December 28, 2005
Serenity, Post XIV
TNR gives "Serenity" a great review for the DVD market.
Sadly, it points out that Serenity only earned $25 million box office. It got clobbered by all the bad films with the big stars. Nothing makes me rethink my dedication to free markets than entertainment -- I can be a real neo-Hamiltonian: make them watch good stuff; make them like it!
But hope is not lost
Still, as Whedon and his "Firefly" cohorts have already shown, there's more than one way to skin a human (and sew him into a nice little Reaver ensemble). Theatrical box-office makes up an ever-shrinking portion of a film's total receipts (now a mere 15 percent, according to Slate's Edward Jay Epstein), with the vast bulk of the revenues coming from DVD sales and rentals on the one hand, and broadcast licensing (pay-per-view, network, and cable) on the other. And while Serenity was never well-positioned for the box office, it should, like "Firefly" before it, make a killing on DVD. (My own exceptionally scientific survey of a couple of local outlets would tend to confirm this: By day two of its release, Serenity had sold out from one and was only available in the less-popular fullscreen version from the other.) Once the movie hits cable, it should be set for life--I envision it running three nights a week on the Sci-Fi Channel for at least the next decade. Will this be enough to ensure a sequel? You can cast your own vote at the local Blockbuster.
Here's my idea, Mr. Whedon. Create two more one-hour episodes and release it as a movie. A short theatre run, then to DVD sales, then licensed for syndication after. You wouldn't need $40 million to make it and you could release these pairs twice a year.
Robin Wilcox compares Whedon to Charles Dickens (Whedon is a big fan of the big man). Dickens released novels as weekly serializations. Other novelists looked down at him but the folks loved it.
To be honest, most Firefly fans would like two more "eps" than another movie. Am I lyin'?
Honestly, I think the Browncoat community would be thrilled with either. The episodes provide a larger feast but the movie delivered better continuity of an impressive story line.
The problem I see with your idea is that one of the factors making episodes less costly is that one set up cost is amortized over many episodes. There's not going to be a lot of difference between one 2-hour movie and two 1-hour "eps" per year.
Posted by: johngalt at December 31, 2005 5:29 PMI'm sure you're right. You caught me pushing a personal agenda here as I have concluded that -- as good as the movie was -- the TV show was a little better.
I was looking for savings in the quality of special effects and CGI work. The greatness here is the storyline, writing, ensemble cast and general cinematography. I don't know that the better/more expensive effects of the film made it better.
Posted by: jk at January 1, 2006 12:09 PMThe movie was awesome, but I personally have preferred TV shows since the X-Files. Firefly was the apotheosis of good, arc-driven, episodic TV. River's seemingly psychotic and irrational behavior in earlier episodes all of a sudden makes perfect sense in retrospect. Jayne's betrayal in Ariel leads to remorse and a crate of apples in the next, which jump-start the theme.
And I for one have not seen or read or heard stories more beautifully told than in Out of Gas and especially Objects In Space.
I NEED this story to continue. It was perfectly played, perfectly written, perfectly shot, designed and produced from the first second. Other shows need time to find their legs - Firefly was born standing tall. Those fourteen episodes were better than the entire run of anything I've ever seen before.
The day I hear the Ballad of Serenity again will be a very happy one.
Posted by: Sam Muldia at January 5, 2006 6:32 PM | What do you think? [3]