That's the one, thanks tiggy.

Also, Fillionhair: [link]

HEEE!

Is that James Gunn in the back?

there are pictures of James and Jenna here. (you might need a myspace account to see them.)

Didn't see Slither, but NF looks so adorably geeky in that picture that I just might have to. He really can change his look quite dramatically, can't he.

He doesn't have that hair in Slither, he's just goofing around.

Oh, well.

But the glasses? GUH.

I found some adorable LJ icons featuring graphics of various, and by various, I mean 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th Doctors and assorted companions together with quotes from Firefly and Serenity for captions. Oddly, they all seem to fit, and many of them are highly amusing. Here: [link]

x-posty to the Boxed Set thread.

More about Gus' pet peeve: It is not about distributors making a profit. It is about distributors getting a free ride on the creativity.

I think it is an important issue, so I'll try to make the case.

From the creator perspective, the studios (tv, movie, whatever) have the purse strings. They have the purse strings because they have money to disburse. They have gathered those bux via methods developed over time to predict a revenue stream engendered by the created element.

Part of those methods is editorial acumen, the ability to recognize "good" in a piece, sometimes even when it is not there, yet. Another part is analysis of actual financial performance of similar things. Both arenas are mired in murk.

Editorial acumen is highly subjective. It waxes and wanes within an individual, and if you turn it over to a committee, it disappears altogether into mediocrity.

Financial performance seems to be a hard fact, at first blush, but the causes are just as murky. On the down side ... was the failure in the material (in the editorial acumen, that is), or in the marketing, or in the distribution, or was the audience just being elsewhere for other reasons?

How do we hook the hard fact of "makes money" more directly to the creative process? Giving money to a distributor is many dilutions away from giving it to the creator.

Paying for editorial acumen has value, but only to the extent that the editorial acumen is in alignment with that of the payer.

There, then, is my main point. In Firefly terms, the fanbase could support more creation of Firefly, what with their (our!) editorial acumen being aligned in that fashion. Giving money to a Firefly distributor does nothing now to advance that cause, due to the dilution.

What is needed is audience-to-creator funding. There have been some sketchy attempts to do this, even around Firefly. The right model has not arrived. Pumping more money into the existing model will not cure this.

And that is what I have to say about that. Sorry to be Johnny One Note.

There, then, is my main point. In Firefly terms, the fanbase could support more creation of Firefly, what with their (our!) editorial acumen being aligned in that fashion. Giving money to a Firefly distributor does nothing now to advance that cause, due to the dilution.

This is where you are mistaken.

Proving that there is a revenue stream and additional revenue streams associated with something like Firely through alternative distribution methods lets the studio revise estimates on future products.

These revenue stream revisions due to the new distribution methods makes greenlighting similar products more likely.

In this way alternative distributors like iTunes increases the likelihood of Firefly or genre like Firefly being produced in the future.

They totally help creators of quality product and in no way do they hurt them. They may not be paid directly for past creations, but they will be rewarded in the greenlighting of future endeavors.