Newsgroup: it.fan.tv.buffy
Titolo: Perchè Firefly andò male su FOX

http://www.whedon.info/article.php3?id_article=10721
Ronald D. Moore’s new "Battlestar Galactica" has opened a triumphant second
season and is on its way to someday potentially earn the title of "Greatest
Scifi Series of All Time."
Meanwhile, the venerable, time-proven "Stargate SG-1" has just opened its
ninth season with new characters and new energy.
But Joss Whedon’s short-lived series "Firefly," on the other hand, will
always be a case of what could have been.
In just its handful of episodes, Whedon’s groundbreaking space-western set
500 years in the future arguably was already on track to lay claim to
greatness. But when the Fox network canceled the show, fans were left only
to ponder the possibilities.
Scifi author Keith R.A. DeCandido recently noted that Fox canceled
"Firefly" for the same why any network cancels any TV show: it was not
making enough money to justify its existence.
"’Firefly’ was an extremely expensive show to make," he told me and other
fans at a recent convention. "It was over $2 million an episode, which is a
ridiculous amount of money. It needed to draw in more viewers than it got
in order for them to make it back on the advertising."
Fox needed "Firefly" to get considerably better ratings than even Whedon’s
hit series "Buffy The Vampire Slayer" and "Angel," because the standards
for success on Fox are much higher than they are for the WB and UPN,
DeCandido explained.
"If they just get ’Buffy’ and ’Angel’’s audience, it’s gonna tank by Fox’s
standards," he said.
Certainly, "Firefly" will rise phoenix-like in movie theaters as the
feature film, "Serenity," and we fans are glad of it.
But instead of a movie, what if "Firefly" had stayed on the air as Whedon
had intended, left to unspool week after week the kinds of original and
thought-provoking stories we only tasted ever so briefly during that
truncated broadcast run back in 2002?
Those possibilities that will go forever untapped ought to serve as a
cautionary note to would-be producers of scifi series who rush to sign
their projects to heady-but-dangerous deals with the major broadcast
networks.
It’s enough to make one wonder, "What if ... ."
Such as: What if Whedon sold "Firefly" not to Fox, but to the SciFi
Channel, or the USA Network, FX, or some other cable network?
Broadcast networks are just not a hospitable place for scifi.
A recent news story reported that of a list of the longest running shows on
network TV, "X-Files" and "Star Trek: Voyager," are the only two scifi
series to make the rankings.
As DeCandido rightly points out, it takes time for a scifi series to
develop an audience. But the broadcast nets are watching their viewership
bleed away, and are desperate to stop it. That means the suits are
endlessly trying any series they can to capture audience share, and if one
show doesn’t deliver immediate results, they axe it in favor of the next
one that crosses their desks. They don’t have the patience to let a series
grow.
Once, the "netlets"--UPN and the WB--were the last outposts where
broadcasters were willing to nurture small shows. No longer. Today, they’re
as eager to cancel such series as "Star Trek: Enterprise" and "Angel" as
ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox in the same manic craze to find something supposedly
bigger and better.
So if TV viewers are dropping out of watching broadcast, where are they
drifting to? In a television universe that today supports channels on such
narrow topics as history, game shows, and gardening, clearly they are
moving to this new world of niche cable outlets.
If science fiction is such a niche, so be it. Rather than fight it, we
ought to embrace it. Isn’t that what the SciFi Channel is for, for heaven
sake? It’s a niche outlet for scifi fans.
Not that the SciFi Channel need be the only home for science fiction
series--just watch the success of "The 4400" over on USA Network.
Cable channels in general are going to be a friendlier home for scifi. As
DeCandido explained, a cable outlet will put on three original shows,
period. By contrast, a broadcast net like Fox puts on three shows per
night. The difference is that by focusing on fewer shows, a cable channel
has fewer shows to juggle and is likely more willing to take a chance on
something.
That mother of all scifi series, "Stargate SG-1," is a great example. With
a more-manageable budget, the series sailed under the radar for years,
first on Showtime and later on the SciFi Channel, the series has delivered
one year of great storytelling after the next.
Also, standards for success on cable are lower than broadcast.
Which gets us back to "Battlestar Galactica."
A recent "Battlestar" episode aired on NBC got only a paltry 2.3 million
viewers. That’s a failure by broadcast standards, but fortunately, the
series’ main home is the SciFi Channel, where those kinds of numbers
provide the outlet with its highest ratings.
So what’s all this mean? It’s too late for "Firefly," and we fans will have
to look forward to the forthcoming "Serenity" movie.
But a word of advice to would-be scifi producers: yeah, you can take the
fancy-pants network development deal, take your chances, and probably end
up back in the unemployment line in six months. Or, scale back your
expenses, skip the networks, put your show on cable, and like "Stargate
SG-1," someday you might find yourself still on the air, nine years later.
-- 
Jolan Tru, Filippo "Hytok" Simone: l'oracolo sampdoriano di Sunnydale
La Casa degli Elfi - 
http://lacasadeglielfi.altervista.org/
Enclave del Dominio - S.N.S. Despiser - 
http://ildominio.altervista.org/

 making enough money to justify its existence.
Certo ^^;
Per il resto, mah, coi "What if" si puo' arrivare dove si vuole. Si', 
probabilmente cosi' sarebbe andata meglio.
Ma sarebbe andata meglio comunque se la FOX non l'avesse messo il 
venerdi', non avesse fatto scrivere un nuovo pilot, non avesse mandato 
gli episodi in ordine casuale e l'avesse pubblicizzato come si deve 
durante l'estate prima (invece che con un paio di spot da malati 
mentali).
Probabilmente non sarebbe bastato comunque, per carita', ma comunque 
sarebbe gia' stato qualcosa.
-- 
Laz - [
http://www.dimensionedelta.net
]
"Real love isn't brains children, it's blood. It's blood screaming 
inside you to work it's will." 

ROTFL!
Condivido il tuo ROTFL.


Per il resto, mah, coi "What if" si puo' arrivare dove si vuole.
Dalle mie parti si dice "se mio aveva tre ... era un flipper, e se ne
aveva 11 era un bigliardino"
^_^
-- 
Fabio "DrDivago" Cavallin
«Nulla potra' mai togliere ad un uomo
la sua capacita' di sognare ed immaginare...»
IHGGer immortal #131          IFTB poster #21
Heromachine 2.0 Beta Tester and Supporter
mailto:
drdi...@supereva.it
mailto:
dottor...@aliceposta.it
La mia Home Page 
http://www.webalice.it/dottordivago/
La Reindeer Corporation 
http://www.reincorp.it

aveva 11 era un bigliardino"
sorry, era "se mio NONNO aveva tre..."
