Article on Chud about Serenity and its Fans

POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Thursday, October 13, 2005 20:52
VIEWED: 13085
PAGE 1 of 1

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 5:32 PM (P)

http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=news&id=4662

OUT OF GAS
10.09.05

By Devin Faraci

It’s been interesting, this past week, to watch the Browncoats go through all the stages of grieving as laid out by Elizabeth Kubler-Ross. First there was denial, where they claimed that, hey, ten million dollars and coming in second to a shitty movie that had already been released the week before was OK. Next came anger. I found myself at the receiving end of this stage of grief after I had what they (and Joss Whedon) took to be the incredible gall to call it as I saw it – ie, that Serenity’s opening weekend tagged the film as one that would not make back its money at the box office. (And this weekend's performance - staggering into the top ten at 9, indicates that I was right. Look for Serenity to make 25 million domestically.)

The bargaining stage was, for me, the most disturbing stage. This is when the Browncoats began buying tickets to the movie to give to complete strangers, or even worse, seeing the film seven, eight or nine times in a weekend. It just seems that no one should ever see a movie that many times in that short a time frame. A movie isn’t a song – it isn’t built for such repetition.

Depression was next. The official Serenity Browncoats boards and sites like Whedonesque and FireflyFans were filled with people saying they felt like they were kicked in the chest, or were at the end of their tether. Some people – probably the ones who had previously posted such disturbing things as that the death of a character in the film made them cry for a week – reported what sounded like serious depression.

By the time Friday’s numbers (which I would say were dismal, but I don’t want to have one of my favorite artists jumping down my throat again) came in, most of the Browncoats had come to the acceptance stage. They finally understood that this was going to be the end of the road for this property, that Serenity would more or less be the swan song for these characters.

Like I said, it’s been fascinating to watch. I don’t think there’s ever been a fanbase like the Browncoats (and at this point I feel like I should try to have some sort of definition. Not everyone who bought the Firefly DVDs – people like me, for instance – is a Browncoat. The Browncoats are mostly self-identified, and the Browncoats I’m talking about here are the sort of rabid fans who call it “our” movie, as if they made it), and in the last week it’s taken the kind of hit that I don’t think any fanbase has taken since Star Trek first got cancelled. But even that is no comparison, since there was no Internet then, which means that most of Star Trek’s fans were sort of doing their nerd thing in a vacuum.

There are still some Browncoats in the denial phase. There’s a very vocal contingent, some of whom e-mail me a bunch, who claim that Serenity will get a sequel because the film will do well on DVD. Now, I don’t disagree that the film will do well on DVD. Serenity will, I think, be one of the better selling DVDs of the holiday season, and it won’t even be a bells and whistles edition. The problem here is that these folks have a serious disconnect when it comes to understanding how all this stuff works. It’s true that movies now make most of their profit on DVD. In fact, almost every single movie makes money when it comes to DVD, TV sales and foreign box office.

You need to take a minute and think about that. With the new math of big ancillary dollars, almost every movie released ends up making some sort of money. That’s even beyond the studio’s voodoo accounting (for those not in the know, many studios cook the hell out of the books to show that their films DON’T turn a profit so they don’t have to share that profit – do a Google search for Art Buchwald and lawsuit for some eye-opening info). So why doesn’t every single movie get a sequel? Why am I not right now reporting on the filming of the next Riddick chronicle?

Here’s what you have to understand about Hollywood, here’s the essential paradox that makes it all come together – it’s

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 5:39 PM (P)

So, what do you all think about this article? Is he right? Does he at least have some valid points?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

THELURKER

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 5:59 PM (P)

My first thought is that he seems to think that a minority of overzealous and abusive fans are representative of all Browncoats. It has been my experience in my short time here that most of you are a lot more positive and upbeat in your attitude towards both Firefly and Serenity. I think most people here have realistic expectations that a sequel is possible, but by no means a sure thing.

Now, he does make some valid points regarding what the film will probably gross domestically, and about DVD sales, however, I think he's seriously underestimating this particular DVD. It isn't just going to sell well. I think it will sell like hotcakes. There is a new Hollywood model starting to take effect and Serenity could well be part of it. I have personally spoken to many fans of the show and sci fi fans in general, who have no desire to see this movie, or ANY movie in a theater. The reason they give is that it's actually cheaper for them to buy it than to take the whole family out to the theater and with movie prices, gas prices, inconsiderate moviegoers, etc., it just isn't worth the hassle to go out, when they can have it at home in a few months.

Anyway, word-of-mouth campaigns, which films like Serenity need, take time. You don't expect films like this to hit big and stay big. The full scope of the work of the Browncoats will not be known until December. Then...well, we'll just see.

XEROGRAVITY

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 6:00 PM (P)

Some valid points. Some not-so valid. Lots and lots of rantific blathering. In a word...

windbag.

XG

No such thing as gravity. The "Earth-that-was" just sucks.

STEVE580

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 6:07 PM (P)

I'm sure most have read this already, but I figured I'd post it here again anyways, as it is in response to this article:

Joss Whedon:
So I was flouncing (that’s lurking but fancier) about WHEDONESQUE
(for which I have forgotten my password yet again) and I couldn’t
help but see the little CHUD.com hate-bomb that Devin wrote. I don’t
mind that he doesn’t love the film, but things like “It failed in a
big way” and “It’s over” are about as charming — and journalistic –
as “I was right.” I am being totally realistic when I say the
weekend grosses did not meet expectations — but those expectations
were based on models that don’t apply to this situation because,
seriously, nothing does. The industry is not calling this a failure,
just a slightly soft version of a normal opening in a generally weak
weekend.

Now I did meet Devin, and he’s not a dumb guy. But he seems to have
a real animus against you Browncoats, and that’s the thing I wanted
to comment on, ’cause that doesn’t sit well with me. He actually
blames you guys for making sci-fi fans stay away from the movie.
Says you should be ashamed for having adopted a name, that you will
start finger-pointing and bickering now that you’ve ’caused’
the ‘failure’ of your film. He blames other things as well — the
title, the ads — but that’s fine. If one –ONE — of you guys reads
that column and takes it to heart I’ll not sleep. You guys did an
amazing thing this weekend — and the exit polls showed how much you
guys were out there, and how much business you dragged in with you.
Not to mention everything you did for the months - sorry, YEARS –
before it opened. I’m crazy proud of you. Yes, there is an
exclusionary element to some fandom that is inevitable, but this
group has fought that as well or better as any, and maybe I’m a
nerd, but being compared to a Trekker (or even a TrekkIE) doesn’t
offend me a bit.

We all know this remains an uphill battle. We all know that next
weekend is crucial — and a lot of it will rest on us. A lot will
rest on the studio reaching people we can’t. And factors we can’t
see coming. But I don’t especially appreciate people calling Time of
Death while I’m still operating. I don’t like smug defeatism. And
nobody disses the ‘coats without me wading in. That’s all.

The question remains: Did Early die out there in space, or did some
passing ship show up at the last second? There’s no answer yet, but
I sure as hell know how I’d write it.

-j.

GROOSALUGG

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 6:14 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by TheLurker:
I have personally spoken to many fans of the show and sci fi fans in general, who have no desire to see this movie, or ANY movie in a theater. The reason they give is that it's actually cheaper for them to buy it than to take the whole family out to the theater and with movie prices, gas prices, inconsiderate moviegoers, etc., it just isn't worth the hassle to go out, when they can have it at home in a few months.

Exactly. That describes my normal attitude toward movies perfectly--the last thing I saw in the theater was The Green Mile in, what, 2000? Now in this case, because I'm such a fan, Serenity was worth going to the trouble for, but a lot of people who don't know anything about Firefly and are only moderately interested in the BDM based on what they've seen and read, they're just going to wait and buy or rent the DVD. It's just so much more convenient, and in most cases, a more enjoyable experience to watch something in the comfort of your own living room than in a theater full of (possibly loud and obnoxious) strangers...

GIANTEVILHEAD

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 6:15 PM (P)

I do agree with him about how some of the fans are way too aggressive but thinking that they had a big effect on the boxoffice is just wrong. The rabid fans definitely had a negative effect but not comparable to the negative effect the crappy trailers and commercials had.

"I swallowed a bug." -River Tam

XEROGRAVITY

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 6:20 PM (P)

Ya know. Honestly, responding to this is a collossal waste of nonrefundable lifespan. The guy invokes a "big name" school of psychology as the premise of his analysis of we "overzealous" fans. He is clearly narcissistic.

We supposed to be moved to great acts of defiance by a longwinded troll? Nonsense. Don't waste your time on this pseudo-intellectual and his psychobabble.

Let him rant and rave about movies like Yentl and Ishtar. I'm sure he can write labrythnine volumes of "penetrating insights" into the redeeming social value of garbage like that.

XG

No such thing as gravity. The "Earth-that-was" just sucks.

HOWARD

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 6:21 PM (P)

The article is excellent, intelligent, well writted and he is right about how gullable about the marketing seduction many browncoasts are. I for one do not take lightly the failure on Joss's part to respect established facts from the series.

The author is too negative about the potential of direct to DVD but very correct about the undermining of direct to DVD by Universal in releasing cheesy sequels and prequels. UNIVERSAL execs are idiots to treat DVD like 1980's VHS they should instead treat it as a mass market version of Laserdisc and a parallel to cinema release.

The author also underestimates international box office and international DVD.

The percentage of total revenue has long past the 50% mark for foreign income. It reached 50% in the early 1990's. Now with so many markets expanding the USA portion of box office is decreasing.

For example North American and European multiplex movie theatres are mostly drab and many people feel more pull by DVD and have bought top end home cinema systems. In contrast in Asia and Asia Pacific there is a new era of magnificent movie palaces in awesome multiplexes with super luxury and airline style 1st class/club class and economy ways of seeing a movie and having dinner and wine etc. While DVD sales in say South Korea are low compard to Europe or North America their cinemas are increasingly being transformed into high tech digital movie palaces so box office matters there more. While in Europe DVD matters more.

Even if only 100 million Chinese become English fluent and Western in their taste in the next ten years not only will film studios be consulting their desires but more and more movies will be made in China in English for the world.

Then an increasing number of Chinese language films will be seen in the USA as more and more Americans learn Mandarin at University and in their corporate complexes.

If 500 million Chinese become English fluent and Western in their taste the USA box office shall be downgraded to an after-thought.

In fact both Joss and UNIVERSAL are stupid and cowards for not taking a chance and making a truly bilingual English/Chinese SERENITY. The truth is a movie released even today with 50% Mandarin dialogue would have made MORE money not less.

The Chinese and Indian economies are set to take over world trade in years ahead.

A FIREFLY world for sure.

LYNNEC

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 6:41 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Howard:
In fact both Joss and UNIVERSAL are stupid and cowards for not taking a chance and making a truly bilingual English/Chinese SERENITY. The truth is a movie released even today with 50% Mandarin dialogue would have made MORE money not less.

The Chinese and Indian economies are set to take over world trade in years ahead.

A FIREFLY world for sure.

While the economies of China and India are already becoming force with which to be reckoned, I don't see Serenity having much opportunity to find a market in China. Why? When one of the central premises of the movie is of independant individuals functionally giving the middle finger to an overbearing central government, it might not be seen as acceptable fare for the populous of a country with just such a government, known for its restriction of information/media/etc.

Just a thought....

~ Lynne C. ~
---------------------
http://www.geocities.com/fic_girl_2003/index.html
http://www.cafepress.com/blood_love_etc

GIANTEVILHEAD

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 6:58 PM (P)

No movies are popular in China, the new Star Wars only made about $9 million in China, less than what it made in South Korea, a country with less than 1/20th the population of China. People in China don't go to the movies. Pirated DVD's of new movies go for about 5 to 10 Yuan per copy, less than an US dollar, and they're available everywhere. Heck, 99% of all the CD's and DVD's in China are pirated, it’s almost impossible to find a place that sells legit CD’s and DVD’s.

"I swallowed a bug." -River Tam

BROWNCOAT1

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 7:23 PM (P)

Does he have a couple of valid points about how Hollywood operates & the possible estimates for domestic box office for Serenity? Sure. He seems to have some insight into the industry & how movies work. Good for him. Hope his ego can take the stroking.

I agree w/ everything Joss said in the quote that Steve posted from Whedonesque. I don't care for this guy's "I told you so" or "I was right & you guys suck get over it" attitude.

So he reads a couple of things online about some extremist fans & automatically paints the entire fanbase w/ the brush he does the minority. Sounds pretty unreasonable to me.

Does this guy & his constant putting down of the fanbase & our odds rub me the wrong way? You betcha. Am I going to email him? Nope. Why waste my time & effort? This self righteous hwoon dahn can rot for all I care. Nothing any of us can say will make him see anything different than his own narrow minded, self absorbed opinion.

__________________________________________

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

Richmond, VA & surrounding area Firefly Fans:

http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/richmondbrowncoats/

http://www.richmondbrowncoats.org

HOWARD

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 7:40 PM (P)

There are Chinese communities all over the world. Plus an increasing fascination among other audiences.

HOWARD

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 7:42 PM (P)

As I said the THEATRICAL market in Asia is bigger than the DVD market. Do not forget INDONESIA.

SPINLAND

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 7:45 PM (P)

Well, I did e-mail him my objection to being tarred with the same brush as the no-life backbirths who gave (give) the rest of Browncoats a bad name. Might not do any good at his end, but it made me feel better.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I don't know what your problem is, but I bet it's hard to pronounce.

GIANTEVILHEAD

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 7:52 PM (P)

Counterfeiting is extremely rampant in China, India, Indonesia, and all the third world countries in Asia. Not only are the counterfeit DVD’s extremely cheap, most of them are high quality, ripped from screeners. Not to mention the fact that movie theaters are almost non-existent in those countries. I’ve been to China, I’ve been to India, I’ve lived in a Chinese city of three million called Taiyuan, there were about four or five movie theaters in the entire city, not multiplexes, single screen movie theaters, dirty and empty single screen theaters.

"I swallowed a bug." -River Tam

SHINY

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 8:37 PM (P)

Sounds to me with all the armchair psychoanalysis, this guy is telling us browncoats to deal with the "fact" that this is the end for these stories.

But browncoats are like Mal. As Fanty (or Mingo?) said, "You fight when you should deal."

There's nothing new about naysayers, nothing special about critics, nothing fulfilling about tearing others down.

Book says he don't care what you believe in, just believe.

I believe in these characters and these stories. And I believe in my fellow browncoats.

We're holding. And we're gonna keep flyin'.

---

Serenity is coming. 9/30/05.

VANCOUVER

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 8:54 PM (P)

I'm kind of a neophyte in all this-well, I'm a total newbie, in point of fact. New enough that my first thought was to reply to Devin himself, so I did. Here's what I said.

Hello there, Devin.

I'll start out by letting you know where I'm positioned in all of this, so you'll have an idea how to process my response. I'm new to the whole Internet-Browncoat scene--just found my first Serenity/Firefly site day before yesterday, as I noodled around trying to see what the outlook for a sequel or TV resurrection was--so I haven't been following your commentary from the start. I happened across Joss Whedon's response to your non-review, and had a lot of the same questions you did about writers vis-a-vis fans. That said, emotionally I'm totally invested: I feel sick at heart at the idea of the movie not doing well enough, and even sicker at the cancellation of the TV show, which was clearly the best venue for the concept. So I'm passionate, even something of a zealot, though perhaps not full-on rabid.

I found your latest CHUD piece well-thought-out and well-written. Thank you for that. (I have no idea what CHUD is, but I'll check it out over the next few days.) Your intrigue about Firefly and its fan base reminds me of my own take on the about Michael Jordan frenzy back in the early '90s. I wrote a lot of thoughtful articles about that--meaning thoughtful in both the amount of thought, and in consideration--so I think I know where you're coming from with this, and I believe that your comments are in good faith, not meant to be malign.

The thing is, do you fully believe your own analysis of the Browncoats' grief? Because if you do, then the question of why they (we) have lost their (our) perspective is self-answering. In a state of grief, people do. I mean, if you go to someone's funeral, and you write up a piece on it that says, "Well, you know, she was a pretty great kid, she had lots of potential, lots of people loved her--but let's face it, she had cystic fibrosis, and it's a miracle that she lived as long as she did, and there have been other kids who deserved life as much or more who also died..."--well, you're going to get some anger, right? That's why they don't ask reporters to funerals. It hurts. It doesn't necessarily mean that we were deluded about that person in life, or that we weren't realistic about their prospects, or even that we don't know that we're distorting their memory. It just hurts, at the time, and there is no way for you or anyone to be sensitive and objective about it at the same time. To charge us, essentially, with having a disproportionate response can only add to the hurt. Ask us again a few years on, when Serenity/Firefly has long since faded, and you might get something more rational. But it's hardly a sign of greater objectivity, or rationality, to be able to comment as someone who didn't love upon the actions of those who did. Do you know what I mean?

You are dealing here, as well, with two things that the fans of other cancelled shows haven't had: hope, and a second death. Firefly's characters were given new hope, and new life, and you must be able to understand that when the specialist has come in and, against all odds, said, "Your child might live", and brought her to a new state of health and activity, it is all that much harder to accept that the death is real. And, if I may say so, no bystander with an iota of human understanding would expect the emotional reality to be, "Well, at least she got a bit more time than she was supposed to." That's the kind of thing people say to cope; it's not how they're really feeling, and it won't be for quite a long time she's dead and buried.

Understanding that "grief is the price we pay for love," as Queen Elizabeth (! of all people) put it, don't you think the question is less why we're in such a state of grief, and more why we felt such an excess of love? I can't agree with you, by the way, that the love, or the fanbase, is "unprecedented"; it's just that the precedents are in different places, namely 1) in sports, especially

SPINLAND

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 9:03 PM (P)

Wow. That was an incredible piece. Thank you for writing it, for putting Devin in his place so gently yet firmly, and for sharing it with us.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"That's what governments are for, [to] get in a man's way." -- Malcolm Reynolds

STAKETHELURK

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 9:03 PM (P)

Please, please, please do not go to his site or respond directly to him. This is the third in a series of articles in which he basically repeats the same ideas. Why is he writing about this for the third time? Because it gets him more hits for his website. Browncoats and browncoat-haters all rush to see what he has to say--which is why he’s been writing three articles saying the same thing (Joss was responding to the first article). He’s just whining for attention at this point, and I say we ignore him.

All three of his articles have been discussed at length over at Whedonesque for the past week. Here’s some relevant points:

Article One:

Quote:
Originally posted by bonzob on Whedonesque:

This makes me angry in many ways. Especially the "it shouldn't be a movie" part. I love when internet critics just ignore a whole boatload of positive reviews to make it sound like their opinion is absolute fact. So according to rottentomatoes, there are 90 critics who would disagree with your assesment. While the box office is not that great, it's also not the end. Joss has always said this will be a word of mouth movie.

Quote:
Originally posted by Odysseus on Whedonesque:

I pretty much disagree with everything the guy said. But having read some of his past articles about Firefly/Serenity I have a lot of trouble even taking him seriously. I'm ok with him having a different opinion. I just don't like the snide tone he takes to express it.

The snide attitude comes in when he says the movie shouldn't have been made - kind of backhands his comment about it deserving to do well. How can a movie that "deserves to do well" not deserve to be made? He says it's lazy writing like it's a fact not an opinion. He acts like he is 100 percent certain there will be fan backlash, saying we will blame Universal. The last paragraph he insults us for our "finger pointing" that I have yet to even see.

Quote:
Originally posted by Unitas:

Oh, does anyone agree with Devin's last comment? Is hardcore fanning (is this a word?) turning people off of some movies? Personally, I don't really see it. Star Trek just seemed to run out of steam (finally). Star Wars is the biggest film of the year. As for Serenity, I have hard time believing that the fan base was so difficult that it literally kept a sizeable number people out of theatres. That seems a little much.

Quote:
Originally posted by eddy on Whedonesque:

Oh and "more than slightly ashamed that they conferred a weird group identity upon themselves." is a total slap in the face to all fandoms IMO. What is wrong with being part of a group? The thing I can take out of all Joss' shows is that its a good thing to be part of a group who have the same goals and interests and that if you work together you can accomplish anything.

Quote:
Originally posted by jenolen on Whedonesque:

His assertation:

"The film will, most likely, make some money overseas (although I tend to think not in non-English markets) and will definitely earn a bunch on DVD, but domestic box office is generally what it’s all about."

... means he is either totally out of touch with the realities of the entertainment business, or has, at best, an amateur-level understanding of the economics of moviemaking.

Some proof? How about this quote, from Variety, courtesy the View Askewniverse:

But as DVD revenues become more important to studios -- in 2003, DVD sales totaled $11.9 billion, according to Variety sibling Video Business, nearly 30% bigger than the $9.2 billion in U.S. box office that year -- studios began to look for talent who could move units at Wal-Mart the same way Cruise fills seats at the multiplex... DVD dollars are worth more to the studios than box office dollars, because they keep the lion's share of homevideo revenues.

Hmm. DVD sales... Anybody here know a franchise launched on the basis of fantastic DVD sales? Not to mention...

Foreign B.O. used to be an afterthought in the movie biz, gravy that could pad studio

OBIWAN

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 9:09 PM (P)

Bickle? Is that you?

SOKOLOV

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 9:24 PM (P)

"It’s been interesting, this past week, to watch the Browncoats go through all the stages of grieving as laid out by Elizabeth Kubler-Ross."

I stopped reading after this sentence.

Why? Because there is no such thing as "stages of grieving as laid out by Elizabeth Kubler-Ross."

What Elisabeth (yes, with an 's') did do was set out steps for a person who is APPROACHING DEATH (e.g. terminally ill).

Thus, it originally has nothing to do with grief. The grief idea has been popularized by the same people who thinks the "law of averages" exists. (Altho Elisabeth did admit in her book that she believed it MIGHT be applicable to other instances of loss, such as divorce.)

Ultimately, emotions are so complicated and individual it can hardly be "summarized" into 5 steps that everyone experiences, especially when you extrapolate it to an entire community.

I always find it sad that presumably educated people don't actually know what they are talking about.

THANATUS

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 9:49 PM (P)

Well stated Sokolov...if not a little harsh. This is a common misconception outside the realm of healthcare, clergy, and hospice among others. In fact, it is co common a misconception that it has, right or wrong, become a part of the vernacular. You might want to read the rest of the article, though. Actually, it's not quite as sweeping a condemnation as one might imagine.

Cheers

OPENNING

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 10:11 PM (P)

I think what bothered me the most about the article was the thought that, because I'm not an American, there was little I could do. I realize that this probably puts me in the 'overzealous' category, but the only thing I thought as I read this article was "...so the fact that I've seen this movie more than once and have been getting my friends to go see it is pointless?"

NERVOUSPETE

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 10:14 PM (P)

I agree with Vancouver and want to buy him a lovely pint of beer. A really nice beer as well, a micro-brewery or something, none of your piss Carling or Coors!

I sent a massive email to Devin, long-winded as only mine can be. I tend to try and cover all points of views in my emails, and this gets annoying sometimes as ("Get on with it, fool," - the Ghost of Dorothy Parker)

Erk. Sorry, Dorothy.

I sort of agree with Devin, but it could be because this is the first time I've been with a fan community and I'm always a little freaked out by people saying, "I've been to see it ten times!" and "Ambush people at the entrance, beg them to see this!" But then the only film I've ever seen three times at the cinema before is the genuinely wonderful (and I don't care, I'll fight you all!) 'Master & Commander', so what do I know, eh?

I agree with Devin that I don't like the way companies are beginning to co-opt fans as unpaid marketing tools. I agree with him that a fan's obligation is to go see the film as many times as they want, talk it up as much as they want, and maybe call in dark and terrible Godfatheresque 'favours'. All this guerilla marketing makes me a little wary. At first I was all for it, thinking of enigmatic little flyers here and there and the odd mini-spray painting. A little tribute to a love for all the world to see. Then I began to suspect that what they actually want, and get in some cases, is lots of money and time spent effectively doing their marketing department's job for them.

Which, curiously, Universal's more or less did. They promoted it as much as any other film in that budget bracket, I've seen posters, trailers and TV spots - and not on the internet either. In the UK at least, I don't know about the US. There could have been more TV interviews, but that was down to the TV stations themselves balking at what they saw as unknowns taking up valuable couch space.

Ultimately the fault lies with a long decay of expectation and imagination in the general audience. Anything threatening to be new, original and untested is as much shunned by viewers as by the corporations, tragically. This is why Star Trek trucks on right up until the wreck that was Enterprise, while lovely little things like Eerie Indianna and Wonderfalls explode in salty tears. Or something. That's probably why Serenity was doomed on the big screen. Star Wars is known, people almost have a gorram sense of obligation to see it - even if they aren't fans because it is an institution. Serenity isn't - it's loveingly obscure in its beliefs and charms, and thus is ignored. Believe me, it sends me to bed crying.

I have only been amazed once by a cinematic miracle, and that is over Donnie Darko suddenly exploding and the depresso-ace cover single 'Mad World' hitting Christmas No.1 in the UK. "Touche!" you may say, "this means that Serenity can be exactly such a sleeper with the dedication of her fans!"

But Donnie Darko, like Firefly, didn't have any fans before it existed. It had to grab them by the balls and drag them into its world. As the old adage says, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink." Innocent word of mouth succeeds where fannish clawing fails.

I'm afraid I'm going to rant a little here - and it's not aimed just at Browncoats but fandom in general, though the Browncoat phenonomon has brought it to my attention. This is addressed to the real hardcore.

Not that we shouldn't shout its praises - if you love any film, book or show you should do that. But as Devin said, one shouldn't approach it from the angle of a military campaign, or a religious angle - because you can only end up hurting yourself, and perhaps other people.

The main annoyance I have with fandom is its fanatical exclusion of other works. In an ideal world, I believe people would be running all over the place sampling many other wonderful things. There are even greater stories than Firefly out there that deserve attention as well - which is why film novelisations feck me off so much for a start. You should treasure t

UNICORN

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 4:35 AM (P)

Openning, I've been feeling fairly useless and powerless too. I suppose I'm one of the crazies described by the CHUD author, seeing as a great deal of my personal happiness and well-being are tied up in the success of Serenity and in its ability to earn a sequel or sequels or (oh please!) to rekindle the series.

I guess it's crazy that I, usually an extremely anti-corporate soul and on top of that, an anti-proseletizer, have allowed myself "to be a tool of the man," and do as much advertizing as I can for this film. I would ordinarily agree D. of CHUD that being such a tool is a sign of weak brains and weaker wills.

But here's the thing, and I think a lot of you guys reading know what I mean: I'm not doing this for Universal, or even for Joss, though you gotta love him if you love Serenity... I'm doing this for purely selfish reasons, and it's my choice to do so. How often does something this good come along? I'm not one for a stiff upper lip. If I love something and there's anything I can do, I have to try. And yes, we're on the ropes, but when have we ever NOT been? I'm sorry, maybe my hearing's deficient, but I'm not hearing the fat lady just yet, and I'm not giving up. If I'm delusional, pardon me. I'm polite and quiet and not pushy when I talk to people about this movie, but I will continue to try, because if I don't, I'll be wretched.

Vancouver, thank you for your beautiful post.

There is no such thing as a weed.

DREAMTROVE

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 5:19 AM (P)

I posted this already, but here it is again.

Serenity was a success from the point of view of firefly, because of the effect it had on the series, kicking the original dvd collection to amazon sales rank #1 for television. This was a phenomenal response by itself.

Secondly, all vote padding aside, it's rocket on to the IMDB top 250 is very clearly justified by the vote distribution. This is also remarkable.

What these say is that interest in the show is alive well and larger than ever, and at the same time, the product is of a quality that can easily compete with big massive scifi efforts such as star wars or terminator, and perhaps more than stng.

What else was shown was that it didn't slay at the box office. So what, neither did 1/2 the movies on the imdb top 250, including shawshank redemption, the #2 film.

Here's some logic, people:

Serenity was a movie which was a continuation of a TV show. Generally no one watches such a movie except those who watched the show. This show had about a million fans before. That would yield it
$7M in BO receipts. Anything above that is a miracle.

Basically it did as well as could be expected and had the desired auxialliary effects. It was a calculated move by Joss to achieve his ends, and revive the series, and I think he did well. Kudos to Joss.

I'm going to kill them all. That oughtta distract 'em

DREAMTROVE

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 5:23 AM (P)

You know whoever owns this site assuming they wrote this code, please go in an add a little barrier or signifier of some sort for the signature.
It comes out as just more text, and it really needs to be auto-distinguished in some way from the regular text.

Quote:

I'm going to kill them all. That oughtta distract 'em

RACEFANZ

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 7:35 AM (P)

jesus christ that article from ANTHONYT was the most bloviated long winded post ive ever had to stop reading, damn

This site is the best for general movie finanical, etc. information. The BDM still hasnt broke even.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=daily&id=serenity.htm

Those that beat their swords into plowshares will farm for those of us that dont.

Steve from Yuma....OUT

CLJOHNSTON108

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 11:52 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by StakeTheLurk:
This is the third in a series of articles in which he basically repeats the same ideas.

Kinda like Kenneth Turan's campaign against "Titanic".

MARK

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 1:10 PM (P)

Let me talk plain...

I like Firefly. I like the idea, I like the people (The women are all hot and the guys are all cool), I like the stories that are told and I like the humour.

All this about the fans being co-opted by the corporate advertising collective... It's Go-Sah. The fans know that if a film/TV show does poorly then there will be no more of it. Thus, if we want to see more of our fictional friends, then the film/TV series must succeed. We appreciate that the studios will only put a certain amount of effort into promoting their product so if we want to enhance the chances of a success, we have to add our own efforts. Be that preaching the gospel of Joss or going to the film 10 times. (I'm only up to 3 so far, but the UK box office is doing OK so that's not such a problem.)

It's like your local bakery threatening to stop making your favourite snacks... Unless you can convince lots of people to ask them not to, then the yummy stuff is going away. And you have to do it. No-one else will.

--

Twelve spheres of unendurable brightness spalled the velvety blackness of space.
The silence on Lester Tourville's flag bridge was absolute
And then the spell was broken as Shannon Foraker looked up from her console from where she had just sent a seemingly innocent command to the main computers of State Security's finest Superdreadnoughts.
"Oops." She said.

VANCOUVER

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 4:07 PM (P)

Thank you for the compliment. In truth, I wrote it in fatigue and haste, and it came out kind of incoherent. (Sorry, folks, for writing him directly, if this is just more flogging of a dead horse: I didn't know.) Also, it might have been misleading about my own take on the whole thing. To clarify, I was trying to say to him, in a nutshell, that if he really believes it's dead, and he really perceives us to be in grief, why is he standing around and pointing fingers--and, more than that, how on earth can he be surprised if people get pissed off at him for it?

This does NOT mean that I agree with him that it's dead. In fact, I don't. I have seen many variations on defeatist stances like Devin's, from the whole "all politicians are corrupt" attitude to "why agitate on behalf of the environment/sweatshop workers/the underclass of New Orleans/better sports coverage on the local channels etc etc"--and, without exception, it is always just an excuse for apathy. Or, to be less simplistic about it, I believe that the people who hold these sorts of views are exaggerating individuals' lack of power in order to avoid taking responsibility for the world they live in.

Now, I'm not an idealist at all: I'm the most pragmatic person I know. But even I can see that, besides being morally distasteful, this kind of position is logically invalid. Unless you believe, somehow, that society is not made up of the people in it, it makes no sense to say that the people who make up society can have no effect on it. I mean, we ARE it. It's like being in a car and saying, "Why bother steering, when the car is gonna go in the wrong direction anyway?"

Or, to use the more relevant parallel, it's like saying "I'm not gonna vote for Blah Blah because he's gonna lose anyway," and then standing back afterwards, when Blah Blah does lose, and saying "See? I was right." It doesn't take a whiz kid (believe me, I'm not one) to see that someone's grip on causality is a bit on the iffy side. Both the belief in inaction and the belief in action will perpetuate and fulfill their own prophecies: that's the mathematical reality of it. Really what Devin and others of his ilk are doing is asking us to join them on their side--and why in god's name would we want to do that? No only is their brand of existential bystander apathy objectionable to behold and harmful to everything it touches, but when it does win, it's an awfully Pyrrhic kind of victory. "Lookit: We have no power, nothing we do matters, we may as well not care about anything because our lives are all at the whimsical behest of corrupt higher powers..." God, go jump off a bridge already.

The same illogic applies to Devin's pseudo-rational explanation that this is "not how movies get made". Movies get made however people make them. He's staring straight in the face of a movie that got made the way movies don't get made, and saying that there won't be a sequel because that's not how movies get made? There's a man who has really convinced himself that someone else is in charge--probably by looking in the mirror every morning and repeating 20 times, "It's their world: we just live in it."

And, as one final highfalutin' addendum, I think it is also illogical for Devin to acknowledge the changing nature of media and society in the interactive Internet age and, in practically the same breath, hew to the old line about how things get done in corporate Hollywood. The Heisenbergian principle is at work like it has never been before, now that so many things are in a state of continual observation, and I don't "the way things are" stays put from one week to the next. Change has been accelerated, and you Firefly fans have been the ones to press the pedal in at least one area. So.

On a less abstract note, I went to Serenity again last night (Tuesday)--and I don't know if it was the difference between the suburban theatre I'd seen it in before and this one, in downtown Vancouver, or if word of mouth is starting to take hold, but the theatre was almost full! At 6:50 on a Tuesday night! (It used to be dis

VANCOUVER

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 4:09 PM (P)

Thank you for the compliment, Spinland. In truth, I wrote it in fatigue and haste, and it came out kind of incoherent. (Sorry, folks, for writing him directly, if this is just more flogging of a dead horse: I didn't know.) Also, it might have been misleading about my own take on the whole thing. To clarify, I was trying to say to him, in a nutshell, that if he really believes it's dead, and he really perceives us to be in grief, why is he standing around and pointing fingers--and, more than that, how on earth can he be surprised if people get pissed off at him for it?

This does NOT mean that I agree with him that it's dead. In fact, I don't. I have seen many variations on defeatist stances like Devin's, from the whole "all politicians are corrupt" attitude to "why agitate on behalf of the environment/sweatshop workers/the underclass of New Orleans/better sports coverage on the local channels etc etc"--and, without exception, it is always just an excuse for apathy. Or, to be less simplistic about it, I believe that the people who hold these sorts of views are exaggerating individuals' lack of power in order to avoid taking responsibility for the world they live in.

Now, I'm not an idealist at all: I'm the most pragmatic person I know. But even I can see that, besides being morally distasteful, this kind of position is logically invalid. Unless you believe, somehow, that society is not made up of the people in it, it makes no sense to say that the people who make up society can have no effect on it. I mean, we ARE it. It's like being in a car and saying, "Why bother steering, when the car is gonna go in the wrong direction anyway?"

Or, to use the more relevant parallel, it's like saying "I'm not gonna vote for Blah Blah because he's gonna lose anyway," and then standing back afterwards, when Blah Blah does lose, and saying "See? I was right." It doesn't take a whiz kid (believe me, I'm not one) to see that someone's grip on causality is a bit on the iffy side. Both the belief in inaction and the belief in action will perpetuate and fulfill their own prophecies: that's the mathematical reality of it. Really what Devin and others of his ilk are doing is asking us to join them on their side--and why in god's name would we want to do that? No only is their brand of existential bystander apathy objectionable to behold and harmful to everything it touches, but when it does win, it's an awfully Pyrrhic kind of victory. "Lookit: We have no power, nothing we do matters, we may as well not care about anything because our lives are all at the whimsical behest of corrupt higher powers..." God, go jump off a bridge already.

The same illogic applies to Devin's pseudo-rational explanation that this is "not how movies get made". Movies get made however people make them. He's staring straight in the face of a movie that got made the way movies don't get made, and saying that there won't be a sequel because that's not how movies get made? There's a man who has really convinced himself that someone else is in charge--probably by looking in the mirror every morning and repeating 20 times, "It's their world: we just live in it."

And, as one final highfalutin' addendum, I think it is also illogical for Devin to acknowledge the changing nature of media and society in the interactive Internet age and, in practically the same breath, hew to the old line about how things get done in corporate Hollywood. The Heisenbergian principle is at work like it has never been before, now that so many things are in a state of continual observation, and I don't "the way things are" stays put from one week to the next. Change has been accelerated, and you Firefly fans have been the ones to press the pedal in at least one area. So.

On a less abstract note, I went to Serenity again last night (Tuesday)--and I don't know if it was the difference between the suburban theatre I'd seen it in before and this one, in downtown Vancouver, or if word of mouth is starting to take hold, but the theatre was almost full! At 6:50 on a Tuesday night! (It used

NERVOUSPETE

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 9:04 PM (P)

I wish I could make up my mind on what to think - some of Devin's article I agreed with, and then I found myself disagreeing with most of it, and now I'm all confused again. Gagh. Maybe I should wait a few weeks before fixing my brain and enjoy the ride.

What this means is - some of what I said back up there may be entirely guff. I'm new to the world of fandom, and while Firefly is sweet there's a few things that freak me out about these stop the cancellation/guerilla marketing campaigns be they for Firefly, Farscape or anything else.

The only certainty after literally a day of soul searching I came up with was that networks should be forced to honour legally binding contracts in season, regularily timed blocks. Thus we can avoid guff like this happening to series and the creators can get a chance to wrap up storylines to satisfaction.

"If you can keep your head whilst others... eurgh! Ack! I've spilt my ink! Ugh! Ink on my trousers! Agh! Ink on my shirt! My only hope! The window! Aieeeeee!" (Falls to death)
- Jonathan Nash

CURVIEGIRL72

Thursday, October 13, 2005 8:52 PM (P)

Even though fans often have strong opinions and wonderful suggestions, at the end of the day I don’t think that fans should dictate what direction a show or a film takes. They can discourse excitedly about where they’d like a show or a film to go with its characters and plot, but I think that the writer/director should ultimately do what he thinks is best. If it makes logical and artistic sense to, say, kill off a character… no matter how much we love (and will miss) that character (and oh boy, will we ever), we don’t get to quash that from happening just because we’ll find it painful to watch. Isn’t it a testament to the show and the writing and the acting that we feel that way about these characters? Can’t we take a step back and appreciate the storytelling aspect of it? It’s powerful stuff.

I think there are plenty of people out there who get overly enthusiastic to the point of extremism. We’ve certainly seen people get so emotional about a series or set of characters, they become infuriated or distraught when things don’t go the way they want it to. (Let’s not even talk about how friends of mine and I felt about the “afterschool special” flavor of how Willow’s descent into dark magic was presented, in Buffy season 6. LOL)

In fact, I’m sure there could be fascinating case studies written by psychologists, as to why a person "latches on" to a particular show, why one takes it as seriously as one does.

However, to compare the Browncoats fanbase to religious fanaticism... oh my. That there’s some crazy talk, that’s what that is.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with enjoying a film. Sez the woman who has seen Serenity three times. (Is it who or whom? Aw hell, "If I had wanted schooling, I’da gone to school." – Jayne Cobb)

I’m 33 years old. I haven’t seen a movie this many times in the theatre since I was 12. (The Karate Kid. There was a crush involved. Shut up, it’s a good movie.)

But here’s the thing. The reason I went three times was to show my support. Support for someone whom I think does it right. I think Joss Whedon is an extraordinarily talented writer and director. I think it’s a gift to see someone so dedicated to his craft, presenting honest storytelling with characters that emotionally evolve. I also think it’s a rare thing to see someone in Joss’ position have an attitude of fun and respect for the work, and for the people with whom he works.

I greatly appreciate that.

In an industry where soulless, mindless, uninteresting films have become the norm, I want to honor the underdog who works hard and does something well.

Maybe my pathetic three tickets (and those of the friends I went with) won’t make this movie a “blockbuster” or even build up the numbers enough to warrant a sequel. But I still wanted to show my support in the way I could. If that meant seeing this movie more than once, then pardon my “fanatical” paraphrasing, but no power in the ‘verse was gonna stop me from going. :D

Sherry

MAL: I tell ya, Zoe, we find ourselves a mechanic, get her running again. Hire a good pilot. Maybe even a cook. Live like real people. Small crew, them as feel the need to be free. Take jobs as they come -- and we'll never be under the heel of nobody ever again. No matter how long the arm of the Alliance might get, we'll just get ourselves a little further.
ZOE: Get her running again?
MAL: Yeah.
ZOE: So not running now?
MAL: Not so much.
--"Out of Gas"