Serenity

[Archangel]

Originally Posted by julix

a browncoat is a firefly fan............I think it also has to do with the war, and the side Mal and Zoey were on

Absolutely correct.

[Sept17th]

I predict it will be huge and over time bigger than Sith. The elites and critics will be right for a change.

[peter noble]

You can watch a couple of exclusive clips here:

http://movies.aol.com/movie_exclusive_serenity_clip

[spiderr987]

I have nothing against the show, but I tried to watch FIREFLY, when it first aired on a major network, and I just couldn't get into it. It seemed kinda cheesy. ...reminded me too much of that WB-type, Dawson's Creek show. ...then I found out that Josh Wheldon directed it, etc, which makes sense, b/c I never like Buffy, Angel and hated the movie, ALIEN: RESURRECTION. I know that Wheldon has a legion of fans, so I'm probably in the minority here. I just don't get all the hoopla. I am totally alone on this? Again, I have nothing against the show or Wheldon, and I wish all the best to the success of the series and the movie, Serenity.

p.s. Maybe the movie is better than the tv show? I'm willing to give it another chance.

[Darrell Lawrence]

I am totally alone on this?

You are alone... so very very alone... You shall always be alone...

Seriously though- From what I've read and heard, the biggest problem for Firefly when it was on FOX in its original run was the fact the eps were aired out of order, thus causing confusion.

I've been watching them in order on the skiffy channel, and have found them very entertaining. Whedon has nothing to do with it as far as being a fan of his. I'm not a Buffy or Angel watcher either.

[spiderr987]

Wow! They showed them outta order? What an idiotic thing to do! No wonder!

[jewels]

Fox made Joss redo his 2 hour pilot after it was shot in favor of a more action oriented 1-hr. They ended up airing it as the finale. With brilliance like that it's no wonder the networks are in the pickle they are in.

[captmiloman]

I saw the movie last night. Great sendoff to Firefly and at the same time great launch of another possible movie franchise. Maybe if there's enough support for Serenity, Universal will give Larson the greenlight for a BSG feature film. Both shows had a lot of potential, but left us too soon thanks to ABC & FOX's nonsense.

[martok2112]

I don't know. I just wasn't blown away like I'd hoped. I was really stoked for this movie, and I feel let down.

My best review for the movie: "A good episode."

The acting was great and true to form. The story was pretty tight. But I just cannot bring myself to go gaga over what should have been a truly great film IMHO.

Respectfully,
Martok2112

[CommanderTaggart]

Okay, I've seen the Big Damn Movie.

This movie rocked. I don't know what more to say. I had wondered how Joss was going to make the movie appeal to fans as well as the uninitiated, and after having seen it, fans will definitely get more out of it than the uninitiated... but the uninitiated will have a fine time, too.

I saw the movie twice in one day. First time since I was a teenager to pay to see a movie twice in the same day.

It's that good.

Tthere are some tonal differences that I think were to be expected in the transfer to the big screen (I felt myself tearing up a couple of times... both showings). And at the nearly-sold-out evening performance, the audience burst into applause when the final credits started rolling. First time I've seen that at the movies in quite a while.

I also literally felt myself sitting forward in my seat several times... particularly during the first showing... which is the first time in a great while that's happened to me.

I literally feel I have seen the future of Hollywood (which previously didn't have much of one IMHO), and his name is Joss Whedon.

I thank him for a wild 2 hour ride, and I can't wait to own this puppy on DVD.

Awesome.

[martok2112]

Originally Posted by jewels

Fox made Joss redo his 2 hour pilot after it was shot in favor of a more action oriented 1-hr. They ended up airing it as the finale. With brilliance like that it's no wonder the networks are in the pickle they are in.

It was a retread of the situation with for Star Trek back in 1966. Gene Roddenberry wrote "The Cage" as the show's original pilot...and the suits balked at it for several reasons.

1. Too cerebral, and not enough action.
2. The population of the time was not ready to accept a female as second in command.
3. Spock looked too satanic with the eyebrows and ears.

Sounds like Firefly and Star Trek have at least reason number one in common..thus proving that execs have been blessed with considerable stupidity since the golden age.

Martok2112

[martok2112]

In Joss Whedon's defense....he writes great stories. It's when the execs get a hold of the stories and radically change them up to suit their ideas of "what will sell" that really frack up his tales.


I believe that was the case for both Buffy The Vampire (theatrical release) and ALIEN: RESSURECTION.

At least Serenity seemed to be left intact as far as how he envisioned it. No one seemed to monkey with his story. And it was a great story. There is no arguing that.

Martok2112

[julix]

Serenity needs our help...................it isn't doing as wel as expected so we need to go out and support Sci-fi. It was a good movie and we need to get out there and see it again or at all if you haven't seen it.................

[Fragmentary]

After two weeks it's made about 15 million. Considering it's reported budget of 50 million, even with international returns factored in, this movie isn't going to make back its budget.

Maybe a theatrical release wasn't the way to go. MOWs for sci-fi may have worked better.

[Breea]

I have lost my ever loving mind...to make a long story short...My friends baby came early..they promised to take son and friends to see movie for birthay on Saturday..being good..EX-friend..said I'd be glad to...

found out " few friends " is really her scout troup....15 boys all under the age of 15....heaven help me...what have I done....

[Dawg]

Get help.

Lots of help.



I am
Dawg

[skippercollecto]

I saw Serenity today, and I loved it. I got totally caught up in the story, and even though its ending is somewhat sad, I came out of the theater smiling. I hadn't felt that way in a movie in a long time.
I watched most of Firefly when it originally aired, although I never saw all the episodes and didn't get emotionally attached to it. But when it was cancelled, I missed it, because there wasn't anything else on at that same time slot for a while, and my routine was messed up.
This is what impressed me about the movie:
1. I am glad that a certain couple got together (won't say who if you haven't seen it), although I was shocked that two other characters got killed off.
2. I thought the film was very stylishly done.
3. I am SOOOOO glad that part of the movie was made outdoors, in natural light, in the sun, without filters! I am SOOOO sick of science fiction shows that either have am outdoor background that's completely fake, or seem to take place on planets that have a gray sun! (I am tired of looking at outdoor scenes where everything is green and gray, with no reds, pinks, yellows or light blues.) It really offset the darkness of the ships and the underground rooms.
4. I really liked the dialect of the movie. No technobabble and rapid politician-style conversation. I don't remember the dialect being that prominent in the series, but it was quite evident in the film. A previous post compared it to the Old West, but I actually thought it was more Appalachian-Elizabethan style (what it reminded me of were the book and series Christy).
5. I liked the brief, and positive, references to religion. I wonder who fought to keep those in the film? I am sure there were some who wanted to remove them!

Mary

[jewels]

Mary, Joss kept the religious references pretty even-handed throughout the series, too. I'd guess we'd have him to thank for that. Mal had lost his faith at the battle of Serenity Valley and River tried to "fix" Book's Bible one day (with a scissors no less!) but religion & faith were still treated respectfully.

That gray sun look may come from things shot in the rainforest land of BC....Serenity was shot in California.

I thought the dialect was consistent....if anything they dropped some of the Chinese that spattered it's way through the series. It's cool you noticed Elizabethan style, that is something Joss (according to a recent interview) intentionally blended into the "western movie speak" (my name for it).

I'm so glad you got to see it and enjoyed it.

Jewels

[julix]

Me too Mary............it is up to 30.5 million world-wide.

[skippercollecto]

Jewels, thank you for explaining about the "gray sun." It never occurred to me that that was because of where it was filmed.
As I was watching Serenity, I immediately recognized the back lot of Universal Studios. It was pretty obvious.
Over the years, most of the sci fi shows I've watched since I was a little girl had been filmed in California and even Florida, and were very brightly colored. Yet the series that have been made in British Columbia in the past decade (the original Firefly, X-Files, a certain current series that shall remain nameless, and was Enterprise filmed there?), never caught my attention. I am wondering now if it was partly because of where they were filmed. Between my poor night vision and my seasonal affective disorder, I don't like to watch programs that are always poorly lit, even if it's supposed to be daytime. I simply cannot see a lot of the details! And, yes, there were parts of Serenity on the spaceships that were hard for me to see. I could never live in a world where everything was gray and dark green all of the time.

Mary

[skippercollecto]

Firefly was a short-lived series about a completely new part of the universe with a new language and mostly unknown actors and it developed a very diehard set of fans. Sound familiar?
This time, the producers listened to the fans and created a follow-up story to put into the theaters. The film has gotten very good reviews from many of the critics and most of the fans, and the theaters it has been shown in have had very good crowds.
And, yet, it's considered a bomb box-office-wise, because, despite the ticket sales, they're not enough to satisfy the studios and the theater owners.
Which leads me to wonder:
Suppose it's early 1980. Universal, not ABC, has realized that it made a mistake in discontinuing Galactica. Instead of coming up with Galactica 1980 for ABC, the studio gets everyone involved in the original series to return and make a theatrical movie follow-up to tie up many of the series' loose ends. The film is well-written, well-acted, isn't too expensive to produce, its back story is explained so that folks who aren't familiar with BG will understand it, and the fans are impressed and delighted.
But do you think a Galactica movie in the early 1980s would have suffered the same fate as Serenity--disappearring from the cinemas very quickly and considered a box-office bomb?
Mary

[Malkyte]

Personally, I think the slow box office return on Serenity has a lot to do with its timing.

Had it been released during the beginning or even during the summer, it would have done a great deal better!

I think that can be also true for a Galactica movie in the 80s. It actually could have worked in hindsight.


Malkyte

[spiderr987]

Originally Posted by skippercollecto

Firefly was a short-lived series about a completely new part of the universe with a new language and mostly unknown actors and it developed a very diehard set of fans. Sound familiar?
This time, the producers listened to the fans and created a follow-up story to put into the theaters. The film has gotten very good reviews from many of the critics and most of the fans, and the theaters it has been shown in have had very good crowds.
And, yet, it's considered a bomb box-office-wise, because, despite the ticket sales, they're not enough to satisfy the studios and the theater owners.
Which leads me to wonder:
Suppose it's early 1980. Universal, not ABC, has realized that it made a mistake in discontinuing Galactica. Instead of coming up with Galactica 1980 for ABC, the studio gets everyone involved in the original series to return and make a theatrical movie follow-up to tie up many of the series' loose ends. The film is well-written, well-acted, isn't too expensive to produce, its back story is explained so that folks who aren't familiar with BG will understand it, and the fans are impressed and delighted.
But do you think a Galactica movie in the early 1980s would have suffered the same fate as Serenity--disappearring from the cinemas very quickly and considered a box-office bomb?
Mary

My guess is "no." Real BSG had 29-56 million weekly viewership, which FIREFLY had no where close to that. BSG would have success on the sivlerscreen and much better than SERENITY, imo.

[Archangel]

Originally Posted by spiderr987

My guess is "no." Real BSG had 29-56 million weekly viewership, which FIREFLY had no where close to that. BSG would have success on the sivlerscreen and much better than SERENITY, imo.

I respect your opinion, but I do disagree with it. In 78-79, the US only had 3 real networks (ABC,NBC, CBS), so the viewing choices were extremely limited, whereas Firefly (FOX) was in competition with how many ntworks? (I haven't got a breakdown of American cable networks) If there were more networks back then, TOS would never have achieved those numbers.

Ironically, I do believe that a Classic BSG feature would succeed today, It would fare a little better than Firefly, but only because it's a well-known product that's been around for almost three decades, compared to Firefly's three years.

As for better, that would depend on the writer.

[martok2112]

There would also be a serious WOW factor for a Classic BSG film on the big screen today.

Just as it was when Star Trek went off the air in '69. When it returned via the big screen in '79, it was just tremendous...the leap in visual FX technology made it a big screen epic (followed up by the more epic Wrath of Khan).

TOS, when it went off the air in '78 was cutting edge for television visual FX at the time. Just imagine how it would look now? Incredible. And the epic nature of the stories that could be told for big screen film versions of TOS would be awesome.

The same could not be said for Firefly in my humble opinion. The visual and story aspects of Firefly were far too big for the small screen, but alas, it just didn't have the big screen experience I'd hoped for. That's the problem inherent with having television productions that can rival big screen production values...the lines get blurred. That's why (sadly) I thought of Serenity as nothing more than a good episode.

Respectfully,
Martok2112

[spiderr987]

Originally Posted by Archangel

I respect your opinion, but I do disagree with it. In 78-79, the US only had 3 real networks (ABC,NBC, CBS), so the viewing choices were extremely limited, whereas Firefly (FOX) was in competition with how many ntworks? (I haven't got a breakdown of American cable networks) If there were more networks back then, TOS would never have achieved those numbers.

Ironically, I do believe that a Classic BSG feature would succeed today, It would fare a little better than Firefly, but only because it's a well-known product that's been around for almost three decades, compared to Firefly's three years.

As for better, that would depend on the writer.

You act as if when there were fewer channels, people were forced to watch tv shows on those fewer channels. NOT. People watched BSG b/c it was GOOD. TV shows still succeeded and failed, based on them being tv shows that people wanted to see and enjoyed. Why do you think BSG sold millions of dollars in merchandising (lunchboxes, comic books, toys, models, etc)? I was b/c the tv show was very good and millions of fans loved the show. Are you telling me today, b/c there are many more channels that a science fiction/fantasy tv show, cannot achieve double or more the ratings success of nu/fake BSG? I beg to differ. How do you explain STAR TREK's continuation tv shows that dwarfed nu/fake BSG's ratings numbers? ...same for FIREFLY. Sorry, but you can't discredit or belittle BSG's success by the simpleton explaination of "there were less channels" back then. When STAR WARS first came out, it initially opened on few screens and there were less science fiction/fantasy movies back then. ..yet, til this day STAR WARS dwarfs the competition. Sorry, even you have to give credit to where it's due. If not, you are only in denial.

p.s. Even to this day, there are tons more people familiar with real BSG, Cylons and Vipers (from the old show) than what the term BROWNCOAT means or any of the characters from FIREFLY or SERENITY.

[martok2112]

Originally Posted by spiderr987

You act as if when there were fewer channels, people were forced to watch tv shows on those fewer channels. NOT. People watched BSG b/c it was GOOD. TV shows still succeeded and failed, based on them being tv shows that people wanted to see and enjoyed. Why do you think BSG sold millions of dollars in merchandising (lunchboxes, comic books, toys, models, etc)? I was b/c the tv show was very good and millions of fans loved the show. Are you telling me today, b/c there are many more channels that a science fiction/fantasy tv show, cannot achieve double or more the ratings success of nu/fake BSG? I beg to differ. How do you explain STAR TREK's continuation tv shows that dwarfed nu/fake BSG's ratings numbers? ...same for FIREFLY. Sorry, but you can't discredit or belittle BSG's success by the simpleton explaination of "there were less channels" back then. When STAR WARS first came out, it initially opened on few screens and there were less science fiction/fantasy movies back then. ..yet, til this day STAR WARS dwarfs the competition. Sorry, even you have to give credit to where it's due. If not, you are only in denial.

p.s. Even to this day, there are tons more people familiar with real BSG, Cylons and Vipers (from the old show) than what the term BROWNCOAT means or any of the characters from FIREFLY or SERENITY.

Please, discussion/reference of TNS Battlestar Galactica here is forbidden. (Either good or bad...although artwork is a different matter.)

Thank you,
Martok2112

[Fragmentary]

Originally Posted by spiderr987

You act as if when there were fewer channels, people were forced to watch tv shows on those fewer channels. NOT. People watched BSG b/c it was GOOD. TV shows still succeeded and failed, based on them being tv shows that people wanted to see and enjoyed. Why do you think BSG sold millions of dollars in merchandising (lunchboxes, comic books, toys, models, etc)? I was b/c the tv show was very good and millions of fans loved the show. Are you telling me today, b/c there are many more channels that a science fiction/fantasy tv show, cannot achieve double or more the ratings success of nu/fake BSG? I beg to differ. How do you explain STAR TREK's continuation tv shows that dwarfed nu/fake BSG's ratings numbers? ...same for FIREFLY. Sorry, but you can't discredit or belittle BSG's success by the simpleton explaination of "there were less channels" back then. When STAR WARS first came out, it initially opened on few screens and there were less science fiction/fantasy movies back then. ..yet, til this day STAR WARS dwarfs the competition. Sorry, even you have to give credit to where it's due. If not, you are only in denial.

p.s. Even to this day, there are tons more people familiar with real BSG, Cylons and Vipers (from the old show) than what the term BROWNCOAT means or any of the characters from FIREFLY or SERENITY.

What Archangel said isn't conjecture, its the widely accepted reality of the television landscape. Increased viewing choices fighting for the same number of viewers has led to a splintering of the marketshare. Its an across the board shift for all of the networks. Television shows today just don't pull the ratings that they did in the past, there are too many narrowcast options for viewers. Not to mention competition from DVDs, video games, and the internet. TV has changed in major fundamental ways in the last 30 years. Shows earning the numbers for mediocrity in 1979, would be hits today, but that's only because the scale has had to be reorganized.

[Archangel]

Originally Posted by spiderr987

You act as if when there were fewer channels, people were forced to watch tv shows on those fewer channels. NOT. People watched BSG b/c it was GOOD. TV shows still succeeded and failed, based on them being tv shows that people wanted to see and enjoyed. Why do you think BSG sold millions of dollars in merchandising (lunchboxes, comic books, toys, models, etc)? I was b/c the tv show was very good and millions of fans loved the show. Are you telling me today, b/c there are many more channels that a science fiction/fantasy tv show, cannot achieve double or more the ratings success of nu/fake BSG? I beg to differ. How do you explain STAR TREK's continuation tv shows that dwarfed nu/fake BSG's ratings numbers? ...same for FIREFLY. Sorry, but you can't discredit or belittle BSG's success by the simpleton explaination of "there were less channels" back then. When STAR WARS first came out, it initially opened on few screens and there were less science fiction/fantasy movies back then. ..yet, til this day STAR WARS dwarfs the competition. Sorry, even you have to give credit to where it's due. If not, you are only in denial.

p.s. Even to this day, there are tons more people familiar with real BSG, Cylons and Vipers (from the old show) than what the term BROWNCOAT means or any of the characters from FIREFLY or SERENITY.

I'm not saying TOS wouldn't have had a large viewing audience with more network selections. I'm just saying that it wouldn't have hit the numbers that it did. I love TOS, but I'm also a realist who is trained in film and television production, which inludes trends throughout television history (hated that segment of the course, too many numbers)

You compare Serenity to Star Trek and Star Wars. That's like comparing apples and bananas.

Star Trek:TMP because of name recognition. It started as a series that was pretty much abused by NBC and left in the gutter to die. But it didn't, obviously. When it hit syndication in the 70's, it proved that the network weasels who massacred the budget for season 3 and then - thankfully - refused to finance season 4 (Spock's Brain? C'mon) Interest increased and so did the viewership, which prompted Paramount to produce Star Trek: Phase Two, a new series. But that got squashed right quickly even after sets were built and a cast was assembled. (sound familiar?)

George Lucas' SFX blockbuster Star Wars was released in '77, raising the bar for sci-fi/fantasy storytelling and special effects. The Paramount suits scrambled to cash in on Star Wars popularity and told Gene Roddenberry that the new Star Trek series was scrapped in favour of a new movie.

Star Trek:TMP was a box office success. Not because of the story (It was the worst, IMO, and I have all ten in Special Edition DVD as well as the first eight on VHS. Yeah, hopeless fanboy.) but it brought Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Sulu, Uhura Scott and Chekov back from a nine year hiatus, and all those new fans from the syndicated run as well as the old-timers bounced happily into the theatre to see the new adventure of the Enterprise and her crew. (I was one of them, ST:TMP was the FIRST movie I ever saw on the big screen, thanks Mom and Dad. )

Three seasons, plus almost a decade in syndication helped it's success in the theatre. Compared to this, Firefly had what? Fourteen episodes and three years? The way the number of Browncoats is expanding, give it another five or six years.

Star Wars was a culmination of a good story, an extremely high budget, and never-before seen special effects. Add to that a farmboy, a princess, a smuggler and two droids who played off each other like a clean Cheech and Chong, a lot of people are going to be interested. Lucas was lucky, he brought in the right product at the right time. With events like Watergate and a long war in Vietnam only over for a handful of years, most Americans flocked to a new movie where you can suspend disbelief, and enjoy a good story that would take your mind off of a troubled world. If it was released a few years later, however...

Serenity suffered by Studio stupidity in timing and marketing

1. The Firefly tv series didn't last long enough for people to know about it. Hell, I didn't even hear of it until Rowan mentioned it to me a year ago. How many people who never heard of Firefly went to see Serenity and came out of the theatre saying "What the <invective deleted><invective deleted><invective deleted><invective deleted> was the point of that?" and told their friend sit was a pointless movie. Negative word of mouth is bad, no matter how you look at it.

2. Faulty saturation marketing. It's touted as a thrilling movie based on the tv series Firefly

Bullpucky, you dumbasses!!! It's a continuation of the tv series Firefly

A movie based on a tv series is one that has nothing to do with the series, such as I Spy

A continuation follows the storyline set in the tv series, such as Serenity, Star Trek and (sadly) Charlie's Angels

The tv and radio spots should have used the correct terminology and mentioned the continuation aspect. In other words, watch the series to understand the movie!

Done right, Serenity could have been the next Star Trek type franchise, but
studio indifference to the series and sloppy advertising of the film did more damage to the box office returns than the movie itself did.

[spiderr987]

Originally Posted by martok2112

Please, discussion/reference of TNS Battlestar Galactica here is forbidden. (Either good or bad...although artwork is a different matter.)

Thank you,
Martok2112

Sorry, about that. I'll be more ambiguous in my reference to other shows for now on. I'm 100% behind this board's decision concerning that matter.