I can't see much difference between iTunes and a store, or iTunes and a cinema. I know that's not the best analogy, because iTunes is a delivery mechanism as well as the retailer, but still. Maybe I don't see much difference between iTunes and a pay-per-view exclusive with Comcast, or summat.

---

but they will be rewarded in the greenlighting of future endeavors.

You are saying that the financial analysis leg of the studio process will observe the "alternative" sales. This is true, to the extent that money is returned from distributors to the studio. They (the studios) can say "A thing like Firefly does X dollars profit on iPod. We can support a budget for a thing like Firefly to that additional profit amount."

What "like Firefly" means should probably be left up to editorial acumen, or the buyer. The buyer will more likely be correct. The profit returned to the studio, who then steps on it and returns a portion to the creator's budget... if he/she still around ...

All those dilutions offend my sense of economy. The creator wants to make it. The audience wants to fund it. How are all these intermediaries helping?

---

All those dilutions offend my sense of economy. The creator wants to make it. The audience wants to fund it. How are all these intermediaries helping?

They're helping, because we can't all fit in Whedon's living room, and watch it on his VCR, and we don't all live in L.A., so we can't go down to the studio and see it performed live.

---

and we don't all live in L.A.

Dude! If we all lived in L.A. and Whedon relied on that, he would have to live in L.A. fulltime. t shudder

Maybe this discussion is too serious-like for buffistas.

---

The creator wants to make it. The audience wants to fund it. How are all these intermediaries helping?

Distribution by the creator would take time and resources away from creating.

---

The fanbase couldn't even guarantee a decent take at the box office for Serenity, I have strong doubts whether it could (partly) fund a TV show. And direct audience to creator funding leaves me cold. What if the fanbase wants one thing and the creator wants another? If the fans had funded Serenity, I think the movie would have been very different and not as good.

---

The buyer does decide what is "like Firefly". They vote with their wallets. If the studio's guess on what will be "like Firefly" is wrong and the wallets are not opening, they will go back to the drawing board and try to refine their assumptions.

Isn't this what network TV does every year? Not to make things "like Firefly", but to make shows similar to the last season's hit.

As Cindy states, efficient distribution systems create economies of scale which support the creation of expensive product. Without these middlemen diluting the the money stream, there would be no product and we would all be headed to our local playhouse to see a crappy local production with crappy local talent.

I understand what you are saying, Gus. Your analysis just seems too idealistic and you leave out necessary (yes necessary) components of the system. Efficient distribution is the reason NetFlix is a booming business, Amazon can sell you almost anything, and Wal-Mart is the leader of the free world.

It is simply a business model that works and until artists want to take all the risk and financial gamble upon themselves and beam content free out over the Internet hoping that viewers will send in money, it is simply the best system.

---

Distribution by the creator would take time and resources away from creating.

Strong point. However, I am sure Whedon spent more time with the purse-string people than he strictly wanted to, with any of his projects. My sense is that he kinda likes us buyers. If we were also festooned with green dollars, he might have found us downright pretty.

---

Dude! If we all lived in L.A. and Whedon relied on that, he would have to live in L.A. fulltime.

I very much like living in LA.

---

I also suspect that many creators wouldn't be very good at distribution and/or would hate every minute of it.

---