Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Whedon Calls Death Knell For Firefly

Posted by Zonk on Tue Dec 20, 2005 04:49 PM
from the i-guess-they-can-take-the-sky-from-me dept.
Ant writes "Entertainment Weekly is reporting on the end of Firefly." From the article: "Alas, Whedon's fond memories are also tainted by Serenity's status as a franchise nonstarter; despite Universal's best marketing efforts, the film only mustered $25 million. 'In the end, it was what it was: a tough sell,' says Whedon, adding that it appears the Firefly saga has reached its conclusion. He has no regrets -- and he's moving on."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Just a thought.... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by I_Strahd (791299) on Tuesday December 20 2005, @04:50PM (#14303291)
    Or a question really, then a thought.
    Why go straight to a movie? Why not back to television. With a movie you only have one chance at redemption. With a series you have several. Make a few more episodes, get picked up by the SciFi channel and let it ride. I loved the Firefly series, but I didn't care for the movie. Yeah, it had great parts (so do some ugly hookers), but overall it both sucked and blowed!!

    I guess I will be looking for that made for TV movie of Angel. And don't tell me it will never happen, because I already know. :(


    I guess that stuff like this is the reason they make scotch.
    • by kwalker (1383) on Tuesday December 20 2005, @04:59PM (#14303401) Journal
      Because Fox owns the rights to the TV series, yes still. That's why it was made into a movie. Whedon was trying to keep it going
    • Re:No rights for it (Score:5, Informative)

      by Psykechan (255694) on Tuesday December 20 2005, @05:04PM (#14303460)
      Fox had the rights to the TV show and would not allow it to be made. Universal optioned the rights to a movie but couldn't use the name Firefly which is why they used the name "Serenity".

      It would've been wonderful for more episodes of the show but the moguls wouldn't have it.

      Ah well, it was a great show and it was fun while it lasted. I've got no regrets for supporting the show as much as I had.

      You can't take the sky from me.
      • by DavidRawling (864446) <[hulk_] [at] [yahoo.com]> on Tuesday December 20 2005, @05:12PM (#14303556)

        We won't make it and we can't take the chance that someone else will make it, it will be a success and we will be shown to have made yet another bad decision.

        If we don't want it no-one can have it.

        • by schon (31600) on Tuesday December 20 2005, @05:15PM (#14303586) Homepage
          Actually, it's more like "We won't make it, and we won't allow anyone else to make it, because it's ours. We don't care that it might make or lose money for someone else. It's our football, and nobody else gets to play with it."

          This is the standard attitude among publishers of pretty much anything.
          • by maxpublic (450413) on Wednesday December 21 2005, @03:54AM (#14307309) Homepage
            There's more to it than that. If you've been involved with the industry then you know that personal politics, whims, and downright mean-spiritedness have a great deal to do with cancellations and refusals to sell as well. This is an industry where profit often *isn't* the bottom line and where individuals will often torpedo working projects to push a personal agenda, or simply to stick it to someone they don't like.

            For example, it's a rather well-known (in the industry) fact that "Dark Angel" wasn't cancelled due to ratings but because a certain powerful executive (a woman who still works in the business) harbored a very public hatred of Jessica Alba. Public in the sense of that it made the rounds in business as a recurring bit of gossip, not public in the sense that you, Joe Smith, know about it. She made it one of her primary goals to sink that show any way she could. What's mildly amusing about this is that she's acquired a reputation for doing this sort of thing, and at least a half-dozen cancellations are attributed to her vindictiveness because the shows featured a woman she didn't like. Not that she doesn't like Ms. Alba because of some unpleasant personal interaction (they've never met, to my knowledge), but because Ms. Alba is extraordinarily gorgeous - and she despises gorgeous women. Especially strong-willed gorgeous women, and most of all strong-willed gorgeous women that fellow male executives drool over and talk about to each other within the range of this vipers hearing.

            No names, but her pecadillos have reached the point where a bit of google searching can turn up the very same info I've just related, along with some of the shows that've been on her hit list (apart from "Dark Angel").

            This is not an unusual thing. Many shows do just fine ratings-wise, yet get cancelled despite the fact that they make money. The reasons are usually rooted in the malicious behavior of executives more enamored of power than of money. Others are appalling (e.g., "Enterprise") but are kept because someone on the show (in this case, Berman) knows where some very, very embarrassing bodies are buried.

            When it comes to television, don't attribute to stupidity what can instead be ascribed to petty evil. Nine times of out ten the reasons are firmly rooted in petty evil.

            Max
        • by Rei (128717) on Tuesday December 20 2005, @06:24PM (#14304319) Homepage
          He robbed from the rich, and gave to the poor
          Stood up to the man, and gave him what for
          Our love for him now ain't hard to explain
          The hero of Canton, the man they call Jayne!

          (sorry - you sing your song, I'll sing mine :) )
        • by Rei (128717) on Tuesday December 20 2005, @06:31PM (#14304407) Homepage
          If only pigs had wings

          Come on, what kind of browncoat are you? The appropriate responses would be:

          "If wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak right now."

          or:

          "If only I had a magical wish-granting plank."

          fortune-firefly [daughtersoftiresias.org] is your friend [pbone.net]. :)
        • by MaggieL (10193) on Tuesday December 20 2005, @06:57PM (#14304649)
          If you listen carefully, you'll notice that the word 'Firefly' isn't said at all in the film.

          "Ensign: We got a pos on a retinal--man carrying her out is Malcolm Reynolds, captains a Firefly-class transport ship 'Serenity'. Bound by law five times..."

          It's in the script. I'll check my DVD when it gets here this week.
    • by Orne (144925) on Tuesday December 20 2005, @05:17PM (#14303603) Homepage
      Other than Joss not having the rights to the show (as mentioned above), I had heard that the episodes were on the order of a $1 mil / each to film and release.

      Double-checking, I'm wrong, it's $2 million per episode [petitionspot.com] in production costs for Firefly... That's almost as much as ABC's Lost, and there they have a huge audience and marketing engine behind the show. They only got $38 mil total for the Serenity [boxofficemojo.com] movie, about $ 3/4 mil short of the public production costs.

      In my humble opinion, Joss should be seeking to release an adult-level animated series, similar to WB's Batman, or even an anime-style futuristic romp. The level of detail, varied scenery, and scale of the sets are just too big for production offices these days, and if you can't film it, you can certainly draw it.

      • by chandoni (28843) on Tuesday December 20 2005, @05:32PM (#14303782) Homepage
        An anime-style series? He could call it Grave of the Firefly.
      • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Tuesday December 20 2005, @05:48PM (#14303984)

        Double-checking, I'm wrong, it's $2 million per episode in production costs for Firefly... That's almost as much as ABC's Lost, and there they have a huge audience and marketing engine behind the show.

        It's interesting you should make that comparison. It is very hard to rate the popularity of TV shows, since there is no direct purchase involved. Nielson type ratings are questionable in reliability. DVD purchases are actually one of the best measures. If you take a look at Amazon's top DVD sales for today you'll find that Lost is the second most popular TV series... right behind Firefly which is the most purchased TV series. Now, the price of Lost is higher than Firefly by about 25%, and they don't have specific statistics on how many have sold total. Nonetheless I think the runaway popularity of Firefly DVD sales speaks to its potential as a show that has an audience willing to support those production costs, if only given that option.

      • by Martin Blank (154261) on Tuesday December 20 2005, @06:55PM (#14304623) Journal
        That $38 million is the box office take, which includes the cut that the theaters get. The actual amount that the studio got was significantly lower, and so there's a lot of ground to be made up on a DVD release. It would have to sell many millions of copies in order to fill in the gap.
        • by wiggles (30088) on Tuesday December 20 2005, @05:35PM (#14303828)
          Wow, you're in the minority here. Most of the critics loved the film, even the indie critics at efilmcritic.com [efilmcritic.com], who usually don't like anything unless it came out of some film festival...

          58% of the critics on that site gave it their highest rating (for comparison: 21% for Phantom Menace and 65.95% for the original Matrix). Less than 10% felt it was below average; only 4.5% said that Serenity was "total crap."
          • Critics loved it (by sci fi standards) and I can admit that, in isolation, it was a great movie. The problem was that that movie turned off a lot of Firefly fans. I've debated this ad nauseam already on the official message boards - but the one things that's indisputable is that the entire community broke out into a firestorm over the killing of two characters, Wash and to a lesser extent Book.

            I'm one of those that protested that loudest that killing Wash was a stupid, stupid move. There were a variety or other problems Firefly fans had with the movie (eg turning River into "River the Reaver Slayer") but I think that was really at the core.

            Wheddon created a series that a lot of people fell in love with and they rallied after it was cancelled to bring it back to life. Killing Wash in a way that many felt was pointless was a slap in the fact to a lot of fans that had worked, struggled, evangelized and pretty much gone above and beyond to bring their show back to life.

            I think he made a fundamental miscalculation in thinking that his Firefly crowd would stick with him while he reached for a broader audience. Given how he's revered by Wheddonites who also love Buffy and Angel, I'm not surprised he erred on the side of appealing to a broader audience. But a lot of the fans of Firefly were no fans of Wheddon, and so they were completely unwilling to go follow him just because he's Wheddon. They saw his treatment of characters (Wash in particular but also others) as wanton disregard for their beloved franchise, they spurned the movie, quit trying to bring their friends, and went home to watch their Firefly DVD set one more time.

            The remaining Wheddonites who crowded into the theaters night after night and dragged friends and relatives along were just not quite the critical mass needed to really get the show to break out. Whether or not things would have turned out differently had Wheddon not killed Wash - no one will ever know. I think the chance was there to make a new Star Wars (the original) mega-hit and that that was the mistake that cost him, but I'm sure there are plenty of Wheddonites and others who disagree with me.

            In any case, I'm sad to see it go, but I won't be eager to catch the next Wheddon project anytime soon. As far as I'm concerned Wheddon and Lucas are just proof-postive that talent is a fickle creature and some creators clearly create works that far outsrtip their own understanding. Just because the muse visits, doesn't mean she'll stay.

            -stormin
            • by deanoaz (843940) on Tuesday December 20 2005, @06:57PM (#14304650)
              I don't understand how you can say that allowing Wash and Book to be killed was an attempt to reach a wider audience.

              If anything I felt that it showed the core audience that this was not an episode of a TV series, where much could be expected to end up the same at the end as at the beginning. New viewers would not know of their earlier contributions to the story and would be much less attached to them.

              I don't see how new viewers can have been a factor in the decision to let them die. New viewers would have gotten the same effect of seriousness if new characters had been added and then killed.

              Also, River had been shown as having a 'super weapon' mode in the Firefly series, where she closed her eyes and killed three armed troops with three shots in about one second, so the movie was not 'turning' her into something new.

              I loved the movie and will own the DVD today (first day out). If nothing else, you finally get to see what a Reaver really looks like.
                • Talk about a flashback. This was the most common thing I heard on the boards "they live in a dangerous world and killing wash made that world more realistic".

                  But I think that's really superficial. First of all, realism isn't the goal of entertainment. Realism is boring - we spend 1/3 our lives unconcious. That's real. Try that for a movie. When people say they want a movie to be "real" they mean they want it to be an immersive experience. This is something that fans of schindler's list and braveheart have in common with fans of the original star wars: we all want the movies to SEEM real, but not really be real.

                  And so the problem with killing Wash to me was that it DIDN'T help immerse me in the world. We've already seen one village decimated by reavers, the recording of another woman raped to death by reavers, AN ENTIRE F***ING PLANET where everyone's dead, every one the crew has ever met has died, one of the crew die, a lot of extra people die, and we're about to see Mr. Universe die. Oh and by the way the captain has threatened to start shooting his own crew. So for me, anyway, the whole "dangerous world" point had already been made.

                  What really bugs me, however, is that people act as though realism means people dying. How many people die in a real war? That are shot, I mean. In Iraq there's like what, 9 injured that survive to every one that dies? And yet in movies it's binary. You are shot and you either live or you die. So to me it seems amazingly hollow and superficial to be like "people dying is realistic". No, people GETTING HURT is realistic. When was the last time you saw a show or a movie where a main character got hurt and had to learn to live with the disability. I mean aside from the sub-genre where that IS the plot most characters exist in this crazy world where you're alive or you're dead. Could Wash have been paralyzed, lost an arm or a leg? THAT would have been realistic and challenging - but the truth is that that's not what we want in our movies - no matter how dark of a tone we're after.

                  I'm not desperately trying to say "why did they have to kill him", I'm saying that a world where bullets either kill you or you make a full recovery is just as escapist as a world where none of the hero's die. I would like to see a movie, this or any other, where a character suffers a serioues, permenant injury and the show goes on. That's not the whole plot, he never recovers, he just learns to live with the disability and the rest of the characters learn to deal with it.

                  In America we all avidly follow the body count in Iraq, but when we see someone without a limb or in a wheelchair we either stare or look away and in the end go back to our escapist world where you're either whole or gone. That's not reality at all.

                  -stormin
  • Ironic timing.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by aapold (753705) * on Tuesday December 20 2005, @04:51PM (#14303298) Homepage Journal
    I mean, announce the death the day the DVD comes out? DVD sales of the show was what picked it back up in the first place...
    • by JWW (79176) on Tuesday December 20 2005, @04:58PM (#14303392)
      Of course you could be cynical about it.

      Joss realizes that this news will get out to the rabid fans IMMEDIATELY BEFORE RELEASE OF THE DVD... Is it coincedence?? I don't think so.
      • by DCheesi (150068) on Tuesday December 20 2005, @05:25PM (#14303696) Homepage
        But the fans already know there won't be a sequel without strong DVD sales. What this interview seems to be saying is that even with strong sales, Whedon may not be interested in continuing. That makes the buying argument weaker than before, and probably depresses many fans just when you'd want them out hyping your product.
    • Re:Ironic timing.... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by seasleepy (651293) <seasleepy@gmail . c om> on Tuesday December 20 2005, @11:38PM (#14306467)
      It's actually more columnist goes overboard and puts words in someone's mouth.

      From the guy himself (with typical sarcasm):
      All right, now I have to jump in and set the record straight. EW is a fine rag, but they do take things out of context. Obviously when I said I had 'closure', what I meant was "I hate Serenity, I hated Firefly, I think my fans are stupid and Nathan Fillion smells like turnips." But EW's always got to put some weird negative spin on it. But so we're clear once and for all: If you read a quote saying "I'd love to do more in this 'verse with these actors in any medium" all I'm saying is that Nathan has a turnipy odor. It's not his fault, he doesn't eat a lot of them but everyone else in the cast noticed it and tht's not really something I'm prepared to deal with any more. And Jewel said outright she wouldn't do scenes with him except stuff like the SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER funeral scene which was outside in a high SPOILER wind. So if I do manage to find another incarnation for my beloved creation, it will have been totally against my will.

      I hope that clears everything up. Oh, and when I say I want to do a Spike movie, it means I have a bunion on my toe.

      -joss (by which I mean Tim)

      (no, actually me.)

      @whedonesque [whedonesque.com]

      If you want something more verifiably him, I posted a couple of quotes [slashdot.org] from newspaper interviews a couple of hours ago and quite a bit farther down the page.
  • by CyberLord Seven (525173) on Tuesday December 20 2005, @04:51PM (#14303299)
    ...I already have the "Firefly" DVD and I will be buying the "Serenity" DVD today after work.
    Hmmmm. You don't think they timed this, do you?
      • by Kazzahdrane (882423) on Tuesday December 20 2005, @05:20PM (#14303631)
        I never really got into Buffy though I often saw it and enjoyed it, especially the "Grrr...argh" zombie at the end of every episode. Same with Angel, though I thought that was a much better show but only caught a few episodes. I heard Firefly was a good show and thought "what the hell" and bought the DVD, loved it. Until I watched it I didn't even know who Joss Whedon was, or that the show was made by the guy who made Buffy and Angel. "all" the computer nerds and sci-fi geeks (I'm one myself, what of it?) didn't jump on because of Joss, so stop throwing around accusations like we only love it because of its creator because that's gorram bullshit.
  • by thatguywhoiam (524290) on Tuesday December 20 2005, @04:52PM (#14303310)
    Dammit! I was hoping Firefly would be the perfect test-case for the iTunes episode-selling model. I think its perfect for situations like this - if the fans really want it, they can vote directly with their dollars, and the hell with the myopic networks. Alas, a little too late it would seem.
      • by TychoCelchuuu (835690) on Tuesday December 20 2005, @09:55PM (#14305902) Journal
        Is there anyone at Fox listening?!?!?

        Haha, good one. Seriously though, they're sitting on Firefly RIGHT NOW. Even if they were listening, they're not going to be swayed by a bunch of people saying "I'll pay 10 bucks!" They still probably blame the show's failure on the show itself instead of all that wacky episode order timeslot crap they pulled, and remember, this is Fox we're talking about. They cancelled Family Guy and Futurama, and they fought tooth and nail to stop Star Wars (Star Freaking Wars, the first one) from ever being made. They're not #1 when it comes to doing things that fans would love.

  • by ErikTheRed (162431) on Tuesday December 20 2005, @04:54PM (#14303339) Homepage
    Oh come on, he happens to make this statement on the very day the DVD is set to be released? Sounds like a marketing gimmick to me... If the DVD sales are amazing - and they might be, considering the cult status of the show - he can then announce a miraculous comeback.

    Personally, I liked the show, I really liked the movie, and I can see why both failed in the financial sense (bad marketing for both, episodes out of order and plot development much too slow in the show).
  • by Tackhead (54550) on Tuesday December 20 2005, @04:55PM (#14303360)
    > 'In the end, it was what it was: a tough sell,' says Whedon, adding that it appears the Firefly saga has reached its conclusion.

    "It was a leaf on the wind." *CRUNCH*

    • by pcgabe (712924) on Tuesday December 20 2005, @07:37PM (#14304994) Homepage Journal
      (from Hand Puppet Movie Theatre [jerrythefr...ctions.com])

      Wash: Oh yeah? I am a leaf on the wind, watch how I soar!
      Giant Spike: You're a dead leaf now, dude.
      Wash: *TOTALLY UNEXPECTED IMPALEMENT*
      Fans: ...WHAT.
      Zoe: No way did that just happen. Simon can fix this!
      Fans: OMGWTFFJDIAJDJASKDJAKLDJA
      Mal: Run like hell now, strangle Joss Whedon later!
      Fans: *WEEP*
      • by pcgabe (712924) on Wednesday December 21 2005, @04:35AM (#14307423) Homepage Journal
        In the director's commentary, Joss relays an anecdote about this scene.
        Alan (Wash): My script only goes up to page 105. It's weird. I don't have any pages for after that.
        Joss: Oh, I just... that's the end. It just ends there. You guys land, it's a happy ending.
        Alan: Oh, good. OK, fine.
  • Well, (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Sheetrock (152993) on Tuesday December 20 2005, @04:59PM (#14303400) Homepage Journal
    I know a lot of people found themselves enthralled in the whole "cowboys in space" theme, but why I cannot fathom.

    Sci-Fi is about breaking the constraints and tired plots of conventional stories. This means fantastic things like aliens, robots, artificial intelligence and time travel. Not rehashing the stale concept that the rest of the universe really isn't so different from home and we'll never really evolve past the emotions and biases we've got right now.

    • Re:Well, (Score:5, Insightful)

      by egypt_jimbob (889197) on Tuesday December 20 2005, @05:07PM (#14303503) Homepage Journal
      I know a lot of people found themselves enthralled in the whole "cowboys in space" theme, but why I cannot fathom.

      It's not just "cowboys in space". It's about a man who is struggling to stay true to his heart. It's about the crew that grows up around him. It's about extreme civil disobedience in an opressed society. It's about doing what's necessary and about doing what's right. Space is just the scenery.
  • I guess (Score:5, Funny)

    by ThePiMan2003 (676665) on Tuesday December 20 2005, @05:02PM (#14303443)
    I guess you can stop the signal :(.
  • Firefly :: BSD? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by GuruBuckaroo (833982) on Tuesday December 20 2005, @05:07PM (#14303492) Homepage

    Even Joss' comments must be taken with a grain of salt. I sincerly doubt that this will be the end of Firefly - considering that currenty, Amazon.com ranks Serenity as the #1 selling DVD, with the complete Firefly series coming in at #6 (again). DVD sales on this franchise are through the roof, and have been the fulcrum upon which the future of the franchise balances.

    Call me what you will, but I don't think we've heard the last of this yet.

    But of course, I could be wrong...

  • Very misleading (Score:5, Informative)

    by Kazzahdrane (882423) on Tuesday December 20 2005, @05:10PM (#14303536)
    This article has been linked to a lot over the past few days on various Firefly/Serenity boards. The quotes from Joss have clearly been taken out of context, a quick read-through of the other interviews he's given over the past few days show this. He's found closure because he got to tell the story he wanted to tell from the beginning. But he's said that if he had the chance to tell another story in the 'verse he turn right around and do it. Specifically, he's hinted that another movie would reveal that bounty hunter Jubal Early from the last episode of Firefly is very much alive. I'm a Browncoat but I don't stick my fingers in my ears and go "lalala I can't hear you" when people suggest the franchise has come to an end. But this article is simply trolling. FYI, Joss has confirmed that he's going to write another series of Serenity comics, and has been saying for months that the DVD sales of Serenity will determine whether the franchise will be seen on screens (big or small) in the future. EW are just quoting Joss out of context to stir up some contraversy. I for one am very unimpressed.
  • by seasleepy (651293) <seasleepy@gmail . c om> on Tuesday December 20 2005, @05:11PM (#14303540)
    This is a fairly misleading headline/summary/article stub. In (numerous) interviews over the past week or so, Joss says in most of them that any future Firefly/Serenity-age would depend on the DVD sales being particularly big.

    "It would depend on huge numbers from the DVD," writer/director Whedon allows. "Obviously, we are still shy of making our money back from the box office. But we are within shouting distance. Still, it would have to blow up pretty huge for a sequel to be called for.

    "Mind you, stranger things have happened. And they do seem to happen to me. So it's not like I'm shutting the door." -- Toronto Star interview [thestar.com]

    "The, um, the movie is finished. And the story is told. The world is not finished. There's more to tell, but that's always the case with everything I do and whether I get the chance to tell [it] or not it is up to somebody else. So I made sure that this movie had completion and didn't feel like a glorified prequel. It's its own piece and it wraps everything up. I have a sense of closure that I never had, and I can walk away satisfied. But if somebody tells me not to walk away, I'll turn right back around." -- Comcast Movies interview [comcast.net]

    This EW article seems to take the stance that since Whedon is working on projects other than Firefly/Serenity and is taking a realistic view towards their finances, he clearly has abandoned them, despite the fact that his other projects have been in the pipe for some time.
  • by ShatteredDream (636520) on Tuesday December 20 2005, @05:19PM (#14303623) Homepage
    Fox is the poster child for why the movie studios have problems. They had an executive who "didn't get it" with Family Guy ruin the original series by actively sabotaging its timing slots. Then it sells over a million DVD sets after Cartoon Network picks it up and does reruns. With Firefly, they put the damn series out of order and wonder why it failed miserably. A little hard to follow a linear story line without a linear scheduling... assholes.

    Some people think that a la carte cable is bad for consumers, but I'd gladly pay $30 for Sci-Fi, Cartoon Network, Comedy Central, the History Channel and MusicChoice. That'd be only $20 less than full digital cable, and if they'd throw in a "Sci-Fi 2, 3, 4" like they have with MTV, I'd glady go up to $40. The TV and movie studios are phenominally stupid, such as the case of Firefly where they spent obscene amounts of money producing it only to let some executive rip the sequence to shreds for shits and giggles.
  • Marketing? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Jace of Fuse! (72042) on Tuesday December 20 2005, @05:27PM (#14303709) Homepage
    "despite Universal's best marketing efforts, the film only mustered $25 million."

    I call bullshit on this one. Most people I know never heard of the movie. When I went to the theater, there was no movie poster nor a listing on the Marque. The screen number that it was showing in, rather than having a lit sign over the number, had a hand written tag taped to the light, and this is no "small" theater. This was the largest in the area.

    I'm not even going to defend the movie, because it had it's critics, but it's certainly far better in many ways to other very popular films this year, and it had a psychotic fanbase. The fact that I know several Firefly fans that didn't even KNOW the movie had already come and gone before they found out about the DVD just further goes toward making me think their "best marketing efforts" were utter rubbish.

    If I were the the paranoid type I'd say Hollywood intentionally made it a point to show fans with this movie that yelling loudly about the things you want to see will get you what you want. They tell YOU what you're going to watch, not the other way around. It's the only way they can use the media to brainwash the masses. It just doesn't work as well when we actually get some say so in the matter.
    • Re:Marketing? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Tumbleweed (3706) on Tuesday December 20 2005, @07:49PM (#14305092) Homepage
      IMDb shows it opened on 2,188 screens.

      Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire: 3,858 screens.

      Now granted, no studio in their right mind would expect Serenity to need as many screens as something like a new Harry Potter movie, but that still doesn't compare too favourably, especially considering that it wasn't opening against much competition at the time. I think 'Flight Plan' was the big movie from the previous week - nothing major opened the same week as Serenity.
  • by Sheepdot (211478) on Tuesday December 20 2005, @05:29PM (#14303739) Journal
    If Firefly doesn't stop now, then how else are we going to have Firefly: The Next Generation here in twenty years, complete with the new River/Jane-daughter wise-cracking empath, a male companion, a cyborg mechanic, and the psychotic-chained-up Reaver named "Thudd" for comedic relief?
  • by Kazzahdrane (882423) on Tuesday December 20 2005, @08:09PM (#14305232)
    This is straight from Joss himself on Whedonesque: All right, now I have to jump in and set the record straight. EW is a fine rag, but they do take things out of context. Obviously when I said I had 'closure', what I meant was "I hate Serenity, I hated Firefly, I think my fans are stupid and Nathan Fillion smells like turnips." But EW's always got to put some weird negative spin on it. But so we're clear once and for all: If you read a quote saying "I'd love to do more in this 'verse with these actors in any medium" all I'm saying is that Nathan has a turnipy odor. It's not his fault, he doesn't eat a lot of them but everyone else in the cast noticed it and tht's not really something I'm prepared to deal with any more. And Jewel said outright she wouldn't do scenes with him except stuff like the SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER funeral scene which was outside in a high SPOILER wind. So if I do manage to find another incarnation for my beloved creation, it will have been totally against my will. I hope that clears everything up. Oh, and when I say I want to do a Spike movie, it means I have a bunion on my toe. -joss (by which I mean Tim) (no, actually me.) joss | December 21, 02:12 CET You see? EW can stop stirring up contraversy and just bugger off for all I care.
  • False (Score:5, Informative)

    by ThePepe (775625) on Tuesday December 20 2005, @09:33PM (#14305744)
    This little blurb seems completely contrary to

    http://whedonesque.com/comments/9027 [whedonesque.com] and

    http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=22059 [aintitcool.com] (look towards bottom of article).
    • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Tuesday December 20 2005, @05:32PM (#14303786)

      ...that the movie only made $25m, and that marketing is being blamed.

      Actually the movie has grossed 38 million, one million short of the budget. Heres the industry rule of thumb. Box office is 1/5 of the total income from a movie, once you include DVD sales, and showings on television. Production budget is 1/3 of the cost of the movie once you figure in marketing and distribution costs. So the movie cost 117 million and will make about 190 million when all is said and done. Rumor has it they skimped a lot on the marketing, so it will actually be quite a bit more profitable than that. Also, Serenity is the number one DVD sale on Amazon today, so DVD sales may be a lot more than expected. Anyone who thinks it was a "flop" does not know what they are talking about. Not that it was a huge success, as movies go.

    • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Tuesday December 20 2005, @05:39PM (#14303865)

      It was poorly planned. They tried to keep too many secrets from the audience, which just wound up making the show hard to get attached to. Compare it to lost: lost only gives you a few mysteries at a time, and always wraps up a few before delivering the next batch. Firefly really needed better writers and better planning.

      You couldn't be more wrong. I've seen both shows. Lost has mediocre writing and weak character development. I have not seen a single innovative element to the writing of Lost. Firefly had excellent and innovative writing, including some of the the best examples of characters not understanding one another without dumbing it down so much as to seem unbelievable.

      The reason Lost is a success and Firefly is not is because Lost is marketed to hell and back by some fairly sharp people. Firefly was intentionally sabotaged by executives with a grudge. Do you really think Lost would be a success if they aired the episodes out of order and changed the time it was on three times during it's first season, and they pre-empted it with sports multiple times?

        • by slashdot_commentator (444053) on Tuesday December 20 2005, @10:14PM (#14306039) Journal
          You date a girlfriend geeky enough to appreciate Firefly. You've never heard of it.

          1) You are not a geek. You do not belong here. Stop reading stuff from this website. Go to Kuroshin or Technocrat. Shoo.

          2) You do not deserve your girlfriend. Smurfs need to date Smurfette, you on the other hand can easily get by on standard issue female.

          Oh, why am I falling for this ruse? Your girlfriend obviously only exists in your Sybillike mind.
    • Re:Text of TFA (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dtfarmer (548183) on Tuesday December 20 2005, @07:05PM (#14304708) Homepage
      Joss Whedon quotes:

      ''I should say I'm above reading reviews,'' he says. ''But I would be lying.''
      ''In the end, it was what it was: a tough sell,'' says Whedon
      As for Serenity, ''I have closure,'' he says. ''And now, I can have it in my home which means that finally I can actually stop working on it.''


      Wow, how enlightening. Not a fucking word outta Joss's mouth about the end of Firefly (as opposed to Serenity - the movie.) Sure we have some screwball reporter's interpretation of whatever was said in the interview. Some say [whedonesque.com] the reporter is paraphrasing him when he said that even if there is no more Firefly, the movie at least has some closure. For the number of times Joss talked about ideas for the future (ex. about Jubal Early - "Oh, I know he survived.") and how DVD sales will help determine Firefly's future, it's hard to imagine him totally giving up on the Firefly universe. Until I see exactly what Joss said, I have a real hard time swallowing this story whole.

      On a side note, I am a rabid fan. Firefly is Joss Whedon's masterpiece so far. Astonishing X-Men is alright, Angel was good, and Buffy never really drew me in, but I do plan to watch my brother's copy of the series sometime. But if Joss is giving up on Firefly for good, he is throwing away the crown-fucking jewels , imho (which matters not, i am well aware...)

      Thanks for letting me rant. This article is just really ticking me off right now.