Anatomy of a bad SF movie: Precisely what made it fail? by chrisisall

OTHER SCIENCE FICTION SERIES

Anatomy of a bad SF movie: Precisely what made it fail?

scan this with your smart phone to obtain URL for this page

POSTED BY: CHRISISALL
UPDATED: Tuesday, November 9, 2010 15:40
SHORT URL: http://goo.gl/CtKiP
VIEWED: 10863
PAGE 3 of 3

Saturday, November 6, 2010 10:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Shinygoodguy:
1-No big-name stars (I dare say that had Castle existed before this movie was released we would be analysing Serenity 2) and,

B- It was not promoted sufficiently as to create a buzz outside the Browncoat circle of influence (which is needed to reach Avatar numbers)

That and calling the gorram thing SERENITY (more fan service lost on a greater audience). Yeah, I got this great action movie for you to market, I'm calling it SNOOZEFEST NAVEL GAZING--whataya say? 'Sgot blockbuster written all over it, bay-bee!

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

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

Saturday, November 6, 2010 3:22 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Cherry 2000, seriously? Think with your big brain for a second and tell me what exactly was GOOD about it

The women were hot & the music was excellent.
Kinda like a SF MTV.
There.

BTW- didn't Kirk get morphed into a self-doubting whiner in STTMP?

"All things change, lady."

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Saturday, November 6, 2010 3:31 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Yeah, I got this great action movie for you to market, I'm calling it SNOOZEFEST NAVEL GAZING--whataya say? 'Sgot blockbuster written all over it, bay-bee!

They DO make caffine-free soda, you know.

I do have to agree that the title SUCKED for non fans of the series. Definitely one reason for the box office suckitude.

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Saturday, November 6, 2010 3:46 PM

GWEK

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Really – picture the size of the state of Texas. Now picture going 800 feet into it. An explosion there is really going to split the thing in half? Could they be any sillier? And as for the rest - Armageddon is not a better “science” movie just because only .0001% or whatever of the world is aware of the science involved.

The point you're missing is that none of these movies are about science. "Science fiction" as term has evolved into something that does not, by and large, need to include science.

Is it ridiculous to think that drilling an 800- foot hole and dropping a nuke down it will split the rock and save the earth? Yes, it is. But the movie's narrative tells is that in THIS particular movie, that his how things work. In Star Wars, there is sound in space and lightsabers are an option. In FIREFLY, every planet looks the same and has horses and cows. In ARMAGEDDON, 800 foot hole + nuke = victory.

Really, though, I don't know why I'm wasting my typing, because you don't like the movie (which is certainly your right) and nothing that I say is going to change your opinion.

Quote:
For the record, I think The Core is poor in general.

I agree. I found the movie so danged obvious that I was able to predict not only which characters would survive, but the order in which they would die and WHEN within the movie they would die.

Quote:
Now, what’s the word that’s one of only two words in the genre that this whole thread is about, the word that comes first…?

SF is a misnomer. The one thing that virtually every "science fiction" movie these days shares is scientific implausibility, if not outright impossibility.

"Science fiction" is a convenient genre tag that is a leftover from--the 40s? The 50s?--when it was relevant and accurate.

Quote:
Same wild and slightly crazy but very manly and heroic beer-drinking GUY, rough around the edges but ultimately ready to sacrifice himself for those who never really appreciated him enough.

So... Mal?

Quote:
I liked and felt for this guy the first time I saw him, decades ago. Now I’m tired of him. (Except maybe in Farscape. The lead chick in that show was cool enough that I could get over the over martyred overly stud-boy John.)

Movies use the same archetypes over and over again because a) there are only so many character types and b) they allow "shorthand." I a movie, which tells no more than 2 or 3 hours of story, archetyping is preferable. When we see Han Solo's smile and swagger, we know exactly what kind of character we're dealing with. When we see the Operative, we recognize the zealot intellectual.

I'm not saying that movie characters shouldn't be unique, but stereo/archetyping is integral to the storytelling form. The more time that is required to explain the character, the less time left to tell the character's story.

All of which is a moot point here, because it's a matter of taste and opinion. Yes, Harry is similar to many characters I've seen before. And he's never going to win any awards for "deepest male action hero," but my personal opinion is that what he brings to the table makes him stand out enough.

Quote:
BTW, Mal comes close, but he’s got much more depth. Also, I think Joss is aware of the stereotype and mocks it even as he uses it. As he did with broody Angel. This makes it work.

Apples and oranges. Mal and Angel are both TV characters. If ARMAGEDDON had been told over the course of 16 hours (or 4 seasons, plus countless appearances in another 7-season story), I promise you Harry and the gang would have had more depth.

Similarly, if Joss had done a movie version of FIREFLY, the crew would LACK the depth it has in the TV series. Check out ALIEN: RESURRECTION and you can see the proof. THAT is our crew (give or take a few members) condensed down for movie storytelling.

www.stillflying.net: "Here's how it might have been..."

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

Tuesday, November 9, 2010 2:13 AM

MAL4PREZ

Hey GWEK - I wrote a response over the weekend, but my computer froze up and I lost it. Annoying! So I'll try to recreate...

Quote:
Originally posted by GWEK:
The point you're missing is that none of these movies are about science.

The point you're missing is that I'm not saying that. I never did, not in the way you're suggesting. So you're not wasting your time typing because you can't convince me, you're wasting your time typing because yeah - I'm right there with you! (On everything except Armageddon.)

I think may you took that drill bit joke waaaaay too seriously...

Anyway, let me be clear: a movie can have "bad" unrealistic science and still be good in my book, which I pointed out in my very first post when I sad that I enjoyed The Day After Tomorrow. See? I get it.

Science fiction movies are not PBS documentaries about the actual laws of science. Right. I get that to. I never claimed they were.

But they do sure as hell use some kind of science or technology in their premise or plot, and so that science-y stuff, even if implausible, becomes yet another thing that should be presented with some degree of believability and consistency. The science does not become the point of the movie, but yet another item on the list of what shouldn't suck if a movie wants to avoid suckatude.

Quote:
I agree. I found the movie so danged obvious that I was able to predict not only which characters would survive, but the order in which they would die and WHEN within the movie they would die.

LOL! That had to kind of fun, if you were watching it with buddies who would let you voice your predictions. I find that people generally aren't too pleased with that...

Quote:
SF is a misnomer. The one thing that virtually every "science fiction" movie these days shares is scientific implausibility, if not outright impossibility.

Again - yeah. I never said sci-fi movies have to clear a peer-reviewed science journal. But to claim that "science" has nothing to do with science fiction, that the tag is just a leftover, is, IMHO, a bit silly. You don't have to look real closely at any sci-fi movie to see where the science comes in. Basic elements of plot depend on science or technology - whether plausible or not.

Actually, it's a better movie if a good part of the science is not plausible. What fun would a movie with only proven, realistic, modern science be? The whole point is to say: what if, someday, *this* could happen...? The Matrix went way out there with impossible stuff, but it did it in a (mostly) sensible way that melded with the plot. Good stuff. Not realistic, but worth pondering.

So here's my point that you should spend your typing time debating, if you really want to debate some more: implausible is not the same as contrived and hokey. The obviously contrived stuff is what I dislike, same I dislike any obviously contrived plot or characterization.

As for archetypes - there's no reason a movie can't make their buck-a-roo hero a little more interesting. 12 Monkeys and the Fifth Element show Bruce being pretty damned interesting, with only 90ish minutes to do it, and they still managed action and such.

Even Mal, with the movie alone and no series, has more depth and uniqueness than the average Micheal Crichton hero.

ALIEN: RESURRECTION: Yeah, it may not be a popular thing to say around here, but when has that ever stopped me?

I think Joss does much better with TV. His movies haven't been the greatest.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

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

Tuesday, November 9, 2010 3:13 PM

SHINYGOODGUY

Yeah, I got this great action movie for you to market, I'm calling it SNOOZEFEST NAVEL GAZING--whataya say? 'Sgot blockbuster written all over it, bay-bee!
__________________________________________________________________

Agreed, without a BIG Name director or star in the movie to get the curious moviegoer curious enough to say "hey so-and-so is in it, I can't wait." or "What's his face is directing, I'm gonna take a look," its pretty much left to word of mouth.

And if the movie doesn't totally kick ass, you're not going to get that special buzz. Also it's about what "space cowboys?" Serenity - what's it about? Who's in it? Joss Whedon directed, didn't he do Buffy, I hated that show.
Who's Nathan Fillion? (You get the picture).

My criticism also points to Universal. You would think that maybe they would schedule the stars of the movie, or hell, the director to appear on the Tonight Show, Conan or something. People love to hear about an underdog anything, you know the "against-all-odds" impossibility that made it despite all the naysayers. Firefly had it written all over the place - the actors, director and the show were the epitome of underdog.

Plus the fact that they could stick to Fox for being such dumbasses canceling such a gem. Universal to the rescue kind of thing. It could have created buzz. Plus people would have been happy to be a part of a cult phenomenom.

Let's go to the movies, shall we: What was our competition in Sept 2005?

Serenity's opening weekend take was a little over $10M. It's closest competition was -

A History of Violence: $8.1M

Into the Blue (with Jessica Alba's butt): $7M+

Little Manhattan: $36K

Serenity's take for 7 weeks was $25.5M and closed on Nov. 17th.

Harry Potter (the 800lb gorilla) opened Nov. 18th

Here's what Joss had to say about it:

JW:Its bigger because its smaller. Heres a movie that doesnt have a title that explains itself simply. It doesnt have big stars so you got to do more legwork. You want to get people to give it a shot because I think if they go to the theaters theyre going to have a great time, but if they dont go into theaters Ill never know.

DRE:What would you be happy with for the opening weekend?

JW:I cant give you a numbers exactly. Im not much of a numbers guy. I would be happy if the people at Universal are happy. Expectations for the opening weekend are not huge. This is a movie that we think depends on word of mouth. What would make me happy would be a small drop-off for the second weekend. The idea that it didnt just burst and then disappear the way most of the bigger movies do.

Interesting, isn't it?

Excerpts from an interview by Daniel Robert Epstein, published Sept. 30, 2005 for SuicideGirls.com

http://suicidegirls.com/interviews/Joss+Whedon/

SGG

Tawabawho?

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

Tuesday, November 9, 2010 3:30 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Shinygoodguy:

Into the Blue (with Jessica Alba's butt)

LOL!!!! That's SO funny!!! LOL!

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Tuesday, November 9, 2010 3:40 PM

STORYMARK

One of my very first Blu Ray rentals, that was....

(Serenity being one of my first Blu Ray purchases)

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

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

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE