iesb.net— Robert Sanchez of IESB says "Universal publicity is to blame for the failure of Serenity, not the filmmakers. Universal has failed Joss and the crew in a much larger way then Fox TV ever did."
Oct 25, 2005View in Crawl 4
Well I went with the woman and her sister to see it opening day and I was the only one who seen Firefly. They got and enjoyed the movie. So if there are individuals that are teetering on whether or not they need to see the series first, the answer is no. It does help but not necessary.
The movie had no "brand name" stars.Doom had The Rock.It also had no other well-known tie-ins, save for a cancelled sci-fi TV show, to which the title bears no relationship. That's what American audiences go to the movies on Friday night to see (for the most part). This is not a reflection of the film's quality, more of the sad state of Hollywood movies (and the audience).
"Crap movie = crap profits. Always has, stop whining."Deuce Bigalow = 90 MillionThere goes that theory. The author is whining because he didn't get invited to a press junket, but his point is still valid. The movie wasn't promoted well. Friends of mine who LOVE Sci Fi didn't know anything about the movie. Universal could have done better.Hopefully the DVD sales will be strong.
"Yeah, but they sure as hell get more than 50%. Movie theaters take a minuscule amount of the gate for the movies (A theater manager friend of mine said below 10%, except in unusual circumstances) so where does the extra 40% go? Distribution? Not likely.Methinks that $100M-break-even-point is BS."More or less. Hollywood accounting is...interesting. It bears about as much resemblance to standard, balancing checkbook-style "subtract debits, add credits, total=profit" as a times-table bears to the average, oh, textbook on topology.Some of that added complexity is real - when you're creating something that has hundreds of people/companies _getting_ money from it while _earning_ money from it comes from an equally large number of people/companies, all with different percentages of profit/gross that kick in at different levels of profit/gross, and lots of the people/companies (in both columns) work/own lots of the others (so in a very real sense, you can be paying yourself) the whole thing is going to be hideously complex. You probably need a five-dimensional spreadsheet just to do the basics.Other chunks of the complexity are, of course, BS. Given just how complex who owes what and at what level is, it can cost group "A" in this whole mess more money/profit if the movie makes over a certain amount than if it makes _less_. And, of course, that can all vary for all the different players - and their lawyers. Think the plot of "The Producers" if _everyone_ in the film/play/film was trying variant the same thing at the same time.Or, IOW, it's a mess.Fox, now, it's hard to see how Fox could _not_ screw up "Firefly." I knew the show was doomed the minute I knew it would _be_ on Fox. The whole network is, from what I can tell, built to screw up. Had they not latched onto the "Simpsons" and "Married With Children" early on, they probably would be as dead now as "The Paramount Network."Heck, when they did the live-action "Tick" show, Fox _Children_ wouldn't allow Fox _Primetime_ to use the same supporting characters as the animated series - thus "Bat-Manuel" rather than "Der Flatermaus", etc - even though they were no longer producing or even showing in reruns the animated show!That's right, two divisions of the same company couldn't even agree to share some character names for the same show...*Ahem* Enough Fox ranting.On a less ranty/more agreeable note, I tend to agree that while publicity could have been handled _better_, even if IESB had gotten red-carpet, limo to the door service, it won't/wouldn't have effected things much. Movie box office is down because 1) The quality of movies has dropped big-time. That's a result of most big movie companies doing everything by committee. In general, most people aren't going to bother going to bad films - they've got bad TV for that. 2) The cost of going to movies has basically exceeded a tipping point where waiting for it to come out on DVD/Cable is basically the more common response. Sure, nothing beats wide-screen, Sensurround sound, audience cheering movie theaters - for _some_ films - but those films are rare and are made even rarer by point "1" above. I only go to movies because my wife gets free tickets for donating platelets. Lose that and, well, my movie-going would probably drop to about three films a year - and "Serenity," much as I liked it, wouldn't have been one of them. I'd wait for the DVD. 3) The fifteen minute block-O-commercials before every film is just the icing on the cake. I can see commericals at _home_, free of charge. Usually the same commericals too. This has basically resulted in lowering the amount of that "tipping point" above. I mean, a lot more people would pay $10, $11, $12 for a movie if they weren't _also_ "buying" commericals with it. Again, you can get those at home, for free.I tend to agree with the statement "Movie theaters are nearing their end." The multiplex idea gave them a little extra lifespan, but that's it. Like the music industry, the film industry is going to have to find a different distribution system. I suspect most of the big movie companies aren't going to make this transition.I liked "Serenity", saw the film, and will probably buy the DVD.David
Everyone I have talked to all said they heard it was a great movie. Yet I still haven't talked to anyone that has actually seen it. I want to see it, but I refuse to go to the theater in my home town. I have to drive 50 mi. to see it in a decent theater. And without a car, I have to wait fro someone willing to do the same. And for all those that want to tell me to suck it up, I've seen movies in nice theaters and then saw them again in the crap theater, and vice versa. The theater here actually degrades the quality of the movie. I need to find someone to take me to see it in a decent theater.
hadakOct 25, 2005
call me nuts...but i liked serenity.
pillfredOct 25, 2005
It was a sci-fi movie, lets face it not a lot of people get into those movies.
schottyOct 25, 2005
Well I went with the woman and her sister to see it opening day and I was the only one who seen Firefly. They got and enjoyed the movie. So if there are individuals that are teetering on whether or not they need to see the series first, the answer is no. It does help but not necessary.
diggerphelpsOct 25, 2005
The movie had no "brand name" stars.Doom had The Rock.It also had no other well-known tie-ins, save for a cancelled sci-fi TV show, to which the title bears no relationship. That's what American audiences go to the movies on Friday night to see (for the most part). This is not a reflection of the film's quality, more of the sad state of Hollywood movies (and the audience).
chewie67Oct 25, 2005
"Crap movie = crap profits. Always has, stop whining."Deuce Bigalow = 90 MillionThere goes that theory. The author is whining because he didn't get invited to a press junket, but his point is still valid. The movie wasn't promoted well. Friends of mine who LOVE Sci Fi didn't know anything about the movie. Universal could have done better.Hopefully the DVD sales will be strong.
trolleyfanOct 25, 2005
"Yeah, but they sure as hell get more than 50%. Movie theaters take a minuscule amount of the gate for the movies (A theater manager friend of mine said below 10%, except in unusual circumstances) so where does the extra 40% go? Distribution? Not likely.Methinks that $100M-break-even-point is BS."More or less. Hollywood accounting is...interesting. It bears about as much resemblance to standard, balancing checkbook-style "subtract debits, add credits, total=profit" as a times-table bears to the average, oh, textbook on topology.Some of that added complexity is real - when you're creating something that has hundreds of people/companies _getting_ money from it while _earning_ money from it comes from an equally large number of people/companies, all with different percentages of profit/gross that kick in at different levels of profit/gross, and lots of the people/companies (in both columns) work/own lots of the others (so in a very real sense, you can be paying yourself) the whole thing is going to be hideously complex. You probably need a five-dimensional spreadsheet just to do the basics.Other chunks of the complexity are, of course, BS. Given just how complex who owes what and at what level is, it can cost group "A" in this whole mess more money/profit if the movie makes over a certain amount than if it makes _less_. And, of course, that can all vary for all the different players - and their lawyers. Think the plot of "The Producers" if _everyone_ in the film/play/film was trying variant the same thing at the same time.Or, IOW, it's a mess.Fox, now, it's hard to see how Fox could _not_ screw up "Firefly." I knew the show was doomed the minute I knew it would _be_ on Fox. The whole network is, from what I can tell, built to screw up. Had they not latched onto the "Simpsons" and "Married With Children" early on, they probably would be as dead now as "The Paramount Network."Heck, when they did the live-action "Tick" show, Fox _Children_ wouldn't allow Fox _Primetime_ to use the same supporting characters as the animated series - thus "Bat-Manuel" rather than "Der Flatermaus", etc - even though they were no longer producing or even showing in reruns the animated show!That's right, two divisions of the same company couldn't even agree to share some character names for the same show...*Ahem* Enough Fox ranting.On a less ranty/more agreeable note, I tend to agree that while publicity could have been handled _better_, even if IESB had gotten red-carpet, limo to the door service, it won't/wouldn't have effected things much. Movie box office is down because 1) The quality of movies has dropped big-time. That's a result of most big movie companies doing everything by committee. In general, most people aren't going to bother going to bad films - they've got bad TV for that. 2) The cost of going to movies has basically exceeded a tipping point where waiting for it to come out on DVD/Cable is basically the more common response. Sure, nothing beats wide-screen, Sensurround sound, audience cheering movie theaters - for _some_ films - but those films are rare and are made even rarer by point "1" above. I only go to movies because my wife gets free tickets for donating platelets. Lose that and, well, my movie-going would probably drop to about three films a year - and "Serenity," much as I liked it, wouldn't have been one of them. I'd wait for the DVD. 3) The fifteen minute block-O-commercials before every film is just the icing on the cake. I can see commericals at _home_, free of charge. Usually the same commericals too. This has basically resulted in lowering the amount of that "tipping point" above. I mean, a lot more people would pay $10, $11, $12 for a movie if they weren't _also_ "buying" commericals with it. Again, you can get those at home, for free.I tend to agree with the statement "Movie theaters are nearing their end." The multiplex idea gave them a little extra lifespan, but that's it. Like the music industry, the film industry is going to have to find a different distribution system. I suspect most of the big movie companies aren't going to make this transition.I liked "Serenity", saw the film, and will probably buy the DVD.David
monkeyfitOct 25, 2005
Everyone I have talked to all said they heard it was a great movie. Yet I still haven't talked to anyone that has actually seen it. I want to see it, but I refuse to go to the theater in my home town. I have to drive 50 mi. to see it in a decent theater. And without a car, I have to wait fro someone willing to do the same. And for all those that want to tell me to suck it up, I've seen movies in nice theaters and then saw them again in the crap theater, and vice versa. The theater here actually degrades the quality of the movie. I need to find someone to take me to see it in a decent theater.
jimlunsfordOct 26, 2005
This movie sucked that is why it failed.
ravenlockOct 26, 2005
jimlunsford: This movie sucked that is why it failed.Yay! More eloquent and insightful statements! Thanks so much, jim!