Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
Firefly cancelled!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Villano" data-source="post: 622138" data-attributes="member: 505"><p>I certainly agree that networks make most of their money from commercials. I said as much during my earlier post. However, I was responding to your statement that "people are griping about something for which they've paid nothing more than waiting for the commercials to end". My Direct TV bill is certainly more than nothing. </p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>The idea of introducing a system to keep shos on the air that would normally be cancelled would indeed change the landscape of tv. You forget that, if the system is implemented, there will be many more people other than you trying to keep their "couple of shows" on the air.</p><p></p><p>Suddenly, instead of just Firefly and Farscape still being on the air, you have a hundred potential other shows trying to fill a limited number of timeslots. And ratings would still be the deciding factor in which shows stay and which go. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Okay, first, if this system was in effect, there would be many, many shows using it. Now following that, a network would still rather run a "free" series that garnered more ratings than one that didn't, meaning that there's no guarantee that Firefly would even make it then.</p><p></p><p>Actually, you don't really have to look to far to see proof of what I say. Every year, the networks spend millions upon millions on pilots which never see the light of day. There are even entire series that are shot which are locked away in vaults and will never air.</p><p></p><p>Now, with the money already spent on these things, why don't the networks take these shows and air them anyway? Because they feel that they won't recieve good ratings and, hence, can't get a good advertising rate.</p><p></p><p>Think about it. It isn't even a matter of getting a free show. They already spent the money on it. They are willing to take a million dollar loss rather than air it. They won't even dump it in late, late night timeslots because they will get more money from infommercials.</p><p></p><p>Fox even has those last, what is it, 3 episodes of Firefly which have been shot? Money already spent which they don't even want to attempt to recoup by airing. Plus they also bought 2 or 3 more scripts.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Because, what you are describing is different from PBS and HBO. First, most of the money you give to PBS goes to buying already produced series.</p><p></p><p>Secondly, with the premium channels, you are paying to gain access to additional channels. It's like an extension of your cable bill. Sure, those networks produce their own shows (although most of their business, I suspect, comes from theatrical movies), but the ratings still determine what they cancell.</p><p></p><p>If The Sopranos bombed its first season, no ammount of money you gave to HBO would bring it back.</p><p></p><p>What you are really descibing is a sort of limited partnership or a stock. You aren't just giving money to watch a show, you are giving money to <strong>produce</strong> a specific show.</p><p></p><p>Actually, there is an example in real life that sort of mirrors this; WWE (formerly the WWF). </p><p></p><p>You can buy stocks in the company and the company, among other things, produces several weekly wrestling tv series.</p><p></p><p>Granted, the investors can't tell Vince McMahon how to book his shows (considering how crappy they've been lately and how many fans are complaining, this is obvious).</p><p></p><p>However, stockholders still would like to see some return on their investment.</p><p></p><p>Ignoring those people and focusing on just those who bought stock just becuase they enjoy wrestling, they can still show their feeling by selling shares (causing the stock to lower). And since you can now buy WWE stock for the change you find in your couch, they may already have.</p><p></p><p>Okay, it's not really a great example, but it's the closest I can find.</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>I suppose it would. I'm just saying that the system really wouldn't work nor would it guarantee that the shows you want to see would make it to air.</p><p></p><p>That said, I'd buy a direct to video Firefly series. If Joss wanted to try it, there may be a market for it (I mean, look at how many people buy direct to video anime series).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Villano, post: 622138, member: 505"] I certainly agree that networks make most of their money from commercials. I said as much during my earlier post. However, I was responding to your statement that "people are griping about something for which they've paid nothing more than waiting for the commercials to end". My Direct TV bill is certainly more than nothing. The idea of introducing a system to keep shos on the air that would normally be cancelled would indeed change the landscape of tv. You forget that, if the system is implemented, there will be many more people other than you trying to keep their "couple of shows" on the air. Suddenly, instead of just Firefly and Farscape still being on the air, you have a hundred potential other shows trying to fill a limited number of timeslots. And ratings would still be the deciding factor in which shows stay and which go. Okay, first, if this system was in effect, there would be many, many shows using it. Now following that, a network would still rather run a "free" series that garnered more ratings than one that didn't, meaning that there's no guarantee that Firefly would even make it then. Actually, you don't really have to look to far to see proof of what I say. Every year, the networks spend millions upon millions on pilots which never see the light of day. There are even entire series that are shot which are locked away in vaults and will never air. Now, with the money already spent on these things, why don't the networks take these shows and air them anyway? Because they feel that they won't recieve good ratings and, hence, can't get a good advertising rate. Think about it. It isn't even a matter of getting a free show. They already spent the money on it. They are willing to take a million dollar loss rather than air it. They won't even dump it in late, late night timeslots because they will get more money from infommercials. Fox even has those last, what is it, 3 episodes of Firefly which have been shot? Money already spent which they don't even want to attempt to recoup by airing. Plus they also bought 2 or 3 more scripts. Because, what you are describing is different from PBS and HBO. First, most of the money you give to PBS goes to buying already produced series. Secondly, with the premium channels, you are paying to gain access to additional channels. It's like an extension of your cable bill. Sure, those networks produce their own shows (although most of their business, I suspect, comes from theatrical movies), but the ratings still determine what they cancell. If The Sopranos bombed its first season, no ammount of money you gave to HBO would bring it back. What you are really descibing is a sort of limited partnership or a stock. You aren't just giving money to watch a show, you are giving money to [B]produce[/B] a specific show. Actually, there is an example in real life that sort of mirrors this; WWE (formerly the WWF). You can buy stocks in the company and the company, among other things, produces several weekly wrestling tv series. Granted, the investors can't tell Vince McMahon how to book his shows (considering how crappy they've been lately and how many fans are complaining, this is obvious). However, stockholders still would like to see some return on their investment. Ignoring those people and focusing on just those who bought stock just becuase they enjoy wrestling, they can still show their feeling by selling shares (causing the stock to lower). And since you can now buy WWE stock for the change you find in your couch, they may already have. Okay, it's not really a great example, but it's the closest I can find. I suppose it would. I'm just saying that the system really wouldn't work nor would it guarantee that the shows you want to see would make it to air. That said, I'd buy a direct to video Firefly series. If Joss wanted to try it, there may be a market for it (I mean, look at how many people buy direct to video anime series). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
Firefly cancelled!
Top