Denial isn't a river in Serenity Valley
In case you were wondering, after all the build-up on this site, I thought Serenity turned out great. I admit I missed the unhurried exposition and character development of Firefly, but overall it's as fine a science fiction movie as I've seen in years.
But fan though I am, I can admit that the movie is a disappointment at the box office, and that this is the end of the Firefly ride. That's too bad, but at least the movie wrapped up all the loose ends, and it's not like Joss isn't going to come up with something else great before long.
The same attitude is not shared by the -- god help me -- "Browncoats" at Whedonesque. If you want to see an absolutely hilarious meltdown that nearly matches the emotional state of Kerry voters on election night 2004, check out these two comment threads: The first before last weekend began, in which the 'coats vow to defy predictions of a 50% box office drop, and the second, after the weekend box office was posted in which they claim victory and begin the sequel-watch because the drop off was only 47%.
Comments
While I can't see Universal or someone else ponying up 35M for a sequel (unless, of course, the drops stop now and it goes gangbuster on DVD), I wouldn't deem it outside the realm of possibility to do a series of Sci-Fi Network and then to DVD movies at 10-15M budgets. Yeah, it'd mean fewer effects shots and big action sequences, but the cast (especially as modified by the movie) ain't exactly expensive. At 10-15M, without any major P&A expenses, I'd think they'd be nicely profitable.
Posted by: Matt | October 11, 2005 4:56 PM
While I can't see Universal or someone else ponying up 35M for a sequel (unless, of course, the drops stop now and it goes gangbuster on DVD), I wouldn't deem it outside the realm of possibility to do a series of Sci-Fi Network and then to DVD movies at 10-15M budgets. Yeah, it'd mean fewer effects shots and big action sequences, but the cast (especially as modified by the movie) ain't exactly expensive. At 10-15M, without any major P&A expenses, I'd think they'd be nicely profitable.
Posted by: Matt | October 11, 2005 4:57 PM
Matt: Oh my god, you're right! It will be back.
How dare those fucktards at Universal not make a sequel!
Hey, it doesn't even need to be a series. Just a miniseries and one DVD, and I promise to watch something else on the Sci-Fi channel too.
*sob* Life without Firefly just isn't worth living.
Eh, forget it. Wonder Woman is gonna rock.
There, that's better.
Posted by: radosh | October 11, 2005 5:10 PM
They don't care if it's profitable. They only care if it's extremely profitable.
Posted by: TG Gibbon | October 12, 2005 9:50 AM
well, i don't know if it has to be extremely profitable -- i imagine that they went into this not thinking it was a surefire money-maker, rather just that it wasn't a totally stupid gamble. remember it was very cheap for a major studio SF film at 39mm (or whatever they claim it cost). figure it cost 30-35mm to market... it's made 18mm+ now and will probably end with a little under $30mm total domestically. interestingly enough it's doing well internationally (#1 in england!?). so if it squeaks toward a 45-50mm worldwide gross, and the DVD sells nearly as well as the box set (big if since it doesn't have unseen episodes like that did), it could be quite solidly profitable, and matt's idea of direct-to-video or TV specials wouldn't actually be a dumb business decision for universal. of course, whether whedon is just sick of the fight by now is another matter.
speaking of iffy business decisions... wonder woman?
Posted by: michael | October 13, 2005 12:02 PM
Abbreviating "million" as "mm" is confusing and annoying.
Posted by: mariachi | October 16, 2005 6:15 PM
wow. i guess i could have been talking about millimeters.
is this abbreviation annoying too
>:(
Posted by: michael | October 16, 2005 10:36 PM
Yeah, I hope, too. Hope doesn't cost anything.
I don't see how "Wonder Woman" can be good. I mean other than the obvious, hey, Whedon. But it seems like everything he's got to say about being a female superhero might have been said already. A two-hour rehash of Buffy, possibly featuring a golden lasso, an invisible jet and a, by definition, less appealing cast doesn't seem too cool.
Posted by: Dan P. | October 17, 2005 1:25 PM
Well now, Ron, I don't think reaction on Whedonesque was quite as crazy as you suggest. In the fan scheme of things, we remained pretty mellow overall (did you happen to glance over at the Browncoats board at all?), with a fair number of reasonable and reasoned posts. 'Course, "in the fan scheme of things" is possibly a little crazier than 99% of the non-Whedon world, but to each his own . . . and how come you don't post at W any more to calm us all down?
Luke, aka SNT
Posted by: Luke | October 18, 2005 1:11 AM
Again with the "Ron" thing! Trust me, Ron Radosh has never even heard of Firefly.
I had to stop posting on Whedonesque after several of my comments were removed for apparent excess snarkiness. I meant them with love, but I guess they weren't taken that way.
But yes, I didn't mean to impugn all Whedonesque posters, and even the deluded ones seemed relatively sane about it, just in denial.
Posted by: radosh | October 18, 2005 9:40 AM
OK, that was weird. Not so much weird, actually, as wrong. You are Daniel, not Ron, and I am foot-in-mouth.
Posted by: Luke | October 18, 2005 11:19 AM
I never watched the TV show, but I finally saw Serenity this weekend and loved it. It was one of the best science fiction movies I've ever seen. The space battle was on par with anything in the last three Star Wars movies. I'll have to go find the Firefly DVDs now.
I think there will definitely be a sequel. If they come anywhere close to breaking even on the box office, that's a success. Studios make all their money in the TV/DVD markets these days, and I'm sure Universal is counting on the built-in fan base to make a killing there.
Posted by: Dashiell | October 20, 2005 11:04 AM