You can't pick just one thing but rather it was a combination of a lot of things, the major ones being play order, promotion, no big stars, and lack of mainstream appeal.

My vote is for the shuffling of episodes (really confusing), lack of promotion, and time slot checkers. This show never had a chance. Why does Fox promote itself as the king of edgy programming, then bail out of nearly every property they broadcast?

Because it's better to try out ten "different" shows and have one of them succeed then never to try any and stick to CSI: demoine idaho or Law and Order: FCC

All of the above.

Granted, a lot of us have DVRs, but a lot of people still don't. So finding a program can still be a challenge. And some DVRs are still time based, not title based, so when the 8PM Fri Fox recording picks up some new show instead of Firefly, the average person might think it's gone, and won't try to hunt it down.

Airing out of order doesn't help, because then you always feel like you missed something, that you wouldn't have had they been in order.

The subtlety of the show. While there's certainly lots of action in most episodes, it's also a character-based show, and it can take a few episodes to get to 'know' the characters [made worse by not airing in order].

Cast - while I like the fact that they were not, in my eyes, 'big name' stars, that way, I watch the character, not the actor--a lot of people are so into celebrity that they'll watch anything 'Featuring....' their favorite big name, even though it's crap.

I can't say anything on the promotion/marketing, I don't watch 'live' tv anymore so I have no idea if it was marketed well or at all at the time.

And, yes, the show itself--an hour long sci fi western, that doesn't even have a whole lot of 'weird looking aliens'. That's not necessarily a description that appeals to much of the mainstream.

Add all those together, resulting in a show that's not an instant hit, and todays' shortsighted network execs who usually give a show three episodes to become the newest watercooler topic before they yank it, and I'm somewhat surprised it lasted as long as it did. But I'm also glad the DVD medium is so friendly to this type of show.

I know there are many responses, and I will read through the thread, but I just wanted to say for now that I strongly feel that it was all in the promotion of the show. But I also feel the time slot killed it.

Before X Files ended it's run, the rumor was that Joss Whedon was creating a sci-fi series to take the place of X Files on Sunday night. But instead of putting it on Sunday night, where there was probably a built in fan base for that type of programming, they put it on Friday night, and I really don't recall seeing many ads for it at all. Then they ran the episodes out of order, for what they did air, and that had to have confused the few viewers they pulled in.

This was a thousand times better than that crap they called Enterprise (or even Voyager before it) and there was an audience out there who would have supported this show, but Fox just could not reach them.

?!?!?!?!? That's the problem right there! Friday night? Who the hell watches TV on a freakin' Friday night!??!?!

No wonder I never heard of this series until Serenity came out!

So.. what do you expect networks to do on friday nights?

TGIF was a big success back in its day. So clearly there is a market for this sort of thing. But the typical mentality is that only nerds and geeks stay home on a friday night. So you figure if your demographic is at home on friday they'll watch. right?

But that's assuming that nerds and geeks are accurately represented by the Nielsens, which they probably aren't. Plus, maybe they WERE watching but they barely got a chance to prove they loved the show (what did they air, 9 episodes?)

yup
same problem TNT had with Crusade

I said bad luck due to people like me... I think I happened on Firefly in the middle of an episode once at a point where I thought it was a western which I don't care for or at least isn't my favorite genere.... then they got on a space ship at which point I figured it was one of those lame space show episodes where they pretend to be a lower culture, blah, blah blah, and I turned the channel not even knowing the name of the show... although I had heard ramblings among fanboy's about a show called 'Firefly', didn't know that's what I had seen though...
Then started hearing the hype for Serenity and was a bit confused because of the name difference from Firefly but eventually put the pieces together, and for some reason the movie did sound interesting and after seeing the trailer decided to check it out. Absolutely loved the movie at which point I went out and bought the DVD's and ended up loving the series and regreted it had such a short life.
I was never into Buffy or Angel so wasn't a JW fanboy and this was my first real introduction to his work... definatly say I would give him another chance.

So bad luck because it was a combination of alot of factors that prevented people like me who would have watched it from seeing it and 'getting' it... well recorded because yeah, Fri night is a crappy night for TV...either old people or families with small kids, which this type show wouldn't really appeal to.

I do give fox credit for giving these shows a chance in the first place. I would rather have 13 eps of Firefly, 13 eps of Wonderfalls, or a season of Space Above and Beyond than none at all. It sucks that the great genre shows Fox puts out get taken away too soon, but they still get minor kudos from me.

In Firefly's case, I think it was all about a lack of mainstream appeal. Sure the airing order and timeslot were crappy, but Scifi geeks and Whedon fanboys (of which I am both) would find a way to make it work. If a show shows any sign of being worthy, most fans of this kind of television show would show a little patience to let things get right. The general viewing public? Not so much. They wouldn't even tune into this kind of show. Who wants to watch a show about space cowboys? I truly believe that Firefly, much like Battlestar Galactica, would appeal to more than most people if they actually sat down to watch it. Farscape, Dr. Who, and B5 might be too "cifi-y for a lot of peoples tastes, but Firefly was pretty simple once you understood how that universe worked. It was more of an action show than scifi IMHO.

No kudos for UPN's "Homeboys in Outer Space"?

http://fray.slate.com/media/53000/53306/Homeboys1.JPG

I didn't care for it as much as many people did, and I'm a sci-fi fan, but I think it's definatetly the mainstream appeal that was lacking.

Then again you have Reunion, whose format was largely based on the idea that all the episodes would air. Too bad that didn't save it.

I really wish people would find some way of holding a network's feet to the fire when this happens. There is no excuse for a network greenlighting a show with a compact arc that is part of the sales pitch and not seeing it through. I thought Reunion was trash for my money, but I know a lot of people liked the show. I respect that -- not everybody thinks my favorite shows are all that great. Fox did these people wrong.

I hated Buffy and Angel but trusting my friends I checked out Firefly when it first aired. I hated Firefly too, but I gave it until the second episode...still hated it. Then the dvds came out and I was convinced to check out the first disc. Watching the pilot I can't say I was that into it, but i wanted to see more. I've forced a couple friends to watch it, I start with "Out of Gas" then most people want to watch the series after that. Once I have some cash laying around I'll pick up the dvds, there's 10% space on the dvr in Firefly.

I think the main problem with the show was the first episode really didn't have much of a hook, and for a Friday show you need something to grab you. I remember a lot of promotion for the show, at least more than Arrested Devlopment gets ;) Except it seemed like the show was a western...in space....with horses...and ships...and shootouts...and even an OK corral. Then the show came on and it was a lot of talking and other boring stuff. If the show had been promoted as something more than the next big action hit I might have dug it more. Or maybe not.

Oddly enough the only friend that dind't like Firefly loves Buffy and Angel.

I was a big Buffy fan, and despite knowing Firefly was Joss' new show, I didn't tune in after I heard what it was all about. Even after the show was cancelled, and I decided to give it a chance on DVD, it was only with the prodding of others and their assurance that it took a few episodes before it hit its stride that I made it far enough in to start to really enjoy it.

In the end, I very much enjoyed it, but that was kind of a lot to get through to get to the point where I enjoyed it.

So while FOX certainly didn't help with the timeslot and the out-of-order thing, I think the lack of mainstream appeal was the much bigger factor.

I'm one of the few who got hooked on the show from "The Train Job". Sure, it was from Exposition City to cover the missing original pilot, but take that away and you had everything in a nutshell - Mal's dislike of the Alliance, taking jobs of questionable morality, a pretty cool maglev train, and some ethical choices taken in the end. Not to mention a great shock at the end when Mal dispatches one of the bad guys - that was the point where I said, "I want more."

DVRs were scarce in 2002?

Though it was relatively easy to get a DVR in 2002, they weren't in widespread use at the time (some would argue they still aren't in widespread use).

I love ANGEL, Firefly, and don't give a damn about Buffy.

Thing is, Firefly had nothing in common with those shows anyway.

Thanks for pointing that out, as I was just about to. A lot of similarities in what happened between the two ..A great writer with a built in fan base, a network that wanted, then didn't want the show, airing of eps out of order...etc...etc

Plus they cost two or three times more then than they do now.

I had a DVR when Firefly was on the air and despite the fact that I did record each episode of it while it was the air, I could never get into it while it was on due to the fact that the episodes were aired out of order.

I haven't read the responses to this (avoiding spoilers, only 1 disc through the box set), but from what I've seen, it was probably lack of mainstream appeal. A chinese cowboy space opera would be a hard concept for the non sci-fi person to wrap their head around.

It's a shame they didn't wait a few years to do this show. With the success of the excellent Battlestar Galactica, Firefly could have flourished on the Sci-Fi Channel.

I've seen several episodes of FireFly when it aired on tv, but I just started on the DVD set yesterday (on my 9ft screen which adds to the enjoyment. :)). I finally got to see it from the very beginning and I'm loving it way more than I remember. They got royally screwed by Fox. I cannot believe they didn't even air the pilot first. That's just absolutely retarded.

Amazing show. Great writing and great characters. What a damn shame that we live in a world where shows like FireFly, Freaks & Geeks, Carnviale and other great shows get cancelled so early. I could only imagine the heights this show would've soared too had its life not been cut short. Joss Whedon shows generally become much greater after the first season.

Joss Whedon needs another TV show asap (preferrably a Buffy/Angel spinoff), but NOT on Fox. They cancel just about everything, especially if it's good.

This show was cancelled for a number of reasons:

1: First and foremost, it was on Fox (all you need to do is watch the Family Guy comeback episode to get an idea of the sheer number of shows that they've cancelled since FG had been gone, because Peter lists pretty much everyone of them, except Futurama, I believe. :))
2: Airing the episodes out of order was just plain stupid. It's just like Fox to pull some crap like that. They have ZERO appreciation for story telling.
3: The Neilson's rating system is very flawed.
4: Lack of mainstream appeal. If I wasn't a huge Buffy/Angel/Joss Whedon fan I probably never would've even wanted to watch FireFly.

I'm trying to finish the series so I can watch the movie, Serenity, but I'm dreading the end because it's going to come so fast.

Never watched Firefly on Fox, but picked up the DVD set a while back based on good reviews and fell in love with the show. The wife and I watched all the discs in about 4-5 days. Then we watched Serenity and really enjoyed it. Wish there was more to the Firefly world.

I watched Buffy once in a while but was never a huge fan.

Staying hom on a friday night for me! Also, airring episodes out of order...fuckign fuox!

The Family Guy list was of every show that premeired after Family Guy was cancelled, and then were subsequently cancelled themselves. Futurama wasn't on the list because it was on the air before Family Guy was cancelled.

This may seem overemphasized sometimes, considering that it's still a largerly episodic show, but for the dedicated viewer, this was a huge negative. I didn't even realize how poorly the show was being presented as it was first aired, and I liked the show as it was airing.

I've heard this statement before, but I've never heard a good argument on why or how it's flawed. I think Neilson probably accurately reflected the number of people that watched it, considering how little knowledge the average person seems to have about this show.

I think Joss gets closer to the real issue in the extras for Serenity when he says the movie/show doesn't have a simple, easily saleable premise. I think the characters, stories, and humor are far more accessable than the sci-fi/western trappings of the show suggest.

Serenity is an excellent capper for the series, as well as a fine movie in its own right. If you're sad that it's over after Serenity, just imagine how frustrated the fans where when the end point was "Objects in Space," with no movie in the foreseeable future.

I just finished watching the series in one sitting (I had to work a double shift, so it was pretty easy). I enjoyed it immensely, and would have taken a long time to get to had my coworker not let me borrow it this weekend.

A little about myself:
I don't watch much TV.
I don't have cable.
No cable means no DVR.
If I do watch TV, it's Wed-Fri evenings, no other.

With that, something on those nights has to catch my attention, and hold it, pretty quickly. None of the commercials made Firefly seem all that interesting. If I was flipping through my awe-inducing 15 channels, when I did come across it, it wasn't something that hooked me in the 15 min between commercials.
The show, as I said, was great. It was just something that I would have had to see from the beginning to get into. The episodes aren't super-dependant on each other, but knowing the history of characters is pretty important. The intro/song/credits portion wasn't to my liking, either. It didn't seem to paint a very enticing picture of the show. It makes sense after getting into the series, but it didn't draw me in.

I'll suggest this show to many people, and have already started my girlfriend on it. I'm going to watch Serenity tonight, and I hope that it leaves me with a good feeling of closure. In a way, I'm kind of glad this show didn't drag out and fade into meaningless drivel like many shows do.

In Firefly's case, it might not have been giving as flawed of a response as one might think, because it does have a niche following. But, the base of the matter is that Nielson uses statistical sampling, which in my opinion, is the red-head bastard stepchild of mathematics (with apologies to any red-headed bastard stepchildren forum members ;) )

If you walk down the street, and ask the next hundred people if they like chocolate, you could get 99 people that say they hate it. Does that mean 99% of the US population hates chocolate? You could have encountered a group of people leaving a "We Hate Chocolate" support group or something. Now of course Nielson will tell you that they measure their samples carefully to make sure no statistical anamolies like that pop up, but the fact of the matter remains that they are using a small percentage of people to extrapolate a very, very large number. I think in Firefly's case, a good indicator of it's true popularity was how quickly it took off on the Amazon pre-order list.

Or to drag out a really old chestnut, the original Star Trek was cancelled twice due to ratings. They brought back the second season due to the letterwriting campaign, and while that failed to bring it back after a third season, when it entered into syndication and began bringing in the syndication points there, it spawned the movie series and re-ignited the franchise.

Ever since being introduced to the concept in grade school, I've always been leery of any results produced by statistical sampling. It's too small of a sample, for too big of a data group. Factor in the networks penchant these days for not giving series a chance to work out their kinks, and you have a recipe for failure.

Huh..."Serenity" is still #1 on Amazon's best sellers list, and "Firefly" is #3...who says this show isn't popular? :)

I just finished the last episode of Firefly (now I'm about to watch Serenity and I cannot wait. It's easily my most anticipated film in years.).

I absolutely loved it. Knowing Joss it would've become so much more later on. His series generally become much greater by season 2. I also watched the extras with the cast and crew talking about about the show and I ended up with the biggest lump in my throat and misty eyed by the end. Great stuff. The cast and crew seemed to really appreciate their experience on this great series and so did I.

Now, time for Serenity. :)

I've heard this argument before, which is basically a fundamental distrust of statistical sampling, based on a fundamental misunderstanding of statistical sampling.

Anyone knowledgeable in the realm of statistics can tell offhand that you've chosen a horrible statistical sample, especially for determining a national percentage. For a sample to be accurate, every person of the population you're sampling has to have an equal chance of being chosen. Your sample is severely limited by geography, as well as by other factors, such as the person has to be walking and not driving by in a car, on a bus or subway or in a taxi, on a bike, etc.

Ah, the "very small sample size cannot possibly accurately represent a large population argument." Of course, statistical theory has proven repeatedly that what some might consider unbelievably small sample sizes can still provide accurate results, within a given degree of accuracy.

http://coolschool.k12.or.us/courses/...amplepoll.html
Nielsen has information on their polling procedures here, as well as a soup analogy for the statistically confused:
http://www.nielsenmedia.com/whatratingsmean/

First, you complain about skewed samples, and then you reference Amazon? Amazon is an online retail store, which is far more likely to be used by those who are tech-savy than those who aren't. Firefly is a sci-fi show, and sci-fi is a genre whose fans are far more tech-savy in general. The Amazon sales are a perfect example of an inaccurate sample selection, which is why places like Billboard and New York Times poll multiple retail outlets for their bestseller lists.

Well, it seems that the initial ratings were correct, since after the letter campaign the show still didn't get ratings. More likely, the letter campaign was the skewed sample, since Star Trek has spawned for more dedicated fans than most other shows produce. And while you point to the "syndication points" as a counterpoint, you do realize that those were created by Nielsen as well, right?

A good example from our time may be Family Guy. FOX canceled this show because of low ratings. However, it proved to be very successful on DVD and in syndication on Cartoon Network. Does that mean Nielsen was wrong? No, because of course the CN ratings were determined by Nielsen as well. So what happened? The problem isn't that Nielsen is inaccurate, it's that it doesn't tell the whole story. All the ratings show is the number of people watching. It doesn't show why those people are watching, or why other people aren't. For Family Guy, the irregular scheduling, lack of promotion, constant moving of time spots, were all hidden factors that could've prevented people who wanted to watch the show from actually seeing while it aired. It's like when a show moves to a better time and receives a ratings jump. It's not that those extra people were watching it before and not being counted, but rather that the better timeslot is actually generating more viewers.

With Firefly, I think it was these other factors that kept viewership genuinely low. However, one thing that Nielsen also doesn't poll is fanaticism of the viewers. It couldn't show what percentage would write letters if the show was canceled, an abnormally high number, and it couldn't show how many would buy the series on DVD, again a larger than average number.

Just finished watching "Ariel" last night and I'm hoping to complete this series by this Sat and close it up with "Serenity" on Sunday.

Overall.... one of the best god-damn tv series I've ever seen. :up::up:

Everything from the chracters, the plot, the ships, the customs, and the dialogue that Whedon created for the Firefly universe is simply amazing.

....and for some damn reason the "dance sequence" with River in "Safe" almost brought me to tears. :(

I truly hope that "Serenity" isn't the last we'll see of Mal's crew.

That scene always gets to me too... it was shot just about perfectly.

I was a casual buffy fan, so I never got a chance to check out firefly during its initial TV run. I saw Serenity in the theaters and was blown away. I knew the TV series had to be just as good, and I admit it really is. I really am hoping there is more firefly, but who knows?

I blame the failure of the show on a mix of marketing and a lack of mainstream appeal. It's a great show, but many people won't be hooked on the first episode.