Serenity the Sequel or TV show? by TragicStory

Quote:
Originally posted by TragicStory:
****I am playing devil's advocate so no hate mail please******

Now two questions:
Anyone know of a series that was turned into a movie and then ressurected as a series?

Who owns the rights to Firefly or better yet, how much control does Joss have? Can he just take it and walk or does it no longer belong to him in any way?

--Peter Berger

Networks are intereted n series that can go 100 episodes and do well in syndication. That is why Angel was cancelled this season: It reached 100 episodes, but it looked to be failing as a syndication option, so it was bypassed. Fox would have been far wiser to hold off on syndicating it until it could be paired with Buffy on FX, reenergizing the Buffy viewings and supporting a stronger base for Angel views ... Anyhoo ...

Series -> Movie -> Series? Charlie's Angels is returning as a series. Mission Impossible may soon return as a series (3rd version). You won't find many, if any, more examples of this (especially involving a series that didn't reach a full season in its first run), but there are a plethora of series which inspired a very similar movie which inspired a very similar series.

The problem with that idea is that movies are more profitable than TV. If it is a success as a movie, they'll rarely be able to steal the rights away to make a series. Here, if Joss manages to hold onto enough of the rights or the actors are *unwilling* to make more movies (in favor of a series), you might be able to see something happen. Might.

Joss owns very little of Firefly. As I understand it, he is deeply attached emotionally and creatively, but other people make the creative calls and have the ability to bury Firefly if they choose. I'm not fully briefed on the situation, but as I understand it, if Universal decided that a new Firefly series might get in the way of one of their series, they could keep Firefly down, even if another network was ready to pay a gross amount to put a new series on the air.

Firefly was designed to be a series. It was designed to last a number of years. Joss thinks years in advance for shows (as the Dark Willow saga of season 6 Buffy was hinted at in season 2). Joss is writing this movie to wrap up a number of those lose ends, but there will still be plenty of things left unwrapped.

We'll know what River is by the end of the movie, but we won't know everything she'll do with her abilities. We'll know who Book really is, but we won't know if our trust in him is wise. We'll know the secrets of Inara's past, but we won't see her and Mal reach a happily ever after. There will be a lot of stories left unfinished, ripe ground for a sequal or a series.

If you're looking for a future series, you want to hope for a movie that does moderately well: well enough to almost warrant a sequal movie. There is a very narrow range where it is not good enough to hold over for a sequal movie, but good enough to try throwing it out there as a series again.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 9, 2004 10:29 AM

SAMURAIX47

Battlestar Galatica... series, one season, cancelled.

BSG miniseries on Sci-fi.

coming soon
BSG series on Sci-Fi.

It took them long enough.

Jaymes

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 9, 2004 10:31 AM

LIZ

Quote:
Now two questions:
Anyone know of a series that was turned into a movie and then ressurected as a series?

well star trek of course, though not in the same incarnation, but that's it. I read alot about this sort of thing after Family Guy came out on DVD because it was the first time ever that a tv show that was cancelled came back to tv due almost exclusively to sales of copies of that show (the DVD set). i know it's not back yet but it is already in production.
what it comes down to is that media is changing and so it would be perfectly reasonable for Universal to bring Firefly back to tv, as long as that is the most lucrative choice.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 9, 2004 10:40 AM

SPOOKYJESUS

Like everything else in show business it comes down to money.

As I'm sure I've posted elsewhere - Serenity has to gross 105 million dollars (35m X 3) for it to be considered profitable, much less a success.

If the movie makes that in it's first week, and more profit there after, we'll be getting a movie franchise and not a TV one - end of story.

If the movie makes say 90 million and picks up the other 15 mill in DVD sales a TV series is likely - but so's a lower budget sequel commissioned with the expectation that sequels make more money than the original.

If it makes around 80 mill + another 10 mill in DVD sales a TV route would be more likely. But we'd be waiting a few years for that to happen.

Also, remember two things -

1) Fox still own the TV rights to Firefly (I think anyway.....

2) Movie Directors rarely do TV work outside of the executive prod. catagory - but then again Joss isn't like most other directors (yet). I don't know, I've been watching alot of Steven Speilberg movies lately and Joss directs a lot like him - I MEAN A LOT! (the lighting, timing of jokes, iconography ect.) - so who knows where his career will go.......

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 9, 2004 11:04 AM

EMBERS

are we sure Fox owns the rights to a Firefly TV show? I thought that when a network cancels a show this quickly they lose rights and the show belongs to the original producers...

of course I guess these things can differ a lot from one contract to the next..

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 9, 2004 11:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Spookyjesus:
As I'm sure I've posted elsewhere - Serenity has to gross 105 million dollars (35m X 3) for it to be considered profitable, much less a success.

That's US - if it breaks $100 million in the US, they'll be singing in the aisles because you can double that world wide and with DVD sales.

Quote:

If the movie makes say 90 million and picks up the other 15 mill in DVD sales a TV series is likely - but so's a lower budget sequel commissioned with the expectation that sequels make more money than the original.

The general rule is the sequel makes less and costs more - save that they now start locking in the stars for two or three movies when they sniff franchise. Will Spidey 2 be a failure if it doesn't break $800 mill? No, but its going to have to go some to repeat the orignial's success. The usual rule is more money to make the sequel if the first did okay, but not great, on the basis that you have a running start.

"I threw up on your bed"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 9, 2004 11:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by TragicStory:
2. Joss wanted to wrap things up in the BDM. EVERY movie after Porky's 2 that made any decent profit has spawned a sequel. If Joss wraps things up, then it it very hard to make a sequel.

The story Joss and co came up with was due to run for 5+ years on TV (or else why bother). Wrapping up the story? I doubt it - the movie will be self contained, but there will be options for sequels aplenty. The movie is designed as a franchise, TV or otherwise.

I hate to say it guys, but if Serenity does well enough to warrant a movie sequel, we are unlikely to see it back on TV - time taken to film a series - 8-10 months. Time for a movie? 2-3 months at most. Pay for the movie likely to be the same as for the series, if not more, and exposure to audience hopefully even bigger. Who would choose to go back to a TV series?

Quote:

Anyone know of a series that was turned into a movie and then ressurected as a series?

Star Trek.

Firefly:The Next Generation

Quote:

Who owns the rights to Firefly or better yet, how much control does Joss have? Can he just take it and walk or does it no longer belong to him in any way?

I've read a JMS quote on this (re:B5) that I'm guessing will be the same here, but nada, zip, sweet fa etc. The series creator has no right to say they can't make the series without them (see Chris Carter and X-Files when he said he was leaving but the show might go on), and the copyright they own is limited - if I can fish out the JMS post I'll put a link up.

"I threw up on your bed"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 9, 2004 12:31 PM

TRAGICSTORY

Quote:
Originally posted by Astriana:
Quote:
Originally posted by TragicStory:
****I am playing devil's advocate so no hate mail please******
Seriously, no snarkiness intended here... If you're playing devil's advocate by arguing AGAINST a new series and in favor of a sequel, could you also flip the coin and argue FOR a new series AND a sequel?

~A~

...I'm still free,
You can't take the sky from me.

OK My arguements FOR a series:
1. Awards. Firefly would get an ASSLOAD of awards. Execs would grab their ankles and lube themselves up for an award.

2. Merchandising. Nothing makes more money than Merchandising and as has been told to me on a previous thread, "rehashed crap slapped with a "serenity" sticker" would sell like crack in a ghetto.

3. Money. If, I REPEAT if, done right, this thing will make many people richer than God. See #2.

4. This is the most original, insightful and believable sci-fi story ever brought to the screen. (but we all know that Fox didn't care about that)

-----------
"Societies are supported by human activity, therefore they are constantly threatened by the human facts of self-intrest and stupidity." --Peter Berger

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 9, 2004 12:35 PM

TRAGICSTORY

So here is my idea. If God forbid, I am right, I suggest kidnapping Joss, the actors and several bottles of good scotch and having an old fashioned campfire story telling. How much would you pay for a chance to hear Joss spill out 5 years worth of ideas in one night amidst 40+ proof bottles and some pipes of "special tobacco"?

-----------
"Societies are supported by human activity, therefore they are constantly threatened by the human facts of self-intrest and stupidity." --Peter Berger

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 9, 2004 1:29 PM

ZOID

Prediction:

Firefly: Serenity will be a top-ten grosser for the year 2005.

Why? Because "Star Wars III: The Inevitable Conclusion" will bomb. Remember -- those of you old enough to remember the first trilogy of the SW saga -- that Anakin becomes Darth, the universe is plunged into the utter darkness of evil, the Jedi are destroyed ("You are the last of that dead religion, Lord Vader", cough,cough, choke), Amidala dies/runs for her life with her twins Luke and Leia because of Darth, etc. Total downer ending for the franchise.

The next factor: In addition to the growth of the civilian fanbase of Firefly through DVD sales, proselytization by fans (me included), and the efforts of sites like FFFn (good job Haken!), our military men and women have found a resonance in Firefly's story and characters and will be at theaters in droves. It'll be a love-fest between Browncoats and our heros of American freedom.

So, between the spillover of those disappointed by the stilted dialogue, wooden acting and utterly depressing conclusion of Star Wars wanting to see thrilling, thoughtful, and witty sci-fi, and the turnout of Firefly Faithful and their beloved American heros, I think we'll get boffo box.

I also believe it will then return to network TV. Universal said, "Write it for return to TV", and then Joss did. As to whether FOX owns it or not, I know JW/ME shopped it around to other nets; so is the argument that he was shopping it for Fox? They must have given him the release to try to sell it to others...

That's my prediction, and you can throw it up to me anytime you like. Anybody who disagrees, just let me say, "I find you're lack of faith... Disturbing".

Respectfully,

zoid
_________________________________________________

"River didn't fix faith. Faith fixed River."

- Senator Richard 'Book' Wilkins, Independent Congress
author of A Child Shall Lead Them: A History of the Second War of Independence

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 9, 2004 2:02 PM

HUMBLE

With regards to the movie, I think it will be a big hit. With Joss at the helm, how can you go far wrong? Universal Studios is a well respected and credible company that puts out some top-notch flicks. UPN will most likely pick up an updated version of the tv series after the first movie has grossed over 100 million dollars. Production of tv series eps will start about one year after movie release. With the sluggish scifi activity on tv and the movies lately, I think Firefly will be a breath of fresh air. With the amount of time that has passed since F-- Network cancelled the show, I think audiences will have a fresh perspective on Firefly. Lets face it, Firefly was and is a good show, we all know it! I look forward to seeing my favorite show on the big screen soon. (Also, on the small screen if all goes well.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 9, 2004 2:22 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by TragicStory:
Now two questions:
Anyone know of a series that was turned into a movie and then ressurected as a series?

Who owns the rights to Firefly or better yet, how much control does Joss have? Can he just take it and walk or does it no longer belong to him in any way?

Big Screen movies? I think the closest analogy to Firefly would be Battlestar Galactica. I think, however, that many (some?) of you may be a little young to remember the original. Once upon a time, there was a TV serious called Battlestar Galactica loved by Star Wars fans nationwide. Then it was cancelled and later came out at the theaters as Battlestar Galactica the Movie, which was really just the premier touched up for the big screen. I remember seeing it at the drive in theater. Later, I believe, it returned to TV as the widely unsuccessful Galactica 1980. Not really a glowing endorsement of the Firefly to come, but hopeful Firefly will have better success then Galactica.

As far as who owns Firefly, I think that largely depends on how the contract was written, but since the movie is being made, I would think that Universal currently owns it. The amount of freedom they offer him is directly proportional to how big they expect the movie to be and indirectly proportional to how much money they are putting into it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 9, 2004 8:20 PM

MACBAKER

This is what I understand about this. Universal wanted Joss working for them. Fox has exclusive TV rights with Joss and Mutant Enemy, so Universal made a movie deal with him. He pushed for Serenity as his first movie project, and after seeing the success of the DVD set, they greenlighted the film.

Here's what I think will happen. If the Serenity is a success (and I believe it will be), Joss will lobby for another Firefly/Serenity(?) series. If that is to happen, it's up to Fox to greenlight, not Universal. Universal may have the movie rights, but Fox still retains the TV rights. It's complicated, and we don't know the details of either contract, so we'll just have to wait and see.

Personally, I hope that Firefly is given a second chance, and that it ends up on a network like Sci-Fi, where the ratings demands aren't as strict as with the major networks. WIth a home like that, it will have time to build a wider audience.

I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 9, 2004 9:07 PM

SADLITTLEKING

There is a third possibility: TV movies. Smaller budget than a big-screen movie and takes just as short a time to film. Plus, Joss can string together a series of TV movies over the course of a few years or so.

Also, I'm sorry, but I don't see Serenity being a huge success at the box office. If I'm correct (and judging by the series I think I am), the story will be deep, chalk full of interesting characters and dramatic situations with some nice action here and there...not the kind of shallow rollercoaster ride movie-goers flock to see. Serenity will be overshadowed by the likes of Star Wars Episode III and the vast amount of fans so blinded by loyalty that they couldn't tell how crappy Episode II was. I think Serenity will do well enough, but I don't think it'll be a huge hit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 9, 2004 9:29 PM

MACBAKER

Quote:
Originally posted by SadLittleKing:
I don't see Serenity being a huge success at the box office. If I'm correct (and judging by the series I think I am), the story will be deep, chalk full of interesting characters and dramatic situations with some nice action here and there...not the kind of shallow rollercoaster ride movie-goers flock to see.

Your description of Serenity could be used for some very sucessful movies like:

Titanic (where the only action really happens in the last reel). World-wide Box Office $1,835,300,000

Forrest Gump. World-wide Box Office $679,400,000

The Sixth Sense. World-wife Box Office $661,500,000

Ocean's Eleven. World-wife Box Office $444,200,000

Etc., etc., etc. The list goes on. Sure, big action movies do seem to top the box office, but there are plently of exceptions. There's a little movie that none of the studios thought had any chance for decient returns, that's currently on track to beat Titanic, called "The Passion Of Jesus Christ". Now I don't want to start a theological debate, but it's hardly a "shallow rollercoaster ride movie".

I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 9, 2004 10:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by jgsugden:
Networks are intereted n series that can go 100 episodes and do well in syndication. That is why Angel was cancelled this season: It reached 100 episodes, but it looked to be failing as a syndication option, so it was bypassed. Fox would have been far wiser to hold off on syndicating it until it could be paired with Buffy on FX, reenergizing the Buffy viewings and supporting a stronger base for Angel views ...

Actually that has nothing to do with why Angel was cancelled. Angel has been airing in syndication this past year, since September, after striking a deal last May. Angel reruns were put into syndication after only 88 episodes, IMO due to the influence on DVD's on television.

Angel was cancelled because of Twentieth Century Fox's high and rising licensing fee, the high cost to ratings ratio (especially taking reruns into account), and the WB's strategy for revamping their network.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 9, 2004 10:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by embers:
are we sure Fox owns the rights to a Firefly TV show? I thought that when a network cancels a show this quickly they lose rights and the show belongs to the original producers...

of course I guess these things can differ a lot from one contract to the next..

The FOX network (a.k.a. Fox Broadcasting Company, or FBC) originally aired Firefly. Twentieth Century Fox [Television] was the production studio for the series. FOX and Twentieth are sister companies, both owned by Rupert Murdoch of NewsCorp, but they do not work together. A Twentieth show can air on any network, and FOX can air shows from any studio. When you bought your Firefly DVD's, you were supporting Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment, not the FOX network.

FOX the network no longer has rights to air the series. Fox the studio does own the episodes. I don't know if Fox would own a return to the series, which could technically count as a different series; I'm not sure how that works.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 9, 2004 10:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Misguided By Voices:
The story Joss and co came up with was due to run for 5+ years on TV (or else why bother).

Have you ever seen any of Ken Finkleman's TV series. "More Tears," "Foolish Heart," and "Foreign Objects" all only had 6 half-hour episodes each, and were only meant to. Just because something's intended to have a shorter run doesn't mean it's crap. Do you hate miniseries, too?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 9, 2004 10:42 PM

MACBAKER

Quote:
Originally posted by InvisibleGreen:
Quote:
Originally posted by embers:
are we sure Fox owns the rights to a Firefly TV show? I thought that when a network cancels a show this quickly they lose rights and the show belongs to the original producers...

of course I guess these things can differ a lot from one contract to the next..

The FOX network (a.k.a. Fox Broadcasting Company, or FBC) originally aired Firefly. Twentieth Century Fox [Television] was the production studio for the series. FOX and Twentieth are sister companies, both owned by Rupert Murdoch of NewsCorp, but they do not work together. A Twentieth show can air on any network, and FOX can air shows from any studio. When you bought your Firefly DVD's, you were supporting Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment, not the FOX network.

FOX the network no longer has rights to air the series. Fox the studio does own the episodes. I don't know if Fox would own a return to the series, which could technically count as a different series; I'm not sure how that works.

As I understand it, Fox still has an exclusive deal with Mutant Enemy on any TV productions. Universal's deal is just for movies.

I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 10, 2004 7:36 AM

YANKSNO1

Quote:
Originally posted by TragicStory:
Now two questions:
Anyone know of a series that was turned into a movie and then ressurected as a series?

Now the closest anology to Firefly would be Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Joss first did the movie with Kristy Swanson and Luke Perry that flopped big time and then revamped the show to become the best show on TV (IMO). Now Joss is trying to a reverse Buffy with Firefly.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 10, 2004 8:59 AM

PUDOR

Quote:
...the WB's strategy for revamping their network.

"The WB's strategy for de-vamping their network", surely?

(oh I wish I had something interesting to say... :>)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 10, 2004 9:29 AM

MEREN

Where do you find out who owns what licenses?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 10, 2004 10:08 AM

THOREAU

as to ownership of Firefly, I think this has been explained over and over. Fox, the production company, owns Firefly. Fox, the television network, does not. It's that simple. You can watch any network on tv and see that Fox production company logo at the end, it's not tied to the Fox television network.

t

*note: by tied i mean compeltely tied to. there is a connection, both owned by the same umbrella company, but no more than that.

Jayne: "These are stone killers, little man. They ain't cuddly like me."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 10, 2004 1:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by InvisibleGreen:
Have you ever seen any of Ken Finkleman's TV series. "More Tears," "Foolish Heart," and "Foreign Objects" all only had 6 half-hour episodes each, and were only meant to. Just because something's intended to have a shorter run doesn't mean it's crap. Do you hate miniseries, too?

Wow. Misguided anger much?

Maybe I missed the meeting, but Firefly wasn't designed as a mini or maxi series, nor as a "very special television event" as I believe TNT labelled Crusade. It was designed as an ongoing series, and by definition, to last 5 years or more.

Don't believe my post suggested anything like you read into it - if it did, mea culpa. I like a good mini-series - can't wait for Farscape.

"I threw up on your bed"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 10, 2004 1:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by pudor:
Quote:
...the WB's strategy for revamping their network.

"The WB's strategy for de-vamping their network", surely?

(oh I wish I had something interesting to say... :>)

Actually, "re-vamping" is more accurate, with The WB's new "Dark Shadows series premiering in the fall.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 10, 2004 2:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Misguided By Voices:
Wow. Misguided anger much?

Maybe I missed the meeting, but Firefly wasn't designed as a mini or maxi series, nor as a "very special television event" as I believe TNT labelled Crusade. It was designed as an ongoing series, and by definition, to last 5 years or more.

Don't believe my post suggested anything like you read into it - if it did, mea culpa. I like a good mini-series - can't wait for Farscape.

"I threw up on your bed"

Sorry if I seemed angry. I know that "Firefly" was intended to run more than 15 episodes. And I "Crusade" was a full series, meant to run longer than 13 episodes. There are even three unfilmed "Crusade" scripts.

"Crusade" and "Firefly" actually have a lot of simularities. "Crusade" was shown pretty much completely out of order by TNT, like FOX's airing the pilot last, and both series have a couple of unfilmed scripts.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 10, 2004 2:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by InvisibleGreen:
Sorry if I seemed angry.

Apolo-gee accepted - was more a chance to pun on my name that I couldn't pass by

Quote:

"Crusade" and "Firefly" actually have a lot of simularities. "Crusade" was shown pretty much completely out of order by TNT, like FOX's airing the pilot last, and both series have a couple of unfilmed scripts.

Let's not forget the studio interference. TnA wanted a space whore, gun fights and action, Fox wanted less Western - does anyone think they could just have swapped series and both been happy?

"I threw up on your bed"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 10, 2004 4:54 PM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.

Quote:
Originally posted by Astriana:
could you also flip the coin and argue FOR a new series AND a sequel?

I like your thinking.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 10, 2004 5:41 PM

LANEYCLASSIC

I'm just hoping for 'Serenity' to be a success, so we may get another movie. It seems unlikely that it'll come back to TV, ever. Unlike 'Family Guy', Serenity/Firefly need the actors who would, by then, have moved on to other projects.
A case in point, Gina Torres's signed on for one of the leads in a new ABC pilot 'Gramercy Park'. I hear ABC are serious about this, as they've been trying to get it going for the past year. I googled around, and found some spoilers. Family drama, strong role for her. A surgical nurse married to a heart surgeon. Second in command of a dysfunctional family. A little like Zoe, actually.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 11, 2004 5:29 PM

SADLITTLEKING

Quote:
Originally posted by MacBaker:
Quote:
Originally posted by SadLittleKing:
I don't see Serenity being a huge success at the box office. If I'm correct (and judging by the series I think I am), the story will be deep, chalk full of interesting characters and dramatic situations with some nice action here and there...not the kind of shallow rollercoaster ride movie-goers flock to see.

Your description of Serenity could be used for some very sucessful movies like:

Titanic (where the only action really happens in the last reel). World-wide Box Office $1,835,300,000

Forrest Gump. World-wide Box Office $679,400,000

The Sixth Sense. World-wife Box Office $661,500,000

Ocean's Eleven. World-wife Box Office $444,200,000

Etc., etc., etc. The list goes on. Sure, big action movies do seem to top the box office, but there are plently of exceptions. There's a little movie that none of the studios thought had any chance for decient returns, that's currently on track to beat Titanic, called "The Passion Of Jesus Christ". Now I don't want to start a theological debate, but it's hardly a "shallow rollercoaster ride movie".

I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.

The difference with Serenity is that it doesn't have any big-name celebrities. Titanic had Leo DiCaprio, Gump had Tom Hanks, Sixth Sense had Bruce Willis, Ocean's Eleven had a bunch of big names, and Passion of the Christ has The Big Name, Himself (in a sense) and being directed by Mel Gibson probably didn't hurt.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Serenity will bomb (I'm very much rootin' for it), but I don't think it's gonna be a huge draw since the movie itself is without a huge draw.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 12, 2004 7:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by InvisibleGreen:
Quote:
Originally posted by jgsugden:
Networks are intereted n series that can go 100 episodes and do well in syndication. That is why Angel was cancelled this season: It reached 100 episodes, but it looked to be failing as a syndication option, so it was bypassed. Fox would have been far wiser to hold off on syndicating it until it could be paired with Buffy on FX, reenergizing the Buffy viewings and supporting a stronger base for Angel views ...

Actually that has nothing to do with why Angel was cancelled. Angel has been airing in syndication this past year, since September, after striking a deal last May. Angel reruns were put into syndication after only 88 episodes, IMO due to the influence on DVD's on television.

Angel was cancelled because of Twentieth Century Fox's high and rising licensing fee, the high cost to ratings ratio (especially taking reruns into account), and the WB's strategy for revamping their network.

My understanding, based upon a JW interview, was that the low syndication value they were able to generate for Angel was the reason Angel was doomed. TNT is paying next to nothing to show those reruns ...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 12, 2004 7:13 AM

If you're looking for a 'level' of success they're hoping for, compare it to other Sci-fi films without big stars (at least, not big at the time). They're not looking for a blockbuster (though they wouldn't turn it down either). They're hoping for a solid performer - middle of the road.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 12, 2004 9:30 AM

BROWNCOAT1

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.

Though I can some of the well thought arguements for why some think Firefly will never again be on TV, I still feel that film would not be a sufficient medium to tell the story of this ship or crew the way Joss intends it to be told. Sure, a movie is better than nothing, but I think it is just the hook for the return to the TV. One hour a week on TV is a far better way to convey a story than 2 hours every 2 to 3 years.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 12, 2004 9:44 AM

Double post

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 12, 2004 9:44 AM