February 23 2011
CNN covers fans supporting Nathan Fillion buying Firefly rights.
CNN posted "Internet-savvy 'Firefly' fans fly back into the fight"about the response to Nathan's off-hand comment about buying the rights to Firefly and restarting the series on the Web if he won $300 million in the lottery ($300 million for the rights? Really? Holy smokes. Hopefully that includes some production costs).
This thread has been closed for new comments.
You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.
Why?
Simon | February 23, 09:12 CET
electricspacegirl | February 23, 09:35 CET
Inspired | February 23, 09:39 CET
Arison | February 23, 09:39 CET
gossi | February 23, 09:39 CET
It is encouraging but their campaign so far falls down on three major points.
1) No one knows who the organizers are. They are deliberately staying anonymous. That doesn't cut it. You have to be accountable. It builds trust for starters.
2) They've gathered a lot of enthusiastic supporters but the organizers aren't doing anything with them. Not even telling fans to write or email 20th Century Fox to say "we want more Firefly". It's all very well saying "we are mighty" all the time but at some stage you will want do to something otherwise you will walk away in boredom.
3) There's still many unanswered questions. What happens if Nathan and Joss don't comment on the campaign? Have the organizers factored in legal costs? Why aren't they regularly updating the website? Who will oversee the non-profit group? What happens if the money raised is not enough? How will Universal factor in their plans?
Simon | February 23, 09:57 CET
An open letter to Nathan Fillion
kazzmere | February 23, 10:05 CET
Or in the community. Really? Not that starting campaigns is restricted to BNFs but seriously. I want to know who they are, even if they're not asking me for money yet.
Kiba | February 23, 10:07 CET
1)Make a website
2)Get some attention
3)Hope to all that is holy Joss or Nathan or Chris or Tim or someone else with some brains and connections quickly steps in to tell them what to do.
It's laughable at this point.
BTW, if anyone thinks 20th isn't fully aware of a missed opportunity and doesn't regret the cancellation of Firefly, you're completely wrong. Of course, 20th isn't who cancelled Firefly. FOX cancelled it. Two. Different. Companies. 20th would have preferred it to be on the air still.
The only possible good that could come from all this mess is simply 20th and Universal knowing that there is still an active fanbase (however tiny, but loud) out here. And maybe the noise will help us get that 2012 PaleyFest Firefly reunion bix is always on about. :)
IrrationaliTV | February 23, 10:10 CET
missmuffet | February 23, 10:23 CET
Firefly is getting shoutouts in shows that are instantly noted on twitter. It's also getting press for the rebroadcast on the Science Channel. It's like a multi-tiered press campaign. I‘d say any press is good press right now.
Whedon can't commit to anything now with Avengers on his to do list. But perhaps, he's planning ahead and will remember this campaign.
Maybe the website could put a note that all funds raised can also go to the CSTS causes if the rights can't be bought, unless the donor wants a refund. It could be the best fundraiser CSTS has to date.
* yeah, that Fillion tweet was a joke - but it could still be the start of something good.
[ edited by hann23 on 2011-02-23 19:26 ]
hann23 | February 23, 10:24 CET
BreathesStory | February 23, 10:30 CET
Nathan Fillion
Thank you, CNN.com, for running the EW Firefly article. I love you, too.
11 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply
Seriously though, he doesn't appear to be terribly bothered by it all. As we know, the Buffy fandom is not all the same, and neither is the Firefly. I'm sort of neutral on this whole thing as it is not an all for one, one for all scenario, so why should I feel the least embarrassed or let down or anything about it.
Tonya J | February 23, 10:31 CET
BrewBunny | February 23, 10:57 CET
Ultimately, my only real concern with this campaign is that it doesn't involve some fan money going nowhere constructive. If they collect money, they should set up an escrow account, and if they can't buy the Firefly rights that money should get donated to Can't Stop The Serenity. If you really wanted to try this, you'd need to lawyer up and produce some kind of contract with every donation saying fans don't own the project themselves, that sort of thing. You'd also need to go into Fox at a high level and have a lot of money on the table, and know exactly what parts of the franchise you want to license, and for how long (they wouldn't sell it to you, you'd license elements). You're looking at 8ish figures for a few episodes. (for the rights, before actors, crew fees etc).
[ edited by gossi on 2011-02-23 20:21 ]
gossi | February 23, 11:20 CET
Then there is Joss. Joss, who has just been given the directing responsibility on possibly the biggest comic book movie of all time. After 'Avengers' comes out, and is the success we all expect it to be, Joss will have any number of big projects to work on. His plate is already too full to finish/start 'Dr. Horrible 2' or his often mentioned 'Goners'. What happens if he can't find the time to return to 'Firefly'? Will the others still want to return without him?
[ edited by NFA110 on 2011-02-23 20:41 ]
NFA110 | February 23, 11:36 CET
As I've told the still-anonymous people behind this, who have no credibility, Joss et al, after Dr. Horrible, expressly examined and then rejected the notion of using fan funding for his work.
That's a fact thats should have been in any article such as this, and it isn't, because all the article does is push the anonymous crew's misshapen agenda, without any actual contextual reporting.
@theonetruebix | February 23, 11:39 CET
@theonetruebix | February 23, 11:50 CET
How long until this silly thing blows over?
Giles_314 | February 23, 11:52 CET
I actually know, for a fact, there's people at 20th that would like to re-explore that universe. The best way to organise that really is to explicitly say to 20th "MAKE A SPIN OFF DVD IN THE SAME UNIVERSE. WE WOULD BUY IT". It's a tiny chance it would hang together - but it's better than owt else.
gossi | February 23, 11:52 CET
On another note, does anyone know if Universal owns the all rights to tell the adventures of Mal and co after the original series or if it's just the movie rights to the post-Firefly adventures? Because I remember vague talk of Universal making Serenity tv movies to put on the Syfy channel at some stage and no one shooting down the idea that they could actually do that.
Simon | February 23, 11:52 CET
@theonetruebix | February 23, 11:59 CET
Simon | February 23, 12:02 CET
@theonetruebix | February 23, 12:06 CET
Simon | February 23, 12:13 CET
Let's hope they don't turn out to be Nigerian princes.
BrewBunny | February 23, 12:16 CET
Has anyone seen the Kuzuis lately? ;)
redeem147 | February 23, 12:27 CET
IrrationaliTV | February 23, 12:39 CET
I've never heard anybody properly explain the rights between Fox and Universal. I know Fox sold the rights to one element of the franchise, then Universal complained they held the rights to the same thing, so that project didn't happen. If you haven't guessed, licensing something is like punching yourself in the head with a fist not made of fun.
gossi | February 23, 12:42 CET
At least have the balls and the honesty to admit this fact, even if their response would be "we're going to prove him wrong". That'd still be naive, but it'd be less disingenuous and less disinformational to their supporters.
(Of course, I'm still having Google fail finding the article in which Joss talks about funding models.)
@theonetruebix | February 23, 12:46 CET
Sunfire | February 23, 12:46 CET
@theonetruebix | February 23, 12:49 CET
Sunfire | February 23, 12:52 CET
THIS is fan enthusiasm.
THIS is how we got our Big Damn Movie.
THIS may be the future of popular media, produced for so-called niche audiences and funded by same, not reliant on generating lowest common denominator mass appeal.
Where's the harm here, again?
UnderTheDark | February 23, 12:54 CET
It's not actually. There was no campaign to get a movie. There was a campaign to get the Firefly DVD released.
Simon | February 23, 12:55 CET
And the harm is this is the 4th time this has happened in as many years. All of those previous 4 times, the websites are offline, and the owners aren't contactable. The last time, either Chris B or Tim M (can't remember which) had to contact them and ask for money to be returned.
gossi | February 23, 12:57 CET
@theonetruebix | February 23, 13:02 CET
[ edited by Sunfire on 2011-02-23 22:02 ]
Sunfire | February 23, 13:02 CET
gossi | February 23, 13:16 CET
@JewelStaite:
Heh.
I'd pay to see that. I think most others in a position to care one way or the other would too. The idea of re-constituting the original series (accounting for character deaths and all) is obviously a delusion of grandier. For me, all it would take is a single originating character (because they were all that awesome) from the series in order to justify a spinoff - which is what any continuation would have to be, realistically speaking.
brinderwalt | February 23, 14:08 CET
@theonetruebix | February 23, 14:16 CET
The post is hashtagged #pipedreams.
[ edited by gossi on 2011-02-23 23:18 ]
gossi | February 23, 14:17 CET
Shapenew | February 23, 14:19 CET
@theonetruebix | February 23, 14:23 CET
gossi | February 23, 14:24 CET
archon | February 23, 14:46 CET
@theonetruebix | February 23, 14:48 CET
My gut instinct says it will run out of steam within the next couple of weeks. I can't see Nathan or Joss endorsing it.
Simon | February 23, 14:56 CET
[ edited by The One True b!X on 2011-02-23 23:58 ]
@theonetruebix | February 23, 14:58 CET
eddy | February 23, 14:58 CET
[ edited by gossi on 2011-02-24 00:01 ]
gossi | February 23, 15:00 CET
I am only getting angrier. Whatever happened to accuracy?
@theonetruebix | February 23, 15:05 CET
Simon | February 23, 15:06 CET
Just as a pie in the sky type picture, let's say somehow Firefly comes back as in all the actors, a good amount of the writers (or even just Joss)... nearest such a project could realistically happen is maybe 2+ years away? Wouldn't it be great if everyone could come together to bring it back (and the world would live as one)?
archon | February 23, 15:08 CET
Times change. Myself I suspect that if someone where to come up with a really good script pitch for a Firefly spinoff series with a more practical character lineup and present it to whomever (I've forgotten now) it is technically holds the rights to the franchise, things could actually end up going somewhere.
brinderwalt | February 23, 15:28 CET
[ edited by The One True b!X on 2011-02-24 00:30 ]
@theonetruebix | February 23, 15:30 CET
That said, I still think there's an article out there which is more explicit on the issue, but I'm still Googling for it.
@theonetruebix | February 23, 15:33 CET
Grack21 | February 23, 15:37 CET
This appears to be a great deal of wishful thinking and hoping that Joss and or Nathan will step in and crusade for a revival in the next few days, which obviously is not going to happen.
[ edited by Heavs on 2011-02-24 00:55 ]
Heavs | February 23, 15:53 CET
@theonetruebix | February 23, 16:00 CET
IrrationaliTV | February 23, 16:12 CET
It annoys me that no one is actually doing any reporting on this story that covers the across-the-board fan reactions as well as skepticism. Specifically the ones that are here. A few people have made arguments about how it doesn't matter that no BNFs are running the "campaign," and while that may be so, the facts of the matter are that a lot of the BNFs are known because they've been around since the beginning of the Whedon fandom... which means that they've seen shit like the Backup Bash as well as glories like CSTS.
The only successful campaign that I can think of was the one that led to Betty White hosting SNL. And this isn't something like that. Clicking "Vote Betty White to Endorse SNL" worked because it was an issue where interest could lead to the event happening. In this case, I really don't think that the number of Facebook fans will make a difference.
I'm a college blogger for the Huffington Post, but they gave me carte blanche as far as topics go after I broke a national story for them. I'm going to see if the entertainment or tech page would take a story about this that actually presents new information and covers both sides. My life motto is relatively simple: if I'm getting annoyed by coverage of story, cover it myself. If they want it, I may reach out for interviews to some of you.
[ edited by ellievhall on 2011-02-24 01:17 ]
ellievhall | February 23, 16:14 CET
redeem147 | February 23, 16:24 CET
@theonetruebix | February 23, 16:26 CET
gossi | February 23, 16:32 CET
Giles_314 | February 23, 16:32 CET
@theonetruebix | February 23, 16:35 CET
Jeremy and I beg to differ. There was indeed a large fan campaign to get the movie made at SerenityMovie.net
BrianDTI | February 23, 16:45 CET
YES.
http://openmedia.ca/news/reversal-usage-based-billing-decision-points-new-era-internet-governance
I live in Toronto and there was a recent decision by the CRTC (our television/phone/internet regulators) that backed big telecom companies in their desire to limit ALL companies to a 25 gig download cap and to charge fees if you went over.
We went nuts.
More than 460,000 people signed an online petition to have the decision reversed. All the political party leaders were cc'd on it. Within weeks, the government threw out the decision and sent them back to the table. Was it easy? No.
Open Media asked supporters to raise $15,000 to help drive publicity in the interest of the public. They gave 48 hours to raise this with smaller companies agreeing to match raised funds. They got the money in under 24 hours.
Is this a pipe dream to bring back Firefly? Realistically, given all the pieces, probably. But it doesn't mean impossible. It might result in two or three episodes a year, British-model style. It doesn't have to be full length films or season-long arcs. There could be a new way of doing it.
Will they fail? Maybe. But there is NOTHING wrong with trying. NOTHING wrong with showing passion. I'd suggest a less cynical response and respect the effort. It WON'T happen if we all crap on it from the start.
I'm going to wait and see. If Joss or Nathan speak up, I'll be on board. As will all of you. They WON'T, however, if you're shooting it down ahead of time.
Sometimes it pays to be a bit unrealistic.
7thParallel | February 23, 16:45 CET
gossi | February 23, 16:47 CET
@theonetruebix | February 23, 16:48 CET
Hell, Futurama came back. Family Guy came back. We got a movie. We've established PRECEDENT. That's not something to take lightly.
7thParallel | February 23, 16:49 CET
[ edited by The One True b!X on 2011-02-24 01:53 ]
@theonetruebix | February 23, 16:51 CET
I'm a hard-core realist. I also know that fandom will destroy these guys if they f*** with them. They may not be (and likely aren't) the solution, but they may be the catalyst for proper, driven action. That's what I support, not blind effort. Hope that makes sense.
7thParallel | February 23, 16:53 CET
[ edited by gossi on 2011-02-24 01:56 ]
gossi | February 23, 16:54 CET
Wait and see what? They've had ample time to explain who they are and why anyone should take their pitch seriously. They haven't. Instead, they've pimped out positive press, ignored realistic takes in the press, and pretended that cast/crew speaking positively about Nathan's flippant lottery remark is actually about the fan campaign.
I don't need to wait any longer to see this is naive and unrealistic.
@theonetruebix | February 23, 16:55 CET
BrianDTI | February 23, 16:59 CET
@theonetruebix | February 23, 17:00 CET
6/13/2003 4:05 pm
Greetings,
I certainly hope everyone has been having a great year and is looking forward to a great summer. i"m sure you all know by now that the next big thing for Firefly junkies will be the release of the DVD box set. Things to keep an eye out for: the three unaired episodes. the audio commentaries ( I did one with Joss for Serenity and with Alan for War Stories, I know the girls did one as well.) Adam Baldwin's rendition of The Hero of Canton (the man they call "me").
All looks great on the movie front. A recent dinner with cast members, Joss and the lovely Kai confirmed rumours that we will all be big damn movie stars. Thank you Joss.
Myself, I am still recovering from the heartbreak of Firefly being cancelled. I heard from somewhere something about a Fox industry promo showing what makes them so great inculded clips from Firefly. Interesting.
My dream? Every three years make a Firefly movie, like the Bond series- but they won't start to suck after a while.
Fireflymovie.com was registered the following day:
Domain Name: FIREFLYMOVIE.COM
Created on..............: 2003-06-14 21:40:08 GMT
gossi | February 23, 17:02 CET
@theonetruebix | February 23, 17:03 CET
gossi | February 23, 17:07 CET
@theonetruebix | February 23, 17:07 CET
Sadly I think the realistic time frame for a long term revival came and went in 2005 with "Serenity" and it's potential but never made triolgy.
Futurama and family Guy are way different, as I'm sure you know. Being animated they rely far less on actors and sets and on "Family Guy" at least half the "voice talent" is Seth McFarlane" meaning that schedule problems are easily resolved.
"Wait and see" for what? Joss is hardcore busy with the Avengers until at least 2012, after that he has several other projects in the works and those don't count what might happen as that movie/s draw closer. NF himself is renewed with Castle until 2012 at the earliest and likely beyond that since it is a popular show. Many other cast members are regulars elsewhere or might be after this pilot season.
Really, I can't believe how far this has gone based on an "If I won the lottery" coomment.
Heavs | February 23, 17:07 CET
@theonetruebix | February 23, 17:16 CET
The Serenifly fandom is something which hasn't died. That's amazing. But the movie didn't happen because we made a campaign for the movie. It happened because of Universal and Joss' vision of a movie future not based on a sequels of prequels.
Is Sereniverse dead? Well, the creator is currently doing one of the biggest movie releases of next year. And it's not like he's constantly fighting Fillion when he sees him. Ultimately, when it comes to joss whedon's career, anything can happen. The rulebook here is in the bin. Welcome to entertainment chaos.
gossi | February 23, 17:20 CET
There is an interview with Joss on mania.com from early December 2003 when the DVDs came out in which he refuses to discuss the movie "because talking about it would make it less likely". As near as I can recall, that's roughly the time where the business aspects were still being nailed down, and about the time that the original draft was scrapped.
But all of that is a far cry from "fan campaigns and DVD sales got the movie made". It's more a matter of "fan campaigns and DVD sales probably made Universal more confident about their decision, and certainly let Chris B et al keep the flag waving". That's cool and all, but it's not necessarily "mighty" in the sense that campaigns like HNBF (the topic at hand) try to capitalize upon.
[ edited by The One True b!X on 2011-02-24 02:27 ]
@theonetruebix | February 23, 17:26 CET
[ edited by gossi on 2011-02-24 02:36 ]
gossi | February 23, 17:34 CET
The deliverables need to be clear. Are we buying the rights? Are we funding a production? Are we doing one and leaving the other to Joss? If this project were completed successfully and Joss didn't actually start a production, is everyone going to be happy still? Would Joss even accept it, realizing that he may be obligated to do something if it works? What about the rest of the cast? Personally, I don't think the rights are the issue. I think a production that covers its expenses are the issue.
Also, the expenses need to be up front. Running a non-profit entity doesn't mean going into the red yourself. The person who runs this is going to need to engage legal council, financial analysts (preferably multiple) to establish net present value of the license, and it may be advisable to have someone hired who has done this type of negotiation before. It needs to be disclosed that those funds will come out of the pot.
I think we get sidetracked to say "no fan initiative has ever..." or "fan based ... can't work." That confuses the issue. Yes, fan initiatives on the internet work all the time. They're called political campaigns. The internet can (and has) funded high dollar projects before as well, including Wikipedia which costs quite a bit to operate. Wikileaks (politics aside) is another one.
It's not that it can't be done. It's not that it won't ever be done. It's, aside from the social networking aspect that these two have going for them, do they have any idea what they're doing past that? The way it's been handled so far, I doubt that. This has already gone on too long without basic questions being answered.
Now me personally, I'd like to see a fan execute this successfully at some point. There's a lot of fan money out there that WOULD be spent to make something like this if it was given the opportunity. That said, I think the big problem you have is the incompatible assumptions that the fan running it should take no money from the collected funds when that fan will undoubtedly be paying out of pocket for most of the required professional services not to mention personal time spent. That's where I think you get hucksters from. No rational fan would take that deal and the only type of person who would would be the type working an angle.
Honestly, as an enterprise... I find the whole thing fascinating. This particular incarnation? 'Eh...
I wish I'd made a site first. :)
azzers | February 23, 17:51 CET
@theonetruebix | February 23, 17:54 CET
Grack21 | February 23, 17:56 CET
Grack I hear what you're saying, but money talks. And Fox doesn't improve the value on their books by holding properties they have no intention of using. "Not selling" is frequently short for "you'd better make me a good offer because I'm not giving this away."
[ edited by azzers on 2011-02-24 03:22 ]
azzers | February 23, 18:10 CET
bobster | February 23, 18:11 CET
But if it's unrealistic for Joss to assemble the financial, legal, and logistical framework for a fan-funded project, how is it realistic for fans -- who have no financial, legal, or logistical resources or expertise to draw upon and who simply do not have to be taken seriously by the industry powers that be -- to set something up and say "okay, Joss, now come do this"?
It isn't realistic. Which is my entire argument.
On a Joss-like scale, fan-funding only works if it's launched by the creatives themselves. And that's if such a thing would really work on that scale at all.
[ edited by The One True b!X on 2011-02-24 03:22 ]
@theonetruebix | February 23, 18:21 CET
Buffy was an all-encompassing affair wherein Joss Whedon was essentially the entity that tied everything together and kept it focused. Firefly, because it was a much more intimate show on a technical level (finite number of characters literally stuck in a confined space) was much more reliant on its ensemble in terms of providing a sense of cohesion (an extremely successful strategy, as it turned out.) The actors and their characters ended up fitting so well in that universe that it really isn't that hard to imagine how additional elements would end up fitting in it as well, and as such the prospect of other writers being involved imo just doesn't seem like that big of a deal.
ETA: There's also a precedent in the case of Buffy for non-Joss Whedon helmed instalments having... issues.
[ edited by brinderwalt on 2011-02-24 03:47 ]
brinderwalt | February 23, 18:39 CET
However you can't assume "the fan" who runs it has those same strengths and weaknesses. We use the phrase "the fan" to refer to someone who isn't involved in the current production but has interest. That does not mean "the fan" we're talking about isn't wildly successful in their own right. This person could be a successful fundraiser, work at a high level at a PAC, work as a corporate underwriter, or bring some other group of skills that Joss himself wouldn't necessarily posess. Fans aren't just kids in school. They are doctors, lawyers, and business owners. That type of person might actually find less risk taking a different path. Hollywood itself is relatively closed to outsiders who aren't already in possession of large wads of cash, the internet is not.
Where I find you are close to correct is the number of failed attempts or scammers that have led to such a cynical attitude that it may not be possible for that reason. And as I said, even if your deliverable was "We will purchase the rights to Firefly from Fox as a gift to Joss. We will not ask that he produce anything from it. The rights will be his free and clear." Someone who pays will inevitably raise an eyebrow if Joss doesn't produce something soon. I also see the scale problem, but it's very hard to quantify the maximum amount 30K fans are willing to pay on average per person. You don't know until you ask.
I hope I don't keep making this sound like the people we're talking about in this article are reputable people (I have no idea), I'm simply talking about the logic and possibility of doing something like this. That is what I find interesting.
[ edited by azzers on 2011-02-24 04:16 ]
azzers | February 23, 18:45 CET
madmolly | February 23, 20:02 CET
The post is hashtagged #pipedreams.
Huh. Gossi, I thought you didn't like the idea of a Firefly spin-off.
electricspacegirl | February 23, 20:28 CET
1) Anyone who is currently in power at Fox knows full well that their predecessors made a mistake in canceling Firefly. Hindsight is 20/20.
2) Especially considering how well the reboot of BSG did (a property most would have written off as dead long ago), Fox is unlikely to sell the rights to Firefly to anyone, for any reasonable price. If they sell it to someone else and it goes on to do extremely well, it would be very embarrassing to them.
3) Even if they did decide to sell the property, it's extremely unlikely they would sell it to a random conglomeration of fans. Not only is it something they don't understand well (we all know studios are resistant to what they don't understand), fans either doing well with the property where they couldn't OR squandering it would be equally embarrassing.
4) New Firefly content without Joss at the helm would be about as well-received as a Joss-less Buffy. No dice.
5) Considering his past experience with Fox specifically, and TV studios in general, it will probably be quite some time before Joss is willing to wade back into the political swamp of helming another studio-owned show.
Assuming this is true, I think any possibility of new Firefly content would have to start with Joss. Without his buy-in and leadership, no fan-run campaign (no matter how well-meaning) is ever going to succeed.
On the other hand, I have no doubt that browncoats kick as at raising money for a good cause. We've proven that time and again. When Avengers is done, and Joss is ready to start his next self-owned project (whether that be a Dr Horrible movie, Goners, or something completely new), fans could play a significant role in raising seed capital.
Again, it won't be a fan-run campaign. But if Joss started a Kickstarter campaign to raise $x million dollars for a new show, with different donation levels getting different perks (from DVDs to cast lunches to walk-on roles), he'd be able to make his capital in no time, and have the freedom to own his creation from the ground floor up.
I just hope we can convince him to do more with his properties on the licensing side. I'm thrilled we got QMx their small license. But there are dozens of other companies that would kill to create Dr Horrible licensed merch if they could only get permission. Trust me, I've done the research... :)
RayHill | February 23, 21:54 CET
It'd be a shame to let this excitement go totally to waste, I think that someone who knew what they were doing could ride this wave and guide it into something productive.
PaperSpock | February 23, 22:22 CET
BlueSkies | February 23, 22:26 CET
More Firefly is not stupid. Wanting to create content outside the studio system is not stupid. Wanting to create more Firefly (owned by a studio) outside the studio system is STUPID and delusional! Won't happen. Ever.
Make something else. I'll be there with my dollars. :)
IrrationaliTV | February 23, 22:33 CET
At the very least we could hope that Joss takes the message to heart and tries to get something started with the fan base energized the way it is. Joss loved making it, the cast and crew mostly all said they loved doing it, indications are that Fox knows they could've done more with it... revived Firefly can happen through the studio.
archon | February 24, 00:50 CET
gossi | February 24, 01:16 CET
Other than that, not much to see here really right ? "Offhand Comment Causes Teacup Tempest in Fandom: Film at 11 (OK, we don't have film but we may have stock footage from the last time it happened)".
Saje | February 24, 02:03 CET
For all we know, he may have already tried (and failed). He's not one for talking about projects that never got off the ground.
Simon | February 24, 02:32 CET
Saje | February 24, 02:48 CET
Jaymii | February 24, 05:36 CET
Simon | February 24, 05:49 CET
Also because Joss explicitly utilized this myth in his intro to the prescreenings. I love you, Joss. But with the last bit of that, I think you set every subsequent fan campaign in motion.
Also why am I the only noisy one who seems to remember that when Browncoats did the impossible and were mighty, it was at the Battle of Serenity Valley where they lost?
Kiba | February 24, 06:05 CET
Saje | February 24, 06:39 CET
I don't get your apprehension about a Firefly spin-off. To me, that universe is rich enough to warrant a franchise the likes of Stargate. There are so many story possibilities.
I'm not saying I think a spin-off or two is going to happen. It probably won't. But it would be so nice if it did. Cuz Firefly as we know and want more of it, is totally dead. We'll never see that show again, except on our DVDs. Unfortunately. But the universe? If Joss still wants to tell more stories within it, I hope someday he gets to. Maybe when he's a famous movie director after Avengers is a big hit. :) Yes, I like to dream.
electricspacegirl | February 24, 09:28 CET
Shapenew | February 24, 09:33 CET
...nope. I don't want it. I don't want the show to be Jossless. I can't... I started this post being more positive about the idea but it can't happen anymore. I recommend everyone to write this post - it will sort out their brains. :p
Jaymii | February 24, 13:43 CET
One of things I respect professionally about joss - like, a LOT - is he doesn't appear to let his name be used on things outside of his control where possible. Witness the complete lack of Firefly novels. I dig that. If he decides he has a Firefly story which needs to be told at some point, he could make it happen in a book by supervising it. I'm sure he could have made some degree of extra money at some point by putting his name to other peoples TV shows, that sort of thing -- I'm sure he gets offers -- but he hasn't. If his name is on something, he's probably going to be all over it. That's the way, in my head, things should work.
gossi | February 24, 13:52 CET
Which, of course is the reality of all show funding. The reason Dollhouse was "ruined" by Fox at the pilot stage (note the sarcasm) was Fox didn't like what they initially got.
azzers | February 24, 13:58 CET
Djungelurban | February 24, 14:31 CET
I wouldn't say that I would want a Joss-less show, but to me the thing that really draws me in to that show is the universe and the way in which characters inhabit it (the whole different people staring out into the abyss and their reactions to it spiel) - conditions laid out by Joss so masterfully that I really wouldn't worry about people screwing it up without him (infact I think it would be interesting to see what other writers/directors working in the 'Verse could come up with on their own - there's a lot of space in that 'Verse.) Imo Firefly has always had the potential to be the franchise that Star Trek was supposed to be, but never really was, and if there was ever a case in which I would actually be okay with the existence of a franchise zombie Firefly would be it.
brinderwalt | February 24, 15:42 CET
Hmm, in what respect ? Presumably you mean in some specific way brinderwalt since claiming that Trek isn't a (huge) franchise seems pretty hard to defend.
The Sereniverse is quite rich IMO and could sustain a spin-off, maybe two. But ultimately it's "just" a (kind of) dystopia, in sci-fi those're ten a penny. The main characters and (at least) Joss' hand on the tiller made it what it is for me, without those it's less interesting.
Saje | February 24, 16:00 CET
Insofar as it lived up to Gene Roddenberry's original pitch for what the show was, namely, Wagon Train to the stars - aka a saga of random everyday people journeying out into the unknown and having to come to terms with that kind of existence. A byline that, imo, Firefly did a far better job of expressing in its short run then the Star Trek franchise (with the occasional exception) ever has.
brinderwalt | February 24, 17:09 CET
@theonetruebix | February 24, 18:17 CET
Whedonesqers are becoming elistist and, basically, douches. You know that there are many times more fans of Joss' work than come here to this unofficial blog right?
It feels like there are people here that think 'if its not done by us, its just not official.' Screw all you that think like that.
This 'anonymous' and 'unofficial' fan movement has probably done more to actually UP the chances of Firefly returning than anything that hs ever been on this blog.
[ edited by Beren77 on 2011-02-25 04:08 ]
Beren77 | February 24, 19:04 CET
@theonetruebix | February 24, 19:29 CET
[ edited by The One True b!X on 2011-02-25 04:31 ]
@theonetruebix | February 24, 19:30 CET
It's probably for the best we parted ways in that case.
Sunfire | February 24, 19:37 CET
So they're only waiting for Nathan and Joss to answer if it's the answer they want? Because Nathan is obviously not down with this idea, and yet they still think it's a great way to raise money.
As for us being elitists, look. I'd love to be able to create TV and film content through fan campaigns, but the industry just doesn't work that way. We're being realistic, and well, cautious. We've been on this page many times before and we know how the story ends.
electricspacegirl | February 24, 20:51 CET
I remember long ago when I wanted to have Firefly back so much and folks here were negative ( rightly so ) about it's chances of ever coming back and it was hard for me to not get frustrated. But I finally improved my knowledge of the fandom, it's history and truly paid attention with an open mind to what was being said here and realized folks here had been there, done that and KNEW for sure what they were talking about.
I hope the fans pursuing this will realize it too.
In the meantime my thoughts on this are simple. We took our sadness over the loss of a tv show and made that into something much shinier. Our commitment to charities like CSTS and KNTR are the legacy we should keep going with. To me, it's a much wiser decision than pledging money to try to get a show back.
FollowMal | February 24, 21:33 CET
I think what might sometimes come off as elitism is shared experience. The whedonesque regulars have been through a lot together over the years, including quite a few "bring back firefly" campaigns and a group of convention runners who disappeared with several hundred thousand dollars of our money. There are also quite a few people who work in the entertainment industry and have more insight than most on how things really work behind the scenes.
Any new campaign that begins will invariably be viewed through that lens by the folks here. If the campaign echos flaws from previous campaigns or is based on logic that just doesn't make sense from inside the industry, those who know better are bound to point these issues out. More importantly, any *anonymous* campaign (especially where the organizers go out of their way to maintain their anonymity despite requests to the contrary) will be met with a great deal of suspicious for a very good reason.
As for the douche comment, well, I think it's fair to say that we all get that "not so fresh" feeling from time to time.
RayHill | February 24, 22:08 CET
(kudos to those who've taken the time to look back and inform themselves of what's gone before so that - hopefully - we aren't doomed to keep repeating the same mistakes)
Insofar as it lived up to Gene Roddenberry's original pitch for what the show was, namely, Wagon Train to the stars - aka a saga of random everyday people journeying out into the unknown and having to come to terms with that kind of existence.
Ah, I get you now brinderwalt. You're maybe being a bit too literal though in that case, his intention wasn't an actual "Wagon Train" [but to the stars] (the phrase he uses is "a 'Wagon Train' concept"), he just used that as a jumping off point (since they're travelling around and sometimes stories will centre on secondary characters and so on). The lead is still a starship captain, his crew is still prominently featured, the focus is sci-fi action-adventure etc. Here's the full text (in PDF) of his original pitch and (particularly if you're a fan) it makes pretty fascinating reading (how many TV show pitches include the Drake Equation* ?!). A lot changes from pitch to screen (most of which many fans will already be aware of) but it's actually pretty close to what we ended up with (particularly if you don't count changes made after the pilot).
* OK, it's not actually Drake's equation cos Roddenberry didn't have it to hand so made it up but that's what he was aiming for ;)
Saje | February 25, 01:40 CET