Firefly Still Flying on Sci Fi.
Looks like the Sci Fi channel is keeping Firefly in syndication for a while longer than we thought.
There is also a link to an article talking about the Buffy Comics Joss made reference to in his post earlier this week. Nice to see that Sci Fi isn't dropping Firefly just yet!
November 12 2005
You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.


[ edited by spikeangellover on 2005-11-12 03:33 ]
spikeangellover | November 12, 05:32 CET
This has probably been posted elsewhere and often, but does anyone know what kind of ratings the episodes have gotten?
unreality | November 12, 06:15 CET
vampire dan | November 12, 06:18 CET
Mack | November 12, 06:32 CET
embers | November 12, 06:34 CET
eddy | November 12, 07:00 CET
AnotherFireflyfan | November 12, 07:35 CET
RBB | November 12, 09:39 CET
CG-Realms | November 12, 11:32 CET
[ edited by Djungelurban on 2005-11-12 13:09 ]
Djungelurban | November 12, 15:07 CET
"Syndication" is when a series (new or old) is sold to individual local stations. For instance, previous seasons of both Stargate series now air in syndication as well as on Sci Fi, while new episodes air exclusively on Sci Fi. (In contrast, Oprah airs exclusively in syndication.)
Also, while I'm pleased as punch that Sci Fi is doing a second run of Firefly (likely due to continued decent ratings, the fact its already paid for, and its cross-promotional utility for the upcoming Serenity DVD), I'd be happier if they were airing episodes letterboxed this time around, which could've served as an added promotional hook.
Robogeek | November 12, 15:07 CET
Except that airing them the way they were originally aired is a promotional hook: "Want to see them letterboxed? Pay for the DVDs!"
The One True b!X | November 12, 15:16 CET
Madhatter | November 12, 18:46 CET
Here's the reason in a simple explaination: money.
It's very expensive to make. Not enough people watched it. If enough people watched it, it'd earn enough money for a studio, and they would make it.
gossi | November 12, 18:52 CET
I know that it's a costly show, but so is Battlestar Galactica. I can't imagine that Firefly would cost much money than BSG to produce. Battlestar Galactica repeats has lower ratings then Firefly repeats. You see where I'm going with this?
Djungelurban | November 12, 19:03 CET
pat32082 | November 12, 19:13 CET
Madhatter | November 12, 19:18 CET
Djungelurban | November 12, 19:22 CET
Simon | November 12, 19:25 CET
Djungelurban | November 12, 19:38 CET
pat32082 | November 12, 19:50 CET
XanFan32 | November 12, 19:57 CET
Madhatter | November 12, 20:39 CET
As Simon pointed out above it is Sky who contributed and the co-production deal continues for Season Two.
zeitgeist | November 12, 21:06 CET
Madhatter | November 12, 22:09 CET
I don't have Sci Fi at home- stupid Comcast reordered our channels and left us bereft of the channel two days before they started showing Firefly- but I was over a friend's house who did. Nice to catch it. My wife realized it was Firefly by just hearing a snatch of the music, I was proud. =)
kishi | November 13, 00:17 CET
IMForeman | November 13, 01:06 CET
killinj | November 14, 18:16 CET
Sci-Fi shouldn't waste anymore time with Firefly they should move on to bigger and much better things.
KnightFire | November 15, 03:06 CET
vampire dan | November 15, 03:14 CET
herb | November 15, 05:15 CET