Why it didn't catch on.

[Edmund Blackadder]

Well we all have our opinions.

I think Joan is right though. Not necessarily that you had to be intelligent to understand it but just that you needed an understanding that it was a little deeper than the average show.

Still, i dont that was the number one problem, just a factor. It was the kind of show that needed a chance to get on its feet, to 'develop' a fanbase and hold them. Again, ill point out that plenty of other shows manage this but they need full support from the network... something your just not gonna get with FOX. At fox its a throw it out there and see if we get any bites kind of attitude. This is why they go through a lot of new shows each season. Short-sighted versus Long-sighted network decisions.

With the backing of a network intelligent shows make it.
I don't think with everything else against this show that people needing to 'understand it' was an issue at all.

We'll take Lost as an example.

Not only is it an intelligent show, its so arc heavy that within the first 4 episodes, if you miss one you're completely out of the loop.

People became invested into that straight away.
Granted the network was behind it 100% BUT I don't think that Firefly was any more intelligent.
Same with season 1 Heroes.

If the show is good enough, people will be invested BUT you need to get them to actually watch it.

 

[Revolver]

People failing to understand it was an issue, but not because the show was too intelligent to find an audience. FOX was dumb enough to air it out of order. Yes, LOST is a good example of an intelligent show that found an audience but I doubt it would have if ABC had decided to start by airing, say, the fourth episode and airing the pilot episode last.

 

[Uncle Rory]

We'll take Lost as an example.

Or let's not. No offense but I truly believe that the LOST type viewer is exactly the kind of NOT-SO-INTELLIGENT viewing audience that didn't get FIREFLY. (a massive and not meant to be offensive generalization on my part - keep reading before blowing a gasket please)

First off, I've seen every episode of LOST that has been available here in Mexico and have loved it. It is SUPER entertaining. I think it to be creative but I'm not convinced that it is intelligent. Funky science. Moving Islands. Tropical Polar bears. etc. etc. The majority of the questions that have been raised, issues and phenomenon created by the writers will never, ever be addressed by the end of the show. They are counting on us forgetting the majority of the details. No problem, I'll go along for the ride cause it's an entertaining ride. And in the end I'm more in it to see what happens to the characters than for the viability of the premise and all it's details. I expect that there will be tons of loose ends that will never be explained. (except by extreme LOST geeks on some LOST forum deep in cyber-space somewhere)

Both Buffy and Angel were similar to LOST in that respect - Character driven gothic soap operas. (but much more loyal to their own mythology) If we were to create statistics on this site to correlate the topics of the threads would we get more people interested in the Horror genre, literary style and plot devises used in Buffy and Angel or would there be more threads about Spuffy and Cangel and fashion? etc. etc. (I think we all know the answer to that question) Honestly, if you are into Horror you read Frankenstein, Dracula, a little Stephen King, Ann Rice, Clive Barker, Edgar Allen Poe, maybe watch some Twilight Zone, Alfred Hitchcock and some modern stuff too. Buffy and Angel? Good stuff too if you like a little soap opera included in your Horror. Which would tend to also attract some folk who like a little horror added to their soap opera. Different strokes for different folks.

To wrap it up, Firefly was a little more ambitious. But I do admit it is a hell of a lot easier to see it in a positive light since there are only the 14 episodes plus the movie. I for one thought that they introduced and wrapped up some important details within the 14 episodes and were 100% true to their creation and mythology. If it had continued would it have been great. Who knows?

Uncle Rory

 

[Joan the Vampire Slayer]

What utter piffle.

There are plenty of good shows out there that are intelligent that succeed.

Talk about coming across as pretentious (I hope and doubt that wasn't your intent) but this entire comment smacks of 'well everyone who isn't me is stupid because they didn't understand the show'.

I am far from unintelligent and I just plain disliked the show.

I totally didn't mean to sound pretentious at all. I totally worded it wrong. It was late, I was tired, I'm a moron.

All I'm pointing out is that the general television populous nowadays is interested in no-brainer reality TV or completely banal shows like Smallville. The ratings show that these shows seem to attract a large amount of viewers. For example, "The Hills" is extremely popular, and Smallville is in it's 9th season for christs sake.

I like to think us Whedonites are smart. We enjoy intelligent televison that makes us think, right? I'm not saying you're dumb for not liking the show - I'm saying that in my opinion Firefly (as Joss's other shows are) is of a higher quality then some other shows on TV right now.

Ugh. I am so sleep deprived. All I meant was that Firefly is a show that just requires a but more thought than some other shows and maybe that's not what audiences were looking for or expecting from it at the time, and maybe that's why it was cancelled (sans the whole airing out of order thing).