It's been three months since Joss Whedon's The Avengers hit theaters and became one of the biggest movies ever, and ever since we saw it we've been wondering if Whedon would come back to bring his particular brand of awesome to a sequel. Well, now it's official—but apparently Avengers 2 isn't the only thing we can expect from Earth's Mightiest Director.

The news came courtesy of Marvel's owner, Disney, when Walt Disney Company CEO Robert Iger announced Whedon's return during a call discussing the company's latest earnings reports on Tuesday. But Iger made it clear this is about more than just a movie. He wants to "leverage the power of the Avengers" as much as possible, and in that spirit Whedon will also be moving to the small screen to develop a TV series for Marvel.

That's right. Joss Whedon's returning to TV in the Marvel Universe.

We don't know yet what exactly this TV project will focus on, or when we'll see it, but this definitely confirms the Marvel collaboration with ABC we heard about last week. And with Guillermo del Toro still working on his own Hulk TV show, we could be set up for a very big TV push for Marvel in the coming years.

Of course, we knew already that Avengers 2 would be headed our way (with more than $1 billion at the box office for the first one, how could it not be?), but the official addition of Whedon to the second flick definitely adds a thick new layer of interest, not to mention a strong built-in audience. And after all the epic badassery Whedon brought to the first film, we can only imagine what he'll do with the second, especially with that awesome mid-credits villain setup.

Kanluwen wrote:Big news today out of the Marvel sector...

It's been three months since Joss Whedon's The Avengers hit theaters and became one of the biggest movies ever, and ever since we saw it we've been wondering if Whedon would come back to bring his particular brand of awesome to a sequel. Well, now it's official—but apparently Avengers 2 isn't the only thing we can expect from Earth's Mightiest Director.

The news came courtesy of Marvel's owner, Disney, when Walt Disney Company CEO Robert Iger announced Whedon's return during a call discussing the company's latest earnings reports on Tuesday. But Iger made it clear this is about more than just a movie. He wants to "leverage the power of the Avengers" as much as possible, and in that spirit Whedon will also be moving to the small screen to develop a TV series for Marvel.

That's right. Joss Whedon's returning to TV in the Marvel Universe.

We don't know yet what exactly this TV project will focus on, or when we'll see it, but this definitely confirms the Marvel collaboration with ABC we heard about last week. And with Guillermo del Toro still working on his own Hulk TV show, we could be set up for a very big TV push for Marvel in the coming years.

Of course, we knew already that Avengers 2 would be headed our way (with more than $1 billion at the box office for the first one, how could it not be?), but the official addition of Whedon to the second flick definitely adds a thick new layer of interest, not to mention a strong built-in audience. And after all the epic badassery Whedon brought to the first film, we can only imagine what he'll do with the second, especially with that awesome mid-credits villain setup.

Source

How do you feel about cancelling Firefly now, Fox?

Necroshea wrote:Could you inform the ignorant, such as myself, what this has to do with fox network. Firefly was cancelled over a year ago.

Kanluwen wrote:

Necroshea wrote:Could you inform the ignorant, such as myself, what this has to do with fox network. Firefly was cancelled over a year ago.

Pretty simple really.

Firefly was cancelled because it was a "prime time" science fiction show, from a writer/director who had proven his chops on a rival network(The WB/CW) after Fox had futzed around with the schedule nonstop.

Upon Fox and Whedon working together for a second show(Dollhouse--which to be fair, Fox did keep for a whole season when it was underperforming) and they futzed with the scheduling/air dates and eventually cancelling the show...Whedon made it very clear he would not be coming back to television unless it was for a network like ABC with the umbrella of a major corporation to ensure that the show was not constantly moved to weird time slots where it would underperform and then be cancelled.

Kanluwen wrote:Whedon made it very clear he would not be coming back to television unless it was for a network like ABC with the umbrella of a major corporation to ensure that the show was not constantly moved to weird time slots where it would underperform and then be cancelled.

Glorioski wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Whedon made it very clear he would not be coming back to television unless it was for a network like ABC with the umbrella of a major corporation to ensure that the show was not constantly moved to weird time slots where it would underperform and then be cancelled.

Funny that. A lot of people blamed Flashforwards poor ratings on the way ABC kept putting it in weird time slots. The fact was it just sucked.

Kanluwen wrote:

Glorioski wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Whedon made it very clear he would not be coming back to television unless it was for a network like ABC with the umbrella of a major corporation to ensure that the show was not constantly moved to weird time slots where it would underperform and then be cancelled.

Funny that. A lot of people blamed Flashforwards poor ratings on the way ABC kept putting it in weird time slots. The fact was it just sucked.

Flash Forward did, indeed, suck quite a bit.

I don't really remember them changing its time around--but I do know they had a very long hiatus(which is never a good thing for a new show) and at the same time, a large amount of Big Name Actors (which can be a Good or Bad thing depending on the actors).

EW: So… FlashForward isn’t coming back until March Why?

The answer is simple. We originally planned to come back in January, but about three weeks ago we sat down with ABC scheduling and looked at what our programming schedule would be like. And I think on serialized show like 24, Lost, and Prison Break the most important thing is to air consecutive episodes without repeats or preemptions. To be brutally honest, our programming schedule in January was going to be awful. We were going to be off for four or five weeks [through December and into January], then back on for two weeks, then off for two weeks because of the Olympics, then back on four weeks, off for two weeks again, back on three, off for two again… Our first 10 episodes had one preemption; our last 13-episode arc was going to have four. I just think when we saw that, the studio and the network and all the producers looked at each other and said, “This is crazy.” We’d rather bite the bullet, come back in March, and air all 13 episodes consecutively without preemptions.

Glorioski wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Glorioski wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Whedon made it very clear he would not be coming back to television unless it was for a network like ABC with the umbrella of a major corporation to ensure that the show was not constantly moved to weird time slots where it would underperform and then be cancelled.

Funny that. A lot of people blamed Flashforwards poor ratings on the way ABC kept putting it in weird time slots. The fact was it just sucked.

Flash Forward did, indeed, suck quite a bit.

I don't really remember them changing its time around--but I do know they had a very long hiatus(which is never a good thing for a new show) and at the same time, a large amount of Big Name Actors (which can be a Good or Bad thing depending on the actors).

It did get screwed around so Joss Whedons idea ABC would be any better than Fox is based on what?

Reported at the time...
http://insidetv.ew.com/2009/12/04/flashforward-david-goyer-hiatus/

EW: So… FlashForward isn’t coming back until March Why?

The answer is simple. We originally planned to come back in January, but about three weeks ago we sat down with ABC scheduling and looked at what our programming schedule would be like. And I think on serialized show like 24, Lost, and Prison Break the most important thing is to air consecutive episodes without repeats or preemptions. To be brutally honest, our programming schedule in January was going to be awful. We were going to be off for four or five weeks [through December and into January], then back on for two weeks, then off for two weeks because of the Olympics, then back on four weeks, off for two weeks again, back on three, off for two again… Our first 10 episodes had one preemption; our last 13-episode arc was going to have four. I just think when we saw that, the studio and the network and all the producers looked at each other and said, “This is crazy.” We’d rather bite the bullet, come back in March, and air all 13 episodes consecutively without preemptions.

To be honest there wont be any problem with a huge IP like Marvel because any network would make time for it. But one of Whedon's offbeat creations would suffer the same problem on any network.

Kanluwen wrote:

Necroshea wrote:Could you inform the ignorant, such as myself, what this has to do with fox network. Firefly was cancelled over a year ago.

Pretty simple really.

Firefly was cancelled because it was a "prime time" science fiction show, from a writer/director who had proven his chops on a rival network(The WB/CW) after Fox had futzed around with the schedule nonstop.

Upon Fox and Whedon working together for a second show(Dollhouse--which to be fair, Fox did keep for a whole season when it was underperforming) and they futzed with the scheduling/air dates and eventually cancelling the show...Whedon made it very clear he would not be coming back to television unless it was for a network like ABC with the umbrella of a major corporation to ensure that the show was not constantly moved to weird time slots where it would underperform and then be cancelled.

Glorioski wrote:I think Firefly was a show which gained a loyal fanbase and a cult following after it's cancellation but it was never big enough to justify itself. Serenity's poor performance kind of proved that. The show was just a victim of not being mainstream enough. It was clever sci-fi which is effectively a niche within a niche. Nobody's fault really.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Glorioski wrote:I think Firefly was a show which gained a loyal fanbase and a cult following after it's cancellation but it was never big enough to justify itself. Serenity's poor performance kind of proved that. The show was just a victim of not being mainstream enough. It was clever sci-fi which is effectively a niche within a niche. Nobody's fault really.

While it was a good show, it did have it's share of flaws. People tend to put it on a pedestal and act like it was too "daring" or "Adventurous", but it wasn't a masterpiece and fox primetime isn't an easy place to sell what whedon was trying to sell.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Necroshea wrote:Could you inform the ignorant, such as myself, what this has to do with fox network. Firefly was cancelled over a year ago.

Pretty simple really.

Firefly was cancelled because it was a "prime time" science fiction show, from a writer/director who had proven his chops on a rival network(The WB/CW) after Fox had futzed around with the schedule nonstop.

Upon Fox and Whedon working together for a second show(Dollhouse--which to be fair, Fox did keep for a whole season when it was underperforming) and they futzed with the scheduling/air dates and eventually cancelling the show...Whedon made it very clear he would not be coming back to television unless it was for a network like ABC with the umbrella of a major corporation to ensure that the show was not constantly moved to weird time slots where it would underperform and then be cancelled.

Firefly was cancelled because no one was watching it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Glorioski wrote:I think Firefly was a show which gained a loyal fanbase and a cult following after it's cancellation but it was never big enough to justify itself. Serenity's poor performance kind of proved that. The show was just a victim of not being mainstream enough. It was clever sci-fi which is effectively a niche within a niche. Nobody's fault really.

While it was a good show, it did have it's share of flaws. People tend to put it on a pedestal and act like it was too "daring" or "Adventurous", but it wasn't a masterpiece and fox primetime isn't an easy place to sell what whedon was trying to sell. He should have taken it to a different network.

xole wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Necroshea wrote:Could you inform the ignorant, such as myself, what this has to do with fox network. Firefly was cancelled over a year ago.

Pretty simple really.

Firefly was cancelled because it was a "prime time" science fiction show, from a writer/director who had proven his chops on a rival network(The WB/CW) after Fox had futzed around with the schedule nonstop.

Upon Fox and Whedon working together for a second show(Dollhouse--which to be fair, Fox did keep for a whole season when it was underperforming) and they futzed with the scheduling/air dates and eventually cancelling the show...Whedon made it very clear he would not be coming back to television unless it was for a network like ABC with the umbrella of a major corporation to ensure that the show was not constantly moved to weird time slots where it would underperform and then be cancelled.

Firefly was cancelled because no one was watching it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Glorioski wrote:I think Firefly was a show which gained a loyal fanbase and a cult following after it's cancellation but it was never big enough to justify itself. Serenity's poor performance kind of proved that. The show was just a victim of not being mainstream enough. It was clever sci-fi which is effectively a niche within a niche. Nobody's fault really.

While it was a good show, it did have it's share of flaws. People tend to put it on a pedestal and act like it was too "daring" or "Adventurous", but it wasn't a masterpiece and fox primetime isn't an easy place to sell what whedon was trying to sell. He should have taken it to a different network.

Them's fighting words

ShumaGorath wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Necroshea wrote:Could you inform the ignorant, such as myself, what this has to do with fox network. Firefly was cancelled over a year ago.

Pretty simple really.

Firefly was cancelled because it was a "prime time" science fiction show, from a writer/director who had proven his chops on a rival network(The WB/CW) after Fox had futzed around with the schedule nonstop.

Upon Fox and Whedon working together for a second show(Dollhouse--which to be fair, Fox did keep for a whole season when it was underperforming) and they futzed with the scheduling/air dates and eventually cancelling the show...Whedon made it very clear he would not be coming back to television unless it was for a network like ABC with the umbrella of a major corporation to ensure that the show was not constantly moved to weird time slots where it would underperform and then be cancelled.

Firefly was cancelled because no one was watching it.

Slarg232 wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Necroshea wrote:Could you inform the ignorant, such as myself, what this has to do with fox network. Firefly was cancelled over a year ago.

Pretty simple really.

Firefly was cancelled because it was a "prime time" science fiction show, from a writer/director who had proven his chops on a rival network(The WB/CW) after Fox had futzed around with the schedule nonstop.

Upon Fox and Whedon working together for a second show(Dollhouse--which to be fair, Fox did keep for a whole season when it was underperforming) and they futzed with the scheduling/air dates and eventually cancelling the show...Whedon made it very clear he would not be coming back to television unless it was for a network like ABC with the umbrella of a major corporation to ensure that the show was not constantly moved to weird time slots where it would underperform and then be cancelled.

Firefly was cancelled because no one was watching it.

No one was watching it because Fox dun fethed it up.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Necroshea wrote:Could you inform the ignorant, such as myself, what this has to do with fox network. Firefly was cancelled over a year ago.

Pretty simple really.

Firefly was cancelled because it was a "prime time" science fiction show, from a writer/director who had proven his chops on a rival network(The WB/CW) after Fox had futzed around with the schedule nonstop.

Upon Fox and Whedon working together for a second show(Dollhouse--which to be fair, Fox did keep for a whole season when it was underperforming) and they futzed with the scheduling/air dates and eventually cancelling the show...Whedon made it very clear he would not be coming back to television unless it was for a network like ABC with the umbrella of a major corporation to ensure that the show was not constantly moved to weird time slots where it would underperform and then be cancelled.

Firefly was cancelled because no one was watching it.

No one was watching it because Fox dun fethed it up.

No, thats just what fans reeaaaallly want to believe. It didn't debut with or maintain sock rocking viewership and it bottomed out quickly when its slot changed. It was never going to make it.

Kanluwen wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Necroshea wrote:Could you inform the ignorant, such as myself, what this has to do with fox network. Firefly was cancelled over a year ago.

Pretty simple really.

Firefly was cancelled because it was a "prime time" science fiction show, from a writer/director who had proven his chops on a rival network(The WB/CW) after Fox had futzed around with the schedule nonstop.

Upon Fox and Whedon working together for a second show(Dollhouse--which to be fair, Fox did keep for a whole season when it was underperforming) and they futzed with the scheduling/air dates and eventually cancelling the show...Whedon made it very clear he would not be coming back to television unless it was for a network like ABC with the umbrella of a major corporation to ensure that the show was not constantly moved to weird time slots where it would underperform and then be cancelled.

Firefly was cancelled because no one was watching it.

No one was watching it because Fox dun fethed it up.

No, thats just what fans reeaaaallly want to believe. It didn't debut with or maintain sock rocking viewership and it bottomed out quickly when its slot changed. It was never going to make it.

Which actually goes back to "Fox dun fethed it up" in part.

It was never really advertised in a manner which would have caught the attention of the demographic they were aiming for, they aired it in a time slot competing with an established show with an established fanbase, and they continually "tweaked" the timeframe that it aired in, the air order, etc.

Necroshea wrote:Could you inform the ignorant, such as myself, what this has to do with fox network. Firefly was cancelled over a decade ago.

Blacksails wrote:I have mixed feelings.

On the one hand, I appear to be in the tiniest fraction of people who either don't care or actively dislike this craze about superhero movies and their numerous (and often unnecessary sequels and remakes and remakes of sequels), so in that respect this news means nothing to me.

On the other hand, I'd have Joss Whedon's children for all his other work.

So I guess I'll just say, "Cool".

ShumaGorath wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Necroshea wrote:Could you inform the ignorant, such as myself, what this has to do with fox network. Firefly was cancelled over a year ago.

Pretty simple really.

Firefly was cancelled because it was a "prime time" science fiction show, from a writer/director who had proven his chops on a rival network(The WB/CW) after Fox had futzed around with the schedule nonstop.

Upon Fox and Whedon working together for a second show(Dollhouse--which to be fair, Fox did keep for a whole season when it was underperforming) and they futzed with the scheduling/air dates and eventually cancelling the show...Whedon made it very clear he would not be coming back to television unless it was for a network like ABC with the umbrella of a major corporation to ensure that the show was not constantly moved to weird time slots where it would underperform and then be cancelled.

Firefly was cancelled because no one was watching it.

No one was watching it because Fox dun fethed it up.

No, thats just what fans reeaaaallly want to believe. It didn't debut with or maintain sock rocking viewership and it bottomed out quickly when its slot changed. It was never going to make it.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Necroshea wrote:Could you inform the ignorant, such as myself, what this has to do with fox network. Firefly was cancelled over a year ago.

Pretty simple really.

Firefly was cancelled because it was a "prime time" science fiction show, from a writer/director who had proven his chops on a rival network(The WB/CW) after Fox had futzed around with the schedule nonstop.

Upon Fox and Whedon working together for a second show(Dollhouse--which to be fair, Fox did keep for a whole season when it was underperforming) and they futzed with the scheduling/air dates and eventually cancelling the show...Whedon made it very clear he would not be coming back to television unless it was for a network like ABC with the umbrella of a major corporation to ensure that the show was not constantly moved to weird time slots where it would underperform and then be cancelled.

Firefly was cancelled because no one was watching it.

No one was watching it because Fox dun fethed it up.

No, thats just what fans reeaaaallly want to believe. It didn't debut with or maintain sock rocking viewership and it bottomed out quickly when its slot changed. It was never going to make it.

Which actually goes back to "Fox dun fethed it up" in part.

It was never really advertised in a manner which would have caught the attention of the demographic they were aiming for, they aired it in a time slot competing with an established show with an established fanbase, and they continually "tweaked" the timeframe that it aired in, the air order, etc.

The answer to everything could be "If only they did better and spent more money". I think the real call should be "If only they established a backstory and plot arc rather than pulling a season long seven samurai first act".

timetowaste85 wrote:I didn't watch Firefly on TV because:
a. I didn't have cable when it aired
b. I didn't know about it because I didn't have cable
c. as soon as my friend introduced me to Serenity, I immediately went out and bought Firefly and watched through it multiple times.

It's an awesome show. It's not brilliant in the form of weaponry, but the characters are great. I agree-not liking those shows is fightin words. And Fraz, every time I grow to respect you man...you say something like this: "Further, I wasn't impressed with Avengers." Well, I guess the world does need its 1% filling of nutcases. Please don't tell me you thought Batman: TDKR was better than Avengers-I'll cringe. Batman was good...Avengers was better. A lot better.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Necroshea wrote:Could you inform the ignorant, such as myself, what this has to do with fox network. Firefly was cancelled over a year ago.

Pretty simple really.

Firefly was cancelled because it was a "prime time" science fiction show, from a writer/director who had proven his chops on a rival network(The WB/CW) after Fox had futzed around with the schedule nonstop.

Upon Fox and Whedon working together for a second show(Dollhouse--which to be fair, Fox did keep for a whole season when it was underperforming) and they futzed with the scheduling/air dates and eventually cancelling the show...Whedon made it very clear he would not be coming back to television unless it was for a network like ABC with the umbrella of a major corporation to ensure that the show was not constantly moved to weird time slots where it would underperform and then be cancelled.

Firefly was cancelled because no one was watching it.

No one was watching it because Fox dun fethed it up.

No, thats just what fans reeaaaallly want to believe. It didn't debut with or maintain sock rocking viewership and it bottomed out quickly when its slot changed. It was never going to make it.

Which actually goes back to "Fox dun fethed it up" in part.

It was never really advertised in a manner which would have caught the attention of the demographic they were aiming for, they aired it in a time slot competing with an established show with an established fanbase, and they continually "tweaked" the timeframe that it aired in, the air order, etc.

The answer to everything could be "If only they did better and spent more money". I think the real call should be "If only they established a backstory and plot arc rather than pulling a season long seven samurai first act".

See, your problem here is, no one is asking them to have spent more money on it. We, the fans of it, love and/or look past those laser ballistic weapons. The show didn't need to be better, it was cowboys in space, based upon a book about a confederate soldier who didn't like the union even after they lost.

But I can gauran-god-damn-tee you, that if Lucas had aired Episode 5 first, then 4, then 6, and had released them on the air at different times with NO ONE knowing about Star wars previously, they wouldn't have been as well received.

ShumaGorath wrote:

See, your problem here is, no one is asking them to have spent more money on it. We, the fans of it, love and/or look past those laser ballistic weapons. The show didn't need to be better, it was cowboys in space, based upon a book about a confederate soldier who didn't like the union even after they lost.

But I can gauran-god-damn-tee you, that if Lucas had aired Episode 5 first, then 4, then 6, and had released them on the air at different times with NO ONE knowing about Star wars previously, they wouldn't have been as well received.

By wanting more seasons you are invariably asking for more money by default.

Slarg232 wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

See, your problem here is, no one is asking them to have spent more money on it. We, the fans of it, love and/or look past those laser ballistic weapons. The show didn't need to be better, it was cowboys in space, based upon a book about a confederate soldier who didn't like the union even after they lost.

But I can gauran-god-damn-tee you, that if Lucas had aired Episode 5 first, then 4, then 6, and had released them on the air at different times with NO ONE knowing about Star wars previously, they wouldn't have been as well received.

By wanting more seasons you are invariably asking for more money by default.

But that also means they have more of a reason to Merchandise it.

And as everyone knows, all the money comes from da MERCHANDISING!

ShumaGorath wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

See, your problem here is, no one is asking them to have spent more money on it. We, the fans of it, love and/or look past those laser ballistic weapons. The show didn't need to be better, it was cowboys in space, based upon a book about a confederate soldier who didn't like the union even after they lost.

But I can gauran-god-damn-tee you, that if Lucas had aired Episode 5 first, then 4, then 6, and had released them on the air at different times with NO ONE knowing about Star wars previously, they wouldn't have been as well received.

By wanting more seasons you are invariably asking for more money by default.

But that also means they have more of a reason to Merchandise it.

And as everyone knows, all the money comes from da MERCHANDISING!

They could totally merch toys based off of a cargo ship and the guns from counterstrike.