![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alexandraerinSo, there's an article going around about Firefly's reruns being shown on the Science Channel (future name: the Sy Channel), with a second clause in the headline about Nathan Fillion being willing to play Mal again. I believe the headline is constructed in order to grab the most attention possible by leaving readers who glance at it to infer that new episodes are being planned, which is not the case. Captain Fillion is merely stating that if new episodes were being made, he would be more than willing to return to the role.
That's not all that he's saying, though. He also says this:
That's clearly a pie-in-the-sky dream, hence the invocation of the lottery as a deus ex machina... but among the reasons it's a pie-in-the-sky dream are the facts that the rights are tied up among the biggest of the big and fans would have a hard time accepting a show that does with less of the (one presumes very expensive) exterior flight shots than we're used to after a feature-length film and a half-season of a fairly cinematic TV show.
But imagine if Firefly had never existed as more than a proof-of-concept pilot, and instead of going to Fox, Joss and company went to the mob for funding. No, not that mob. This one. Us. You and me. The internet. The crowd. The math is probably daunting but ultimately very simple: how much money to buy a sturdy, reusable spaceship set? To film in dusty, westerny-looking places? To pay actors who believe in the project for their initial cooperation? To hire some computer effects people... maybe a newbie company that's looking for a break?
Joss Whedon's worked in television long enough to have known what it would take, I think... the Buffy season 1 commentary reflects his education in operating on a limited budget. We may or may not have ended up with the same show in terms of the computer visuals, but I don't know one person who's said, "I don't care for the writing or the characters or the dialogue or the concepts, but damned if there aren't some impressive shots of a spaceship in that show. That's what keeps me coming back."
(And maybe... just maybe... if there wasn't a big network monster that was both demanding to be fed and particular about its food, some of the persistently troubling elements of the show might have been difference. Maybe. I like to think it's possible. I'm over the idea of Joss Whedon, FEMINIST MAN-GOD, but I don't think any one chicken or pig can be entirely blamed for the final flavor of a sausage link.)
It's a little late to be talking about Firefly like this. What I'm really talking about is future productions. So far web-based TV shows have mostly been small productions with concepts that can be played out around small budgets. I'm sure that if it ever occurs to a Joss Whedon or other much-lauded TV creator to consider doing a TV series through crowdfunding, they look at these shows and their overall production values/quality compared to what they're used to as a minus... but as with any form of crowdfunding, I imagine that someone of Whedon's profile would have an easier time raising funds and signing on established talent. I mean, he did something similar already with Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog.
Now, Firefly might not be the best example of a show for a crowdfunded project... everything in it had to be built or found. No one wore modern street clothes. None of the scenes could have been shot in a modern city or town. But think about Nathan Fillion's show that followed Firefly... no, not Castle. Tim Minear's blink-and-you'll-miss-it Drive. This was a cross-country race show that was very obviously filmed along the same empty stretches of road in California no matter where the action allegedly took place. A lot of the "action" was dialogue between different pairs of characters on the inside of a car.
The show used a special effects sequence to segue from one pair of drivers to another by zooming out in an aerial view, shifting over, and then zooming in. What did this add to the show? Nothing. What did this add to the budget? Who knows. Take it out and you've just got occasional gunplay and some limited stunt-driving to deal with... the fact that the premise involved a secret cross-country race to riddle-based checkpoints means that it didn't exactly have to be The Fast and the Furious.
Am I criticizing Tim Minear for not having thought, in 2007, to go to the internet and say, "Hi, I'm Tim Minear. You probably know my work on Angel, Firefly, Wonder Falls, and other shows that a lot of folks really loved but that the networks couldn't make a go of. I've got this great new concept for a show that I think I can pull off, but I don't trust Fox or the other networks not to screw it up and pull the plug before we have a chance to make it. But if you're willing to buy in... to help me finance it... then I think we can make it work."
No, I absolutely am not.
What I'm blaming him for is going to Fox and selling them the concept.
What did he expect to happen?
The thing about crowdfunding and microfinancing and other forms of audience patronage is that their time is coming not just because the technology is getting there but because the alternatives are becoming increasingly untenable. No, I'm not predicting the end of big networks and studios any more than I'm predicting the end of big publishing houses. They have business models that let them survive no matter how many "losers" they back and pull the plug on. They only need a small number of winners to pay for all.
But what if you're not a winner? It's not an appealing turn of events to consider, but it's the most likely one. In the current market, even people who are given a chance don't really get a chance. And generally speaking, once you've taken a chance with the big corporate route your options for doing more with it will be limited as you no longer own the rights to your work.
If you're doing something like a TV show or movie, you can't just put a PayPal button up on your blog... these aren't one-person operations and there are start up fees. But there's Kickstart. There are microloans. The internet has financed studio-quality albums and films before. We could handle a pilot for something we believe in.
That's not all that he's saying, though. He also says this:
If I got $300 million from the California Lottery, the first thing I would do is buy the rights to Firefly, make it on my own, and distribute it on the Internet.
That's clearly a pie-in-the-sky dream, hence the invocation of the lottery as a deus ex machina... but among the reasons it's a pie-in-the-sky dream are the facts that the rights are tied up among the biggest of the big and fans would have a hard time accepting a show that does with less of the (one presumes very expensive) exterior flight shots than we're used to after a feature-length film and a half-season of a fairly cinematic TV show.
But imagine if Firefly had never existed as more than a proof-of-concept pilot, and instead of going to Fox, Joss and company went to the mob for funding. No, not that mob. This one. Us. You and me. The internet. The crowd. The math is probably daunting but ultimately very simple: how much money to buy a sturdy, reusable spaceship set? To film in dusty, westerny-looking places? To pay actors who believe in the project for their initial cooperation? To hire some computer effects people... maybe a newbie company that's looking for a break?
Joss Whedon's worked in television long enough to have known what it would take, I think... the Buffy season 1 commentary reflects his education in operating on a limited budget. We may or may not have ended up with the same show in terms of the computer visuals, but I don't know one person who's said, "I don't care for the writing or the characters or the dialogue or the concepts, but damned if there aren't some impressive shots of a spaceship in that show. That's what keeps me coming back."
(And maybe... just maybe... if there wasn't a big network monster that was both demanding to be fed and particular about its food, some of the persistently troubling elements of the show might have been difference. Maybe. I like to think it's possible. I'm over the idea of Joss Whedon, FEMINIST MAN-GOD, but I don't think any one chicken or pig can be entirely blamed for the final flavor of a sausage link.)
It's a little late to be talking about Firefly like this. What I'm really talking about is future productions. So far web-based TV shows have mostly been small productions with concepts that can be played out around small budgets. I'm sure that if it ever occurs to a Joss Whedon or other much-lauded TV creator to consider doing a TV series through crowdfunding, they look at these shows and their overall production values/quality compared to what they're used to as a minus... but as with any form of crowdfunding, I imagine that someone of Whedon's profile would have an easier time raising funds and signing on established talent. I mean, he did something similar already with Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog.
Now, Firefly might not be the best example of a show for a crowdfunded project... everything in it had to be built or found. No one wore modern street clothes. None of the scenes could have been shot in a modern city or town. But think about Nathan Fillion's show that followed Firefly... no, not Castle. Tim Minear's blink-and-you'll-miss-it Drive. This was a cross-country race show that was very obviously filmed along the same empty stretches of road in California no matter where the action allegedly took place. A lot of the "action" was dialogue between different pairs of characters on the inside of a car.
The show used a special effects sequence to segue from one pair of drivers to another by zooming out in an aerial view, shifting over, and then zooming in. What did this add to the show? Nothing. What did this add to the budget? Who knows. Take it out and you've just got occasional gunplay and some limited stunt-driving to deal with... the fact that the premise involved a secret cross-country race to riddle-based checkpoints means that it didn't exactly have to be The Fast and the Furious.
Am I criticizing Tim Minear for not having thought, in 2007, to go to the internet and say, "Hi, I'm Tim Minear. You probably know my work on Angel, Firefly, Wonder Falls, and other shows that a lot of folks really loved but that the networks couldn't make a go of. I've got this great new concept for a show that I think I can pull off, but I don't trust Fox or the other networks not to screw it up and pull the plug before we have a chance to make it. But if you're willing to buy in... to help me finance it... then I think we can make it work."
No, I absolutely am not.
What I'm blaming him for is going to Fox and selling them the concept.
What did he expect to happen?
The thing about crowdfunding and microfinancing and other forms of audience patronage is that their time is coming not just because the technology is getting there but because the alternatives are becoming increasingly untenable. No, I'm not predicting the end of big networks and studios any more than I'm predicting the end of big publishing houses. They have business models that let them survive no matter how many "losers" they back and pull the plug on. They only need a small number of winners to pay for all.
But what if you're not a winner? It's not an appealing turn of events to consider, but it's the most likely one. In the current market, even people who are given a chance don't really get a chance. And generally speaking, once you've taken a chance with the big corporate route your options for doing more with it will be limited as you no longer own the rights to your work.
If you're doing something like a TV show or movie, you can't just put a PayPal button up on your blog... these aren't one-person operations and there are start up fees. But there's Kickstart. There are microloans. The internet has financed studio-quality albums and films before. We could handle a pilot for something we believe in.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
on 2011-02-18 04:46 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2011-02-18 05:22 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2011-02-19 05:43 am (UTC)no subject
on 2011-02-19 10:19 am (UTC)