> Their decision not to renew was a bad one IMO, but undoubtedly the high
> licensing fee on the show played a role.  It's relevant to note that the
show
> never dipped below 5 million viewers, whereas Firefly spent most of its
> (only part) season below that and dipped below 4 million before it got
> cancelled.  They're supposedly making a movie out of that, and it has far
> less potential than a DA movie would.


You're missing some of the key differences between a Firefly movie and a
Dark Angel movie, however. Firefly, in it's short run, managed to develop a
dedicated fanbase, and if anything has managed to become more popular since
it's cancellation. A movie would also be very cheap to make, since it
doesn't contain any big name stars, nor is it especially effects-intensive
for a sci-fi picture. Plus, the fact that it did relatively poorly in the
ratings would probably help a movie, since it would appear as totally new to
the casual movie-goer, rather than the "oh it's bases on that TV show I
never watched" effect. So no one at Fox thinks it'll be a 100 million dollar
box office smash, but it should be cheap enough and have enough interest to
turn a profit, and would make a good release for an off-peak movie month.

Dark Angel, OTOH, would require James Cameron (Who doesn't come cheap) and
Jessica Alba (Who's not huge, but would demand a higher salary than any of
the cast of Firefly). The DVDs didn't exactly break any records, which
serves as an indication that there isn't much continued interest among the
fanbase for the franchise. So a Dark Angel movie would have much less of a
chance of turning a profit.

It really has very little to do with the ratings of the shows, it's all
about profitability.

-- 
"I remember another gentle visitor from the heavens, he came in peace and
then died, only to come back to life, and his name was E.T., the extra
terestrial. I loved that little guy."
- Reverend Lovejoy, The Simpsons