Subj : Re: "Serenity" dropping off in the Box Office take...
To   : alt.tv.farscape
From : Ken McElhaney
Date : Fri Oct 14 2005 08:55:24

From Newsgroup: alt.tv.farscape


Mark Myers wrote:
> 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.

I just think "Serenity" has a limited audience.  Generally speaking, I
think few people even remember the "Firefly" series at all (outside
this and "firefly" groups of course).

> > > 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.

Thanks.

> > 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 remember the original trailer for "Serenity" in the theatres over the
summer.  The CGI looked pretty poor at the time (perhaps intentional,
perhaps it wasn't complete yet) and the audience response was dead
silence.  So I wasn't surprised that "Serenity" hasn't been doing
gangbusters since it opened.

> 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.

Well, "film noir" was primarily a method used for limited budget films
(i.e. you don't have to build a lot of sets if everything is dark).
"Blade Runner" is okay, but I just didn't really care about any of the
characters at all.

> > 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.

True.

Ken

.