.....this one is more like gold like material plated brass.

I doubt the episode order would have helped.....with its "lack" of action at 2 hours, i wonder how many people would have never tuned in again.

Hmmm a whole year of the crappiest show ever put on TV, Fastlane, but no Firefly? I will boycott Fox if this happens.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by clemente
Some people just don't like to call a dud a dud because it came from Lord Whedon. Not everything the man touches is gold.....this one is more like gold like material plated brass.

---

This theory could be applied if I was a "Lord Whedon" follower. I'm not. Perhaps the whole "Nielsen" way of doing things needs to be restructured so that EVERY house is hooked up? A big undertaking, sure, but then there'd be NO excuse. Of course, this is all MO. Yours may/does differ.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by clemente
I doubt the episode order would have helped.....with its "lack" of action at 2 hours, i wonder how many people would have never tuned in again.

---

Since FOX chose to do what they did, we'll never know. And, mind you, the FOX execs thought the ep that premiered had "action" [it didn't]. And personally, I usually start reading a book or watching a movie at the beginning. [Unless it's by Tarantino or Memento ;)]

Has anyone here seen what was supposed to be the pilot (Serentity)? I think anyone here would pick it over Train Job, honestly. I tell you, those people at FOX have their heads shoved too far up 24 to realize anything else these days. And the sad thing is they want to put in on now during December - so here goes messin' with continuity again.

I really disagree with that and no whining involved on my end. It has quite a huge cast and it takes time for viewers to grow into their characterizations let alone explain them in that duration. I don't find it odd. The Sci Fi channel was more proactive than that, come on. They put a bullet in their network head themselves.

Enterprise...dear lord. That should be the new "Godwin's Law" invoked regarding tv show comparisons. Anytime it's mentioned (even notwithstanding), fini;)

Lets face it, the series is not that good to begin with.
I find the writing pretty flat. And I have said this before,
the captain rather dull. Yes...A couple of the supporting
cast are interesting. But not enough to sustain this series
in its present format.

I really hoped that it would be/get better.
But the ratings for the series are getting just laughable.
Its now losing original viewers.

Time to abandon ship.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by superstringtheory
I tell you, those people at FOX have their heads shoved too far up 24 to realize anything else these days.

---

And the sad thing about that is they weren't even that confident in 24 to give it a 24 ep commitment! Which is why it seemed a little disjointed around the 13th ep. In fact, they tried to monkey around with what made 24 so unique by asking the creators to have self contained eps this season.

But, then again, i'm sure there isn't a market for linear, sequential TV shows these days. -rolleyes- [at least until FOX gets the numbers they want since Joe Six Pack decides to tune in to see what the "buzz" is about then take credit for it.]

Buffy got a lot better after season one.

Babylon 5, the best sci-fi show ever IMO, started off not to hot, but became great.

I'm not saying that Firefly would have become great over time, but i was willing to give it a shot.

I can name a captain who is even duller that always ends up knocked out where his crew always has to find him;)

Well, I'll be one of the few that goes down with this ship if when it does.

I understand some who don't like it and find it a bore etc. It's gonna happen, really. Actually, I had problems with it after viewing Train Job. Then Our Mrs. Reynolds & Jaynestown were great with the insight and Out of Gas, blew me away so I just find it worthy at this point.

I read somewhere that they were going to try and up the Sci Fi angle and get away from the Cowboy crap.
I agree with Darren Garrison, I just couldnt get into the whole Cowboy thing and it didnt seem very Whedon to me.
Maybe this is a good thing so he can go back to the two shows that could use a Josh Injection of Creativity.

:thumbsup: especially on the cowboy thing

<BLOCKQUOTE> • Quoth Wizdar •<HR SIZE=1>[das, was it Rant A, or Rant B? ;)] <HR SIZE=1></BLOCKQUOTE>

You ask as if you think those are the only two I have. ;)

das