Expect much navel gazing and blame casting (if that indeed is a phrase) if the movie has got no legs at all.

FWIW I have no quarrel with the advertising campaign. They did a great job with the trailers and blanketing the ads on the last week and, with one exception, the ads were really good. (I didn't like the ones that pointed to magazine and newspaper "buzz" about Serenity/Firefly/Whedon since those articles implied that it was a nerd phenomenon, which is not a selling point.)

I was really off balance after Wash with respect to who else would make it.

I can't remember another movie where I was so emotionally invested in the fates of the (remaining) characters after Wash bought it. It definitely stripped away most all the emotional distance I typically feel about the fates of movie characters.

And yeah, Tara getting shot was probably the last time I felt that much of a shock over the death of a fictional character.

I've been reading the reaction, Simon. (It's addictive.)

The Browncoats are scaring me.

Well, now I have to go look.

Hard to draw comparisons between "Firefly" and other movies, but if you look at the September box office charts from last year the 9/17 weekend has a comparable movie "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow."

[link]

That movie is also considered "science fiction" and it made about $15.5 million on more screens or a $4915 screen average. If the weekend estimates are correct (and we need to see the final numbers tomorrow to know for certain), "Serenity" did a decent job compared to that movie last year same month. Its reported per screen is $4634.

I didn't make any predictions for this weekend, but I think $10-$13 would have probably be about right given time of year and # of screens.

Better look now, Jen, before the comments break the 200 threshold.

Jilli said:

Don't ask me why Wash's death makes Serenity different for me, why it changes my reaction to the movie, because I can't really explain it myself; it's something very far back in my hindbrain. When I think about it objectively, the narrative choice of killing Wash makes perfect sense. But something about it rubs my emotions the wrong way. I'm sure I'll get to a point where I will watch Serenity again, but right now? No.

This. ITA. Also? Borrowing heavily from Cindy, here:

River always annoyed me a little.

I can take or leave series Simon, and have no idea who movie Simon is. Kaylee was cute, but not as developed and therefore interesting a character as some others.

The holes in the Companion mythology are such that Inara never quite worked for me. I loved Mal, Zoe, Jayne, Book, and Wash, and [Zoe + Wash]. With Wash, Book, and [Zoe + Wash] gone, and with River the main event, I doubt there's enough in the 'verse to hold my interest. It's not a You-Killed-Character-X-I-Hate-You-You-Bastard feeling. It's a Oh-Never-Mind-that-bores-me feeling.

I have said, repeatedly, that I understand Joss' preferences as to characters which will survive, and emerge victorious. What has removed movie:Serenity from my vision of the 'verse is not the sacrifice of beloved characters--I understand and approve of that mechanism to tell the story. It's the sacrifice of a rare happy marriage, and the old guy. I think those two choices, rather than, say Simon, which would have been an earned death, and would have hurt as much as Wash, and would have left River independent--or possibly Kaylee, everybody's darling, and an innocent, would have been equally painful losses, and possibly more poignant because Simon's sacrifice was a brilliant career and a long life, and Kaylee's would have been her future, too, just as she was about to discover it. Both those choices would have gone against the Hollywood trope. Inara could have been another death--she had as much impact on the others in the series as Book, and is really really pretty, so that's a sacrifice, right?

It's the selection of the marriage to kill that I don't trust because of author issues, not just the character I "like" best, because I don't necessarily like Wash best, and the older character, which is after all a Hollywood cliche which I think could stand to be inverted.

With some distance, I may come around to seeing it again. I probably will, for all the parts I did like, and the fact that there won't be any more Firefly. But my 'verse will always have a Book and a Wash and a Wash & Zoe. And sure, those are my issues.

Joss told the story he wanted to tell, that's his job, he's the writer. He played to the movie-going market, that's also his job, to make money for the studio. I'm not angry or storming off in a huff or anything.

The scene of Wash's death jerked me utterly and completely out of the story. I had no interest or investment in any of the characters or how the story ended after that. I would have walked at that point had I been alone. I never had one moment's fear for River, because I know Joss' tropes. And I'm not that interested in her, for all I think Glau did a superb job. I just didn't believe any more, or feel any urge to try and get my belief back.

With enough time and distance, I'll probably try again. If it doesn't work, I still have the series dvds.

Rewatching the pilot made me sad and kind of angry. It promises such wonderful things to come. And Joss really made a fully realized, lived-in world in that pilot. The network was fucking out of their tiny brains to not air that. They must have wanted the show to suffer, I can see no other reason.

GAAAAAAHHHHHHH! Tim took me back to my angry place. *sigh*

I'm also Kat in regards to F,C & M the Founding Fathers version. I may have mentioned this before, but Marth Washington named a big old, ginger tom cat in one of their Revolutionary War camps "Hamilton". He was a randy dude that got around (the cat and the man).

That was a fascinating read over there. Almost like reading about people watching election returns.

FWIW I have no quarrel with the advertising campaign. They did a great job with the trailers and blanketing the ads on the last week and, with one exception, the ads were really good.

This is me completely.

(I didn't like the ones that pointed to magazine and newspaper "buzz" about Serenity/Firefly/Whedon since those articles implied that it was a nerd phenomenon, which is not a selling point.)

Especially this. I saw that and I worried about how that was going to influence the perception of the general public and if it would scare them away with the idea that it was only for geeks. Any time you equate something that's sci-fi with a rabid fanbase, you give most people visions of people dressed as klingons or wearing Spock ears and that screams "stay away" to them.

The Lord of the Rings movies and the success of Lost last year prove that you can non-fans interested in fantasy/sci-fi stuff if you present it properly. Making them associate people who like it with people they think (wrongfully or not) are crazy is not the way to do it, though.

That said, I think Universal did an excellent job of promoting it otherwise and all we can do is wait and see.

The thing you get with Wash's death that you don't get with Simon's is the effect it has on Zoe. I was REALLY worried she was going to be ineffective or, worse, suicidal in that last battle and that raised the stakes hugely to me. Her being ineffective, by extension, would put everyone else in greater danger so along with my sadness. my fear ratcheted way up. If Simon died, Kaylee might fight harder, but that would HELP our crew, rather than hinder them, vice versa for if she died. River would behave exactly sas she did when he got wounded, so it doesn't help there either. They could have killed Zoe, but that has the same marriage-killing effects and also kills the strongest male-female friendship. They could have killed Inara or Jayne, but who on the team cared enough to have it affect them?