my own private I dunno: résumé | screenplays | fan fiction

Geek golden age postponed...

| | comments (3)

Guess we’re still waiting for the geek revolution: Serenity, which last week I’d speculated might herald the coming of a new geek utopia, fared rather poorly at the box office this weekend, earning only a little over $10 million. Now, I hate the industry’s emphasis on opening-weekend numbers as pretty much the be-all and end-all marker of success, but the sad fact is that Hollywood will look at that paltry $10 million and conclude that audiences don’t want smart SF films, no matter how well the film does over the long run and how many damn DVDs it eventually ends up moving.

Maybe part of the problem is that folks just can’t get past the idea of geekiness as something to be laughed at. The review of Serenity in the San Francisco Chronicle starts off like this:

"Serenity" is the movie version of "Firefly," a 2002 television series so spectacularly unsuccessful that only a handful of episodes aired before the Fox network canceled it. If longevity is the criterion, Hollywood should have produced films based on "Fastlane," "Murder One" and "After MASH" years before this project arrived at a theater near you.

Which leads you to suspect that the commentary that follows is going to be harshly negative. But no: confused critic Peter Hartlaub goes on to lavish praise on the film:

Yet as challenging as it must have been to pilot Joss Whedon's space opera from the TV junk pile to the big screen, the finished product is a triumph.

Though for every positive thing he has to say, Hartlaub seems to feel the need to denegrate the film, Joss Whedon, and the audience:

"Serenity" was clearly written by someone who grew up worshiping at the altar of Han Solo and the space marines in "Aliens," but this genre picture is still a thrillingly original science fiction creation.

...

Choosing between his hard-core fans and mainstream audiences, Whedon will always side with the geeks -- leaving Universal to bank on the fact that every computer techie in the country will see this movie five times on opening weekend. (Don't laugh. It might happen.) But he never insults his audience, no matter who shows up in the theater.

No, only Hartlaub insults the audience.

And then there’s this:

If "Serenity" isn't the next "Matrix," it will at the very least become this generation's "Highlander." Mass audiences may ignore "Serenity" the way they did "Firefly," but the comic book convention crowd will still be hailing this film 30 years from now.

Translation: "Serenity is a great film, but I’m ashamed of being the kind of geek who gets it, so let me serve up a big helping of self-hating geek bashing."

3 Comments

Do the studios look only at the dollar amount, or do they also look to the actual number of tickets sold. I know locally, many movies do just as well in the Friday and Saturday midnight showings as they do at 7 and 9 o'clock. And around here, midnight shows go for matinee cost which being just off the center of nowhere is only $4.50. And it really is a shame that the opening weekend numbers are so highly regarded because this is the sort of movie that could easily do just as well (or possibly even better) in its second weekend as in the first.
Long discussion (including spoilers!) of the movie, its release date, and its chances of making a profit here: http://www.goodvevil.com/nuke/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=509 Again, don't read if you haven't seen the flick, as there be spoilers present. Major point, though, is that September/October movies are supposed to be dogs, bombs, or both, and only the rare flick breaks out of September with its dignity intact and making a few dollars. See for yourself: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/weekends/month/?mo=09&p=.htm Those are, by and large, the GOOD September movies. The top grossing September movie of all time is freakin' *Rush Hour*, which is the *151st* highest grossing movie of all time. From this, you may correctly assume that September is not a month that money can be made in. I've heard that Serenity has to make $80 million before Universal will consider a sequel. Such a take would make Serenity the 7th best performing September movie EVER. This movie's fate was sealed when Universal moved it from April to September. Whedon tried to put a brave face on it at the time, but we're talking about a month where a $50 million take is considered a spectacular performance, and Serenity has a $40 million budget. Under those conditions, Serenity was preset to fail by the fine folks at Universal. The only reason Universal took Whedon's call at all is because their last two franchises were The Mummy flicks and The Fast and the Furious. If the movie *did* happen to double their money, then they've got an instant franchise. If it doesn't make money, then they can play around with these "experimental marketing" techniques. Blah. The movie's only hope at this point is for a Galaxy Quest-style groundswell. Galaxy Quest actually made more money the second weekend than the first, and kept that up long enough to turn in a $70 million performance on a very similar budget to Serenity's. Universal is very cynically assuming that the geeks will get into line to see Commander Peter Quincy Tagger-- er, Mal Reynolds. And that they'll do it several times. You don't have to go as far as the San Francisco Chronicle to find geek-dissing, Mary Ann. Check the Universal front office.
As a non-Serenity, non-Whedon scifi fan, I have to say that the movie's marketing never escaped its cult-TV roots. It was all over the place, but at the end of the day it was still a television show that few people watched. There was no wide audience for this, and the studio never made an argument for those unfamiliar with the series to see it. Sad too...it's a pretty good movie. Definitely my favorite Whedon project to date.

Leave a comment


I'm MaryAnn Johanson, writer and editor, and this is my scratch pad, idea-jotter-downer, portfolio and resume, and general hang-out blog.

• film/TV/pop culture critic at FlickFilosopher.com
• contributor, Film.com
• member, Online Film Critics Society
• member, Alliance of Women Film Journalists
• member, International Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences

[become a Facebook fan]
[visit my personal Facebook page]
[follow me on Twitter]


Location: New York City
[email me]

photo by David Speranza

archives

recently at FlickFilosopher.com

Powered by Movable Type 5.01

what I’m watching
(region 1)

what I’m watching
(region 2)

what I’m reading



my book
(Amazon U.S.)

my book
(Amazon U.K.)