It's by Cronenberg, who is a director with a strong body of work. It has a great cast. It's got, from what I have heard (I am going tonight), a literate and nuanced script which deals with some thought-provoking ideas. There are plenty of lowest common denominator films out there, but this ain't one of them.

Actively shuns Gris, P-C, and NarrAtor.

So, how's your team doing, Ms. Red Sox Nation. Oh, that's right -- LOST.

You know, in thinking about this, it occurs to me that some of the "hand wringing" could be due to all the advance screenings and how far out they were from the theatrical release. A lot of the hardcore fans saw the movie (perhaps more than once) months ago. So they've already had their happy squee moment and, now, are over that and looking ahead to more.

I've been wondering about this myself, and I'm coming to the conclusion that a lot of the conventional wisdom about this movie is wrong -- I didn't mind Book and Wash dying much, but then, I'm not a sentimental sort. But a lot of other old "Firefly" fans are ballistic over some of these things. On the other hand, everyone I know who DIDN'T watch Firefly, but who saw Serenity, was just entirely blown away. I think, on a lot of levels, the movie worked better for people coming to it cold.

But then, I never get people who freak out because a character dies, although I understand them more than I understand militant 'shippers.

I did wonder about the movie being considerably less explicit than the broadcast TV show, what with the glossing over of Inara's profession and the discreet pan up from the Kaylee/Simon tryst that would have been at home in the end of a 60s Bond movie. But I suppose there was enough violence essential to the plot that Joss wanted to protect the teen-friendly PG13 rating.

I did wonder about the movie being considerably less explicit than the broadcast TV show, what with the glossing over of Inara's profession and the discreet pan up from the Kaylee/Simon tryst that would have been at home in the end of a 60s Bond movie

That pan up to River's face peeking down got one of the biggest laughs in the screening I was in.

And didn't History of Violence make less money than Serenity, anyway? I'm confused.

You live in a more rarified world than I if Viggo's a bigger draw there than The Rock.

I do think there's a good number of people who will see anything he's in simply because he was in LOTR. Maybe you can say the same about Rock and wrestling fans. I'd still give Viggo the edge but the Rock isn't very far behind.

It's by Cronenberg, who is a director with a strong body of work. It has a great cast. It's got, from what I have heard (I am going tonight), a literate and nuanced script which deals with some thought-provoking ideas.

I'm not saying it doesn't have all those things going for it but it doesn't hurt that it has the lowest common denominator type stuff to appeal to those who appreciate that kind of thing too. Are there more people who go to the movies go to see the former over the latter? Doesn't matter there's something for both crowds. I know that doesn't seem like a legitimate factor but look at what's on the rental shelves. Seems like half of them are direct to video flicks that target that crowd.

My point was to say that Serenity fills a pretty small niche. It doesn't have a broad scifi appeal because it's not completely what people have come to expect from scifi and although it has good reviews it doesn't have casual moviegoer appeal with elements such as big names. I think what helps make a movie survive these days is overflow. As new movies are released and people got to see them and they are sellout what movie do they choose as their second choice. There's a 10:30 showing of In Her Shoes but if we miss that there's a 10:45 of Flightplan with Jodie Foster. It's arm chair quarterbacking but any little thing that could have helped short of a Companion Academy shower scene might have been a good idea. There wasn't a lot of flexibility with an established cast and small budget. The only thing that I could see would be to try and duplicate what Tarantino did with Travolta in Pulp Fiction. Take a guy who had success in the past and give him a come back role as the Operative. That's not a slight against Chiwetel Ejiofor's performance it's not about that. In terms of casting Star Wars was full of unknowns but was anchored by Sir Alec Guiness. How about someone from the Brat Pack era? Judd Nelson? Does he have the chops? Wow. What a gamble that would have been. Okay I'll shut up now. I'm not a bad guy, really.

If it were all about the LCD, Into The Blue wouldn't be doing worse than Serenity this week too. And Wallace & Grommit wouldn't be leading the estimates. If you're pissed, I'd recommend something like Waiting or Two For The Money -- I haven't heard much positive about either movie, and they're doing pretty well so far. Picking on a movie with an 87% rating at rottentomatoes, directed by a traditionally inaccessible director? Diffuses the point, and distracts from it to boot.

::Continues to shun Narrator. Actively. In a Spedo::

I'm not entirely certainwhat the argument is here -- everyone, including the studios -- knew going in that Serenity was going to be hurty by being a spin-off from a TV show nearly no one saw, and that has no big name actors. The fact that it debuted at a respectable 2nd place against the Jodie Foster juggernaut (which HAS been a surprise to most of Hollywood how much staying power that flick has) and above the Jessica-Alba-in-a-bikini film is pretty good. It's not making a fortune, but no one's predicting it's going to lose money, either. "Serenity" will have a little staying power at the box office, turn a small profit and probably do well enough to at least merit a sequel. Because even "Underworld" gets a sequel.

As to the rest -- Viggo's a big star, but the Rock is bigger. "A History of Violence" is a lot of people's Oscar pick, though, and it's getting good buzz. I want to see it.