Saw over at SSMs forums Stargate SG-1 and Atlantis have both been renewed fo another season on Sc-Fi channel. :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Now if only they would pick up Firefly where FOX left off.

Now if only they would pick up Firefly where FOX left off. Yeah, tell me about it. Just finishing the first season. How could they keep Buffy going for so long and scrap this? IMHumbleO Firefly is far superior. Lookign fwd to Star Gate too.

What a Sci-fi Friday we could have with new FireFly.
That, 2 StarGates and BSG. Sci-fi would usurp NBC's "Must See TV".

I, for one, would welcome back a "classic hour or 2" of Sci-Fi for all of the old goodies that used to play. Early in the Sci-Fi channel's life, they used to air shows like
1) The Animated Flash Gordon series
2) The Mysterions
3) Star Trek TOS uncut with actor comments and insights
4) The original Outer Limits
5) or even classic 50s and 60s scifi movies

There is a lot of really good classic stuff out ther that would be cheap to show and is light years better than a lot of stuff that's being shown lately. It'd make for great late night stuff after the big 4 (Firefly, SG1, SG Atlantis, BSG) Anyone for another python, boa or bug movie Sci-vi channel's been showing lately?

TVLand has the same problem. I think there need to be more channels for classic programming, but I guess with DVD I can't complain too much. There's more access to things today than ever.

Speaking of Firefly, didn't the movie kind of do poorly boxoffice-wise?

Speaking of Firefly, didn't the movie kind of do poorly boxoffice-wise?

I think they're looking at $20-25 million for domestic. Don't see much opportunity for an international box office since I think "Firefly" was hardly shown elsewhere in the world.

On the good news front, $20-25 million at the box office PLUS what it'll make in DVD sales (and given the surge in "Firefly" DVD sets that might be a chunk of change), Fox will make enough money to seriously consider a sequel.

The way I look at it, the movie DVD sales were a given. The box office take was probably icing on the cake.

Jim

Instead of Sci-Fi pouring money into those crappy and I do mean CRAPPY
waaaaaaaaaaaay beyond B or even Z movies, they should put it onto a couple Firefly TV movies.

On the good news front, $20-25 million at the box office PLUS what it'll make in DVD sales (and given the surge in "Firefly" DVD sets that might be a chunk of change), Fox will make enough money to seriously consider a sequel.

Don't you mean Universal? They're the ones who did the movie. So far it's at about $22 million; production was in the neighborhood of $40 million. Universal was looking for about $50 million domestic (80 worldwide) to make a sequel. There's been no word on whether those figures include DVD, but I doubt it. The distributor/studio gets only about half the gross, so their $40 million of a worldwide 80 would only cover the cost of production of the first movie; DVD sales would be the profit margin and the reason to bankroll a second movie.

I'm very happy both SG series are renewed, though not seriously surprised. They and BSG are consistently are Sci-Fi's highest-rated shows.

I, for one, would welcome back a "classic hour or 2" of Sci-Fi for all of the old goodies that used to play. Early in the Sci-Fi channel's life, they used to air shows like
1) The Animated Flash Gordon series
2) The Mysterions
3) Star Trek TOS uncut with actor comments and insights
4) The original Outer Limits
5) or even classic 50s and 60s scifi movies


The problem is - when Sci-Fi started showing that stuff, most of it wasn't easily available to viewers in any other way. The question becomes - how does a "specialized" cable network keep an audience when most of what was once it's relatively exclusive programming can now be owned and viewed at will by it's targeted audience? It's a conundrum.

Yes, that's assuming everything is on DVD (which some things are not yet anyway) and that everyone has the funds to buy everything. I'm still waiting for the Animated Flash Gordon series to come to DVD. I have the TOS Star Trek but they don't include the commentaries from the various actors and guest stars.

Serenity was a dud at the box office, but not a very costly one. And in any case, for Joss Whedon it was merely the means to an end; he wants to be a feature film director, and Universal gave him his shot. I know for a fact the studio was disappointed with Serenity's performance, but apparently Warner Brothers has enough confidence in Whedon's commercial viability to have granted him a three picture deal.

I'm not a big J.W. fan (his writing is a bit too self-aware and “pleased with itself “ for my tastes) but I must admit he and Wonder Woman seem like a pretty copasetic match. Time will tell if the audience agrees.

I look forward to seeing Wonder Woman in a believable manner. I can't even watch the tv series it's so crazy. Well, with the sound on.

And wasn't Firefly $40 million before marketing. Sure, they did the whole viral marketing thing, but they had to spend at least $10-15 million conventionally, so that has to be tacked on. There is a real problem with rabid fans overestimating the popularity of what they love so much.

Well, to be fair, one of the things that tripped up Firefly was not being in very many theaters.
I don't know about other areas, but here I had a choice of 2 places to see it.
One about an hour away (after you figure in all the traffic delays to get to the multiplex).
The other was about 40 minutes away in the opposite direction. And that theater only showed it twice a day 7:30 PM and 10 PM. No matinees and too late to see it during the week.

I had hoped one of the closer theaters would have gotten it because I would have loved to have seen it at least a few more times. And a ton of my daughter's friends are really disappointed because they didn't get to see it because their parents didn't want to go that far out of the way to take them to see it.

The local cineplex dropped Serenity after the opening week. The only other theater that played it was 40 minutes away.

Oh well. :(

I'd love to see a Mansquito 2.

José

I look forward to seeing Wonder Woman in a believable manner. I can't even watch the tv series it's so crazy. Well, with the sound on.

And wasn't Firefly $40 million before marketing. Sure, they did the whole viral marketing thing, but they had to spend at least $10-15 million conventionally, so that has to be tacked on. There is a real problem with rabid fans overestimating the popularity of what they love so much.

I don't think too many of the rabid fans overestimated the show's popularity, but I as one of them did overestimate the thought that went into promoting the film. I figured somebody knew what they were doing in a way I didn't comprehed, bumping it from pre-SITH to fall, but they sure picked a bad week to open, and IMO offered a pretty crappy ad campaign as well. When I see what DOOM did (with an ad campaign that was, admittedly, not a whole lot better), it makes me wonder if Universal dumped it (not that I can see a reason why.)

SERENITY had no hook for the public, but is that because it is a narrow niche or because it (like FF) wasn't sold properly? It is seriously hard for me to believe that they couldn't have mounted a more mainstream campaign for the film, and there was certainly enough good moments in it to make a mindblowing good trailer, instead of the promo that made it seem like a low budget KILL BILL meets WING COMMANDER.

I expected the film to do perhaps 40 to 50 mil domestic, plus a decent chunk internationally (it opened #1 in UK, which is like saying it was a big winner in Utah), so I'm very disappointed at the numbers (I figured higher than that if they had come out pre-SITH.) But they got a film made, so I can live with that.

...they sure picked a bad week to open, and IMO offered a pretty crappy ad campaign as well. When I see what DOOM did (with an ad campaign that was, admittedly, not a whole lot better), it makes me wonder if Universal dumped it (not that I can see a reason why.)

It's very convenient to blame the marketeers when a movie fails to open, but in this case I think the problem was the movie itself.

I've never seen an episode of Firefl; I went to see Serenity largely because of the trailer, which I thought was pretty kick-ass. Unfortunately the movie failed to deliver on the promise of the trailer IMO (I agree with whoever said Joss Whedon is overrated as a writer), and I was disinclined to recommend it to friends.

If Universal dumped the film I suspect they did so because they knew they had a dud on their hands, and didn't want to through good advertising dollars after bad.

If Universal dumped the film I suspect they did so because they knew they had a dud on their hands, and didn't want to through good advertising dollars after bad.

"throw" (pronounced "throw"), not "through" (pronounced "throo.")
I'm just sayin... :)

I have literally, for over a year, been waiting for "Serenity" to come to the local theaters. None of the local movie theaters showed "Serenity". Of courese none of the local movie theaters were showing anything from September through late October. Katrina saw to that. Shoot, the birds haven't even come back yet.

David.

I don't think too many of the rabid fans overestimated the show's popularity

They sure fooled me.

bumping it from pre-SITH to fall, but they sure picked a bad week to open, and IMO offered a pretty crappy ad campaign as well.

The “Serenity” trailer tested higher than any trailer for any film Universal has released or will release all year, with one exception: “King Kong”.

The problem with “Serenity” wasn’t its ad campaign, and it wasn’t its release date. The problem with “Serenity” was that audiences had virtually no interest in seeing it, and nothing Universal Pictures or Joss Whedon’s Brown Coats could do was going to alter that fact. Seldom has the gulf between genre fandom and the general audience been broader.

Universal knew from the get-go that “Serenity” was a break-even proposition at best, but Ron Meyer and Stacy Snyder gave Whedon the green light because: a) the film was modestly budgeted, b) the film would shot on the Universal lot, and c) Whedon is exactly the sort of guy they want to do business with in the future.

I figured (the numbers would be) higher than that if they had come out pre-SITH.)

“Revenge of the Sith” had ZERO impact on “Serenity’s” performance at the box office.

“Revenge of the Sith” had ZERO impact on “Serenity’s” performance at the box office.

I don't think he is saying that Sith had an impact.
I think he is saying that if they had stuck with the original release date in the spring (which happened to be before Sith opened) that it might have don better than the later opening date.
People see more willing to hit the theaters in the spring than they do in the fall.

Though if it would have had the same turn-out in the spring, then it would have looked even worse.

^ By having it in the Spring, it may have been helped because people's appetite were already whetted by the anticipation of Sith. In other words, a sci-fi flick would register quickly in people's radar because they were anticipating other films in that genre. In the fall, people's minds are on potential Oscar winners and sappy chick flicks. Sci-fi? What the hell is that??

José

Since we seem to be doing a post-mortem on SERENITY, I think the problem is there were three types of people:

1) Those who were FIREFLY fans and rushed to see it opening weekend.

2) Those that knew it was based on a TV show they had never seen. They assumed that they would be confused by the movie or worse, that it was just a extended TV episode. They may check it out on DVD.

3) People who didn't know the movie existed.

I think the biggest problem is that there was no hook to help people remember the movie. There was no big stars, so they couldn't remember it as "the new Bruce Willis movie." (There is a reason stars earn tens of millions of dollars a movie.) The title is not memorable. Let's be frank, it is meaningful only to FIREFLY fans. An action film named SERENITY? Is that some kind of joke? I remember a few weeks before it came out, someone was on the IMDb.com "I Need to Know" board asking, "What's that new space movie that's coming out? It looked like a comedy." Despite the fans' best efforts, it just didn't become embedded in people's consciousness.

(How about taking that up as a challenge? What more commercial title would you have given it? CAPTAIN REYNOLDS VS THE SPACE ZOMBIES? :) )

^ A great title would've been TWO HOT CHICKS AND A SOME OTHER DUDES IN ZERO GRAVITY

:lol:

José

"throw" (pronounced "throw"), not "through" (pronounced "throo.")
I'm just sayin... :)

For some reason "through" is one of those words that never fails to throw me for a loop spelling-wise (or is it the other way around)? :hat:

Considering all the typos lurking in this thread I feel honored to have been singled out.

^ A great title would've been TWO HOT CHICKS AND A SOME OTHER DUDES IN ZERO GRAVITY

:lol:

José
So which of the three women don't you consider a hot chick?

They sure fooled me.



The “Serenity” trailer tested higher than any trailer for any film Universal has released or will release all year, with one exception: “King Kong”.

The problem with “Serenity” wasn’t its ad campaign, and it wasn’t its release date. The problem with “Serenity” was that audiences had virtually no interest in seeing it, and nothing Universal Pictures or Joss Whedon’s Brown Coats could do was going to alter that fact. Seldom has the gulf between genre fandom and the general audience been broader.

Universal knew from the get-go that “Serenity” was a break-even proposition at best, but Ron Meyer and Stacy Snyder gave Whedon the green light because: a) the film was modestly budgeted, b) the film would shot on the Universal lot, and c) Whedon is exactly the sort of guy they want to do business with in the future.



“Revenge of the Sith” had ZERO impact on “Serenity’s” performance at the box office.

Coming out ahead of SITH is the point, whetting sf audience appetites,not appearing months afterward. Geez, for somebody who knows stuff, you're just not reading too carefully, man.

As for the rest of your post, and the general anti serenity issue at large ... seems like a Butch Cassidy line is once more in order, along the lines of "I got vision and the rest of the world wears bifocals." (and I ain't a whedonite, never saw the other series, just FF.)

(How about taking that up as a challenge? What more commercial title would you have given it? CAPTAIN REYNOLDS VS THE SPACE ZOMBIES? :) )

Just a generic action title would have been better, something like CRITICAL ORBITS, would have been an improvement. Not only is it snazzy (I've been using CRITICAL ORBIT for various projects of my own since my teens in the 70s), but it is also appropriate, given that you have so many different groups in motion in SERENITY that are drawn into similar paths.

I remember submitting CRITICAL ORBIT to disney when they ran a contest for a
new title for THE BLACKHOLE pre-release in 79, but they never picked a winner to the best of my knowledge and stuck with their title. Didn't do much for them either.

I remember submitting CRITICAL ORBIT to disney when they ran a contest for a
new title for THE BLACKHOLE pre-release in 79, but they never picked a winner to the best of my knowledge and stuck with their title. Didn't do much for them either.
Remember, Disney is the company that changed the name their animated film BASIL OF BAKER STREET to THE GREAT MOUSE DETECTIVE. And then re-released it as THE ADVENTURES OF THE GREAT MOUSE DETECTIVE.

For some reason "through" is one of those words that never fails to throw me for a loop spelling-wise (or is it the other way around)? :hat:

Considering all the typos lurking in this thread I feel honored to have been singled out.

Pleasure to be of service ;)

Honestly, I have a few words like that too. "Whose" and "who's" being of great confusion to me. But I'm on an internet spelling crusade lately. Sorry you got caught up in it :).

.

I remember submitting CRITICAL ORBIT to disney when they ran a contest for a new title for THE BLACKHOLE pre-release in 79, but they never picked a winner to the best of my knowledge and stuck with their title. Didn't do much for them either.

Am I remembering correctly that Disney's working title for the film was something with the word "Probe?" And they decided "probe" had unwanted sexual connotations, so they changed it to the supposedly less sexual-sounding "BLACK HOLE?" :lol:

So which of the three women don't you consider a hot chick?

Remember, I haven't seen the movie. I've only seen the trailers and only remember seeing two chicks in it. If there's three, well then, hell the more the better. :)

José

Remember, I haven't seen the movie. I've only seen the trailers and only remember seeing two chicks in it. If there's three, well then, hell the more the better. :)

José
Actually, four if you count Inara, who joins the crew about half-way through the movie.

Coming out ahead of SITH is the point, whetting sf audience appetites,not appearing months afterward. Geez, for somebody who knows stuff, you're just not reading too carefully, man.

Gosh, I’ll try and be more careful.

Your point as I understand it (and I am trying my best) is that “Serenity” suffered at the box office because it had the misfortune of opening four months after “Revenge of the Sith”. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but the reality is that “Serenity” would not have found the movie-going public any more receptive on April 30 than it did on September 30. The reality is that “Serenity” has a very loyal fan base, but virtually no crossover appeal. The reality is that all the marketing strategies and advertising dollars in the world will not get people to go see a movie they don’t want to see.

For the record “Serenity” could not have opened prior to “Revenge of the Sith” for the simple reason that it wasn’t finished (I first viewed the rough cut in mid-April, by which point virtually none of the FX shots had been completed).

As for the rest of your post, and the general anti serenity issue at large ... seems like a Butch Cassidy line is once more in order, along the lines of "I got vision and the rest of the world wears bifocals."

Cue the Bolivian Army. ;)

Am I remembering correctly that Disney's working title for the film was something with the word "Probe?" And they decided "probe" had unwanted sexual connotations, so they changed it to the supposedly less sexual-sounding "BLACK HOLE?" :lol:

Space Probe One was the name of an earlier draft, one that was more disaster movie like (than just disaster), that Disney abandoned a couple years earlier. CFQ had a very interesting double issue on BLACK HOLE in 1980 ... it could have turned out a little better than it did.

Gosh, I’ll try and be more careful.

Your point as I understand it (and I am trying my best) is that “Serenity” suffered at the box office because it had the misfortune of opening four months after “Revenge of the Sith”. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but the reality is that “Serenity” would not have found the movie-going public any more receptive on April 30 than it did on September 30. The reality is that “Serenity” has a very loyal fan base, but virtually no crossover appeal. The reality is that all the marketing strategies and advertising dollars in the world will not get people to go see a movie they don’t want to see.

For the record “Serenity” could not have opened prior to “Revenge of the Sith” for the simple reason that it wasn’t finished (I first viewed the rough cut in mid-April, by which point virtually none of the FX shots had been completed).



Cue the Bolivian Army. ;)


The INTENTION to release pre-SITH was based on the reality of a pre-SITH release date. That was before they decided to add a bunch of effects shots, so presumably when it got bumped, the need to create finals for the existing shots got bumped back as well. I never heard of any production schedule issues with the film, so if Fox had held to the earlier release date, we'd have seen a slighter cheaper version of what we got in fall.

I'm of the opinion that releasing pre-SITH would have given them some of the rabid SF fans that were itching (god knows why) for SW the last, just as MATRIX managed to do just before PHANTOM MENACE (and just as WING COMMANDER failed to do just before PHANTOM MENACE.) Shoot, WC was going to be dumped to video before somebody convinced them that scooping TPM would give them some dollars (and as bad as WC did, having a theatrical release was better than not having one, so even that paltry showing benefitted from coming out ahead of a SW flick. SERENITY wouldn't have benefitted in a similar manner?

The INTENTION to release pre-SITH was based on the reality of a pre-SITH release date.

Huh?

...if Fox had held to the earlier release date, we'd have seen a slighter cheaper version of what we got in fall.

A cheaper looking version of "Serenity"... no doubt that would've boded well at the box office.

I'm of the opinion that releasing pre-SITH would have given them some of the rabid SF fans that were itching (god knows why) for SW the last, just as MATRIX managed to do just before PHANTOM MENACE..

The first “Matrix” succeeded on its own merits. As for “Sith”, Audiences all over the world cued up for the final chapter of the "Star Wars" saga because it was the final chapter of the "Star Wars" saga. Assuming for a moment Universal had been in the position to open "Serenity" prior to "Sith" the box office results for the former would have been virtually identical.

...WC (WING COMMANDER) was going to be dumped to video before somebody convinced them that scooping TPM would give them some dollars (and as bad as WC did, having a theatrical release was better than not having one, so even that paltry showing benefited from coming out ahead of a SW flick. SERENITY wouldn't have benefited in a similar manner?

The operative word here is "paltry." Face it, "Serenity" is a fine B-movie whose fans have every right to enjoy it as such, but it was never going to appeal to a mainstream audience. If you're as big a "Firefly" fan as you seem to be the latter shouldn't really be an issue.

All things considered, it's a miracle "Serenity" got made at all.

All things considered, it's a miracle "Serenity" got made at all.

And that is the way I look at it.
I am a bit disappointed in the box office totals for it.
I honestly thought it would have done a little better. And I think if it would have opened on more screens it would have.
No, it wouldn't have been a blockbuster.
But with easier access for the younger fans (and there are a lot of those) it could have done better numbers.

To be honest, I was hoping against hope that it would have gone huge.
If for no other reason than to rub it in FOXs face that they canceled this gem.
I didn't expect it to do that though. The rational part of my brain told me this would probably at best be a break-even at the box office.
So yeah, I was disappointed with what it did take in.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but the reality is that “Serenity” would not have found the movie-going public any more receptive on April 30 than it did on September 30. The reality is that “Serenity” has a very loyal fan base, but virtually no crossover appeal. The reality is that all the marketing strategies and advertising dollars in the world will not get people to go see a movie they don’t want to see.

Universal reps have stated several times that they wished they had released it on the original date. Because very few films had legs, and Serenity does appeal to the bored teenager crowd by their "virgin" test screening surveys, had they had all summer it probably could have made $50-60 million at least. Considering the movie only cost $40mil, that's gangbusters.

A cheaper looking version of "Serenity"... no doubt that would've boded well at the box office.

I was at the early screenings, in all honesty it looked about the same, FX wise as the final product. The only real difference was that the color timing was done, the score was in place and it was full res :) I spotted a few parts where Joss tightened up the flow a bit, but nothing drastic

I'm of the opinion that releasing pre-SITH would have given them some of the rabid SF fans that were itching (god knows why) for SW the last, just as MATRIX managed to do just before PHANTOM MENACE

Actually it was Mummy that managed to ape TPM, because people were hyped for high adventure the first week, and then it got all the overflow traffic from the sold-out Star Wars. Matrix was released over a month in advance of TPM, so it sank or swam on its own

The operative word here is "paltry." Face it, "Serenity" is a fine B-movie whose fans have every right to enjoy it as such, but it was never going to appeal to a mainstream audience. If you're as big a "Firefly" fan as you seem to be the latter shouldn't really be an issue.

My 60 year old mother who doesn't watch a lot of Sci-Fi (and most of the begrudgingly) loved it. The real problem is convincing people to see it in the first place, not them liking it afterwards. I've personally dragged over a dozen Firefly virgins to it, some geeks, bout half straight up, they all loved it.

It'll do just fine on video, because people will see the quotes (and unfortunately studies show they work while cluttering up the art). Considering it hasn't even opened in Asia, where it'll do gangbusters in those markets judging from past performance of similar properties. According to Joss, Universal is not jumping, but not unhappy with the numbers, and they're waiting on the overseas releases to finish (not until January or so) and the video sales (which should be just fine, given the sales of Firefly(over 600K last count, that's

All things considered, it's a miracle "Serenity" got made at all.


The power of Joss compells them, what can I say :)

By the time all the sales, rentals, PPV, foreign distribution and all that, Serenity should make a tidy profit. Hopefully that profit will be enough to convince Universal we need more :)

So, in other words, it will squeak by if it's lucky? My point was that listening to the fans you'd think it was going to be like the next Star Wars or something.

It will be the next Star Wars, in terms of how it binds together the SF community and inspiration for future works. The impression I got was that Universal would be ecstatic with an $80 million total worldwide take on the film, and that if they broke even domestically, hey.

Remember, the movie DID get a lot of push in publications, something that should happen again when the DVD comes out. They obviously were anticipating this considering it comes out Dec 20th, just in time to stuff Browncoat stockings and for the kids to hit Xmas break. They had stuff go through the BBFC(British Board of film classification) just a day or 2 after release, so this was planned for a long time.

As for "the next Star Wars", you have to remember, in 1977 there was NOTHING like Star Wars

Just like a few years ago, there was NOTHING like Lord of the Rings.

Sure, both films built on things that came before them, but never had the genres been represented on such epic scale on screen before.

There was also far less choice in 1977, what, 6 channels maybe? Much larger movie going audience, much less variety etc etc. Have faith in Joss, he'll pull it through :)

The power of Joss compells them, what can I say? :)

Comments like this say more than you know.

Thanks for yet another hopelessly misinformed rant about the current state of genre filmmaking. I can think of no one better qualified to illustrate the delusional mind-set of the modern fanboy than yourself.

Comments like this say more than you know.

Thanks for yet another hopelessly misinformed rant about the current state of genre filmmaking. I can think of no one better qualified to illustrate the delusional mind-set of the modern fanboy than yourself.

Gee, and after reading SWORD's remarks, I was just about to say that it was nice to see somebody who was articulate and well-informed on the side of the angels. Guess you balanced that one off.

I still don't understand why STAR WARS hit in 77, and certainly to the degree it did. The only half-baked explanation that warms me is that TREK had generated a space rabid audience and SW cashed in on that, but it doesn't explain why people would still be watching SW a generation later, so that can't be all of it. The mythology stuff doesn't wash either, or PRINCESS BRIDE would be the biggest movie of all time (as well it should be.)

I really don't see how folks well-versed in cinematic SF aren't embracing FF/SER as the best thought/action alternative to TOS that we're likely to get in this lifetime, especially after all the years of watching ModernTrek spasm and twitch (DS9 largely excepted.) The idea of it as a niche market, or a quirk, would be in keeping if this were THE PRISONER, but it ain't, it is a character-driven action piece, which screams 'big success' if marketed right (or left on long enough for folks to get it.) I've embraced plenty of cult shows like PRISONER and TWIN PEAKS (and in my youth, KOLCHAK) and NEVER expected them to be popular, but FF actually SHOULD be huge, not just cuz it is good, but because the format lends itself to a popular audience (moreso than B5 since the shows are more standalone.)

Universal reps have stated several times that they wished they had released it on the original date.

Which Universal reps? I work with these people on a daily basis, and I’d love to know who your sources are.

Had they had (“Serenity”) all summer it probably could have made $50-60 million at least. Considering the movie only cost $40mil, that's gangbusters.

I would argue that “gangbusters” is a somewhat hyperbolic phrase to describe a film that failed to open and will be lucky to break even, but that’s just me.

Shocking though it may be, distributors have a tough time convincing exhibitors to keep their movies in theaters once those movies start playing to empty houses. Theater chains are funny that way; they don't like loosing money.

I was at the early screenings, in all honesty it looked about the same, FX wise as the final product.

When I began work on “Serenity” in early April (about three weeks prior to the release of “Revenge of the Sith”) there were only a handful of completed FX shots. There is no way “Serenity” could have beaten “Sith” into theaters, and it wouldn’t have made any difference anyway.

By the time all the sales, rentals, PPV, foreign distribution and all that, Serenity should make a tidy profit.

Let’s just say it won’t lose much money (General-Electric will survive).

Despite what others may say I do not have an anti-“Serenity” bias. It’s a good, solid, low-budget genre film, and as a life-long sci-fi fan I can totally understand the attraction. What annoys me is when unreasoning fans blame a picture’s lack of mainstream appeal on the studio, the advertising, the audience, the weather, the celestial alignment, etc. It’s all well and fine to worship a TV show or feature film, but to take others to task because they don’t share your unconditional enthusiasm smacks of egotism and self importance, i.e. “those poor unenlightened people just don’t get it.”

“Serenity” is a swell flick but a big, fat “Star Wars”-esque pop-cultural phenomenon it is not, nor was it ever going to be.

It will be the next Star Wars, in terms of how it binds together the SF community and inspiration for future works.

I don't want to come off negative, like Carson, but...

I was speaking in terms of money. Ecstatic for $80 million seems like pretty low expectations. "I can't believe we covered our production and marketing budgets by a small margin!!"

It will be the next Star Wars, in terms of how it binds together the SF community and inspiration for future works.

Actually it's the new BSG (a series you profess to despise) that's connected with both genre fans and mainstream audiences. A BSG feature film hardly seems an unlikely scenerio; on the other hand I think we've seen the last of "Firefly"/ "Serenity" (DVD's not withstanding).

As for "the next Star Wars", you have to remember, in 1977 there was NOTHING like Star Wars. Just like a few years ago, there was NOTHING like Lord of the Rings. Sure, both films built on things that came before them, but never had the genres been represented on such epic scale on screen before.:)

At least we can agree on that much.