Complications Ensue:
The Crafty Screenwriting, TV and Game Writing Blog


April 2004

May 2004

June 2004

July 2004

August 2004

September 2004

October 2004

November 2004

December 2004

January 2005

February 2005

March 2005

April 2005

May 2005

June 2005

July 2005

August 2005

September 2005

October 2005

November 2005

December 2005

January 2006

February 2006

March 2006

April 2006

May 2006

June 2006

July 2006

August 2006

September 2006

October 2006

November 2006

December 2006

January 2007

February 2007

March 2007

April 2007

May 2007

June 2007

July 2007

August 2007

September 2007

October 2007

November 2007

December 2007

January 2008

February 2008

March 2008

April 2008

May 2008

June 2008

July 2008

August 2008

September 2008

October 2008

November 2008

December 2008

January 2009

February 2009

March 2009

April 2009

May 2009

June 2009

July 2009

August 2009

September 2009

October 2009

November 2009

December 2009

January 2010

February 2010

March 2010

April 2010

May 2010

June 2010

July 2010

August 2010

September 2010

October 2010

November 2010

December 2010

January 2011

February 2011

March 2011

April 2011

May 2011

June 2011

July 2011

August 2011

September 2011

October 2011

November 2011

December 2011

January 2012

February 2012

March 2012

April 2012

May 2012

June 2012

July 2012

August 2012

September 2012

October 2012

November 2012

December 2012

January 2013

February 2013

March 2013

April 2013

May 2013

June 2013

July 2013

August 2013

September 2013

October 2013

November 2013

December 2013

January 2014

February 2014

March 2014

April 2014

May 2014

June 2014

July 2014

August 2014

September 2014

October 2014

November 2014

December 2014

January 2015

February 2015

March 2015

April 2015

May 2015

June 2015

August 2015

September 2015

October 2015

November 2015

December 2015

January 2016

February 2016

March 2016

April 2016

May 2016

June 2016

July 2016

August 2016

September 2016

October 2016

November 2016

December 2016

January 2017

February 2017

March 2017

May 2017

June 2017

July 2017

August 2017

September 2017

October 2017

November 2017

December 2017

January 2018

March 2018

April 2018

June 2018

July 2018

October 2018

November 2018

December 2018

January 2019

February 2019

November 2019

February 2020

March 2020

April 2020

May 2020

August 2020

September 2020

October 2020

December 2020

January 2021

February 2021

March 2021

May 2021

June 2021

November 2021

December 2021

January 2022

February 2022

August 2022

September 2022

November 2022

February 2023

March 2023

April 2023

May 2023

July 2023

September 2023

November 2023

January 2024

February 2024


Monday, July 17, 2006

A lot of comments on my earlier post and on Whedonesque claim that Serenity underperformed because of bad marketing.

I have to disagree. $25M box office means the film got out there. There were enough people who saw it for it to have great word of mouth, had they felt like telling their friends. Much as I am a huge fan of Joss, and the Jossverse, and Firefly, the movie did not work that well for the mainstream audience. Or it would have been a sleeper hit.

You can say (and some do), "Anecdotally, non-Browncoats liked the movie." But either they did not like it enough to recommend it to other Firefly non-fans; or when they told you they liked it, they were just being nice.

Great marketing gets you a great opening weekend. It cannot make a flop into a hit. (Film marketers like to point to a great opening weekend, followed by a severe drop-off, as evidence that they successfully sold a piece of crap. Any fool can market a good movie.)

To a certain extent, bad marketing on a good movie means that the theaters will bump the movie, and it can get squeezed out of the marketplace. But exhibitors make a much higher percentage of box office the longer a movie runs. If I remember correctly, the movie theater gives the studio 50% of the opening weekend's take, but eventually the percentage works its way down to as low as 10%. That gives theater owners a huge incentive to support a sleeper. Serenity was out there for at least a month; certainly long enough for word of mouth to reverse any failure to get the cast on Leno, or any weaknesses in the trailer, or what have you.

Everyone likes to blame weak marketing when their film flops. But 20th Century Fox famously "dumped" a little movie called Star Wars, and it was not until the overwhelming audience reaction in a few college towns (like Cambridge, MA) that they mounted a decent ad campaign. (I knew a guy who managed a theater in Harvard Square. Fox had so little faith in the movie they refused to let him hold the movie over after the preview screenings. He mortgaged his house and bought Fox stock. He knew. They didn't.) If a half million people see your film opening weekend, you can't blame marketing for its subsequent failure. How many people saw The Full Monty on opening weekend? Was it even a hundred thousand? It went on to make a hundred million dollars.

Whether Serenity is a good movie or not is a matter of taste; probably it has a lot to do with your tolerance of, or love for, space opera. It's also a matter of perspective. Blade Runner flopped but has become a classic, casting a spell on two decades worth of dystopian futures. If Serenity winds up influencing science fiction movies to come, then we can say that it was a great movie even if it didn't blow the roof off the box office. However, if you believe that it "ought to have been" a popular movie, and failed only because the studio didn't back Joss, then you are misunderstanding the relationship between the filmmaker and the audience. Writers (and their fans) are not entitled to say "They ought to have liked it." Or, if they do, it's just not useful. It's like a comedian who says, "Well, I was just over their heads." If they don't laugh, it's not funny.


My answer is: a weak storyline. We do not understand why one side is running and the other is chasing until the very end of the story, which makes all the action seem irrelevant. And when the answer comes, it is not that meaningful and big.

By Blogger gezgin, at 8:45 AM  

I think the inherent problem with the movie is that it was made with the fans of the show in mind first and the mass audience second.

And while it's nice to know - as a supporter of the show - that I some semblance of a movie involving characters that I'd grown to care about it was disappointing that Mr. Whedon didn't take the time to make it more inviting to those who'd yet to encounter these people.

Instead what we got was alot of in-jokes and great moments that were only truly understood by those who'd already come with a vested interest in the characters.

*spoiler - tho' do I really need to say it anymore? What IS proper spoiler ettiquette these days anyways?*

When Wash dies to the average viewer it sucks that a funny and affable guy/husband has died but to the fan of the show, it's like losing an integral part of the team.

*end spoiler*

Essentially, the movie flopped because while it had a good idea and alot of heart it held that heart out only for those who'd showed it love in the first place.

And that's a shame.

By Blogger Brandon Laraby, at 2:12 PM  

Though I love Joss unconditionally,and was a big fan of "Firefly" and "Serenity," why was the movie ever made in the first place? The TV show, as great as it was, failed, by network standards, so the movie was never going to be anymore than a valentine to its existing fans, no matter how well it was marketed

By Blogger Reel Fanatic, at 5:59 PM  

I moved from my hometown in Canada to the UK at around the same time as Firefly was airing/being cancelled. Things were very busy for me around that time, so as much as I'd wanted to follow Joss's new show, I didn't get to.

Things got very busy in London as well, the way that they do, and since Firefly never aired over here I never did see it before Serenity began marketing, and I actually sort of forgot about it.

Apologies. I know. I'm not worthy.

My point is, as much as I am an absolute fan of Joss Whedon's work (I even met him over here in an entirely serendipitous manner, the tale of which I won't distract you with now), the fact was that, at the time of Serenity's release, I was not a browncoat.

I don't remember much about the marketing of Serenity: a poster that didn't say much; a trailer I never saw.

I never did get around to seeing Serenity in the cinema - and I'm a Whedon fan!

Of course I have since seen the film, and the series which inspired/demanded it, and I feel a deep, meaningful love for that 'verse. I wish I could say I saw Serenity before going brown, but I decided to watch the series first. Obviously I loved Serenity, as would be expected, but so did my flatmate, sat next to me that evening, and he's never seen Firefly and thinks Buffy and Angel are for the sadder than sad. My girlfriend loved it, too, and has since digested the entire series and "can't believe that's all there is - its not fair!"

In fact, everyone I know who has seen it both loved it and only saw it on DVD. That's a lot of love and not a lot of box office.

Using Star Wars as an example of a film overcoming marketing/studio obstacles isn't entirely fair. Star Wars was unlike anything people had ever seen before at the time of its release and as such inspired awe. 30ish years later a space opera can't ever be expected to stand out quite so fiercely. Couple that with the fact that a sci-fi sans stars is something typicaly associated with geeks - powerfully uncool geeks - and you can understand perhaps why even if non-browncoats liked it, they weren't telling everyone they knew to go and see it.

Jonathan Ross said in his review of Serenity on Film 2006 (BBC One) that Serenity managed to succeed where the new Star Wars movies failed, explained himself rather eloquently, then finished his review by naming Serenity Film of the Year.

To claim that Serenity was episodic, and as such a weak film, is far too easy and expected a criticism of a writer who deals mainly in episodes. In my, and many other's, viewing, Serenity was a strong and audience-deserving film which stood out with force from the rest of the flock, though unfortunately only on the screen - not in its marketing, where in terms of initial success, it mattered most.

By Blogger Darcy Fitzpatrick, at 6:22 PM  

I agree. $25M box office means the film got out there. There were enough people who saw it for it to have great word of mouth, had they felt like telling their friends. Much as I am a huge fan of Joss, and the Jossverse, and Firefly, the movie did not work that well for the mainstream audience. Or it would have been a sleeper hit.

Obat kelenjar getah bening

By Blogger Unknown, at 8:48 PM  

Post a Comment

Back to Complications Ensue main blog page.

This page is powered by Blogger.