Subj : Re: "Serenity" dropping off in the Box Office take...
To   : alt.tv.farscape
From : Mark Myers
Date : Fri Oct 14 2005 14:51:29

From Newsgroup: alt.tv.farscape

Ken McElhaney wrote ...
> 
> Mark Myers wrote:
> > Ken McElhaney wrote ...
> > >
> > > Mark Myers wrote:
> > > >
> > > > What rating is Serenity in US theatres? Over here in the UK it's a 15
> > > > which means no-one under 15 is allowed in. That usually means a smaller
> > > > audience.
> > > >
> > > > As a comparison, Star Wars was rated such that everyone could get in.
> > > > W&G, Corpse Bride are the same.
> > > >
> > > > Flightplan allows everyone in, though under 12s must be accompanied.
> > >
> > > It's interesting that only a few years ago that "G" rated or family
> > > films were considered "profitable".  You couldn't get any kind of
> > > action picture made unless it was an "R".
> > >
> > > I think the problem "Serenity" has is a simple one, it has limited
> > > appeal.
> >
> > If I was 13 and couldn't go see it then its appeal or lack thereof would
> > be irrelevant.
> 
> I don't think "Serenity" was aimed at the 13 or less crowd.  The
> primary audience was "Firefly" fans and sci-fi nuts. Of which, there
> are not that many I presume.  Besides, what 12 year old can't get into
> a theatre if he or she wants to?

Well yes. I was suggesting that in theory a higher rating could exclude 
*part* of the target audience. And IMO 13yo could well have been part of 
the Firefly audience. There was nothing in the TV series a 13yo couldn't 
handle. The film is perhaps a bit more violent, hence the rating it has.

> > Though I tend to agree that Sci-Fi in general does have
> > limited appeal. I just find that hard to reconcile with the success of
> > Star Wars, though that was perhaps an unusual occurrence. Time and
> > place.
> 
> Absolutely, "Star Wars" success was primarily due to tapping the youth
> market, which was basically ignored by Hollywood in the 70's. Plus,
> it's a pretty good film all on it's own.
> 
> >
> > In box office terms, I'd be inclined to compare Serenity with Blade
> > Runner, a film which had critical acclaim but never grossed its budget
> > (according to imdb).
> 
> Blade Runner has aged better than most films I think.  I saw it when it
> came out and found it interesting, but a real downer compared to other
> films at the time (the Star Wars series, Indy Jones, etc.). So I
> understood why it bombed at the time.

Yes, I saw it back then too. I agree about it aging well.

> Now, it's considered a masterpiece by some sci-fi nuts, though I think
> it's still somewhat slow and uninvolving (I'm a stickler for character
> & writing, not necessarily special effects).

So am I, which is precisely why I liked Serenity - for the writing and 
characterisation. Though the effects were fine, effects don't make a 
film for me.

I wouldn't necessarily describe BR as slow moving, or indeed uninvolving 
- but it is basically film noir and that often has a slow build.

> What's really interesting
> is that the opening shots of "modern" L.A. still look great, even
> compared to the CGI extravaganzas we've been bombarded with over the
> past few years.

Absolutely. It shows that what could be achieved before CGI as we now 
know it was still pretty remarkable.

-- 
Mark Myers
usenet2 at mcm2002 dot f9 dot co dot uk
I have all the specs and diagrams at home

.