Escape Artists
Escape Pod => Science Fiction Discussion => Topic started by: Russell Nash on February 25, 2007, 04:56:54 PM
-
OK, I admit it. I've never seen Firefly. I keep looking at the DVD waiting for the price to come down a ittle bit before I buy it.
Serenity is on cable tonight. Does Serentiy stand on it's own enough that I can enjoy it without having seen Firefly first?
-
I think so, though you miss out on a fair amount backstory. Still a fun flick regardless. Personally, I'd recommend recording the movie and renting the series first (if its available to rent). It makes it that much better.
-
Serenity is already cheap enough to just buy, so maybe I'll just skip it and buy it later.
-
Firefly's currently 20 bucks on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Firefly-Complete-Ron-Glass/dp/B0000AQS0F/sr=8-1/qid=1172436848/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-2829436-4528769?ie=UTF8&s=dvd
-
I watched Serenity first and it was immediately one of my favorite movies. Now having seen Firefly it really builds in the characters, but I don't regret seeing the movie first.
-
I rented the series first, since I knew the movie would be the "final chapter". Then I rented the movie Friday, quickly on the heels of the final episode. My only regret was that I put off diving into this show for so long. I was in the UK when it was out, and heard about the cancellation and the movie after the fact. I figured the excitement was just hype, but eventually decided to check it out. I'm so glad I did.
Except that now (for me) it's over. Maybe I can finally convince my wife to check it out, and watch it again with her!
-
I watched Serenity first and it was immediately one of my favorite movies. Now having seen Firefly it really builds in the characters, but I don't regret seeing the movie first.
Thanks for this reassurance. I have the DVD lying on a shelf at home, and I was hesitant to watch it, afraid that it might ruin Firefly for me. (of which I don't have the DVD, and our networks probably will never air it)
-
I somehow got my wife to go see Serenity (how, I do not know). After that, she immediately wanted to see the show, and loved it. So I would say go ahead.
-
Firefly's currently 20 bucks on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Firefly-Complete-Ron-Glass/dp/B0000AQS0F/sr=8-1/qid=1172436848/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-2829436-4528769?ie=UTF8&s=dvd
Unfortunately, it's still 30€ here which is $40. That's quite a lot for half a season.
We decided to pass on Serenity on cable, but after reading what everyone wrote maybe we'll watch it next time.
-
Unfortunately, it's still 30€ here which is $40. That's quite a lot for half a season.
I'd agree that it's quite a lot for half a season of anything else, but it's a bargain for Firefly that (I promise you) you'll watch again and again. And my wife agrees. Say yes, Amy. "Yes."
-
Unfortunately, it's still 30€ here which is $40. That's quite a lot for half a season.
I'd agree that it's quite a lot for half a season of anything else, but it's a bargain for Firefly that (I promise you) you'll watch again and again. And my wife agrees. Say yes, Amy. "Yes."
Maybe we'll split the difference and I'll eBay it.
-
Unfortunately, it's still 30€ here which is $40. That's quite a lot for half a season.
I'd agree that it's quite a lot for half a season of anything else, but it's a bargain for Firefly that (I promise you) you'll watch again and again. And my wife agrees. Say yes, Amy. "Yes."
Maybe we'll split the difference and I'll eBay it.
I was going to offer to buy it off you if you don't like it... then my wife walked up behind me while I was writing and made that Marge Simpson noise. I think it's spelled, "Hrmmmgh." The one that means, "You better not, friend."
-
Problem solved. I got Firefly off a friend and Serenity is still on cable.
-
Hey, that works.
Just watch them in there intended order. Not in the Fox order, because that worked so well when it aired!
-
Hey, that works.
Just watch them in there intended order. Not in the Fox order, because that worked so well when it aired!
What's the proper order?!?? ???
-
If it's your friend's DVD set of Firefly, I think you'll be fine. When they packaged it, they put it in the right order. Basically, for some unfathomable reason, the network decided not to air the pilot and instead air a 1-hour episode for the premiere (which hadn't even been written at that point, much less filmed). I think there were some other changes, too (someone else more knowledgable can point that out. But if you've got the DVD set, you're cool :)
-
Fox pretty much aired the episodes in a random order. In addition to having the pilot as the last aired episode they took the episodes 6-8 and made them episodes 3-5, took the last episode and made it episode 10 and didn't air episodes 11-13 at all.
In addition this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JM0LdG2P8_0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JM0LdG2P8_0) is the trailer they made for the show.
Gee, I wonder why the show didn't get better ratings...
cosmic hooker and a girl in a box indeed...
-
What's the proper order?!?? ???
The order as they appear on the DVDs. If you watch the DVDs straight through, you should be fine.
Have you had a chance to watch any yet? I sat through the whole set in two days.
This is going to sound obnoxious, but here goes...
I came up with a concept for a sci-fi series back in the late 80s that very much resembles Firefly. But I never wrote it down or thought much of it.
My series was called "Phantom's Rule" and the crew formed a mercenary team called Phantoms.
The captain was an ex-soldier.
The gunner was a tough guy named Kelly Frost.
The mechanic was an overweight lady named Momma with a pet robot.
And two aliens, brother and sister, who were running from the law.
The ship was called Spectra General (after the rock group that performed on the TransFormers soundtrack) and even had a detachable shuttle.
Needless to say, I'm writing down all my new ideas these days.
-
Bestbuy has the series on sale this week for $19.99. (a least where I live).
I picked it up yesterday and watched the two-hour 1st episode last night.
Excellent.
-
It is ironic that the series begins with a 2 hour movie titled "Serenity" and ends with a 2 hour movie titled "Serenity".
All in all, I like the TV movie more, as it is so full of promise. Always pain, but promise.
"Out of Gas" is my favorite episode, for sheer lack of linearity and scenes that prequel even the pilot.
I do think the Theatrical Movie detracts from enjoyment of the season becasue of the way in which it "ties up" so many loose ends. It is reading the last chapter of a book first. Won't mean the book isn't worth reading after, but something is lost.
-
Finished the first DVD last night - so far, still excellent.
-
I'm a little upset that the movie makes no reference to "two by two, hands of blue" -- ClintMemo, just wait until the episode "Ariel". I always wanted a payoff to that... who were the men with blue hands, and how did they fit in with the Operative?
-
I'm a little upset that the movie makes no reference to "two by two, hands of blue" -- ClintMemo, just wait until the episode "Ariel". I always wanted a payoff to that... who were the men with blue hands, and how did they fit in with the Operative?
They appear briefly in the episode "Bushwacked" - which I saw last night.
-
IIRC, I think they're in the comic book movie-tie-in (as is more of a detailed explanation of why Book and Inara left the ship). I haven't actually read the whole thing, just kind of skimmed through it in the bookstore.
-
The Hands of Blue storyline is tied up in that 3-comic cycle. Personally I'd rather it in live action, but it was satisfying.
-
IIRC, I think they're in the comic book movie-tie-in (as is more of a detailed explanation of why Book and Inara left the ship). I haven't actually read the whole thing, just kind of skimmed through it in the bookstore.
I have that on my shelf, and I read it. I just think they were villains worthy of screen time, if not in Serenity the film then in a future film or other live-action adventure like a webisode. Not to say the Operative wasn't a great villain, because he really really was, but there was a borg-like menace about the Blue Hand Group.
-
I hear what you're saying, Listener. I would've liked to have seen them get more time on the screen, too. They were really built up as the big bad guys right before the show got cancelled. Maybe if Firefly/Serenity somehow continues...
-
This has always been what has impressed me the most about Joss Whedon--like a good chess player he thinks many moves out. He isn't making it up as he goes along. The whole story, and back story, of his characters are in his mind when he starts.
I have all 7 Seasons of Buffy on DVD, and when he comments on an episode he will mention that something is here because of something else that will happen up to two years in the future.
There could have been an entire year planned on Shepherd Book's history as a high ranking Alliance operative, why and how he renounced his position, and what exactly it was. Those were stories ready to tell from the amount of foreshadowing. In fact, River and Simon seemed to be in some ways the less important traveller on Serenity.
-
I'm on disk 4 and it's making me sad knowing that I'm almost at the end. I'll have to pick up the movie this week, then find the comics after that.
Damn, that was a good show.
-
I have all 7 Seasons of Buffy on DVD, and when he comments on an episode he will mention that something is here because of something else that will happen up to two years in the future.
And then sometimes you get a whole 42 minutes of commentary that you really don't comprehend.
cf: "Objects in Space"
-
Hmm, I think the time has come to leave the closet...
I like Firefly, really, I do... Honestly. I enjoyed every episode, and thought the movie was a pretty good conclusion. For a while I thought it was the best TV SF I'd seen in a few years.
However, the Internet's firefly obsession drives me absolutely batshit. I am Glad, GLAD, it's gone.
American Television is absolutely terrible at concluding stories, particularly in science fiction, I think it's to do with the way they are scripted... So often a series starts off with massive amounts of foreshadowing, and unknown elements (the classic example is Lost, but The X-Files is another good mark) that are slowly alluded to over the season. These start off well, but the requirement for 20 episode seasons and series after series of product mean that these themes get flogged to death and distorted... The magnificent X-Files turned into the "black goo, pregnant Scully, killer bees" show, Lost completely lost the plot, and don't even talk to me about the supposed exception to this rule - Babylon 5. Buffy went to hell in a handcart because every single unknown theme needed to be fleshed out, flogged, thrashed, until it was a zombie production and they were pissing about with "sister keys" and multiple slayers.
And then there was Firefly, a series that I new from the first moment I watched it wasn't going to have a chance to thrash its mysteries to death. I felt exactly the same way about that old classic Dark Skies, where early cancellation meant it could never kill off its Hoover-era mystery. Cancellation has been a boon, because no-human can maintain high quality productivity in a story arch (you can do it as a soap opera like The Sopranos or The West Wing, but SF is different - it needs a plot), and therefore what we see is fantastic mystery.
But somewhere along the line the internet went bat-shit crazy over firefly, a fundamentally slightly-above-average SF series with a few cute mysteries got elevated by the fact that it was by Wheedon, and that there would never be a conclusion to the myths he was building. Until the web is dripping with fan-fiction and Eight Episodes gets nominated for a Hugo, and on Escape Pod it gets voted up as the best SF series of all time(http://forum.escapeartists.info/index.php?topic=449.0).
Am I missing something here? When did Bonanza in Space become the saviour of Science Fiction?
-
I picked up the movie yesterday, but I haven't watched it yet.
and to answer Simon, I'll just say why I like Firefly so much.
For me:
The characters were interesting, well written, and had realistic personalities.
The setting was interesting.
The individual stories were all entertaining and several had twists that I did not see coming but still seemed logical.
The dialog was excellent.
The humor was mostly character based, not one-liners or pratfalls.
It had a great cast with no weak actors.
In comparison:
I'm not a big Joss Whedon groupee. I've seen some episodes of Buffy, and a few of Angel. I thought they were good shows, but not so compelling that I found myself planning my schedule around them.
I saw all of Babylon 5 and I really liked it, but let's be honest, it's far from perfect. The overall story was superb, but some of the dialog is only passable and the acting ranges from excellent to well, not so excellent.
I've seen most of the x-files and I was a big fan once I got into it. The overall story became a big mess. I always got the idea that the creators did all the foreshadowing with no intention of ever having to reveal exactly what it meant because they didn't think they would be on the air that long. At some point, I think they decided to try to shoehorn a story to meet the foreshadowing. For me, the best episodes were always the ones that had nothing to do with the overall plot. They were just good stories with good characters - Mulder and Scully were a great TV duo.
I think Firefly has such a good rep mostly because it wasn't on long enough to fall apart. They only got to do 14 episodes and every one is good. I could easily see them being able to maintain the quality of the show for two seasons or more, but if they had gone on as long as Voyager, then I'm sure they would have made their Warp 10 episodes as well.
Most good shows go on too long. This show didn't go on nearly long enough.
I'm looking forward to watching the movie.
-
Just finished watching the movie - loved it! :D
To simulate the experience of "regular" viewers, I watched the show on my laptop but watched the movie on my home theater.
(Ok, I didn't plan on doing that, but it happened to come out that way)
Now I'm sad that there isn't any more to watch. :(
-
Just finished watching the movie - loved it! :D
"I am a leaf on the wind, watch me..." *THUNK*
-
I have all 7 Seasons of Buffy on DVD, and when he comments on an episode he will mention that something is here because of something else that will happen up to two years in the future.
And then sometimes you get a whole 42 minutes of commentary that you really don't comprehend.
cf: "Objects in Space"
Sometimes, the commentary is just filler because they had nothing good to talk about. I mean, that ep was not the most thought out... although it was one of the more amusing.
-
Obviously I disagree with Simon, (and so did Whedon, he was pissed off). There were still very many good stories to tell, and I wasn't in the least bit bored by epidose 14, and would have liked to see 15, 16, 17...
No doubt successful shows can hang on too long, and "jump the shark"--this one didn't.
-
Obviously I disagree with Simon, (and so did Whedon, he was pissed off). There were still very many good stories to tell, and I wasn't in the least bit bored by epidose 14, and would have liked to see 15, 16, 17...
No doubt successful shows can hang on too long, and "jump the shark"--this one didn't.
Having watched the show and then the movie back-to-back, I really wished there had been episodes 15-23 or even 15-46.
btw, I loved Objects in Space
"Does that seem right to you?"
-
American Television is absolutely terrible at concluding stories, particularly in science fiction, I think it's to do with the way they are scripted... So often a series starts off with massive amounts of foreshadowing, and unknown elements (the classic example is Lost, but The X-Files is another good mark) that are slowly alluded to over the season.
I really didn't want to quote the whole post, Simon. Sorry.
Anyway, I think part of the reason the best anime is short-run anime (Lain, Evangelion, FLCL, Bebop) is because it doesn't have a chance to get old and tired. Most stories can be told in 26 episodes, provided you don't have to worry about leaving the threads for a sequel*. I think Lost would've been perfect if it'd run in one or even two seasons. I read somewhere that the third season of Prison Break will be the last, which is the only reason I'm even watching the third season.
There has to be a goal, or an endpoint, and it has to be in sight from the beginning. Otherwise you run the risk of just going on and on and having crappy filler episodes while on the way to your grand conclusion. The sequel mentality of the market means that you'll rarely get something great that stands on its own.
Episode IV stood on its own. Episode V and VI depend on each other.
"The Fifth Sorceress" by Robert Newcomb, for all its flaws, stood on its own. The next two books do not (especially the third).
It's possible to continue building a world and telling new stories in that world -- CSI, Private Practice/Grey's Anatomy, Law & Order, even Star Trek. You just have to know when to stop. I think that Joss Whedon is the kind of guy who, despite the massive popularity Firefly would've eventually garnered, would've stopped the show after the fourth season if he felt he'd told all the stories he could.
* - I read an interview with the writers for the Transformers movie a couple of years ago where they said 'we've got the story all wrapped up except for the hook for a sequel'... that pissed me off... we do not need sequels to everything.
-
Episode IV stood on its own. Episode V and VI depend on each other.
I think they just fell into the standard fantasy trilogy form.
Part 1 - introduce heroes and have heroes stop villain's plan
Part 2 - villain goes after heroes and everything goes to hell
Part 3 - heroes pull themselves together and destroy villain once and for all
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that structure. It just seems to get used a lot.
It's possible to continue building a world and telling new stories in that world -- CSI, Private Practice/Grey's Anatomy, Law & Order, even Star Trek.
It depends on whether or not you are going for an overall story arc. The original ST had no overall arc. The characters were just a means to tell the story of the week. With that structure, you can go on forever as long as you can continue to create interesting stories to tell.
* - I read an interview with the writers for the Transformers movie a couple of years ago where they said 'we've got the story all wrapped up except for the hook for a sequel'... that pissed me off... we do not need sequels to everything.
Well, some movies are made for artistic reasons and some are made to accumulate large piles of cash. :P
-
Episode IV stood on its own. Episode V and VI depend on each other.
I think they just fell into the standard fantasy trilogy form.
Part 1 - introduce heroes and have heroes stop villain's plan
Part 2 - villain goes after heroes and everything goes to hell
Part 3 - heroes pull themselves together and destroy villain once and for all
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that structure. It just seems to get used a lot.
Lucas said in the DVD extras that this three part form is the way you write a story. He was typically arrogant about it.
-
Interesting. I think for the first trilogy, that idea worked very well (and to be fair, I don't think it'd been done very much in SF cinema, at least not that well, back when the original movies first came out). Pity he didn't really follow his own advice for the second trilogy.
-
Interesting. I think for the first trilogy, that idea worked very well (and to be fair, I don't think it'd been done very much in SF cinema, at least not that well, back when the original movies first came out). Pity he didn't really follow his own advice for the second trilogy.
I'm not sure he could have. Annakin has to become Darth Vader and I'm not sure how you could have a happy ending and leave things the way they needed to be for Episode IV.
I think the biggest problem with Eps 1-3 is that Lucas wrote the scripts and directed them. I really wish he would cast off Star Wars and let other people make movies in the Star Wars universe.
But that's for another thread....
-
Interesting. I think for the first trilogy, that idea worked very well (and to be fair, I don't think it'd been done very much in SF cinema, at least not that well, back when the original movies first came out). Pity he didn't really follow his own advice for the second trilogy.
I'm not sure he could have. Annakin has to become Darth Vader and I'm not sure how you could have a happy ending and leave things the way they needed to be for Episode IV.
Personally I'm happy with unhappy endings provided the story is served. "Ariel" (to bring it back to the topic here) had kind of an unhappy ending -- we find out just how much of an asshat Jayne can be, which reminds us that even though he's one of Our Heroes, he's still a mercenary willing to sell out River and Simon. The one with Tracey (Mal and Zoe's war buddy) didn't have a very happy ending either.
I think it's the not-happy endings that stick with you, and I think Whedon gets that, and I think he knows his intended audience gets it too.
-
Personally I'm happy with unhappy endings provided the story is served. "Ariel" (to bring it back to the topic here) had kind of an unhappy ending -- we find out just how much of an asshat Jayne can be, which reminds us that even though he's one of Our Heroes, he's still a mercenary willing to sell out River and Simon. The one with Tracey (Mal and Zoe's war buddy) didn't have a very happy ending either.
I think it's the not-happy endings that stick with you, and I think Whedon gets that, and I think he knows his intended audience gets it too.
Good unhappy endings can make good happy endings better because you have the two in contrast.
-
Personally I'm happy with unhappy endings provided the story is served. "Ariel" (to bring it back to the topic here) had kind of an unhappy ending -- we find out just how much of an asshat Jayne can be, which reminds us that even though he's one of Our Heroes, he's still a mercenary willing to sell out River and Simon. The one with Tracey (Mal and Zoe's war buddy) didn't have a very happy ending either.
I think it's the not-happy endings that stick with you, and I think Whedon gets that, and I think he knows his intended audience gets it too.
Good unhappy endings can make good happy endings better because you have the two in contrast.
I'll take this idea and twist it into my own.
When we know there's going to be a happy ending (see any romantic comedy), it's just so boring, because we know where they are going to end up. If we have a TV show or movie director that doesn't mind giving us the unhappy ending then two things happen. First they use the better ending, happy or sad, and therefore a better watching experience. Second since we don't know which is coming the happy ending, when it does come, is still a surprise and therefore a better watching experience.
-
I'm still totally pissed that Wash got killed! There was no need for it, and don't give me that life is totally random balony because that isn't life it's a script!
Anyway, I loved the series and while Simon is right, it isn't the single best sci-fi show, it was damned good, and I think foofora (sp?) is it's simialr to seeing a young life ending too soon. People are mouring the potential as much as show itself.
-- we find out just how much of an asshat Jayne can be, which reminds us that even though he's one of Our Heroes, he's still a mercenary willing to sell out River and Simon.
Sure, but he won back a ton of points by asking Capt not to tell anyone - he was ashamed of what he had done. Same sort of thing with "Janestown" Jane was always my very favourite charater - just edging out Wash.
Whedon is really great with the twist happy into sad ending. Wash dying was a poor example (mutter,absolutely unnecessary, mumble,mutter), but a really great one was Season 6 of Buffy. She dies at the end of 5, (saving the world, and her little sister, natch) and her friends resurrect her because it's just not fair, and what if shes trapped in some kind of evil dimension. And everyone is soooo happy - but in this bizarre/cool musical episode Buffy reveals that she was in "Heaven" and at peace, and being back on Earth is hard and dirty and not-fun! So now you feel horrible for her, and you imagine how bad her very best friend Willow must feel for having spearheaded the whole thing! Now that is an unhappy happy ending!
-
Well, since we're tossing out movie spoilers....:P
The only thing I didn't like about the movie was that Shepherd Book had such a small part. I would really like to have seen something about where her came from.
I was ticked about Wash, too, but I got over it. I really liked Wash but since we'll probably never see them again on screen anyway, I didn't mind too much that he got killed late in the movie.
I remember one scene in one the later episodes where he and Zoe were talking about having a child. Seeing those two as parents could have been - hilarious.
I liked everyone and the all had a chance to shine at different points on the show. One of my favorite bits was the beginning of "Objects in Space" where you see things as Summer sees them - Holy Crap! No wonder she acts so messed up. Well, that and the torture and brain surgery.
Others:
Mal walking onto Serenity and shooting the guy that Simon is trying to talk down.
Jane trying to trade Vera for Saphron.
Book: "a special place in Hell"
Wash and the Dinosaurs
Book: "a little fuzzy about kneecaps"
Mal: "...cause your part of the crew. Why are we still talking about this?"
I could go on and on...
-
Well, since we're tossing out movie spoilers....:P
I waited until you mentioned that you had already seen the movie...;)
One of my favourite scenes is Book's hair untied and how it scares Summer.
I could list a dozen more easily.
The show had such memorable moments, and out of 13 shows there was only 1 that I don't particularly like. I think if there had been a couple of full seasons, the outcry wouldn't be so great - it's feels like seeing the trailer to a really great movie and then no movie.
-
Well, since we're tossing out movie spoilers....:P
I waited until you mentioned that you had already seen the movie...;)
Thanks :D
One of my favourite scenes is Book's hair untied and how it scares Summer.
I could list a dozen more easily.
The show had such memorable moments, and out of 13 shows there was only 1 that I don't particularly like.
Which one?
-
The only thing I didn't like about the movie was that Shepherd Book had such a small part. I would really like to have seen something about where her came from.
I believe that he use to be an Operative.
Anyone else get that?
-
Well, since we're tossing out movie spoilers....:P
The only thing I didn't like about the movie was that Shepherd Book had such a small part. I would really like to have seen something about where her came from.
I was ticked about Wash, too, but I got over it. I really liked Wash but since we'll probably never see them again on screen anyway, I didn't mind too much that he got killed late in the movie.
I remember one scene in one the later episodes where he and Zoe were talking about having a child. Seeing those two as parents could have been - hilarious.
I liked everyone and the all had a chance to shine at different points on the show. One of my favorite bits was the beginning of "Objects in Space" where you see things as Summer sees them - Holy Crap! No wonder she acts so messed up. Well, that and the torture and brain surgery.
If there's a second movie or a webisode series, they could always bring back Ron Glass in flashbacks or do a Shepherd Book episode where someone finds his will or his journal or something. Our Heroes left Haven pretty fast; it's not impossible that Book would have left behind some sort of journal or something, something he'd been working on for a few months.
-
Which one?
The one where they find the guy on the Reaver ship, and he goes all Reaver - just too creepy for me.
Mr. Whedon has been quoted as saying that if there is another movie, he has worked out a way to bring Wash back that didn't involve magic amulets (a clear comment on how he brought Spike (from Buffy) back from the dead).
They could easily tie the next movie to Book, by having someone governmenty-type "seize" the body (maybe it has some kind of super-secret tech in it). Nothing would rile up the Captain more than dishonouring the dead.
-
Which one?
The one where they find the guy on the Reaver ship, and he goes all Reaver - just too creepy for me.
Mr. Whedon has been quoted as saying that if there is another movie, he has worked out a way to bring Wash back that didn't involve magic amulets (a clear comment on how he brought Spike (from Buffy) back from the dead).
They could easily tie the next movie to Book, by having someone governmenty-type "seize" the body (maybe it has some kind of super-secret tech in it). Nothing would rile up the Captain more than dishonouring the dead.
I never realized he was even considering making another one. Was he serious?
-
I think Whedon would make another in a New York minute, especially if the first one had a more successful Box Office showing. I still think it's possible we might see another incarnation of it one day, whether it be a show, movie, or even comic.
-
I'm still totally pissed that Wash got killed! There was no need for it, and don't give me that life is totally random balony because that isn't life it's a script!
Slic, I gotta totally disagree with you on that point. I loved Wash too and that is why he was killed: It ratcheted up the tension and horror and sense of impending doom. It may not have served the plot exactly, but I remember reading earlier that several members of the cast would be killed in the movie and when Wash died, I thought, "HOLY CRAP!" And then Kaylee got shot with that weird paralysis thing, and I thought -- she's toast. And then Simon got shot and I thought he's a goner. And Zoe was going off half-cocked. And River went out to fight all the Reavers (I thought she was sacrificing herself for the others). Even when Mal was facing down the Operative, I wasn't certain he was going to make it. And I wouldn't have believed any of that, even for a second, if Wash hadn't gone out the way he did.
-
I think Whedon would make another in a New York minute, especially if the first one had a more successful Box Office showing. I still think it's possible we might see another incarnation of it one day, whether it be a show, movie, or even comic.
According to the-numbers, it almost broke even. I don't think that includes DVD sales, though. I wonder how many it sold.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=serenity.htm
-
From what I've read, Joss Whedon was very upset that he didn't get to tell the stories he wanted in the Firefly Universe. I belive he even tried to get Fox to sell the TV rights the way they did for Buffy.
It was how the Serenity movie got made. The movie rights were available so he didn't need Fox's permission.
DKT - Mr. Whedon is well known for toasting major characters need the end of a run (ask Leslie and Anya, Fred too but I could really see the plot option from that). I still don't think killing Wash even racheted the tension, remember Book had already been killed by this point. Getting into the other series, he did the exact same thing to Anya, pretty much a senseless killing.
-
According to the-numbers, it almost broke even. I don't think that includes DVD sales, though. I wonder how many it sold.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=serenity.htm
Wait, what was the movie budgeted at? For some reason, I thought it was $60 million. I'm sure once you add in the DVD sales, etc., it made that up, but that's still far from a success. I remember thinking before the movie came out they'd make the money back in about a month...boy, was I way off.
But yeah, even if it did make the money back, I don't think it can be considered a box-office success. I'd love to see more Firefly/Serenity goodness, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
-
*snip*
DKT - Mr. Whedon is well known for toasting major characters need the end of a run (ask Leslie and Anya, Fred too but I could really see the plot option from that). I still don't think killing Wash even racheted the tension, remember Book had already been killed by this point. Getting into the other series, he did the exact same thing to Anya, pretty much a senseless killing.
Yeah, Book died and I was bummed by that. But I wasn't floored the way I was when Wash bought it. It didn't work for you, obviously, but when I watched the movie and he died, I honestly thought -- holy crap, Wash is dead. All the bets are off. Anyone can go now. And I *knew* from reading early reviews that some of the Firefly crew would die (and I kind of expected Shepherd Book to die) but I didn't ever think Wash to go. I thought he, Jayne, and Mal were safe. So I was floored.
-
*snip*
DKT - Mr. Whedon is well known for toasting major characters need the end of a run (ask Leslie and Anya, Fred too but I could really see the plot option from that). I still don't think killing Wash even racheted the tension, remember Book had already been killed by this point. Getting into the other series, he did the exact same thing to Anya, pretty much a senseless killing.
Yeah, Book died and I was bummed by that. But I wasn't floored the way I was when Wash bought it. It didn't work for you, obviously, but when I watched the movie and he died, I honestly thought -- holy crap, Wash is dead. All the bets are off. Anyone can go now. And I *knew* from reading early reviews that some of the Firefly crew would die (and I kind of expected Shepherd Book to die) but I didn't ever think Wash to go. I thought he, Jayne, and Mal were safe. So I was floored.
I think what really cranked up the tension was that his death came at the end of his moment of heroism. Wash had always been a side character who stayed with the ship, almost never getting to be the guy with the gun, so when he did that miracle flight down to Mr. Universe’s planet and managed to land 'safely' everyone in the theater... Ok, everyone in my head was thinking "I want to be Wash when I grow up!" Then he gets pinned to his chair.
He died after doing the coolest thing we'd ever seen him do. Right then, at that moment, with out warning.
Mr. Whedon, you sir, are an ass!
-
Yes, exactly. He didn't even get to finish his cutesy comment about being a leaf.
-
I finally convinced my wife to watch the pilot. I told her if she watched the pilot and didn't want to watch anymore, that I would leave it alone.
We watched it Monday night.
Then, at her insistence, we plowed through the whole series, finishing up with the movie last night.
I think she cried about five times during the course of watching it.
"It made me cry" is about the highest compliment she can give.
-
I'm still totally pissed that Wash got killed! There was no need for it, and don't give me that life is totally random balony because that isn't life it's a script!
Slic, I gotta totally disagree with you on that point. I loved Wash too and that is why he was killed: It ratcheted up the tension and horror and sense of impending doom. It may not have served the plot exactly, but I remember reading earlier that several members of the cast would be killed in the movie and when Wash died, I thought, "HOLY CRAP!"
I hadn't read anything about the film (I've been obsessively avoiding spoilers since my Babylon 5 days) and I had the same reaction. After Wash was definitely dead and other favourite characters looked like dying I had the feeling that all bets were off. I honestly believed that Joss might have chosen to end his story in a blaze of character death. Unlike most films, I really wasn't sure whether anyone was going to survive.
So Wash's death, however painful every time I see it, really did serve a dramatic purpose.
-
I'm still totally pissed that Wash got killed! There was no need for it, and don't give me that life is totally random balony because that isn't life it's a script!
Slic, I gotta totally disagree with you on that point. I loved Wash too and that is why he was killed: It ratcheted up the tension and horror and sense of impending doom. It may not have served the plot exactly, but I remember reading earlier that several members of the cast would be killed in the movie and when Wash died, I thought, "HOLY CRAP!"
I hadn't read anything about the film (I've been obsessively avoiding spoilers since my Babylon 5 days) and I had the same reaction. After Wash was definitely dead and other favourite characters looked like dying I had the feeling that all bets were off. I honestly believed that Joss might have chosen to end his story in a blaze of character death. Unlike most films, I really wasn't sure whether anyone was going to survive.
So Wash's death, however painful every time I see it, really did serve a dramatic purpose.
My feelings exactly. I thought Zoe was definately going down. I never thought River was in danger though. I figured River and Mal were safe.
-
I figured Mal and Inara were going to live and everyone else was fair game.
-
I figured Mal and Inara were going to live and everyone else was fair game.
I thought Inara was toast. Gets all of the guys when a gal that pretty buys it.
-
I figured Mal and Inara were going to live and everyone else was fair game.
I thought Inara was toast. Gets all of the guys when a gal that pretty buys it.
I think Kaylee fitted that bill. I'm willing to bet that while most guys would say Inara was the physically prettier of the two by American standards of beauty, they'd much rather have Kaylee. She's pretty, smart, funny, and not afraid to say what she thinks. We need more women like that.
But good heavens Morena Baccarin is gorgeous.
-
I know she's married (both on the show and in real life), but I'd take Gina Torres over all of them.
-
I figured Mal and Inara were going to live and everyone else was fair game.
I thought Inara was toast. Gets all of the guys when a gal that pretty buys it.
I think Kaylee fitted that bill. I'm willing to bet that while most guys would say Inara was the physically prettier of the two by American standards of beauty, they'd much rather have Kaylee. She's pretty, smart, funny, and not afraid to say what she thinks. We need more women like that.
But good heavens Morena Baccarin is gorgeous.
I wouldn't kick either one of them out of bed for eating crackers, but I did like the slightly rounder Kaylee on the show.
-
I figured Mal and Inara were going to live and everyone else was fair game.
I thought Inara was toast. Gets all of the guys when a gal that pretty buys it.
I think Kaylee fitted that bill. I'm willing to bet that while most guys would say Inara was the physically prettier of the two by American standards of beauty, they'd much rather have Kaylee. She's pretty, smart, funny, and not afraid to say what she thinks. We need more women like that.
But good heavens Morena Baccarin is gorgeous.
I wouldn't kick either one of them out of bed for eating crackers, but I did like the slightly rounder Kaylee on the show.
I wouldn't take Morrena, haven't you seen the HIMYM with her? She has the crazy eyes!
I would however be fine with Saffron, just as long as she doesn't: con, kill, steal from, or trash (literally) me.
-
Have you guys seen the short lived series "Wonderfalls"? It was produced by Firefly's Tim Minear. You can get the DVD set for less than $20, and it's well worth it. Anyway, Jewel Staite plays a manipulative, lying bitch. It's fun to see her doing such a different character.
-
I figured Mal and Inara were going to live and everyone else was fair game.
I thought Inara was toast. Gets all of the guys when a gal that pretty buys it.
I think Kaylee fitted that bill. I'm willing to bet that while most guys would say Inara was the physically prettier of the two by American standards of beauty, they'd much rather have Kaylee. She's pretty, smart, funny, and not afraid to say what she thinks. We need more women like that.
But good heavens Morena Baccarin is gorgeous.
I wouldn't kick either one of them out of bed for eating crackers, but I did like the slightly rounder Kaylee on the show.
I wouldn't take Morrena, haven't you seen the HIMYM with her? She has the crazy eyes!
I would however be fine with Saffron, just as long as she doesn't: con, kill, steal from, or trash (literally) me.
I was only referring to the charactors in the Serenity universe. I have no interest in actresses at all. Been there, done that, have the scars.
-
Have you guys seen the short lived series "Wonderfalls"? It was produced by Firefly's Tim Minear. You can get the DVD set for less than $20, and it's well worth it. Anyway, Jewel Staite plays a manipulative, lying bitch. It's fun to see her doing such a different character.
Wow - that right there is enough to make me go look for that.
(I loved Kaylee)
-
Have you guys seen the short lived series "Wonderfalls"? It was produced by Firefly's Tim Minear. You can get the DVD set for less than $20, and it's well worth it. Anyway, Jewel Staite plays a manipulative, lying bitch. It's fun to see her doing such a different character.
Wow - that right there is enough to make me go look for that.
(I loved Kaylee)
She was only in four episodes. :-[
-
And let me guess, they only aired 5.
-
And let me guess, they only aired 5.
According to IMDB (http://imdb.com/title/tt0361256/) it ran 14 episodes.
-
Must not have been on Fox.
-
Must not have been on Fox.
Actually, I think it was on fox. I remember the title.
-
Must not have been on Fox.
Actually, I think it was on fox. I remember the title.
It was on Fox. Four episodes aired. 14 were filmed.
-
Must not have been on Fox.
Actually, I think it was on fox. I remember the title.
It was on Fox. Four episodes aired. 14 were filmed.
4 of 14? Wow! That has to be a record - even for Fox! :P
-
Must not have been on Fox.
Actually, I think it was on fox. I remember the title.
It was on Fox. Four episodes aired. 14 were filmed.
4 of 14? Wow! That has to be a record - even for Fox! :P
They only aired three of "Skin" (Ron Silver as the porn guru, plus there was a DA trying to fight porn, and their kids were Romeo-and-Juliet-ing it). But ABC FTW! with only two of "That Was Then", a show about a guy who, whenever he hears a certain song ("Do It Again" by The Kinks), he was sent back to high school with the opportunity to change things -- sequentially, though, so like he hears the song, he changes something, he comes back, he's in a new reality, he hears the song, he goes back to right where he left, etc etc.
Anyway, only two episodes and then WHAM. Gone.
-
I don't mind networks canceling a show. I don't think there is a single person who watches TV who wouldn't want to axe at least 10 shows.
The problem is when they destine a good idea to fail. Some of these shows get no advertising, are so hard to find it's like they're in the witness protection program, and are put on with the idea of only showing the first couple of episodes. Meanwhile crap like "Dancing with has beens" gets mega ad budgets and the best time slots.
-
I don't mind networks canceling a show. I don't think there is a single person who watches TV who wouldn't want to axe at least 10 shows.
The problem is when they destine a good idea to fail. Some of these shows get no advertising, are so hard to find it's like they're in the witness protection program, and are put on with the idea of only showing the first couple of episodes. Meanwhile crap like "Dancing with has beens" gets mega ad budgets and the best time slots.
People want to see other people acting stupid, and they want to see people fail miserably and break down about it. It makes them feel better about themselves. The only way to consistently get good TV is for the good shows to stop letting themselves be sold to networks (especially Fox) and get on basic cable.
-
I don't mind networks canceling a show. I don't think there is a single person who watches TV who wouldn't want to axe at least 10 shows.
The problem is when they destine a good idea to fail. Some of these shows get no advertising, are so hard to find it's like they're in the witness protection program, and are put on with the idea of only showing the first couple of episodes. Meanwhile crap like "Dancing with has beens" gets mega ad budgets and the best time slots.
People want to see other people acting stupid, and they want to see people fail miserably and break down about it. It makes them feel better about themselves. The only way to consistently get good TV is for the good shows to stop letting themselves be sold to networks (especially Fox) and get on basic cable.
I look forward to a new subscription-based distribution model, currently being pioneered by things like, you know, Escape Pod. I hope that in the future the whole TV model will be dumped completely in favor of one that lets users actively choose only the content they want to see. I'm already doing that: I have no TV at all. If I want to see something, I download it or get it on DVD. A system like that would goes a long way toward encouraging quality shows, and it doesn't really cost any more than paying for cable.
Pipe dream: I've got this idea in mind for a 100-episode fantasy serial. 100 episodes at one hour a piece, no commercials. Download only. Pay-per episode or use donations (like EP)? I don't think that could be profitable today, but in ten years it might.
-
I don't mind networks canceling a show. I don't think there is a single person who watches TV who wouldn't want to axe at least 10 shows.
The problem is when they destine a good idea to fail. Some of these shows get no advertising, are so hard to find it's like they're in the witness protection program, and are put on with the idea of only showing the first couple of episodes. Meanwhile crap like "Dancing with has beens" gets mega ad budgets and the best time slots.
People want to see other people acting stupid, and they want to see people fail miserably and break down about it. It makes them feel better about themselves. The only way to consistently get good TV is for the good shows to stop letting themselves be sold to networks (especially Fox) and get on basic cable.
I look forward to a new subscription-based distribution model, currently being pioneered by things like, you know, Escape Pod. I hope that in the future the whole TV model will be dumped completely in favor of one that lets users actively choose only the content they want to see. I'm already doing that: I have no TV at all. If I want to see something, I download it or get it on DVD. A system like that would goes a long way toward encouraging quality shows, and it doesn't really cost any more than paying for cable.
It's a great thought, subscription or a la carte TV, but I doubt the FCC will really ever allow it, given the whole broadcast-flag debate and all the union battles over people getting paid for internet retransmission.
We've been beating the drum for a la carte cable for years to no avail. The thing is, cable conglomerates know that if (and these are only examples and are not necessarily the case) Versus and Lifetime Movie Network were dropped from the lineup, no one would care, and those companies would go out of business. The companies that own the stations create must-carry rules -- you want ESPN, you have to take LMN, TCM, and TVOne. Stuff like that.
Plus, people who run TV up at the very top are slow to embrace change -- if they ever do at all. In college, in I think 1998, my teacher told us we'd be required to go fully digital and dump our analog TVs by mid-1999.
Now the government says 2009. And I bet that gets pushed back too.
There's no way to win, unfortunately. Not on a wide scale.
-
FCC? Big networks? Unions? Who cares? That's the whole point of DYI, and what makes the direct subscription distribution model so cool. Steve doesn't have to get anyone's permission to produce EP. He just does it, same with all the other DYI producers out there. I don't know how much of a profit EP makes, but I understand that there are a few people who are already managing to make a living by publishing their own stuff.
Take the "TV" out of your thought stream. Forget ESPN and Fox and the FCC and everybody. Imagine a system where the consumer buys the programming directly from the producer. If you want to watch "Lost," you don't turn on ABC at a certain time, you just buy Lost and ABC can go screw themselves. It isn't hard to imagine, since you can already do it: You get EP direct from the producer, no middle man.
If you wanted to see my fantasy serial, you would go to my web site and buy an episode. It would download onto your hard drive, and $2 or whatever would go into my bank account.
It's already happening on a small scale, and I think it's going to get huge real fast. And I think that is GREAT because it takes control away from Disney and Viacom and puts it directly in the hands of the artists and consumers. There doesn't need to be any short-sighted, profit-gorging, lowest-common-denominator-promoting mega company supporting Firefly. You support Firefly. Directly, and if enough geeks are willing to subscribe, there isn't any company in the world that can cancel the show.
Capitalism is beautiful.
-
It's already happening on a small scale, and I think it's going to get huge real fast. And I think that is GREAT because it takes control away from Disney and Viacom and puts it directly in the hands of the artists and consumers. There doesn't need to be any short-sighted, profit-gorging, lowest-common-denominator-promoting mega company supporting Firefly. You support Firefly. Directly, and if enough geeks are willing to subscribe, there isn't any company in the world that can cancel the show.
I hope you're right about that. I really do. From a TV person's perspective, I'm just coming in with a lot of pessimism and doubt.
-
It's already happening on a small scale, and I think it's going to get huge real fast. And I think that is GREAT because it takes control away from Disney and Viacom and puts it directly in the hands of the artists and consumers. There doesn't need to be any short-sighted, profit-gorging, lowest-common-denominator-promoting mega company supporting Firefly. You support Firefly. Directly, and if enough geeks are willing to subscribe, there isn't any company in the world that can cancel the show.
I hope you're right about that. I really do. From a TV person's perspective, I'm just coming in with a lot of pessimism and doubt.
The big problem is front end money. You need money to make a show before you can sell it.
-
The big problem is front end money. You need money to make a show before you can sell it.
Especially one that would cost the money Firefly, Space Above and Beyond, Harsh Realm, or any other decent SF series would. (I got burned on all those series, save Firefly, which I didn't even get to watch until it came out on DVD.) Tim Minnear definitely seems to keep getting screwed. Firefly, Wonderfalls, and Drive? Poor dude.
There's some stuff out like that now, like Earl Newton's Stranger Things vidcast, but it still has a ways to go.
-
I don't know. Who here saw Pi or Primer? Those were both made by some guy who saved his pennies, and they have both been hugely successful, if consider the tiny amount of money that went into them.
The technology keeps getting cheaper and cheaper. (Anyone been to red.com?) $50,000 is all you'd need to outfit a simple movie studio. CG is getting easier and cheaper every day. Heck, you can download CG apps for free that are as good as what the pros were using ten years ago.
I'm not an expert, but it seems to me that what makes production cost so much are the same things that make everything cost more than it needs to: Taxes and unions. I believe that the Screen Actor's Guild demands the equivalent of $92 per hour minimum for all members. Look at the credits for any movie: Tons of needless extra labor. Can't the actors comb their own hair? Do they each need a stylist sucking up $500 a day?
From everything I've read about film and video production, the processes are monumentally wasteful and inefficient. Thrifty DYIer could do the same level of work on much smaller budgets.
I don't think Hollywood-level production could be done with the kind of a cash a menial newspaper employee like me could save, but I think it could be done with the kind of cash 100 people like me could pool, if we really wanted to.
Look at EP. Steve pays $100 for stories=$5200 a year. I'm assuming he takes money home too (yeah for capitalism!) but EP must be pulling in a bare minimum of $5200 a year through free-will donation. That's not chump-change. If the current listener base for EP could be convinced to invest just $10 a piece in a project, you'd have over $90,000, and that would probably be enough for thrifty folks to make a pilot episode, even for an effects-heavy show. If I liked an idea enough, I'd chip in $10 to see it get made.
I don't think it would easy or cheap, but I do think it would be possible to get quality programs going with relatively little front-money. Provided, of course, that you had some doggedly determined people with the passion and grit to actually get it done.
Or take a scenario like this: EP continues to thrive. 9000 listeners turns to 90,000. The money increases accordingly and finally Steve has enough that he can finance full-blown AV production of the stories, instead of just reading them. This draws an even bigger audience. More money comes in. Eley Studios is founded.
I'm not saying that stuff like this is going to happen. I'm saying it is happening. It has to start small, which is what you're seeing now, but I think this is the future.
-
Well, I hope you're right. I'd love to see smarter, better SF on TV or whatever the alternative is.
However, there's a huge discrepancy between film/TV and podcasting. It's a bigger collaborative effort. Instead of a story, a reader, and a producer there's a script, actors (plural), a producer, a director, effects, cameraman, boom operator, editor, etc. Some of these jobs can be combined but it's not a one man thing. The guy who made Sky Captain spent 5 years of his life making 5-10 minutes by himself, IIRC. He ended up getting help from a studio because he realized he'd die before the project was finished if he kept going at that rate.
The other contrast between the two is that, with Steve and Escape Pod, he was able to build a fanbase on a relatively low budget. (I think Escape Pod started off paying $20 for their short stories. I could be wrong. I know it wasn't $100.) Steve paid a sum of money for a story because he wanted quality. With the film/TV alternative is going to need a bigger budget upfront to get that same kind of quality, because there are more people involved. And because it takes more time. So the question is how does an alternative film/TV company come up with that kind of money, just to start out? It's not like Steve Eley's asking for my money. I'd give it to him because I trust him and his track record. But an unknown TV/film company trying to make a quality SF/F product with nothing to their name is going to have a tougher haul and loads more money to raise.
Finally, I've got to take a little bit of issue with you bagging on SAG. SAG and other unions (like the SWGA) may seem like a pain to you but they really do take care of their members and help protect them. It's not about Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt, it's about my buddy from college who's only managed to land bit parts in films but is able to get some kind of working compensation while he pursues his dream.
Like I said, I really hope it happens but I haven't seen it yet. I'm a big fan (and sponsor) of Stranger Things but I don't think they've hit their stride yet or could really battle with the networks. I actually don't know if I think there's going to be a battle. I don't think TV networks are going anywhere. I just think there will be more alternatives (and maybe even, for shows like Firefly, a chance at a second life).
-
The problem with extant unions is that they are huge and monolithic and as such only companies that are huge and monolithic are able to deal with them. I.e. if I were going to make an indie film with the $30,000 I have in the bank right now, I could not hire any SAG actors, even if they wanted to work with me: Their union membership demands that they be payed a higher salary than I could possibly afford. SAG members can only work in big-budget productions by huge wealthy companies who can afford to pay union wages. Hence they are effectively barred from doing any DYI. (Notice that the [excellent] reader for "Ej-Es" had to get special permission from the Guild to work for free; she isn't allowed to just do stuff: The Guild has to okay everything.)
Same with any union: Ironically, unions push the "little guy" out by demanding so much money that little guys can't afford to hire them. A union, by its nature, is ill-suited to deal with small projects and employers. A big union needs a big business.
In a system where a few mega-rich companies control everything, then unions have utility: We've seen in the past how workers can get stomped on. But in a system like we see emerging now, where lots of "little" people are able to do their own projects independently, unions simply have no place. Unions are a part of the old system where Disney and Viacom run everything. If Disney and Viacom loose power, then unions will loose power in proportion.
(Gee this is a fun discussion! Go EP forums!) :)
-
While I understand where you're coming from, I want to point out that SAG isn't there for the little indie movie maker. SAG is there to make sure that the members of its guild (actors and actresses) get paid decent wages for the movies they participate in. Nothing states SAG actors have to work in big budget films. Sure, Robert Rodriguez couldn't pay anyone in SAG when he did El Mariachi for $7,000. On the other hand, I don't remember hearing of any problems Bruce Willis and John Travolta had for doing the relatively low budget (by Hollywood standards) Pulp Fiction.
I'm not saying unions are perfect. As a former teacher, I think they have a lot of flaws. But I think it'd be unwise to blame Hollywood's issues on SAG.
And yeah, this is a funny discussion for the EP forums. I guess I'm a bit off topic now...I'll try to stop.
-
The problem with extant unions is that they are huge and monolithic and as such only companies that are huge and monolithic are able to deal with them.
Living in Michigan I see a great example of this in the UAW. After working with them, I can say from experience unions are bad for everyone but those at the top of the unions, and people who need their job protected. It's stops free market exchange, because now these people can't exchange their skills for whatever price they choose. It artificially inflates their wages and decreases productivity of the entire workforce. My wife's uncle likes to brag about how little he does, how much he gets paid for it, and how much he costs the company he works for (it's one of the 'big 3"). He spends most of his day watching movies! That's just a messed up mindset. I like to brag about how much I save my company! But, I digress....
I think Tweedy's model could work (maybe) but it depends on generosity, when most good financial models are based on greed. I think it would work okay, and you might even be able to break even at it, but the average person will not donate if they can get something for free.
It would be interesting to hear from Steve the ratio of paying vs. unpaying listeners.
-
It would be interesting to hear from Steve the ratio of paying vs. unpaying listeners.
Well let's see… 40,000 downloads per episode times $5/month basic donation is $2.4 million/year. Steve hasn't moved to Hawaii and bought a Porsche, so, I guess, we can say the percentage of donators isn't that huge.
Not having the money in my "fun fund" to donate is why I help out as moderator. Just wanted to help somehow. I figured if everyone donated or helped out at just one of the non-professional podcasts they listened to, it would make the whole field profitable to the ones that do quality 'casts.
-
It would be interesting to hear from Steve the ratio of paying vs. unpaying listeners.
Well let's see… 40,000 downloads per episode times $5/month basic donation is $2.4 million/year. Steve hasn't moved to Hawaii and bought a Porsche, so, I guess, we can say the percentage of donators isn't that huge.
Not having the money in my "fun fund" to donate is why I help out as moderator. Just wanted to help somehow. I figured if everyone donated or helped out at just one of the non-professional podcasts they listened to, it would make the whole field profitable to the ones that do quality 'casts.
40,000? The little ticker at escapepod.org says "9000." Is the ticker low?
-
It would be interesting to hear from Steve the ratio of paying vs. unpaying listeners.
Well let's see… 40,000 downloads per episode times $5/month basic donation is $2.4 million/year. Steve hasn't moved to Hawaii and bought a Porsche, so, I guess, we can say the percentage of donators isn't that huge.
Not having the money in my "fun fund" to donate is why I help out as moderator. Just wanted to help somehow. I figured if everyone donated or helped out at just one of the non-professional podcasts they listened to, it would make the whole field profitable to the ones that do quality 'casts.
40,000? The little ticker at escapepod.org says "9000." Is the ticker low?
40,000 is a number I heard from Steve and it was on the Periodic table of Internet sites and a couple of other places. If that number is wrong I'll redo the math, but It's the best I have. I believe the 9,000 you see is only direct downloads through that link and doesn't include things like iTunes. Once again note the "I thinks".
-
Russell, what's the number in (parenthesis) next to each episode where it says download?
-
Russell, what's the number in (parenthesis) next to each episode where it says download?
I was just about to edit my last post, but you beat me to it.
I don't have specifis knowledge of how the main site works. Steve told me the stuff for the forums and that's it. I looked at the last several stories and the number in parenthesis seems to be the total downloads from all sources. That number for the last several episodes is between 20,000 and 40,000. If we call it 30,000 and redo the math we end up with $1.8 million/year. Still in the Porsche and Hawaii realm.
-
Well, that's cool! That means EP has between 3 and 5 times more listeners than I thought. Encouraging, since I'm think direct-distribution like this is a very good thing.
If you think that in two years a DYI program like EP can go from 0 to 40,000 with absolutely no corporate backing of any kind, that's really kind of amazing. If it keeps growing at this rate, you'll have 100,000 listeners after five years. You're entering commercial territory there, the territory where EP could be a self-supporting business, not just something some people do on the side.
If 100,000 listeners donate an average of only $1 per year, that would be enough to pay writers $350 a piece for stories, pay professional readers $200 an episode to perform them and still leave plenty for the Editor to live comfortably. It would be a full-fledged (and influential) magazine, started from nothing.
I think the future looks like that. :D
I only wonder if the donations-only model will endure. It seems like a subscription-based model will be necessary, if DYI productions are to become adequately profitable.
-
I wholeheartedly agree with nearly everything Mr. Tweedy has said on this subject.
And I think it is already beginning.
For the more do-it-yourselfy aproach take Stranger Things (there's a discussion about it in this forum). Mostly just a guy with some good ideas, a couple of actors and a digital video camera. Yeah, it's not perfect and it's not weekly, but have patience. This is the podcasting of the future.
For the more capitalistic aproach take Sanctuary (which by the way I can fully recommend) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_%28web_series%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_%28web_series%29) )
Yeah, it's not cheap (2 bucks per episode) and it's short (15 min episodes) but again, this is just the beginning.
Or in another direction entirely, take machinima. Doing videos with the engines of computer games. Red vs. Blue for example. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_vs_blue)
Now take this and multiply it by a thousand.
What do you really need to make a movie or a tv-show? Some actors, a director/cameraman, a digital video camera and a greenscreen. Everything else is secondary, sure it makes for a higher quality, but you don't really NEED it.
How many would-be actors, directors and screenwriters are out there who are feed up with getting the 30th rejection.
It won't happen in the next 5 years, but you can see it beginning right now.
-
oh, and slightly more on topic.
Does anybody, especially the guys who work in tv, know how much it cost to produce the first season of firefly? I'd be interested in figures for other series, too, but Firefly would be a really nice to know.
-
IIRC, ST:TNG had a $1,000,000 per episode budget when it got to it's third or forth season. They only raked in 600k in syndication fees but since each episode aired twice, they ended up making $200k per episode. But this was 1990(?), and that was an overall budget. IIRC, the "Scotty" epsiode was the most expensive one hour drama TV episode ever (when it was made) with a $4m budget - and about $1m of that was the cost to recreate the original ST bridge set.
I'd guess Joss Whedon had no where near that much money for Firefly.
-
oh, and slightly more on topic.
Does anybody, especially the guys who work in tv, know how much it cost to produce the first season of firefly? I'd be interested in figures for other series, too, but Firefly would be a really nice to know.
This guy (http://www.henryjenkins.org/2006/06/more_on_firefly_and_the_long_t.html), who seems to have a clue, puts the budget at about $1 million a show and Serenity at $40 million. Serenity did about $39 million worldwide in theaters. When you add all of the movie channels and DVDs, they probably made a bit. Probably not enough for a sequel though.
-
Let's do some math with some numbers I've just made up:
If you wanted to make a show similar to Firefly, you would need a regular cast plus guests for each episode. Let's say our ship has a crew of only six. You probably need 3 guests, on average, for each show. Assuming that the director operated the camera (and you only used one camera), that's a total 10 people per episode. You would have to spend some money each episode for costumes, sets...let's say $1000/episode.
If each person were to make a decent living, say 50k/year, that's 500,000 in income, plus 26,000 to create each episode.
If you made 26 episodes per year, you would have to earn 526000/26 = $20,230 (approx) per episode.
20,000 subscribers each paying $1 per episode is what you would need to make this a viable business.
-
this is deeply interesting.
so if Joss Whedon would be able to get 200.000 people (i'm pickin this number because thats how many firefly dvd-sets sold) to shell out 30 Bucks for a season of Joss' New TV Show (not Firefly, because the rights belong to the Evil Empire) he'd have 6 Million to work with, 500.000 per episode if he does a 12 episode season. Less what he had on Firefly but still enough to make a tv-series.
So the question remains: Could he get 200K people to buy a show in advance? Whats your opinion?
-
I'd put the money in for another season of Firefly in a heartbeat.
I'd also like to point out that ClintMemo's numbers only cover production costs. They don't include pre-production or post-production.
-
These guys (http://aswarmofangels.com/) are trying something similar. Their aim is to raise 1 Million Dollar, by having 50.000 people contribute 25 British Pounds each. They currently have 1000 people suscribed, so there's still a long way ahead of them...
-
I would be real nervous about something like this. You aren't putting in your money to get something, you're putting in your money for the HOPES of getting something. I contributed to Fundable Films (which pretty much is exactly what you guys are talking about) after I heard about it on Spaceship Radio. I was supposed to get a t-shirt to advertise and a $50 stake in a film of my choice. The months went by and nothing happened. I contacted the people running it and was told my stuff would soon be on the way. More time went by...nothing happened. I contacted again, and it turned out I wasn't getting a shirt or a $50 stake in a film. They offered to refund my money, but I like the idea so I told them to keep it. I just don't plan on putting my money into something like this again until there's a final product I could buy. I let my altruistic optimism get ahead of my skeptical capitalist side.
NOTE: I don't think fundable films is a scam and I still think it's a good idea, but if someone can get paid if they deliver or not where's the motivation?
-
These guys (http://aswarmofangels.com/) are trying something similar. Their aim is to raise 1 Million Dollar, by having 50.000 people contribute 25 British Pounds each. They currently have 1000 people suscribed, so there's still a long way ahead of them...
25 pounds times 50,000 is closer to 2.5 million dollars. If that was an example of their accounting I would be very skeptical.
Indie film has been trying to get people to give money to their projects in this way ever since there's been an Indie film. Most of the people who buy in get a stake in a staight to video slasher film that loses big. The first thing the money raisers did was pay themselves their producer's fees. The producers made money everybody else lost every penny.
It's an old scam. The same thing is often down in real estate. Only someone with a track record would get my money, but there are already investment funds that invest in those guys.
-
I checked out "a swarm of angels." I don't think enough of their story pitch to be tempted to toss my dollars into their pot. I wouldn't contribute to a story just for the sake of doing it. The story would have to be something specifically wanted to see.
A project and artist need credibility before they can start collecting money. For instance, Scott Sigler has earned cred with a lot of people. (I, personally, didn't like "Ancestor" enough to even finish the whole thing, but that's totally beside the point.) If Scott Sigler started asking for handouts for investment in a project and he had a good pitch, a lot of people would be like "Scott Sigler's making a movie? Cool! I'll support that." He's earned enough cred with other things that people would hop on board.
Me? Not so much. If I put up a website saying "Contribute to my fund so I can make my serial," people would be like "Who's this fool?" That's why I keep on (like the tortoise) trying to get short stories published. (Currently waiting to hear back from Strange Horizons.) Maybe eventually I can work my way up to the point where people would take me seriously enough to see my ideas as worth investing in, but it certainly isn't going to happen this year or next. And rightfully so.
I would want to invest in a specific script by a specific writer, not just a generic project, and that writer would need to prove him/herself by starting small.
-
"A girl in a box"
Wow...with a trailer like that why was fox suprised it failed - I mean - who doesn't want a girl in a box. Does it come with a crank?
I sort of avoided the show because I always thought it was stupid, then while bored I bought the used DVD set for $10.00 -
Wow - I was blown away!
REAL bummer that it ended so soon...
-
25 pounds times 50,000 is closer to 2.5 million dollars. If that was an example of their accounting I would be very skeptical.
Indie film has been trying to get people to give money to their projects in this way ever since there's been an Indie film. Most of the people who buy in get a stake in a staight to video slasher film that loses big. The first thing the money raisers did was pay themselves their producer's fees. The producers made money everybody else lost every penny.
It's an old scam. The same thing is often down in real estate. Only someone with a track record would get my money, but there are already investment funds that invest in those guys.
the "accounting error" was mine, not their's. they are trying to reach 1 million pound, not 1 million dollars.
And the guys that are doing this do have a track record. Matt Hanson, the director is the creator of onedotzero, Tommy Palotta produced "A scanner darkly", Grant Gee the DP did DP on "The Hitchhiker's guide to the Galaxy" and Cory Doctorow and Warren Ellis work are Advisor's to the venture.
This is not just some guy doing this in his basement.
I would be real nervous about something like this. You aren't putting in your money to get something, you're putting in your money for the HOPES of getting something. I contributed to Fundable Films (which pretty much is exactly what you guys are talking about) after I heard about it on Spaceship Radio. I was supposed to get a t-shirt to advertise and a $50 stake in a film of my choice. The months went by and nothing happened. I contacted the people running it and was told my stuff would soon be on the way. More time went by...nothing happened. I contacted again, and it turned out I wasn't getting a shirt or a $50 stake in a film. They offered to refund my money, but I like the idea so I told them to keep it. I just don't plan on putting my money into something like this again until there's a final product I could buy. I let my altruistic optimism get ahead of my skeptical capitalist side.
NOTE: I don't think fundable films is a scam and I still think it's a good idea, but if someone can get paid if they deliver or not where's the motivation?
hehe, fundable films got my 50$, too.
I think what a project like A Swarm of Angels (or my proposed Joss' New TV-Show) would need would be a guaranty that there really is enough money to complete the show (ironically this is exactly what fundable films was trying to provide)
Let's say Joss said, that the minimal amount of money he has to take in through DVD-sets is 5 million dollar. He pitches the show to the web in the same way he would pitch it to studio execs and calls on all his fans to preorder the dvd-set.
He sets up a trusted account at a bank (or a trusted paypal account) and people shell out their 30 $ for the dvds.
If more than 5 million come in this way (i.e. if more than 170.000 people preorder the dvds) than the series can be made.
If the goal isn't reached in, let's say 6 months than the money get's automaticall transfered back to the customers.
no risk for the customers, no financial risk for the producer.
-
Let's say Joss said, that the minimal amount of money he has to take in through DVD-sets is 5 million dollar. He pitches the show to the web in the same way he would pitch it to studio execs and calls on all his fans to preorder the dvd-set.
He sets up a trusted account at a bank (or a trusted paypal account) and people shell out their 30 $ for the dvds.
If more than 5 million come in this way (i.e. if more than 170.000 people preorder the dvds) than the series can be made.
If the goal isn't reached in, let's say 6 months than the money get's automaticall transfered back to the customers.
no risk for the customers, no financial risk for the producer.
That exactly the system I'd thought of in my daydreaming. Seems sound.
-
Whoo Hoo! Finally got Firefly for an OK price off of Ebay. It's 35€ ($48) here.
Now I have both Serenity and Firefly. I watched Firefly months ago ::cough::bit torrent::cough:: and got Serenity shortly after that. Since then I've been waiting so I could get a real set.
Now that I have them both I can force feed them to my wife. I think she'll be into it after about 15 minutes. She's a Joss Whedon fan.
-
Now that I have them both I can force feed them to my wife. I think she'll be into it after about 15 minutes. She's a Joss Whedon fan.
Welcome on board, Browncoat. Now you understand that we didn't mean to be pushy: we were simply... just.
-
Speaking of Browncoats... (http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts/generic/9db8/)
-
I wonder what the budget is for a typical Dogme 95 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogme) production?
It can't be very much, but it should be possible to tell show a good story using similar criteria. Maybe not science fiction though.