We attended United Fan Con in Springfield, MA, this past weekend. A very smoothly run, very "personable" (if that word applies) convention. In attendance were old friends Jewel Staite and her husband, Matt Anderson, Claudia Christian, Peter Tork and Davey Jones of "The Monkees," two of "The Lone Gunmen," and Grace Park of BSG. The most high-profile guest, however, was William Shatner. When I was fifteen years old, Shatner was in a play at a theater in New Jersey. My father, a reporter, pulled some strings so that I could interview Shatner for my school newspaper. Now, with Ariel the same age as I was, I managed to do the same thing so that she could interview him for her school newspaper. Worked out great. One has to admire UFC's efficiency in siphoning a huge number of people through both for autographings and picture taking. Credit Shatner for handling it all: Having just flown in to Boston Airport and limoed out, he was clearly running on fumes, but still managed to fulfill all his obligations.
Met a lot of fans, many of whom were pleasantly surprised that I wasn't charging for autographs.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at November 13, 2006 11:35 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingWhoa you got Ariel an interview with the Shat?! How cool is that! You go Dad!
I've allways wondered how common is for stars (and "stars") to charge for authographs. Here no one does it, not even for sketches and people react pretty badly when some Con guest tries to, like Neal Adams two years ago here in Madrid.
Malo, it seems to depend on the convention.
The convention here in Denver, Starfest, also regularly allows the guests to charge for autographs and photos. But, when you get down to it, it's probably the only way they can get guests to come at all: the guests get paid to cover their expenses, when the convention itself couldn't pay them.
But it's why I loved going to San Diego Comic-Con. No having to worry about extra costs for autographs and stuff.
Glad to hear things went well. I hope Ariel appreciates what a great father she has!
Yeah, PAD definitely earned some cool dad points there.
UFC was pretty great, though it's hard once you've been to Dragon*Con. It spoils you.
Thanks for bringing me over to Jewel on Saturday. I can't believe what a trembling mess I was. I just saw her and started bawling. *facepalm* But she was super nice and even recognized me without the wig on Sunday. :-)
Sorry I didn't get to really see you on Sunday, you were just packing up when I got there. You should definitely bring the Space Cases scripts with you next time (might be going to I-Con... not sure yet) because I definitely meant to purchase one.
-Laura ("Cat")
It also depends on the guest. I worked security for some big mediacon about ten years ago, with Shat, Mark Goddard, Chase Masterson and several others. Mark was charging for autographs, and doing okay, Chase was just doing talks and hanging out, maybe giving away autographs, and I think Bill was just doing the talks and vip dinner thing.
I didn't get to meet Bill, talked to Mark a very little, and spent a few minutes rubbing Chase's sore feet. She was onstage in a butt-length minidress and three-inch stilettos, the kind of shoes that're commonly called f*ck-me pumps. I told her that she needed to dress more comfortably, and she'd look just as sexy in jeans and a t-shirt. She sighed and said that this getup was what the fans liked.
Sweet girl. Wonder what she's doing now.
One thing I gotta say about Bill; he's mellowed a lot in the last few years, and actually developed a sense of humor about himself. Good thing, too. Kinda hard to maintain that level of arrogant conceit into your sixties.
Mike
At conventions that have a lot of actor guests, the norm is for the actors to charge for their autographs. I remember, at the Big Damned Flanvention last year -- a Firefly/Serenity convention that included 8/9 of the main cast (everyone save Gina Torres), several guest characters from various Whedon shows, and me -- I was the only writer with a table there, and also the only one not charging for autographs. For that matter, when I've done Trek Expo, I've been the only writer (or one of three writers) and I/we are the only ones not charging for our signature.
As with Peter at UFC, people were pleasantly surprised (and sometimes confused). I would sometimes joke that the book was free, but the autograph cost eight bucks....
---KRAD
Davy Jones? Sigh.Shows my age... Wish I could've been there...Congratulations to Ariel on following in Dad's footsteps. I hope she learns to write as well- fiction or non-fiction (AKA joutrnalism).
What a peculiar but awesome family tradition.
"Someday, my daughter, you too, will have a child who will interview William Shatner..."
Going to put up Ariel's interview here after it gets published in the school paper?
One of the joys of Southern fan-run cons is the nigh-ubiquitous presence of Glen Cook. He comes on his own hook, pays his way, buys several dealer tables, and sells books all weekend. He makes enough money to pay for the trip and eat, plus anybody who buys one of his books usually gets an autograph. My ex-roomie, Charlie, has got everything Glen has written, all of the Black Company novels, all of the Garrett: PI novels, and anything else Glen has written, and every bit of it is signed. Way cool.
And Glen's a nice guy to hang around with, too.
Miles
and spent a few minutes rubbing Chase's sore feet. She was onstage in a butt-length minidress and three-inch stilettos, the kind of shoes that're commonly called f*ck-me pumps.
whimper.....
Ok, sorry, was gone there for a while.
Anyway, it's been my experience that "media" guests (actors and the like) charge at a con, while writers (comic and prose) and comic book artists typically do not charge for an autograph. Sometimes, if it's busy, they will limit the number of autographs, or charge after a certain number of autographs, with the proceeds going to CBLDF or ACTOR (Hero Initiative), just to avoid having a guy come up to Peter with an entire shortbox full of Hulk issues to get signed.
Don't know if this was previously mentioned anywhere around here, but I didn't come across it until just now at sfsite.com:
"Author Jack Williamson (b.1908) died on November 10..."
http://www.sfsite.com/columns/news01.htm
For a bibliography of the SF Grand Master, see...
http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/w/jack-williamson/
Here most, if not all Cons, receive money from the local goverment, so guests all can come on the organization's expenses (PAD was in Gijon a few years ago dancing La Macarena so I guess he can tell what exactly the deal with authors is). Thats why its odd to find someone like Neal Adams charging for autographs.
As for actors, it is a different matter. They dont just sign, they usually sell an autographed photo. Those are profesionally made album photos, so you are actually purchasing an item. But charging to sign a piece of paper or a comic book cover a fan of yours brought? thats just wrong.
Tho if you ask me, best deal Ive heard of was Peter Milligan exchanging wacky sketches for cans of beer in Almeria.
PS: PAD, please come back to Spain some of these days, but this time hit one of the big ones, Madrid or Barcelona.
I've always liked Shatner and I'm glad he's achieved a measure of respectability and renewed success this late in his career. Comedians liked to ridicule him as a bad actor, but the scene of Spock's memorial service in The Wrath of Khan where Shatner gets his voice to crack on the word human, ("Of all the souls I've met in my all travels, his was the most... human.") is so powerful, I don't care if it took 17 takes to get it.
Oh and having Peter Tork there is really cool too. The Monkees was group deserved much more respect than the critics ever gave them.
I was lucky enough to see PAD at United Fan Con Saturday. It was great to see him again and get a few things signed.
His panel on Saturday was also quite hilarious.
I hope he makes it a yearly trek for him and family.
Wait a second. The Monkees, The Gunmen, Shatner, and Peter David in one place. One freaking place.
That does it. I gotta move to Massachusetts. Now at least I have a real reason to tell Stace we have to move besides the fact that I hate our apartment, neighborhood, landlord and the fact that the evil ones related to her know where we are.
Peter,
From this fan, I have to tell you I get rather annoyed at those folks who charge for autographs. You've signed a number of books for me in the past and I do appreciate that you don't charge. I also appreciate the great discussions that we have had in the past. I look forward to many more.
Missed you at Wizard World Texas this year. Your panels were the best of last year's show and were sorely missed this year!
You can check out my observations on the con at http://www.evilbastard.net/bastardblog/
Aron Head
www.EvilBastard.net
I wonder if there is any hope that Claudia will return in one of the new B5 movies that JMS is shooting?
Judging from the way she deflected a JMS question at UFC, I severely doubt a return of Ivanova is in the offing.
Claudia will likely never put on the uniform again. She screwed herself so badly with Joe that I doubt he'll ever talk to her.
From what I was told, it wasn't so much the money as the fact that she lied to people about why she left. She claims she was fired, or did; what happened was, she wanted a raise, didn't get it, and farted around until it was too late to sign her contract for the next season. Then she tried to put a spin on it to make it look like it wasn't her fault.
I dunno, it makes no sense to me. Never has.
Miles
Just a quick follow-up on Shatner running on fumes. Shatner was at a Star Trek convention in Secaucus, NJ on Sunday. He mentioned that he had a rough time at a convention in Springfield, Mass the night before.
The story he told was as follows: on Thursday night, he was filming Boston Legal and they had Chinese food delievered. He was trying to eat healthy, so he was staying away, but was finally won over by noodles and vegetables, which he had four bowls of.
The next day, Friday, he had to drive several hours to his granddaughter's naming ceremony, and was running late, so he was running around the building trying to find a way in. He left almost immediately after the ceremony to fly to Mass, and began feeling sick. Pain in his legs, stiffness, hard to breathe. He believed it was MSG poisoning, and he only started to feel better in the car on the way from Mass to New York.
Everyone who saw him at UFC knew that he was not 100%. I am glad he was feeling better though.
Sounds as though it was a pretty coool event all around. How was Jewel Staite? Is she doing okay professionally, despite America's baffling, disappointing, maddening failure to properly embrace "Serenity"?
"For that matter, when I've done Trek Expo, I've been the only writer (or one of three writers) and I/we are the only ones not charging for our signature."
The Trek Expo needs more writer guests. The media guests are great, but a few more would be great.
RA Jones told me a story about the last time PAD was at the Trek Expo...
You know, I used to be all about the actors at these things. But over the years I have become much more interested in the writes, the guys that put the words in the mouths of pretty people.
Aron Head
www.EvilBastard.net
Posted by Aron Head at November 14, 2006 10:28 PM
You know, I used to be all about the actors at these things. But over the years I have become much more interested in the writes, the guys that put the words in the mouths of pretty people.
Just before the final season of Star Trek: The Next Generation came to an end, NPR aired a piece about the show. When asked if he had any opinions about what accounted for its popularity, Brent Spiner told the interviewer that a lot of the credit belonged to the writers. He referred to an expression used in live theater that he felt applied equally to television: "If it ain't on the page, it ain't on the stage."
Down here in Texas any celeb type that we get charges. Prices seem to range from $20.00 to $50.00 bucks a pop depending on who it is.
As to Wizard World Texas this year, it just was not the same without PD.
I once got to interview George Takei for a Nevada newspaper while he was attending a Reno sci-fi convention and he was easily among the nicest and most gracious human begins I have ever met. Also, I think he appreciated the fact that aside from one "Trek" question, the rest of my queries were about Japanese internment, bilingual education, "The Green Berets," and lots of other non-"Trek" topics. At the time, though, he was still a closeted gay. If I'd only known then what we all know now, I can't begin to imagine how vastly more intriguing that interview could have been. "Oh, my!"
Jewel appears to be doing well professionally. It was just announced she's signed on for a recurring role on Stargate Atlantis for season four.
Most actors nowadays charge for autographs and it is usually part of the contract for bringing them to a convention. An upcoming convention here in Phoenix, DarkCon, is bringing Jewel in for their convention in early January. They're taking a gamble on the extra expense for a media guest so hopefully we'll get enough Firefly/Serenity fans to turn up.
What I need to do is track down the copy of Variety that had Space Cases on the cover to have Jewel sign. I sent a few of them off to Peter when they came out. Don't know if Jewel got one of the or not, though.
Lee Whiteside
www.darkcon.org for the convention info.
Thanks for the info (on Jewel Staite), Lee Woodside! I've seen much of the Serenity crew popping up here and there but hadn't heard much about her. Glad to hear that she seems to be doing all right.
That should say "WHITEside", of course. Sorry. :( Long week at work.
"Is she doing okay professionally, despite America's baffling, disappointing, maddening failure to properly embrace "Serenity"?"
Why is it baffling? It's a movie based on a TV show I had never even heard of, and the movie didn't exactly go out of its way to welcome newcomers into its fold. Watching it made me feel like the new kid in school, who gets left out of social situations because the cliques have already formed. If America failed to embrace Serenity, it was because Serenity failed to embrace America. That, and it just wasn't a good movie. It had bewilderingly bad dialogue (I physically cringed every time Kaylee opened her mouth), and the ending was just lazy and pointless.
Well, I don't know if it's even worth replying to you, as I think you're completely wrong in everything you've said, but I will counter your personal antecdote with one of my own.
My wife had never watched Firefly. I'd gotten her into Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel, but despite really enjoying these shows (I don't recall whether you like them or not, Robert Fuller, those I do recognize your name from around here), she never wanted to check out Firefly - too science fiction for her, maybe. But, she surprised me by volunteering to go see "Serenity" with me. And, with absolutely NO knowledge of Firefly at all - she loved it. Within a few days, she'd watched all the episodes of the show, and continued to re-watch; when the movie was released on DVD, it also got many re-viewings (subsequent to our return viewings in theaters).
Of course, not everyone is going to like this, or any, movie. But even your OPINION that it was a "bad movie" (and it's only an opinion unless someone elected you God without my hearing about it) does not explain how a film with humor, action, deeper themes, impressive visual flair and effects, and a great cast (and which went on to win several science fiction awards) failed to make more than twenty five million dollars at the U.S. box office. I can understand how it might not become a huge blockbuster - and I don't think the ads did a very good job of accurately portraying the movie - but I will never see how it didn't even make twice that number.
On the other hand, I see from your comments on the Cowboy Pete thread that we both hold "Homicide: Life on the Streets" in very high esteem. That really was one of the finest television dramas ever - in my opinion. If you'd said that YOU FELT Serenity was a bad film, rather than declaring it to be the absolute, indesputable truth that it WAS bad, I might not have been as ticked off by your post here. Declaring absolute truths about things that are debatable matters of opinion and taste can set people off, even people who it may turn out share some of those tastes with you.
Okay, A. I didn't say it was a bad movie (I said it wasn't a good movie, which is not the same thing... there were several things about it I liked, particularly Chiwetel Ejiofor's character and performance... but I didn't like the movie overall), and B. I never said my opinion was the absolute, indisputable truth, or even implied it. All I'm saying is that I understand why it didn't make much money, because I didn't think it was a particularly good movie. I assumed the "I felt" was pretty much implied. Believe me, I get ticked off by statements of opinion disguised as facts just as much as you do.
Issues of quality aside, though, Firefly was canceled after, what, one season? So obviously very few people cared enough to watch it. What makes you think they would care about a movie sequel to a TV show that bombed to begin with?
As for Buffy and Angel, I've never seen either of them. And since I can't stand Sarah Michelle Gellar, I probably never will.
As I understand it, Firefly got cancelled before even a 13 episode half-season was over. Wasn't that the reason Firefly was brought up on this thread: it didn't get enough time to develop a following the way shows like Seinfeld and Hill Street Blues did?
I also believe the reason people were willing to invest in a movie sequel was because Firefly gained a noticeable cult following post mortem, from reruns and DVDs.
I personaly loved the series, and felt the movie was good, but not as good as the series. I'm not sure if it even was good enough to demonstrate the best qualities of the show. Perhaps Jos Weadon's talents may be more suited to a serial format. Both Buffy and angel were excellent.
But of course all this is meaningless to you, since you have not seen any of his shows, and I have no idea if any of the series are suited to your taste.
If you have not seen Buffy, what is your dislike of Sarah Michelle geller based on?
"Wasn't that the reason Firefly was brought up on this thread: it didn't get enough time to develop a following the way shows like Seinfeld and Hill Street Blues did?"
This part was actually mentioned in a different thread. I stand by the rest of my post.
"As I understand it, Firefly got cancelled before even a 13 episode half-season was over. Wasn't that the reason Firefly was brought up on this thread: it didn't get enough time to develop a following the way shows like Seinfeld and Hill Street Blues did?"
Exactly my point. It didn't immediately catch on, and it didn't get enough time to develop a following, so the failure of the movie should come as no surprise. Nobody would go see The Book of Daniel: The Movie, either.
"I also believe the reason people were willing to invest in a movie sequel was because Firefly gained a noticeable cult following post mortem, from reruns and DVDs."
Obviously not a big enough cult following. And isn't a "cult" following small, by definition?
"If you have not seen Buffy, what is your dislike of Sarah Michelle geller based on?"
I Know What You Did Last Summer, Cruel Intentions, Scream 2, Maybelline commercials, trailers for various movies that look too awful to even bother with... she's done a lot more than just Buffy.
Posted by: Robert Fuller at November 18, 2006 08:13 PM
Exactly my point. It didn't immediately catch on, and it didn't get enough time to develop a following, so the failure of the movie should come as no surprise. Nobody would go see The Book of Daniel: The Movie, either.
Firefly was never given the chance to catch on. Fox treated the show like shit. They aired the episodes out of order, making the plot more difficult to follow; in fact, Fox refused to allow Whedon to use the two-hour pilot episode as the season premiere, forcing him to hastily create a new episode ("The Train Job") to serve as the premiere. The show was frequently pre-empted for sporting events. It was promoted as an action-comedy, when it was intended to be a more serious character study.
I'm not saying Firefly would've been a sure hit. I'm saying we'll never know because Fox guaranteed that it wouldn't have a chance to catch on in first-run production. The fact that it developed such a loyal following despite all of the roadblocks Fox put in its way says a lot about the quality of the series.
And Sarah Michelle Gellar just rocks. :)
"I Know What You Did Last Summer, Cruel Intentions, Scream 2, Maybelline commercials, trailers for various movies that look too awful to even bother with... she's done a lot more than just Buffy."
I doubt Scream and I Know What You Did Last Summer can be considered as indicative of Sarah Michelle Geller. She wasn't the lead in either, and her roles were rather insignificant. In Cruel Intentions she did have a dominant role, but I don't know if your problem was with her or with the movie. This movie is quite different in style from Buffy. It was a rather silly adaptation of a story taking place in 18th century France. I'm not sure it worked. I haven't seen the commercials. I admit her movie career in general has not been very impressive, although I can't be sure if what you disliked was the movie genres or her in them. It is hard to tell based on trailers. In any case, she did a good job pl;aying the role in the universe and storylines devices in Buffy. I don't know if that kind of universe or storylines are appealing to you. But if they are, it would be a shame for you to miss them because of the appearance of Sarah Michelle Geller in commericials for cosmetics.
"Obviously not a big enough cult following. And isn't a "cult" following small, by definition?"
I didn't say it was large. Some TV shows and movies are considered worth while financially because they have a cult following (see Star Trek). Apparently in this case the financial gamble was wrong, the cult following was not enough, and/or new viewers did not come to see it, either because of bad marketing or because, like youn ow say, they were reluctant to see a movie associated with a show that they didn't see or to come into something that was perceived as a sequal, or the movie wasn't good enough on its own accord, or they were prejudiced against the basic idea of the movie, or maybe something else. However, what you said seemed to imply that the series bombed, and that people did not go see it because it was a failure. I think the network was not willing to give a good show the necessary time. I also don't agree with you that the movie didn't have a chance because it was connected to a bad show. Obviously, the people who made it hoped that the story concept was strong enough to draw audiences on its own despite Fox's lack of confidence in it. They probably hoped this would give them the chance, not given by Fox, to offer the story to a larger audience.
It is somewhat similar to what PAD did by taking Fallen Angel to a new company after DC cancelled it.
"I'm not saying Firefly would've been a sure hit. I'm saying we'll never know because Fox guaranteed that it wouldn't have a chance to catch on in first-run production. The fact that it developed such a loyal following despite all of the roadblocks Fox put in its way says a lot about the quality of the series."
"However, what you said seemed to imply that the series bombed, and that people did not go see it because it was a failure. I think the network was not willing to give a good show the necessary time. I also don't agree with you that the movie didn't have a chance because it was connected to a bad show."
I'm not disputing that Firefly couldn't have been a hit if given the chance, and I never said anything about the quality of the show (I've never seen it). In fact, I'm not really arguing about Firefly at all. What I am saying (and everyone, please pay attention, because I'm tired of repeating it), is that Firefly was a failed show (i.e. canceled very early on). Regardless of the reasons for that failure, very few people watched the show (like I said before, I had never even heard of it until Serenity was made), and therefore it shouldn't have come as a surprise that very few people went to the movies to see a sequel to that show. So, even if I had LIKED the movie, I wouldn't have been surprised that America didn't embrace it. The fact that I didn't like it only added to my lack of surprise.
And Micha, I'm not sure why it's so difficult to understand my dislike of Gellar. Surely, there are actors and actresses out there that you just plain dislike. She was awful in I Know What You Did Last Summer (she wasn't the lead in the way Jennifer Love Hewitt was, but she played one of the four main characters), she was mediocre in Cruel Intentions (although I liked the movie), and when I see her face, I want to punch it.
Posted by: Robert Fuller at November 18, 2006 10:28 PM
(and everyone, please pay attention, because I'm tired of repeating it)
I am sorry that you found it irritating that I brought up some facts that are relevant to this discussion.
Posted by: Robert Fuller at November 18, 2006 10:28 PM
Firefly was a failed show (i.e. canceled very early on).
That is a bit like saying that a man who is shot to death before he could get into his car "failed" to get to work that morning. Fox did everything they could to kill that show, from airing eps out-of-order, to failing to properly promote it. The show didn't "fail," Fox pretty much killed it. Again, we don't know if the show would have succeeded had Fox did everything right -- but we do know that they pretty much did everything wrong with respect to "Firelfy."
I think you are having trouble separating your dislike of "Serenity" from the issue of whether or not your analysis of what happened to "Firefly" is accurate. Those are separate issues. I'm not telling you to like "Serenity." That's a matter of taste. But what happened to "Firefly" is a matter of fact. I'm not sure why you would react so negatively to an attempt to correct the record. I can assure you, it's not personal -- and it is relevant.
Oh, and Robert Fuller, just so we're clear: I think you are partially correct about the reasons why "Serenity" bombed.
I say "partially" for a couple of reasons. First, when "Firefly" was released on DVD, it gained a following that was larger and stronger than anything it had while it was on the air -- much like the fan base that developed for "Star Trek" after TOS was cancelled. That was why the movie was green-lit in the first place. That cult following, however, was obviously not enough to guarantee the success of the movie. Second, the movie studio didn't put a lot of muscle into promoting "Serenity," IIRC.
"I am sorry that you found it irritating that I brought up some facts that are relevant to this discussion."
But... they're NOT relevant.
"I think you are having trouble separating your dislike of "Serenity" from the issue of whether or not your analysis of what happened to "Firefly" is accurate. Those are separate issues."
Yes, they are. But the problem that you're somehow not seeing is that I never offered an analysis of what happened to Firefly. I don't know what happened to Firefly, I don't care what happened to Firefly, and I never discussed Firefly except as it relates to my analysis of SERENITY. Talk about your Straw Man arguments. Analyzing the reasons for Serenity's box office failure is not the same thing as analyzing the reasons behind Firefly's cancellation.
You say Fox "killed" Firefly. Okay, fine, but that's not relevant to what I'm saying. Whether the show was killed or died on its own, the result was the same: it didn't find an audience large enough to make Serenity a success. And so what they had on their hands was a movie that continued the story of a TV show that very few people watched and that didn't even make it past its 15th episode. Essentially, it was the 16th episode of this low-rated series, and this time people had to actually go out and pay to see it. I'm not saying that this is the only reason it bombed, or even necessarily the main reason. But it does make it understandable that it bombed. This is all I'm saying.
And I'm sorry if you take offense to my use of the word "failed," but when a TV show is canceled after 15 episodes, it can hardly be called a success. It failed to stay on the air, regardless of the reasons for the failure. I have no personal bias against the show, having never seen it.
"Issues of quality aside, though, Firefly was canceled after, what, one season? So obviously very few people cared enough to watch it. What makes you think they would care about a movie sequel to a TV show that bombed to begin with?"
I believe that was the statement that caused both Bill Myers and Myself to address the history of the series Firefly.
Even if we adapt the argument to remove any references to the TV series 'bombing,' and that few 'cared to follow,' I stil don't think your argument is essentially correct, as demonstrated by the cases of Star Trek and Fallen Angel. In both cases do the show/comic got cancelled, somebody else thought it was worthwhile to give it another chance on the merit of the story and cult following. There are probably other examples of the same occurance.
Haven't you ever seen a series you liked but was cancelled, and thought that if only it was given another chance it could succeed?
"And Micha, I'm not sure why it's so difficult to understand my dislike of Gellar. Surely, there are actors and actresses out there that you just plain dislike. She was awful in I Know What You Did Last Summer (she wasn't the lead in the way Jennifer Love Hewitt was, but she played one of the four main characters), she was mediocre in Cruel Intentions (although I liked the movie), and when I see her face, I want to punch it."
I don't like Kevin Costner (spl?) very much, but I've seen more than one movie in which he was the star. It wasn't as if I only saw Costner in Silverado, and then couldn't stand to watch him in anything. I didn't like Jim Kerry much in the beginning, but learned to appreciate him when he started making good movies. But then, I've never had the negative effect of wanting to punch a movie star whenever I see his or her face. If you have such an adverse effect, maybe you shouldn't check out Buffy, no matter how fine a show it was. You should not comproise your mental calm. I personaly try to keep an open mind about such things. I'm not sure I always do it, but I try.
Posted by: Robert Fuller at November 19, 2006 12:53 AM
But... they're NOT relevant.
Sure, they are. Why? Glad you asked...
Posted by: Robert Fuller at November 19, 2006 12:53 AM
But the problem that you're somehow not seeing is that I never offered an analysis of what happened to Firefly.
Yeah, you did. Here's what you wrote: "Issues of quality aside, though, Firefly was canceled after, what, one season? So obviously very few people cared enough to watch it."
That, my good man, qualifies as an "analysis," and was one of the underpinnings of your argument about why "Serenity" bombed. That analysis was, as I've pointed out, based on incomplete information.
Posted by: Robert Fuller at November 19, 2006 12:53 AM
I don't know what happened to Firefly, I don't care what happened to Firefly, and I never discussed Firefly except as it relates to my analysis of SERENITY. Talk about your Straw Man arguments.
It's only a "Straw Man" argument if you want to expand the concept of "Straw Man" to include things you actually said. Your argument can be broken down thusly:
1. "Firefly" was cancelled because few people "cared" to watch it.
2. "Firefly" was thus unable to develop much of a fanbase.
3. This lack of a fanbase resulted in "Serenity" bombing at the box office.
As I've pointed out, premise number one is incorrect. I am a huge Joss Whedon fan, but I didn't even know "Firefly" EXISTED until AFTER it was cancelled. Fox didn't promote the show. It's not that people didn't "care" to watch it -- Fox didn't promote it. And by airing eps out of order and pre-empting the show left and right, they almost guaranteed that all but the most hard-core fans would lose interest.
Premise number two is only partially correct. "Firefly" did gain a loyal following after it was cancelled due to DVD sales. This following is what persuaded Universal to greenlight the feature film.
Moreover, while "Serenity" didn't catch box office fire, the DVD quickly shot to number one on Amazon.com's charts, and spent two weeks in Billboard's Top Ten DVD chart, peaking at number 3.
Look, ultimately you are correct that the fanbase for "Firefly" wasn't enough to make it a box office smash. But your analysis of the hows and whys left out some critical information. I think you and I can both agree that there's never any harm in knowing all of the relevant facts.
Posted by: Robert Fuller at November 19, 2006 12:53 AM
And I'm sorry if you take offense to my use of the word "failed," but when a TV show is canceled after 15 episodes, it can hardly be called a success.
I think you're reading emotion into my words that isn't there. I wasn't "offended," I was merely pointing out it wasn't particularly accurate. It would be far more accurate to say that the show was mishandled by Fox.
On a personal note, it's hard to gauge tone in an Internet posting. But I get the sense you're taking this personally. I hope I'm wrong, but if I'm right -- please don't. It's not meant that way.
Ultimately, you're correct that "Firefly's" fanbase was insufficient to generate a box office hit of a movie in "Serenity." But you were incorrect about some of the hows and whys. I didn't see any harm in painting a fuller picture of what actually happened -- and I still don't.
There's another thing that needs to be taken into consideration. In my country at least, and perhaps in Europe, Serenity was never distributed. It was never brought to movie theaters. I don't know if that would have made much of a difference, but it sure didn't help.
Well, yesterday was apparently my day for making mistakes on the internet. Elsewhere, I mentioned "Davy Crockett" when I meant "Johnny Appleseed"; here, I really thought that the words "it was a bad movie" were in your initial post, Robert Fuller. (I know I read it at least twice; not enough times, obviously.) I do apologize for that mistake.
Personally, I would qualify statements like "and it just wasn't a good movie" and your characterizations of the dialogue and the end of the film with "IMHO" or "I felt" (or even "I really felt"); I'm sure I'll be even more likely to now (even if discussing Paulie Shore).
One thing about "Serenity" - if many people had never heard of the TV show, how would they know that the movie was a follow-up to anything? Again, I do see why it wasn't "one of the biggest hits of the fall" (the end of September isn't the best release time of the year, either), but I most often can tell if a movie will be a box office success or not, and I will never understand, with the elements it has, why "Serenity" didn't do better domestically. (It did have enough international profit - in whichever countries it DID get theatrical release; sorry to hear that you didn't get it there, Micha - to more than make back the cost of the film, BTW.)
Again, Robert Fuller, I am sorry for flying off the handle a bit and misattributing something to you which you didn't say, and anything else which may've seemed a little rude in my first post.
Bill: 1. "Firefly" was cancelled because few people "cared" to watch it.
2. "Firefly" was thus unable to develop much of a fanbase.
3. This lack of a fanbase resulted in "Serenity" bombing at the box office.
As I've pointed out, premise number one is incorrect. I am a huge Joss Whedon fan, but I didn't even know "Firefly" EXISTED until AFTER it was cancelled. Fox didn't promote the show. It's not that people didn't "care" to watch it -- Fox didn't promote it. And by airing eps out of order and pre-empting the show left and right, they almost guaranteed that all but the most hard-core fans would lose interest.
Which means that very few people cared enough to watch it. Is the problem simply a matter of semantics? Maybe I should have phrased it as "very few people watched the show." But the fact remains that the show clearly didn't have enough people that cared about it, whether it's because they genuinely didn't like it, or they didn't care for sci-fi, or they were mad at Fox for their treatment of the show, or simply because they weren't aware of it (after all, how do you care about a show you've never heard of?).
And anyway, I never offered my opinions as any kind of scientific analysis. My statements were always couched in terms of "it's not surprising" or "it's understandable" that Serenity bombed, not "this is why it bombed."
Bill: On a personal note, it's hard to gauge tone in an Internet posting. But I get the sense you're taking this personally.
No, not at all.
Bill: I didn't see any harm in painting a fuller picture of what actually happened -- and I still don't.
No, no harm done.
Micha: I stil don't think your argument is essentially correct, as demonstrated by the cases of Star Trek and Fallen Angel. In both cases do the show/comic got cancelled, somebody else thought it was worthwhile to give it another chance on the merit of the story and cult following.
I'm not really sure what you're saying here. My argument has nothing to do with the reasons for the movie being made, it has to do with the reasons it failed. But for the sake of discussion, Star Trek lasted for (I believe) three seasons on TV, and by the time the movie came out, it had developed a much larger following than Firefly. It was more or less a household name. Firefly STILL isn't a household name. And Fallen Angel doesn't sell any better with IDW than it did with DC, so that doesn't really apply.
Micha: Haven't you ever seen a series you liked but was cancelled, and thought that if only it was given another chance it could succeed?
Yes. It doesn't mean it would, though. You seem to think that I think that Serenity should never have been made in the first place, but I never said anything of the sort. This whole discussion came about because Luke said the failure of Serenity was baffling, and I simply offered reasons why it wasn't so baffling.
Micha: I don't like Kevin Costner (spl?) very much, but I've seen more than one movie in which he was the star.
I don't see how viewing The Grudge or The Return or some other movie in which Gellar is the star is a prerequisite for forming an opinion of her. You might as well be saying that it's impossible to form a valid opinion of an actor who has never had a lead role. I've seen her in three movies, in two of which she had the second biggest female role. I've also seen parts of Scooby-Doo. I don't like her. She was so patently terrible in I Know What You Did Last Summer that she made me dislike her intensely right off the bat, and she hasn't shown me anything since then to improve my opinion. So forgive me if I don't run out and rent a TV series (which is something I rarely do anyway) in which she was the star.
Luke: Personally, I would qualify statements like "and it just wasn't a good movie" and your characterizations of the dialogue and the end of the film with "IMHO" or "I felt" (or even "I really felt"); I'm sure I'll be even more likely to now (even if discussing Paulie Shore).
I always just assume the "I felt" is implied, unless the person blatantly states his opinion as though it were an unquestionable truth (forgive me if it seemed like that's what I was doing).
Luke: One thing about "Serenity" - if many people had never heard of the TV show, how would they know that the movie was a follow-up to anything?
This is a valid point. I mean, I knew it was a follow-up to a show I'd never heard of, but then, I pay attention to these sorts of things. I can't speak for anyone else. But while watching the movie, I did feel like I had jumped into the middle of a TV series (the movie even had a kind of "televisiony" feel to it), and with an awful trailer that made it look like an updated version of Ice Pirates or something, plus the fact that space opera (Stars Wars and Trek notwithstanding) is still something of a niche genre, AND with a cast of mostly unknowns (most of whom, in my opinion, were rather wooden actors, Adam Baldwin and Chiwetel Ejiofor being the notable exceptions), I never expected the movie to do well.
Again, Robert Fuller, I am sorry for flying off the handle a bit and misattributing something to you which you didn't say, and anything else which may've seemed a little rude in my first post.
No worries.
"Exactly my point. It didn't immediately catch on, and it didn't get enough time to develop a following, so the failure of the movie should come as no surprise."
It comes as "no surprise" in the same way that the failure of tons of movies recently, despite their quality, comes as no surprise: More and more people are simply bypassing theatrical release because they know the film will be out on DVD. Most SF films garner their success from repeat business: "Firefly" fans saw it once (many of them saw it for free in the advance screenings; Kath and I are the only ones in our circle of friends I know of who hadn't seen it pre-release) and then didn't go again because they figured they'd see it on DVD several months later. As for "Firefly's" "failure to catch on," Fox's abomindable handling of it has been well detailed in other postings. In fact, Fox's handling of SF overall has been historically abysmal. The number of smart SF series that have been treated like crap on Fox is staggering. Why do you think Chris Carter kept claiming "X-Files" wasn't SF when it clearly was? Because if he admitted to it, Fox would instantly have canceled it just on principle. If "Heroes" had been sold to Fox, they'd have aired it on Friday at 8 PM and canceled it by now.
"Nobody would go see The Book of Daniel: The Movie, either."
Well then I guess I'm Nobody. That show was absolutely brilliant and the fact that it was hounded into oblivion by religious activists who actively mischaracterized it (when they bothered to watch it at all; many didn't) remains a shameful episode in the history of quality TV series.
PAD
"So forgive me if I don't run out and rent a TV series (which is something I rarely do anyway) in which she was the star."
I forgive you.
Seriously, I never recommend TV shows to people without knowing if the style of the show in question fits their taste. I thought Buffy was a great show, but I'll never recommend it to my grandmother, for example. However, in your case the (rather violent) dislike seems to be not to a genre or a style but to an actress in the show, which is something new to me. I usually don't erase the complete work of an actor from my watch list even if I dislike him or her. Nor has my dislike for any actor ever reached the degree where I've felt the need to punch them. But even more strangely, I usually become pretty familiar with more than two movies by an actor before I develop even the milder form of dislike I'm accustomed to, and even then I doubt I'll avoid seeing anything by that actor the way you seem to do, especially if he or she appear in a genre I'm interested in. I find it hard to judge the whole career of an actor or at least the quality of the shows he might be in based on so little. But then, that's me. I'm kind of weird in that respect. to each his own.
To sum up. If I knew that Buffy was a show that fits with your taste, and I didn't knew that your dislike of her was to the degree that it is, I would tell you that Joss Wheadon had created a really good show worth watching, and that you shouldn't let one silly performance in a campy horror movie, and another campy performance in another silly movie, prevent you from trying that show. However, since I don't the first, and I do know the second, I suggest you don't see the show, since your dislike of Sarah Michelle Geller would prevent you from enjoying it, even if it was your style, which I suspect it isn't.
It's not so much that I'm "erasing" Buffy from my watch list because of Sarah Michelle Gellar (my exact words were: "I probably never will [watch it]). But it's a TV show that A. stars someone I know I don't like, B. is no longer on the air, which means I'd have to rent it, C. was on for a long time, which means I'd have to take up a large portion of my Netflix queue to watch it, not to mention a large portion of my life, D. has a premise that doesn't interest me, and E. is created by a writer I don't really care for. I just don't see myself ever going out of my way to watch it.
But I also don't see the problem with dismissing a movie or TV show because of the lead actor. With every single movie or TV show we don't see (which, considering the sheer numbers of them, constitutes the vast majority of them) there's always a reason why we don't see them, and disliking the lead actor is just as good a reason as any. I don't want to see Stranger Than Fiction, for example, because I can't stand Will Ferrell. Even in Melinda and Melinda, a movie I really liked, I thought he was awful, and he almost ruined the movie. So I'd rather see a movie that has a lead actor whom I enjoy watching, and who most likely won't ruin the movie, than take my chances on one that doesn't.
By where they've traditonally been placed in a TV lineup, it seems that the SF/fantasy shows are always on the chopping block of pre-emptive moves. Now, it could just be the Philly stations, but whenever there's been a Sixers/Flyers/Eagles game or something big and noteworthy happening around here, it seems that these are the shows that get bumped. Now, whether this is done intentionally or not isn't something I want to get into right now, because ANY show in that time slot would get bumped, just seems to happen more often to these shows. When was the last time you saw Law and Order:Traffic Court or Animal ER bumped for something? Also, it seems that programming executives are under a lot more pressure to sell their soap, so appeal to the LCD just to get butts in the seats, regardless of the intelligence of the viewing audience. (Remind me sometime to tell you guys about all the people I work with that hang on every wrestling show and discuss them ad nauseum all week. Oh, wait, I just did.)
Now, an admission. I've only ever seen a few apisodes of Buffy and Firefly combined, and I never saw Angel. I'm sure they were good shows, actually, I have a friend that swore Firefly was the best thing since B5, but between working and my son, I just don't have time for TV. Which is ironic, considering I WORK in TV. I just can't seem to watch anything but the first season of anything lately. Doctor Who, BSG, Supernatural, Lost, other stuff, I saw the first seasons, remembered they were on, but I just don't seem to have the time anymore. And everyone I hang out with is ASTONISHED that I don't watch Medium and Ghost Whisperer. (I was reading Holzer's GHOSTS, a thousand page compilation of his experiences, for about three months.) I NEED MORE TIME!
"I was reading Holzer's GHOSTS, a thousand page compilation of his experiences, for about three months."
Heh, I have that book. I read quite a bit of it (though, considering how thick it is, it was really only a small fraction of it), but I gave it up after realizing that reading one of his stories is pretty much the same as reading any other of his stories.
And I don't watch Medium or Ghost Whisperer, either.
"Now, an admission. I've only ever seen a few apisodes of Buffy and Firefly combined."
I doubt anybody ever felt embarassed because he was wathing too little TV.
"have a friend that swore Firefly was the best thing since B5."
The shows have different styles. I've like both. But, like anything, it depends on your taste.
"And everyone I hang out with is ASTONISHED that I don't watch Medium and Ghost Whisperer."
Are you a fan of the genre? I've seen Medium. I thought the idea that the psychic in the show is a mother, and some senses a housewife, was clever. Feminists might say that because the hero is a female psychic, the feel of the show is more intuitive. But I wouldn't consider this a must see, even if you are a fan of psychic crimefighting. But again, it is a matter of taste.
I've only seen a few episodes of Firefly and that was "in the middle." While it didn't "grab me" as the show "House" did when I saw THAT show "in the middle," I was willing to believe that if I saw the entire series, I might have liked it if not loved it.
I saw "Serenity" and liked it because of the story and the characters. While some people would have dismissed the performances of The Regulars as "wooden," I interpreted it as Frontier Stoicism that resembled the portrayals of characters in western films like "The Searchers" and "High Noon."
Just because Chiwetel Ejiofor had an interesting character, and did an exceptional performance, didn't make The Familiar Faces any less watchable IMHO. It only made "Serenity" a potentially BETTER film than most SF films that end up on the $5 shelf when they come out on DVD.
Peter made an excellent point when he said that "Serenity's" potential DVD marketability might have hurt its chances to make big money at the box office. As has been stated by several people, "Firefly's" high DVD sales made the movie a reality. Is the "show it in the theatres for a few weeks then flood the DVD market" strategy that more movie/TV studios are implementing going to hurt the visual SF market in the future, do you think?
Micha, yes, I'm a fan of the genre. Main reason I don't watch Ghost Whisperer, other than timing, is I really don't like James Van Praagh, the medium that produces it. I did give it a chance, once. Medium I would watch all the time if I HAD the time.
As for Firefly--I think, I could be wrong, but I think, that had that film been shown as a TV movie or mini-series it would have KILLED in the ratings, but as a theatrical release, where the rules are different, everyone thinks it tanked.
"While some people would have dismissed the performances of The Regulars as "wooden," I interpreted it as Frontier Stoicism that resembled the portrayals of characters in western films like "The Searchers" and "High Noon.""
I just interpreted it as them not being good actors. Adam Baldwin was a regular and he was good (and he's much more experienced than the others). The others all seemed amateurish to me.
Well, with the announcement of possibly some DTD B5 movies, I'm still holding out hope for more Farscape and Firefly.
Speaking of which...
PAD, what do you think of the announcement about the possible return of Babylon 5?
The potential is obviously there, but it seems like it's going to be harder to recapture the dynamics and all. Unfortunately, two principals have passed in Biggs and Katsulas, we know the eventual fates of 3 characters, and Crusade ended before it really got started.
Various thoughts:
As someone who enjoyed both _Buffy_ and _Angel_, I figured I’d probably also enjoy _Firefly_. But I chose not to watch it, because I didn’t want to add more TV viewing time to my schedule. So I made the conscious decision to _not_ add another show to the list of those I watched.
_Firefly_ came and went, and life continued. It came out on DVD and I told myself I’d probably buy it one day- having never seen a single frame of the show- based solely on my enjoyment of Joss Whedon’s work in _Buffy_ and _Angel_. Before that “one day” came along, the movie _Serenity_ came out. I saw a trailer for it in the theater, and knew it was connected with _Firefly_; which, I also knew, had both science fiction and western trappings. But that was pretty much _all_ I knew about _Firefly_ at that time.
When _Serenity_ came out, and I went to see it. And I liked it. Even though I hadn’t seen _Firefly_, I had no trouble following the storyline in _Serenity_. Yes, it began in media res, but many stories do.
On the other hand, I suppose it’s possible that since I knew _Serenity_ was based on a TV series currently available on DVD, I might not have been as critical of unanswered questions as I might have otherwise. Perhaps on some level, part of me was saying I’d just buy or rent the DVD to fill in some blanks. I’m not sure. I was too busy enjoying the movie to pay attention to what my “inner voice” might’ve been saying.
Soon after I saw the film, I decided that “one day” had come, and I bought the Firefly _DVD_. I liked the series a lot. I later bought the _Serenity_ DVD.
PAD, I saw _Serenity_ just once in the theater, but that’s because I see _every_ film just once in the theater. Even when I intend to go back again, I don’t, because I have so many other things competing for my time. One thing leads to another, and next thing you know, the film in question is no longer in theaters.
When I was a kid, it was a different matter. I saw films multiple times- especially the big summer blockbusters.
On the other hand, I will watch movies I have on DVD or video multiple times. Not several times in a row, mind you, but I do enjoy repeat viewings of films in my home library (The other day, for example, I enjoyed a repeat viewing of _Fourteen Hours_ with Richard Basehart, Paul Douglas, Grace Kelly, Agnes Moorehead, Jeff Corey and Jeffrey Hunter). And watching one of them takes up almost as much time as it would to see a film in the theater (since I usually watch a film straight through, rather than pause it and come back later).
Of course, when I’m playing a movie on video or DVD, I can, if I choose, work on other projects- like writing or editing a story- at the same time. Though, in those cases, I usually soon turn most of my attention to the writing, and the movie becomes so much background noise.
But I still have the ability to combine movie watching with some other project, if I so choose. Even if that “project” is something as mundane as having dinner. For some reason the theater people don’t like it when I try to carry my kitchen table in with me. Curious, that.
Rick
Hello Mr. David,
I attended United Fan Con on Saturday and was able to speak to you for a while which was really cool.
I also dropped off a comic book for you titled The Necropolis Chronicles. I was just wondering if you had had a chance to peek through it.
Thanks!
Jim
A possibly ridiculous -- and certainly late -- question: have Da Vinci's Inquest fans started flocking to Ms. Staite's convention appearances as fervently as the Browncoat crowds?