If Joss Whedon was in charge of...

[stonester1]

[ The TOS movies were in some ways more character focused than your average episode of that show; it was only the TNG films that uniformly lost character focus when compared to the series - and they plainly suffered as a consequence, so not a great example.

Actually a great example, and no more spectacularly illustrated than in the TNG films. Yes, the TOS films had more character focus, but also had to have the big villian and the big action pieces (except for TMP and TVH).

There's actually no instrinically good reason why this should be the case; just the kneejerk assumption that a movie of the TV show should be more of the same, only more epic. That may have sounded like a bankable idea, (as opposed to just an overlong episode of the show) but I don't think Joss got it to work spectacularly well.

Because they were trying to draw an audience outside the core Firefly/Whedon fanbase. And you look at the science fiction movies that make big bank...they are action fueled special effects fests. Yes, the better ones also provide great characters and thoughtful content (and of course Joss was striving for that and mostly made it), but they've got the big action and spectacle.

There is no reason why Serenity didn't hit bigger than it did. It just went to show that quality doesn't always draw in the audience, and crap doesn't mean they stay away (Armageddon, etc).

 

[Kegg]

Actually a great example,

Of the movies being more epic than TV shows, certainly. But the TOS movies didn't sacrifice character, though in fairness the show was less focused on character than either TNG or Firefly was.

There is no reason why Serenity didn't hit bigger than it did.

I'll hazard a guess: The title didn't help. 'Serenity', like Firefly, is just something that leads people scratching their heads. What the hell is it? It sure as hell doesn't sound very exciting. I mean, serene? This is not the emotion you want your audience to have suggested to them if they're buying their ticket to see stuff blow up. Armageddon, by contrast, sounds like the apocalypse. And Serenity's contemporary sci-fi action-adventure, has the rather unambiguous title of Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith. You want your popcorn movie, you taking the wars and revenge or the serenity of fireflies?

Yeah. Oh well.

So if he wanted to bring in the non-Firefly fans he probably didn't go all the way enough. And whatever the bankability, honestly the Firefly concept suffers from its 'epic' scale in the film. The conflict with the Alliance being a couple of bored border patrols and this scraggy little scavenger ship was a more interesting dynamic in the series than this Han Solo v. Empire fare; Serenity's premise is inherently duller.

 

[stonester1]

I'll hazard a guess: The title didn't help. 'Serenity', like Firefly, is just something that leads people scratching their heads. What the hell is it? It sure as hell doesn't sound very exciting. I mean, serene? This is not the emotion you want your audience to have suggested to them if they're buying their ticket to see stuff blow up. Armageddon, by contrast, sounds like the apocalypse. And Serenity's contemporary sci-fi action-adventure, has the rather unambiguous title of Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith. You want your popcorn movie, you taking the wars and revenge or the serenity of fireflies?

Yeah. Oh well.

So if he wanted to bring in the non-Firefly fans he probably didn't go all the way enough. And whatever the bankability, honestly the Firefly concept suffers from its 'epic' scale in the film. The conflict with the Alliance being a couple of bored border patrols and this scraggy little scavenger ship was a more interesting dynamic in the series than this Han Solo v. Empire fare; Serenity's premise is inherently duller.

You see, I don't think the masses knew enough about that, not even the above, to make that judgement. It got good to great reviews and sold well on DVD, so eventually, the word got out.

It just goes to show that the filmmaking business isn't an exact science and the "whys" aren't always easy to track down.

 

[Kegg]

You see, I don't think the masses knew enough about that,

About what? That the movie was called Serenity?

If they didn't even know that, well, blame the marketing.

I'm really going with the most basic borderline associations here; the reaction a non-Firefly fan likely may have to a poster (as I did when I saw a poster for the movie - granted, I knew what Firefly was, but the fact they called the movie Serenity I thought was sort of unwise.)

 

[stonester1]

You see, I don't think the masses knew enough about that,

About what? That the movie was called Serenity?

If they didn't even know that, well, blame the marketing.

I'm really going with the most basic borderline associations here; the reaction a non-Firefly fan likely may have to a poster (as I did when I saw a poster for the movie - granted, I knew what Firefly was, but the fact they called the movie Serenity I thought was sort of unwise.)

The title/marketing may have had something to do with it. BUT...well, for example, I missed Firefly in it's initial run. I had just rejoined the service and when Firefly aired, I was in training and missed it. I remember seeing a TV spot for it, that was it. But I remember hearing about it and was intrigued. So when I got to Germany and found the complete series on DVD, I bought it and was hooked. That had me exploring Whedon's other works and being just as impressed.

Now, where the Serenity trailer comes in for me, I saw it before I had watched anything Whedon (made fun of Buffy fans before I saw that show, the shame was mine later). I saw the trailer before I left for Germany, one of the trailers running in front of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. I was VERY intrigued by the trailer, as was the lady geek who was with me on a date.

So, there's my experience with it, before I was a devoted Whedon fan, for what it's worth.

 

[Greg Cox]

You want your popcorn movie, you taking the wars and revenge or the serenity of fireflies?

.

Hah! Good point.

So I guess I should scrub my upcoming mega-action fest, THE ENNUI CHRONICLES, then?

 

[Kegg]

The title/marketing may have had something to do with it. BUT...well, for example, I missed Firefly in it's initial run.

Interesting. Understandable reasons, but well, I was at the TrekBBS at the time. You really couldn't miss discussions of Firefly back then, it attracted a lot of attention (even then there were a lot of Trekkies who were also Whedon fans, and it was the Buffy/Angel contingent who were most loudly defending this show.) I still remember the pages of arguments about that one line by Book in "Our Mrs. Reynolds" comparing sexual predators to people who talk in movie theatres (some people were offended.)

It's interesting to me now there are whole legions of Whedon fans who either just like Firefly or began with Firefly. It suggests the series has far greater staying power than frankly I ever would have given it credit back in 2002 (I was convinced when it was cancelled that was thbe end of it... ah, the naivete of youth.)

 

[StarshipDefiant]

It's all to each, their own, obviously but like I mentioned, to me his works tend to have some sort of appeal. I can usually find a likability in the different shows he has done, the characters, the setting, etc... there's just something appealing there.

As for marketability, I had heard about Firefly when it first game out and for some reason, I figured it was just some sort of Western thing (oddly enough, I was half right). I never really knew who Whedon was back then , so I never paid much attention to it. A shame, really.

Comparing sexual predators to people that talk in the movie theater is a bit fucked. I hate talkers with a passion (especially that one from the horrible experience where she spent a good chunk of the movie, loudly talking on the phone) but sexual predators are like...a real serious issues. WTF? People sometimes...

 

[Greg Cox]

You know, the whole title issue raises the idea that, from a marketing standpoint, Whedon's titles may perhaps be a little too habitually ironic. To the extent that he's shooting himself in the foot sometimes.

Think about it.

BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER is a great, grabby title, but it's also a goofy one, which has probably led some clueless individuals to dismiss the show as inconsequential fluff. I mean, how can you take seriously a show titled BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER?

ANGEL, of course, is about a hero who is anything but. It's clever, but hardly screams CURSED VAMPIRE DETECTIVE to the unitiated.

Ditto FIREFLY is evocative, but maybe not as commercial as STAR SMUGGLERS or whatever. And SERENITY sounds warm and fuzzy, almost like a heart-warming Hallmark special . . . or maybe a romantic comedy. ("SERENITY? That was that movie with John Cusack and Kate Beckinsale, right?")

Then again, DOLLHOUSE was a great title, so what do I know?

 

[stonester1]

Interesting. Understandable reasons, but well, I was at the TrekBBS at the time. You really couldn't miss discussions of Firefly back then, it attracted a lot of attention (even then there were a lot of Trekkies who were also Whedon fans, and it was the Buffy/Angel contingent who were most loudly defending this show.) I still remember the pages of arguments about that one line by Book in "Our Mrs. Reynolds" comparing sexual predators to people who talk in movie theatres (some people were offended.)

I can only imagine that time. Wish I had been here then, but then, coming at it from my angle gives me a unique perspective.

As to the last, the offended ones...perhaps they are theater talkers and don't like the comparison.



I just had a run in with those while seeing The Lovely Bones. Scads of teenage girls in there, I think expecting something Twilight-ish. Jokes on you, girls. And some douchebag in the back who couldn't put his social life and his cell phone on hold.

They will go to the Special Hell.

It's interesting to me now there are whole legions of Whedon fans who either just like Firefly or began with Firefly. It suggests the series has far greater staying power than frankly I ever would have given it credit back in 2002 (I was convinced when it was cancelled that was thbe end of it... ah, the naivete of youth.)

I'm one of those who began and have become a general Whedon fan. He's got a style of writing that speaks to me. Like anyone, he's not flawless, and Dollhouse showed it (great ideas, but the execution was not up to par, but still lots to love). But like my other fav writers in the field, like Aaron Sorkin, or Kevin Smith, or JMS, when they are on (and that's more often than not, it is a thing to behold).

And I think you are right, Firefly is something unique that isn't going to just fade away. That's why I group it in with a small number of non-Star Trek space operas (Farscape and B5 being two others, of course. Battlestar Galactica, both original and Nu, obviously others. Red Dwarf I'd put in that category, too) that don't surprise me when a new fan starts a thread here and wants to share their odyssey with us. It's great to see a newbie discover what we know.

And it's also great to see it through their eyes and feel that feeling when we were taking it all in the first time.

A big part of fandom, for many of us, is the communal experience, I think.

 

[stonester1]

You know, the whole title issue raises the idea that, from a marketing standpoint, Whedon's titles may perhaps be a little too habitually ironic. To the extent that he's shooting himself in the foot sometimes.

Think about it.

BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER is a great, grabby title, but it's also a goofy one, which has probably led some clueless individuals to dismiss the show as inconsequential fluff. I mean, how can you take seriously a show titled BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER?

ANGEL, of course, is about a hero who is anything but. It's clever, but hardly screams CURSED VAMPIRE DETECTIVE to the unitiated.

Ditto FIREFLY is evocative, but maybe not as commercial as STAR SMUGGLERS or whatever. And SERENITY sounds warm and fuzzy, almost like a heart-warming Hallmark special . . . or maybe a romantic comedy. ("SERENITY? That was that movie with John Cusack and Kate Beckinsale, right?")

Then again, DOLLHOUSE was a great title, so what do I know?

Whedon's works, more than anything, rely on "word of mouth", and eager fans seeking to introduce their brethren to the same thing that engages them so fully. Nothing is more enthusiastic than Whedonites.

I converted my ENTIRE barracks when I was with AFN Heidelberg to Firefly/Serenity fandom. And we are talking people who aren't all science fiction/fantasy fans.

I tried with Buffy and Angel, too. Interestingly, those don't sell QUITE as readily, or didn't in my experience. But Firefly has yet to not score with anyone I show it to.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

As for marketability, I had heard about Firefly when it first game out and for some reason, I figured it was just some sort of Western thing (oddly enough, I was half right). I never really knew who Whedon was back then , so I never paid much attention to it. A shame, really.

As many did, a lot of people had dismissed it, the Western thing not helping and it didn't become a phenomenon until the DVD release.

 

[JacksonArcher]

If Joss Whedon were in charge of my sex life, it would be a lot wittier but short-lived.

 

[Kegg]

There were actually people who gave Firefly a chance and then dropped it after a few episodes, also. I was one of those people. I'll admit now it's good, but in retrospect "The Train Job" was not an auspicious start to the series. "Serenity" would have been a far better opening episode and one wonders what would have happened if that had been the case.

You know, the whole title issue raises the idea that, from a marketing standpoint, Whedon's titles may perhaps be a little too habitually ironic. To the extent that he's shooting himself in the foot sometimes.

I think that's very true. By far his best title is Buffy the Vampire Slayer, as although it's self-consciously goofy it at least tips off the audience as to what the show is about.

The rest of his series are single-word titles that you couldn't guess the premise from. I mean, what's Angel? Is it like Charmed? The very idea of a dark vampire detective show with such an innocous title is highly ironic. Cameron's Dark Angel was a trifle more helpful there.

 

[stonester1]

As was another vampire detective series, Forever Knight.

 

[StarshipDefiant]

You know, the whole title issue raises the idea that, from a marketing standpoint, Whedon's titles may perhaps be a little too habitually ironic. To the extent that he's shooting himself in the foot sometimes.

Think about it.

BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER is a great, grabby title, but it's also a goofy one, which has probably led some clueless individuals to dismiss the show as inconsequential fluff. I mean, how can you take seriously a show titled BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER?

ANGEL, of course, is about a hero who is anything but. It's clever, but hardly screams CURSED VAMPIRE DETECTIVE to the unitiated.

Ditto FIREFLY is evocative, but maybe not as commercial as STAR SMUGGLERS or whatever. And SERENITY sounds warm and fuzzy, almost like a heart-warming Hallmark special . . . or maybe a romantic comedy. ("SERENITY? That was that movie with John Cusack and Kate Beckinsale, right?")

Then again, DOLLHOUSE was a great title, so what do I know?

Yeah, I'll give you that, the titles don't always help matters out none, BtVS probably had the best descriptive title, Firefly was kind of interesting (as it's the name of the class) but one could say that'd be on par naming Star Trek Enterprise "NX" or TNG "Galaxy" or something. But then again, I kind of like the more subtle titles, I dunno...

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Oh, this will end well.

 

[JonathonWally]

I love Titan A.E!!!

Big ups to planet BOB. I love that movie.

 

[Kegg]

I love Titan A.E!!!

Big ups to planet BOB. I love that movie.

I'd heard this movie had a cult audience so I caught it again when it aired on TV late last year.

To be nice: There are one or two good lines of dialogue. I suspect, in fairness, they're of Whedonite origin, particularly the one bit on the idea of an intelligent guard. That's exactly the sort of genre savvy observation that Whedon is noted for.

But frankly the plotting is completely incoherent and the writing is mostly abysmal. It's just a plain awful movie, with no sense of pacing, lurching along from lousy character moment to lousy character moment and wrapped around a premise and execution that is staggeringly moronic. It is the sort of thing you should tuck away at the bottom of your C.V. and pretend didn't really happen, to be polite.

 

[Theodore Jay Miller]

Here's something I once came up with:


Frodo the Ring Bearer, by Joss Whedon

“It’s part of an ancient poem,” Gandalf said. “Three rings for the Elven-Kings under the sky, seven…”
Frodo interrupted him. “Not very good presents there.”
“What?”
“Rings for elven kings. I mean, they’re kings. They’ve got crowns, and scepters, and orbs; all that regatta stuff.”
“Um, that’s regalia. A regatta is a yacht race.”
“They’re kings, they can have yachts too. But anyway, if they’ve already got all this regalia stuff, what are they gonna do with rings? Just toss them on a pile in some treasure room somewhere.”
“Frodo, can I please continue?” Gandalf asked.
“Fine, go ahead.”
“Three rings for the Elven-Kings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-Lords in their halls of stone…”
“Now I’m definitely sensing a lack of imagination in the gift-giving department,” Frodo interrupted.
Gandalf ignored this and continued. “Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die…”
“Now THAT’S a sucky present. You’re lying there dying, and what do you get? A ring? So you can look good for the undertaker?”
“Frodo, they died because of the nine rings. Those men became the Nazgul, evil ring-wraiths who do Sauron’s bidding.”
“And that makes it a LESS sucky present?”
Gandalf just ignored this. “One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne, in the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In…”
“Wait a minute,” Frodo interrupted. “THIS is that one ring?”
“Yes, it is,” Gandalf replied.
“Oh yuck! Some guy’s got a fetish for dark rooms and bondage games, and I’ve been walking around with his favorite toy in my pocket?!”
“Frodo, the dark lord Sauron isn’t just ‘some guy’. He’s the embodiment of evil.”
“And here I thought he was called the dark lord because of his great tan.”
“Much of Sauron’s power was placed in this ring. It must be destroyed.”
“But why do I have to do it?” Frodo complained. “For once, can’t I just be a normal hobbit, smoking pipeweed and eating as many lunches as possible?”
“You’re the one who has to do it,” Gandalf answered, “because you’re the Chosen One, the one hobbit in...”
“...the one hobbit in all Middle Earth with the will to carry the Ring, yadda yadda, I know.”
Just then, Sam Gamgee entered. “What’s up, Frodo?” he asked.
“We’ve gotta go fight our way past all of Sauron’s orcs and monsters, to throw this ring into the Crack of Doom,” Frodo replied.
“Well, that’s not something you do every day,” Sam said. “Unless you’re US. So, where is this Crack of Doom?”
“Deep in the land of Mordor,” Gandalf answered.
“Where the shadows lie,” Frodo added.
“Lie about what?” Sam asked. “About whether they’re shadows? ‘Hi, I’m not a shadow, I’m a pool of oil’”
“Maybe they lie about what they’re shadows of,” Frodo suggested. "You know, like making a bunny with the shadows of your fingers.” He turned to Gandalf, puzzled. “But wouldn’t wearing all those rings get in the way of doing that?”
Gandalf just shook his head. “Okay, Middle Earth is doomed,” he said ruefully.