Talk:Serenity (2005 film)

Links: Browncoats.nl

Please do not keep adding this link to this article for the following reasons:

• Wikipedia is not a link repository.
• This article is English, and websites for other languages should be on the article's page with that language.

This website link has been added many times before — Cuahl 5 July 2005 13:22 (UTC)

Reply:

Seeing as I was the one posting the link, I feel the need to clarify. First of: 'many times before' was only twice, but that's beside the point. I added this to the English section, since there is no Dutch section on Firefly or Serenity. There is no Dutch section, since Dutch people, especially sci-fi fans, tend to concentrate on the larger international (i.e.: English) websites. Now there are exceptions, like our website, but those are just that: exceptions.

I admit to not being familiar with all the rules and regulations of wikipedia, and probably should have looked into those more extensively before adding said link, but I only acted with the best interest of the browncoat community in mind: more people coming to browncoats.nl, equals a bigger exposure of the movie in The Netherlands and more people to help out with the promotional activities we're planning for our little country.

Now if I caused any offense by adding this link again after it had been removed, I'd like to take this opportunity to apologise. I intented no harm, and thought that posting our link on the international Serenity page would be a good place, seeing as we're the official dutch movie website. I can also see how some might consider this a simple case of link dumping, a way to get more traffic, or something like that, but I assure you that was not the case. Even after reading the article you linked to, I still feel that our link is content-relevant, but I will not be pushing the issue, since everyone here has very obviously put more time and energy into this wikipedia serenity page than I did, and I respect that.

Now I won't be posting this link again, but I did feel the need to clarify. We're not bad people. We're all browncoats here, with our only interest being in making Serenity perform its damndest at the box office (including our little corner of the earth).

Finally I'd like to mention that this reply here in no way represents any official views of the browncoats.nl staff or UIP Netherlands (the distributors of the movie), everything posted here has been done by my own accord. -GVH 9 July 2005 14:28 (GMT+1)

Spoiler Warning

The trivia page at IMDB contains a rather egregious spoiler for the plot of the film. I've asked IMDB to take it down, or place it under a warning header; in the meantime, I've indicated next to the link in the article that those who wish to remain unspoiled for the film should tread lightly: I'd hate to have it ruined for anyone else. -- Simon Crowley 8 July 2005 00:03 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Should this include a disambigiation page? 64.26.170.107 06:31, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Preview

I just got back from the priview of this in San Francisco which was tonight. Alan Tudyk, Gina Torres were there and talked a bit. I don't think I will update anything in the article about the movie just yet because even with a spoiler warning 4 months is a long time. However they passed out small poster/flyer things for the film which had been signed and I took a photograph of mine. You can see the picture here [1]. If people think a smaller version of this might add somethign to the article I will upload it. They signed them so I am not sure how it will look scaled down. Have a look at it and tell me what you think. Dalf | Talk 09:48, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it's a little early to put up spoilers from the movie. Even though there are even more screenings now, people just looking for basic information shouldn't be spoiled. Perhaps a link to spoiler info on one of the "official" sites? - Terry

Why not? Some people want to know the plot of the story, so there could just be a page made for it such as Serenity (movie)/preview - CuaHL 28 June 2005 21:57 (UTC)

I was at the Dublin screening last night. Sean Maher and Jewel Staite were there. The screening I saw was the final cut. It's not too long to the offical release (a month an a half). I'm debating whether or not to put details of the film in. Any thoughts?

Speaking as a frequent editor of Firefly material who, like most of the world, has no chance of seeing the film before 30 September, I'd appreciate it if you wait. Otherwise, I'll have to take a 6-week break from editing, including abandoning the expansion of the remaining 10 episode stubs, to avoid seeing plot details creep into other Firefly articles. (I've already seen one pop up in the main article, about someone apparently called The Operative.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Just put a spoiler warning on it. discofever

Comics

There are three comics coming out which are supposed to fill in the story between the final episode and the movies. Should there be any mention here? --67.70.21.39 19:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like an idea - no doubt worth a mention. When the comics actually release and if there's enough reason to, maybe they could spawn their own artcile. 67.70.21.39, (apologies, but no username) why not be bold and write about it - CuaHL 28 June 2005 22:00 (UTC)

Future

We need some years added to the main article. "Public preview screenings were held in Adelaide and Sydney on August 1, and Perth on August 4" makes no sense unless these were in 2004, but wouldn't that be before the movie was done shooting?

Move page to Serenity (film)

Because User:Ajshm edited the Serenity (movie) page and moved it's TEXT to the new page at Serenity (film) the entire edit history has been lost. Can an admin move this page along with its edit history? Thanks — CuaHL 17:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Done. - UtherSRG 17:21, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Plot Spoiler by ZAROVE

English is not my first language . . . I'm not sure what's wrong. But it seems wrong in very many places. Very low standard of spelling and grammar. Am I wrong? -- 03:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC) 69.251.216.37

Story

The story section doesn't read very well. I fixed the spelling up a bit, but it sections of it could probably do with a rewrite. Anyone up for it? - discofever 03:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I edited it for readability, and I saw someone else was too at the same time. Thank you! But I do think the summary is overly long and detailed now. There's a lot going on in the movie and I wanted to explain a bit for future people who are not familiar with the universe. Hopefully all that will reach a happy medium through future edits. --68.197.145.41 04:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

New section: references?

Would it be appropriate to add a heading for references to previous episodes and canon? I thought I'd ask here, to find out if people think "Wikipedia is not the IMDB!" -- 06:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC) 68.197.145.41

Episodes of Firefly are listed, appropriately, at Firefly (television series). However, I think the article could be restructured with a better introductory paragraph and separate sections on production, release, and the universe of Serenity. The "universe of Serenity" part should have a note about Firefly and the Serenity comic book. —Josiah Rowe 06:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and did that. Feel free to improve what I've put in, though! —Josiah Rowe 08:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Simon's safeword phrase

Joss says that the phrase, "Eta kooram nah smech" (as written in Serenity: The Visual Companion) is Russian. See here. I'm not sure if he's remembered it right (my Russian is pretty rusty, and I can't find a word that would decline as "kooram" in my Russian-English dictionary), but it's supposed to be Russian, anyway. Here's what Joss told an Australian fan:

Fan: ‘What language is the safe word in? What does it mean?’

Joss: ‘Actually it is Russian, Old Russian, it’s something my Russian teacher in England used to say. It means ‘that’s absurd’, well the words are literally ‘that’s laughter for chickens’, and that means ‘that’s absurd’.

I asked if he could write it in Russian – he didn’t know how, so I asked if he could write it for me in English, which he did, saying ‘It’s been a while’. He remembered it perfectly though – same wording as in the Visual Companion – ETA KOORAM NAH SMECH, and he signed it ‘Joss’.

—Josiah Rowe 16:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Figured it out. "Курам" (kooram) is the dative plural of "курица" (chicken or hen). Kinda irregular, which is why it threw me for a bit. I'm guessing the phrase in Russian would be "Это курам на смех." (Aren't you glad you asked? What — you didn't? Oh. I'll just be over here. —Josiah Rowe 17:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Josiah, can your provide a source for the Whedon info above? The only source I've found thus far for the phrase is the Serenity book by DeCandido, which calls it a "nonsense phrase". (I obviously need to get the Visual Companion as well.) By the way, we should add these sources to the article, just like any other WP article. I've started by adding the two relevant books.

Sorry, I should have been clearer: the quote is from the link above, which takes you to an Australian fan forum. The spelling "eta kooram nah smech" is from the Visual Companion. I figured out the Russian myself based on fading memories of high school and college courses. (I certainly didn't catch it when I saw the film on Friday.)

What else should we add to the "references" section? —Josiah Rowe 22:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd add the DVD, when it comes out. Beyond that, I think we need to be careful, because there is a great tendency in these TV and film articles to use fan sites as sources. I've never seen a fan site that can be considered completely reliable, especially since one of their raisons d'être is to provide a place to speculate on stuff that isn't clearly defined in canonical works. But quotes verifiably from the people behind Serenity and its related works would seem reasonable. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm wrong, I haven't spoken russian in a very long time, but I do speak polish, which has similar grammar, and it seems to me that Simon's phrase actually means "That's chickens for laughter", rather than "that's laughter for chickens", which I belive would be "eta smech nah kooram". above unsigned comment by User:24.34.179.111, 01:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, my Russian is also pretty rusty. You're right that "на смех" could literally mean "for laughter", but "как на смех" is an idiom, meaning "as if to mock someone; as if to rub it in" (according to my Russian-English dictionary). I take it from that that the meaning of "на смех" is something like "in fun" or "as a joke". "Это курам" definitely doesn't mean "That's chickens", because курам is a dative plural, and so means "for chickens" or "to chickens". If you wanted to be really literal, you'd translate it, "That, to chickens, is for laughter."

At least, that's my reading. But as I say, it's been some time since I was really conversant in Russian. Tell you what: I'll put a request on WP:TIE for a fluent Russian speaker to give us a definitive say-so (if that's acceptable in that page's rules). —Josiah Rowe 05:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Josiah's idea makes sense. Here's another: if this phrase is idiomatic Russian, are there perhaps famouse Russian works that include this expression that have been professionally translated into English? If so, they could provide an idiomatic English translation. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

It also occurs to me that it could be literally translated to "That's chickens on laughter"

above unsigned comment by User:24.34.179.111, 18:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be "на смехе" (prepositional case, rather than смех, accusative case)?

By the way, I put the request in. —Josiah Rowe 03:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S.: If you'd like, you can create an account so we can know who we're talking to. Even if you don't want to create a username, you can sign your comments by typing four tildes, like so: ~~~~ . The wiki software will translate it into a signature and timestamp. Like so:Josiah Rowe 03:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Regarding the "Kuram na smekh". You are right, it means that something is ridiculous or absurd. It may also mean that something is so small or insignificant that it's not worth of somebody's attention. You can always apply it in a situation when, e.g., someone offers you a small amount of money for something that costs more than that, and you reply "You gotta be kidding, this is kuram na smekh!" KNewman 15:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I asked KNewman for a literal translation as well. Here's his reply, from my talk page:

The literal meaning would be "For chickens to laugh at". If you have any other questions regarding Russian proverbs or translation problems in general, do not hesitate to ask me. Cheers! KNewman 16:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I've changed the note accordingly. —Josiah Rowe 19:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

---

ChrisO's latest change raises an interesting point: do we prefer a more accurate transliteration of the Russian ("kuram na smekh") or the less formally accurate transliteration found in the published script ("kooram nah smech")? —Josiah Rowe 00:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Looking for a source

The note about the film taking place several months after "Objects in Space" has been removed (appropriately). I was trying to find a source to back it up and add it back in under "Trivia", but I can't find it. I thought I remembered Joss or someone saying it in an interview, and something about it being "just long enough for people to have different haircuts", but I can't find that anywhere. Does anyone remember this, or have an idea where I might have seen it? —Josiah Rowe 17:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

After reading the Serenity novelization, I'd have to say there are some oddities in the timescale at this point. For what it's worth, there are several references in the novel that the Tams arrived on Serenity eight months before the events of the film. (An example of the timescale problem is that the pilot episode clearly defines the first "modern" scene as six years after the war, which should make the film nearly seven years after, but the third novel section is titled: "The Story: Eight Years after the War". Go figure. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I had removed the "Objects in Space," note, I didn't remove it because I felt it to be factually innaccurate (I don't), but because this being a page on the movie, it seemed more appropriate to keep references to the TV show general when possible, rather than specific, so it made a lil more sense (and was just simpler) to say after the end of the television series, rather than after one episode. And while I do think its true, I don't think its really interesting or notable as trivia (it's like saying SWIII takes place after SWII). Gheorghe Zamfir 18:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I think placing the time of the movie is very useful information, and I don't see any problem referencing a time point from one of the episodes, but it should be based on information from solid sources, which seem a bit iffy to me at the moment. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

And I'm not saying placing the time of the movie is unnecessary, simply that on the page for the movie, when the series can be referenced as a whole, its more preferable to do so than to refer to a specific episode to make the point. Saying the movie takes place 6 months after the series would seem more appropriate to me here than saying the movie takes place 6 months after "Objects in Space." But I won't object either if the info is put back in, those were just my thoughts in removing it.Gheorghe Zamfir 19:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about whether the episode should be mentioned specifically or not. I would just like to find a source for the "6 months" figure before I put it back in (under "Trivia", I think). If I could find the "haircut" quote, so much the better. —Josiah Rowe 21:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, this is all I could find for you: Variety article, its the initial press announcement for the pic, it says, "Forthcoming pic is set about six months after the TV show left off, and centers on two passengers on board the ship who attract trouble to the crew." And to clear up what I said earlier, when I said it wasn't notable as trivia, I didn't mean it wasn't notable at all, it just seems more basic to the movie then trivia, I think it would better fit the article's opening paragraph, or in the brief non-spoiler section of "Story."Gheorghe Zamfir 21:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I put it back in the opening paragraph, with a piped link to "Objects in Space" so that people who're interested in what came before can check it out, but it's not jarring to people who aren't interested. —Josiah Rowe 21:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Mentioning the lackluster box office

While I realize it was a bit POV, I'm going to re-add the information about how Serenity failed at the box office. I'm also re-adding the reminder that the high movie ratings are pretty much the result of Firefly fans zergrushing places like IMDB.

That said, how would would add this information, without removing it entirely? This article is POV towards the movie and its parent series without pointing out that, like the TV show, the mainstream audience once again ignored Firefly.

I'd hardly say it failed at the box office. Flightplan has been out a week longer and was #1 its opening weekend and this past weekend, and it only grossed $43 million so far. This isn't a big movie-going return month. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the word "mere" from "earning a mere $10.1 million". The facts should speak for themselves. As far as "failing", we'd first have to define what it means to succeed, and then show how Firefly missed that goal. (And should we do this for every other film in this year of disappointing box office results? The issue may be much larger than a single film.) The whole matter is rather subjective and seems to me to be an effort either to celebrate or damn the box office results. Let's try to avoid original research by trying to "explain" the numbers. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

There is no source for the claim that the ratings are inflated, critics have acclaimed it as well. WP:NOT, this is not a place for your original "resource" UtherSRG. TheChief (PowWow) 20:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Urm.... Where did I mention anything that could be construe as original research. My comment began "I'd hardly say..." - UtherSRG (talk) 10:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

To additionally chime in on the box office matter, it is a lower budget film with lower expectations, as such, 5 days into the film's release is probably too early to define the film's financial take in any manner. And the only time I see descriptives such as hit or flop ever applied are when the film is a notable as such, when its an overwhelming or surprising success or failure (Spider-Man, My Big Fat Greek Wedding, Pluto Nash, Ishtar). The opening position (#2) and the opening take ($10 million) is more than sufficient information here.

With that said, to harken back to Jeff Q's "just the facts," I think recent changes are tipping the scales the other way and now we're going a bit overboard in "defending" the films numbers. I'm going to avoid making any edits myself as this seems to be a bit controversial, but I think its enough to simply say "Despite the reviews and unique marketing strategies, the film came in at #2 its opening weekend, earning $10.1 million from 2,188 theaters" (and since the per screen average is nothing more than 10.1 million divided by 2,188, and the figure itself is nothing special, I don't find any reason to note it). Gheorghe Zamfir 20:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm certainly not married to any version outside of losing the word "mere," because I really think that's intended to pile on a little bit. The extra quotes I added were an attempt to balance out what I was reading here along with the edit battles we were seeing. So yeah. Whatever works, really, I'd imagine most of these non-plot sections will be whittled down a little bit once the "newness" of the movie passes. --Badlydrawnjeff 12:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Good point, I assume this is gonna be something changing every week for awhile. With that said I'm going to go ahead and remove the second quote, having two quotes to assure the numbers are decent just seems too defensive.Gheorghe Zamfir 20:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I added the quote from Brandon Gray (the BoxOfficeMojo guy) to forestall criticism that a Universal exec would be likely to spin the numbers in a positive manner — Gray presumably has no dog in the fight. But you're probably right that having two quotes is overkill. —Josiah Rowe 12:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I've rearranged the text around the #2 box-office opening statement because it seemed peculiar to imply that #1 is the only satisfactory result of "[positive] reviews and unique marketing strategies". I'm think that, by placing this expression into the part that actually talks about missed expectations, it makes a bit more sense. I also changed Universal's "noted" to "stated" because their statement sounds a little like spin. "Noted" implies observation of a known fact, but "stated" can simply be reporting what was press-released. (Hopefully I've equally satisfied (or annoyed) both defenders and detractors of the film while striving for neutrality. ☺) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

This constant reversion is really unnecessary. The NPOV facts are these: the majority of critics gave Serenity positive reviews, and these reviews have so far failed to translate into box office bucks. Our article should reflect these facts. It's appropriate to note that not all reviews were positive, and to include examples in proportion. If, as Rotten Tomatoes reports, roughly 80% of professional critics gave the film positive reviews, then it would be appropriate for this section to include 4 positive citations and 1 negative one, which is roughly what the article has now. Putting in three negative reviews gives undue weight to that critical perspective.

There may be good reasons for 24.7.196.180's constant insertion of negative reviews, etc., but since he or she has declined to comment, we don't know what they are. I invite comment from the "other" side. —Josiah Rowe 04:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

24.7.196.180's response was to re-add one of the negative reviews, again without comment. I still think 3 positive to 2 negative gives undue weight to the negative, given the Rotten Tomatoes figure, but I'll let it go, at least until other editors have a chance to have their say. I really would love to hear some justification from 24.7.196.180. Let's be civilized about this and not keep reverting each other's edits. —Josiah Rowe 07:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Since we are reaching no consensus here, at least one participant refuses even to work on a consensus or respond to queries, and we end up frequently reverting each other's edits, I have asked for outside assistance on this issue at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, art and literature. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Good call. (By the way, I added the latest Brandon Gray quote, in another attempt to forestall POV additions and speculation about the film's box office fate.) —Josiah Rowe 07:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh well. 24.7.196.180 took that as an invitation for more interpretation, to which another anon user responded defensively. I reverted to the version before 24.7.196.180's (how about a name, here?) latest alteration, on JeffQ's "just the facts, ma'am" principle. Our would-be Operative also keeps removing the Rotten Tomatoes info (which, as I noted on the page history, is reccomended by Wikipedia:WikiProject Films for film pages). We must be past the 3RR on this, surely? —Josiah Rowe 15:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the UK box office note. While the collective international take may be notable, internationally Serenity is opening in 30 other countries, selectively noting the performances that are encouraging seems like it'll only cause more problems, not to mention the clutter of adding more of the weekly tracking that the domestic BO talk has already become.Gheorghe Zamfir 00:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. —Josiah Rowe 00:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I tried, but our anonymous friend struck again. I've tried to push his revision back towards NPOV, on the principle that improvement is better than reversion. If you think the article is better without the international details, feel free to remove them; but I thought that I'd provide a fact-based alternative.

I've also tried once again to engage our friend in dialogue, on his or her talk page, although my optimism is waning. How long does it usually take to get a response after you put up an RFC? —Josiah Rowe 07:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, Josiah, I've also tried engaging 24.7.196.180, with the same lack of results. I've never filed an RFC before, so I have no idea what kind of turnaround time to expect. Given this person's (A) persistent one-sided edits, (B) repeated removal of sourced information in favor of unsourced and occasionally erroneous information, (C) refusal to respond to talk page postings, (D) refusal to provide edit summaries to aid the editing process, (E) ignoring of other Wikipedia recommendations and practices, and (F) show of bad faith by not even assuming an identity by which we can converse with them, I think an RFC on this IP user might be warranted as well. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Do you want to do the honors, or shall I? (I should probably note that I'll be away from my computer for most of today.) —Josiah Rowe 11:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... perhaps we can hold off on the user RFC for a bit. Today's edits, although still slightly POV-pushing to my mind, at least seem to be responses to my latest comment on our friend's user page. I'd challenged him or her to back up the claims of #1 predictions, and lo and behold he or she did. This is good. Perhaps our nameless agent might deign to join the conversation, so we can work together towards a compromise on the remaining issues? I promise we won't bite.

My latest changes are explained in the edit history, with this exception: I removed the info about Serenity being the lowest #1 opening since March, because I think it's non-notable. That's a common seasonal pattern. Of course, I'm open to discussion. —Josiah Rowe 01:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Intro section problems

There are two specific problems I'd like to call attention. First, someone keeps changing the IMDb ranking to say "currently", which is bad form in an encyclopedia, however dynamic. It puts a burden on the editors to continuously update the information, which is fine for a select board of editors maintaining editorial control, but is exactly the wrong obligation to put on voluntary editing by people who can and do drop out or wander off without notice. Inevitably, people who do the constant updating eventually tire of the chore and find other things to be interested in, leaving the cleanup of such misleading time-sensitive statements to others. (I know from repeated experience on both sides of this issue.) If we must have a time-sensitive piece of infomation, it should carry an explicit date, so both regular and new readers know how current the information is. Someone is apparently doing frequent checking of the IMDb information; it's not too much to ask that they include the date they checked when they do the edit.

Second, the "introduction" to this article is four paragraphs long, and, together with the infobox on the right, pushes the table of contents down too far for optimal use. I think it's a good time to consider the WP guideline of 1-3 paragraphs max (leaning toward 1), and move some of this non-introductory detail into another section. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, I took a shot at it, taking a cue from other movie pages I moved the last two paragraphs (reviews & box office) to "Reception," and beefed up that section just a bit trying to present both sides of the critical reception. I also changed the IMDb info to simply say users have rated it well and it is ranked on the top 250, since it seems there are a number of editors who prefer using "current" rather than dating the info, using a less dynamic form of the info allows "current" to sit more comfortably. I also whittled down the release dates, since it seems most movie pages only use the US release date after the film is actually out. Wasn't sure what to do with the film festival info, it seemed a bit non-notable to say the film "premiered" at this festival in light of the number of sneak-previews that had already occurred at this point, so I simply removed it for now.Gheorghe Zamfir 21:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Plot info

Do we really need such a long spoiler in the middle of the article? I vote we move it to its own page and link to it from here. Tronno 14:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I second that motion. Is there a "Warning: Transcript of the entire movie is contained below" tag? Miraculouschaos 14:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Page protection

Can we get this page protected from teh anons who keep reverting it?Gateman1997 08:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

User:24.7.196.180

24.7.196.180 (talk · contribs · block log) has been blocked for 24 hours for violating the three-revert rule. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Link removal

I think recently added Serenity Shindig and Serenity Watchlist are not very useful. The first doesn't go much beyond the article, the second links to some del.icio.us clone. Anyone agree? Aapo Laitinen 15:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Serenity Shindig might possibly be of interest to someone, but I agree that Serenity Watchlist is non-notable. (I tried to add this comment earlier, but my DSL line was briefly out.)—Josiah Rowe 17:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Page protection

Due to the edit warring, I have protected the page until the changes can be discussed. Since freezing it at the anon's version would simply continue to get him not to talk, I have reverted to the last one. I would note that this is not an endorsement of either position, simply a means to get 24.7.196.180 (talk · contribs) to engage in discussion rather than edit war. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 00:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I'm all for that. —Josiah Rowe 00:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Could you remove the BlinkList spamlink (Serenity resources), which the anon spammer re-added 16:02, October 14, 2005 and got thus protected? This person has been spamming and re-spamming his BlinkList links to about a dozen topics mostly related to technology. Aapo Laitinen 12:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

This has been done. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Having investigated a bit further, I'm not sure if this is a case of deliberate spamming or 1-3 overzealous BlinkList fans. In any case, the link wasn't in line with Wikipedia policy, and no rationale was provided with the reinstation. Aapo Laitinen 12:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe it is a deliberate spamming. The nature of the edits by 24.7.196.180 (talk · contribs) lead me to believe he is the same person spamming the IMDB boards as "SereneFanatique," although they may just be drawing information from the same unnamed sources. "SereneFanatique" seems determined to paint this film as a failure, and is putting a lot of effort into getting that POV across. MFNickster 06:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I was referring to edits by 218.111.30.63 (talk · contribs) and previous anons who have insisted on adding links to BlinkList to various articles. His (their?) actions are unrelated to this POV dispute. Aapo Laitinen 12:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry! The first paragraph above mentioned 24.7.196.180 (talk · contribs), and you only said "the anon spammer," so I thought you were referring to the same one. MFNickster 15:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I've unprotected the article. The anon hasn't discussed any of his/her edits to date and I don't believe he/she will do so in future, or indeed has any intention of doing so. In those circumstances, protecting the article is a waste of time. If the anon continues to revert without comment or explanation I will simply block him/her for escalating periods, starting at 24 hours, as appropriate. -- ChrisO 20:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Failure

While none of us want to say it, Serenity is pretty much a failure in the box office. Hey, I think it's the greatest movie ever made myself, a real piece of genius IMHO. The fact is, it's been three weeks and the $40 million dollar movie has taken in 22 million domestically and 25 million globally. We aren't likely to ever see a sequel. Hitchhikers opened at $21 million the first weekend and only managed a scant 51 million domestic final take. Sad to say it, but Firefly won't keep flying and we need to start being honest about this. TheChief (PowWow) 00:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

So what? It's not the job of an encyclopedia to glorify or disparage this or any other movie. What do you want, to change the title of the article to "Serenity (failed film)"? MFNickster 02:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with MFNickster: the only way that the success or failure of the film should affect this article is that the "reception" section should accurately and neutrally report the facts of the film's box office takings, and perhaps any interpretations of those facts by notable sources (as long as these are presented in a way that doesn't skew the article towards a specific point of view).

Yeah, I'm personally disappointed that Serenity hasn't done better at the box office, and I agree that it's looking as if this might be the last filmed visit to this particular corner of the 'verse. My only speck of hope is that things are changing in the way movies are released and marketed — King Kong is being released on DVD the same day as its theatrical release! — and maybe Serenity's DVD sales will make things look a mite more hopeful. Direct-to-DVD, anybody? —Josiah Rowe 03:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

MFNickster has the right idea here. Also, Wikipedia talk pages are not for the purpose of fan discussion and commentary on the topic; they are for discussing the content of the article. We're spending an inordinate amount of time spinning box office results one way or another, while ignoring basic factual information. For instance, how much did it cost to make the film? Surely that has as much relevance as its box office results. Has Joss Whedon said anything new about Firefly-universe plans since the release of Serenity? This is a legitimate point for the article, and a legitimate issue of discussion on the talk page; what we editors speculate will happen is not. I'm sure that there are other useful bits of sourced information that we can add to this article, leaving the "is it great, terrible, or ho-hum?" argument for blogs and other non-encyclopedic publications. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Pardon my stupidity. I belatedly realized that the cost of the film is in the article. (Maybe I need to take a breather, too.) But my point is still valid. We should be focusing on factual and sourceable information, not arguing about opinions or even discussing our own enjoyment or dislike of the film. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey Jeff... you seem to have missed the point entirely. Wikipedia's talk pages are for discussing the article and how it needs to be changed. Given that Firefly is proving to be a failure at the box office by the well accepted formula of Movie Cost > Box Office Take, I am suggesting we start formulating a way to add that to the article. I mention my love of the movie only to avoid the fans who might try to POV push because they don't want to face the awful truth. I would suggest you take more time to help with the discussion on what should be said here, rather than pull out an unneeded and rather silly soap box. We are talking about sourceable information Jeff, you just are not listening. Additional to say we can't mention our like or dislike of the film seems to suggest you think personal opinion can't be expressed on Wikipedia Talk pages. Well it can be expressed and it should be expressed. We all have natural bias, by talking about our opinions we help others to identify our bias making it easier to critique our additions. Furthermore, Wikipedia is a community, and we're having fun. I'm sorry you can't seem to handle that.

Now, what I'm trying to say is that we need to stop POV pushing on the article. Yes, we're fans and we don't like to admit Serenity flopped, but the truth is it has. My suggestion is we data mine other movies which have performed as poorly and use a similar language. TheChief (PowWow) 18:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

My suggestion is that we wait until we see if it's actually flopped or not before we try to declare it on the page. 3 weeks does not a flop make. --SarekOfVulcan 19:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. It still has weeks of being in theaters both domestically and internationally plus the DVD sales over the Christmas season. Both of which are going to raise totals significantly. We should wait until at least Jan 1 before declaring it a "failure".Gateman1997 19:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

It's performance in theatres aside from DVD release is important. But regardless I'm not suggesting we alter the page now (that is why I am talking about it here, and not on the article), but we need to formulate how to describe it. Agreed? TheChief (PowWow) 20:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

That seems fair. I would suggest we say something even along the lines of "the movie performed below studio expectations" and then mention something about how the movie performed decently for an experiment in short cancelled TV show revival (this could also be applied to the movie version of Strangers with Candy depending on how it does next month).Gateman1997 20:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I've done a first attempt, although of course the story is not yet over. There's probably more detail than is necessary about international box office results, but I'm not sure what to cut. —Josiah Rowe 20:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll leave this to you guys, but to chime in my last two cents on the matter, I think its gotten way over the top, this is a one, maybe two sentence box office summary, but as it stands its just an overblown mess of commentary and detail.Gheorghe Zamfir 03:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I've tried to winnow down the detail on the international box office. If anybody wants to have a go at summarizing the domestic b.o., feel free. (I've tried to keep it NPOV.) —Josiah Rowe 03:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Orson Scott Card quote

OK, let's not let this get into another inane edit war. Instead, let's discuss whether the Orson Scott Card quote is notable and worthy of inclusion in the article, or not. (The anon user who was involved in an earlier edit war removed the following: "Science fiction author Orson Scott Card called Serenity "the best science fiction film ever." [2]")

I think this is noteworthy, because Card is a fairly prominent author and public figure, and the quote is typically forthright. Of course, if there's a consensus on this page that it ought to be removed, I'll bow to the wisdom of the community. —Josiah Rowe 17:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Card is, like you said, a prominent author and public figure, but his comment does seem out of place there since he's an author, not a film critic or major newspaper. --Pentasyllabic 21:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Would it be better in the "Trivia" section? —Josiah Rowe 21:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Personally I don't think it adds much to the article; it strikes me as something of an appeal to authority. -- ChrisO 21:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I think this is wholly appropriate: albeit a slight appeal to authority, Card is a well-known sci-fi aficianado commenting about the challenges of translating a sci-fi novel to a film and how Serenity transcends this difficulty (though from TV to film); perhaps it should be placed in the Trivia section? E Pluribus Anthony 19:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

"(Solar/star) system"

I put the "star" back in star system for clarity. Besides, "star system" is a more general term than "solar system" so I think it's alright to call it a star system despite what the movie says. --Pentasyllabic 03:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi! While solar system is a generic moniker, I think star system (or stellar system) is more appropriate and accurate. Why? Sol is the Latinised name (and said god) for Earth's Sun alone, and use of "solar" may potentially confuse the issue of setting and scope. :) Make sense? E Pluribus Anthony 19:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

After looking at the links for star system, solar system and planetary system, I think the problem is that the accurate astronomical usage isn't the same as the common lay usage. In everyday conversation, people use "solar system" and "star system" interchangeably to refer to either our own system of one sun and nine (or so) planets, or another system of a star and planets. Astronomers use "solar system" for our system alone, "planetary system" for any group of one or more stars with planets, and "star system" for a group of two or more stars in orbit around each other (with or without planets). I'm not sure what usage is best for this page (in the "story" section and in the note I added today), but that's the source of the confusion. —Josiah Rowe 20:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Based on the graphic displayed in the opening narration of the film I believe it is safe to assume that the "solar system" that the people from Earth moved to had one star and many planets orbiting said star. Granted many of these planets are Earthlike or terraformed to be so, they are still in a "planetary system" of one star with planets orbiting it much as our solar system is a "planetary system". Our solar system is not defined as a "star system" and neither should the one from Serenity be deemed such.Gateman1997 20:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello; agreed, JR! Thanks for this; given this ambiguity, perhaps we should just mention 'system.' (I'm familiar with all the terms, TY, G1997.) I believe star system or similar is all-embracing (see above), while planetary system is more constrained.

G1997, sorry to say this, but what do you think solar system means? It refers to a sun and its constituents, namely, Earth's and other planets, etc. As well, this distinguishes it from another stellar or planetary system: ours (also noted at the very beginning of the film.

Moreover in your reversion, G1997, the wikifying of faster-than-light was removed; please be more attentive to your edits being making them. E Pluribus Anthony 20:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm well aware of what the Solar System is. However the " " marks are around it in the opening paragraph because the term "solar system" is a direct quote from the movie from the line, "we found a new solar system". The narrator was referring to the new system, not our solar system. However if they had been using correct terminology they would have referred to it as a planetary system, not a star system. This is further evidenced by the graphic of the new "solar system" which has one star and many planets, not multiple stars and thus it does not meet the star system requirements and fits the term "planetary system" perfectly for the use in this article.Gateman1997 20:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Also my apologies on removing your wiki, I've since replaced it.Gateman1997 20:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! No problem ... :) E Pluribus Anthony 20:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply: I concede that the original movie quotation might be inaccurate, since a commoner may not know solar from stellar. It may also be that solar, stellar, and planetary are all somewhat correct. Solar/stellar, though, includes everything which orbit or are associated with the Sun or central star(s). If they were using correct terminology, they should've said something like this:

A stellar system containing one or numerous planetary systems.

OR

A solar system not our own (or not of Earth) containing numerous planetary systems.

e.g.,:

The Sun, nine major planets, their natural and artificial satellites, asteroids, comets, Kuiper belt and everything in association form the solar system.

BUT

The largest Jovian planetary system in our solar system comprises Jupiter, its many moons (including Galilean moons), rings, and associated bodies.

Given this ... disagreement, then, I believe "system" (or "celestial system") should be used alone; perhaps a vote on this necessary. E Pluribus Anthony 20:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• I will conceed that using "system" alone will definitely solve the problem, however I believe you are mistaken on your definition of what a "planetary system" is per the definition on wikipedia itself which is I quote, "A planetary system consists of at least one star and various orbiting objects (such as asteroids, comets, moons, and planets). Our own planetary system which contains the Earth and Sun is called the Solar System."

As you can see, our solar system IS a planetary system, as is the system in Serenity. The Jovian system is not a planetary system, per this definition as it has no star included in it. A star system per definition includes many stars such as Mizar and Alcor in the Big dipper. However as you say planetary systems can fall within the pervue of a "star system" as does our own "solar system".Gateman1997 20:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, continue reading the article and you'll see this:

Planetary systems around sun-like stars...

OR

Some planetary systems are very unlike our own, however: planetary systems around pulsars...

Planetary systems comprise stellar/solar systems, and the reference to Jupiter is completely valid ... what else would it be if not a planetary system?

As for the Big Dipper, Mizar and Alcor form a binary star system, perhaps containing numerous planetary systems. Our Sun is within one stellar system, Alpha Centauri is a trinary star system, etc.

I think the current edition reads fine, though. Perhaps, though, we need to flesh out all of the definitions thererin, since there is ambiguity here and there. Other comments are invited; thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 21:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I admit I'm not finding the line that states "Planetary systems comprise stellar/solar systems". However I think the crux of the problem is that even within the definitions presented here both the Serenity system and our solar system fit both definitions as both are incomplete. I think in the end what we need is an astronomer to write these definitions for us. Unless of course planetary system and star system are interchangable. Then again as the planetary system article suggests a star system may actually be a narrower definition then a planetary system.Gateman1997 21:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed; I don't think they are interchangeable. (And I must admit, though, I have taken astronomy ... and biology but am not an expert.  :)) It's like the crack/cocaine dichotomy: crack is a form of cocaine, but not vice versa. By analogy, a body system is comprised of organs and constituent tissues, but not necessarily the other way around.

Maybe I'll pay a visit over to the celestial definitions and enhance them. In any event, we shouldn't be limited by the definitions presented and present an accurate depiction of this and that; that's why the current edition reads fine. :) E Pluribus Anthony 21:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

It may be a good idea for us all to take a look at more knowledgeable sources before proceeding. I'm not sure what the Jovian system would be, but according to a real encyclopedia it would not be a "planetary system". Planetary systems per encyclopedic definition are star based such as the Solar System. The three encyclopedias I have checked thus far do not even recognize the term "star system" except to refer you to Binary stars/trinary stars as "star systems". http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/p1/plansys.asp

Define "real"? By the way, what are the other two you've checked? I'm unsure if that is conclusive: I would presume our solar system is a star/stellar system, it's just a unitary one. :)

Yes, we need to further investigate ... don't worry, I will, and will cite appropriately! Also note that many online encyclopedias (though I'm unsure about encyclopedia.com) are mirrors of Wp. :) I will get back to you; in the meanwhile, I think the current edition reads fine; agreed? E Pluribus Anthony 21:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I define real as Encyclopedia Brittanica quality (ie: a professionally published and highly regarded encyclopedia). And I was certain to check any encyclopedia I checked for being a mirror of Wiki which they aren't. If anything most of them mirror Columbia University's encyclopedia (also a highly regarded academic source). They seem to limit star system to being a binary or more system of joined stars and planetary systems appear to refer to any system that consists of one or more stars and an their companion planets. However like you I've always thought our system also can be classified as a unitary star system, or a planetary system or THE solar system. I also think the Serenity system is classifiable as the first two or as a "solar system" per the mistake in the opening narration. So when it comes down to it, the terms are actually quite interchangeable it appears when referring to a system of planets orbiting a star such as Sol or Serenity's star. The ambiguous factor comes in when referring to pulsar based systems (which are not planetary systems) or planet based systems such as Jupiter (which is not a star system).

And yes I agree the current edition is fine with just "system" as people can infer whatever particular title suits them be it Solar, Planetary or Stellar.Gateman1997 22:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Accepted. I don't doubt that you checked real sources but, given recent editions, the request for precise sources/citations begged the question. :)

To that end, the current edition reads fine and further investigation of these tems has allowed us to enhance related articles in Wp. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 22:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. And believe me I'm all about calling out on sources, espeically when pushing a POV which admittedly I have on the whole Planetary/Stellar issue. This article has already taken enough abuse especially from the POV anon earlier when it came to critical reaction.Gateman1997 22:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for engaging me in this ... astronomical dialogue! :) E Pluribus Anthony 22:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

As I said above, the problem stems from the fact that everyday usage of the terms "solar system", "star system" and "planetary system" doesn't line up with the exact definition of these terms in astronomical circles. We want the article to be comprehensible to the average reader, but also accurate as far as possible. I've expanded the note a bit more — I hope that it's both accurate and understandable now. —Josiah Rowe 21:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi; agreed, and thanks for your balanced perspective. That's fine with me! I will investigate, and perhaps we can wikify all the terms to incite visitors to learn the distinctions for themselves? Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 21:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. And I've wikified the first mention of "solar system" in the story section — I think the note's OK as it is, as the relevant terms are linked at appropriate points. I think we don't even need to bring up star system, which adds unnecessary confusion.

And after my battles with the anonymous anti-Serenity POV-pusher, it's awfully pleasant to have someone on this talk page call my perspective "balanced". And not in the Fox News sense, either! :D —Josiah Rowe 22:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

PS: Perhaps (for accuracy) "...around and including Earth's sun"? E Pluribus Anthony 21:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I've changed it to "Earth's sun and surrounding system", which I think is slightly smoother. —Josiah Rowe 22:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

TY! On the other end of it, I hope I'm not a 'stellar zealot' ... or space cadet. :) E Pluribus Anthony 22:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

YW! (This meeting of the Mutual Admiration Society is now adjourned.) —Josiah Rowe 22:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello again! In case anyone is interested: the various Wp articles and definitions for star system, stellar system, solar system, and planetary system – upon investigation – had various inaccuracies. Definitions from astronomical compendiums (and discussion) can be found here (which are largely in-line with my original assertions about this and that system), and the relevant Wp articles/definitions have since been corrected. Enjoy! E Pluribus Anthony 13:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

New Scientist poll

I had added this to the "Notes" section:

• In 2005, New Scientist magazine's NewScientistSpace.com website held an unscientific poll to find "The World's Best Space Sci-Fi Ever". Serenity came in second place, after its television precursor Firefly. [3]

(At first I didn't even say "unscientific" — I put that in at the last moment. The nature of the poll isn't clear on the site, but it looks like it was a web poll of some sort.)

Gateman1997 removed the note, saying, "Results by their very nature are probably POV and also irrelevant." If this were a poll from a Firefly fan site or something, I'd certainly agree, but I think the association with New Scientist makes this at least worth a mention. The poll was notable enough to show up on Yahoo! News. What do other editors think? —Josiah Rowe 23:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• In my own defense I don't think an internet poll is an appropriate piece of information to include in an encyclopedic article, especially one that comes from such an obscure source. The fact is fans of shows like Firefly are notorious for stuffing such polls. I'm not saying that is what happned for certain in this poll, but the lopsided results versus some pretty classic scifi such as Babylon 5, Battlestar Galactica, and Farscaper definitely lends itself to the idea that this poll was stuffed by "Browncoats". Now if it were a TV Guide poll or a Mueseum of TV and Radio poll I'd be more willing to accept it at face value. But as is the info is most likely tainted and needlessly "pro" Firefly. Gateman1997 00:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I concede the point about likely poll-stuffing. But is New Scientist really so obscure? You can find it in pretty much every newsstand. —Josiah Rowe 00:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Mal's speech on Miranda

Hate to quibble over minor points, but the words in italics were not emphasized in his speech. After he says, "...they'll swing back to the belief that they can make people..." he pauses and looks at River, before saying, "better." To preserve his meaning, perhaps we should insert an ellipsis, or some other reference to the pause rather than italicizing this. Also, he says, "and I do not hold to that," very quickly with no emphasis on "not". Miraculouschaos 14:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Cancelled theatrical release

Hi. Are you guys positive about the places where the theatrical release has been cancelled? I'm in Brazil and I've just seen a teaser for the movie during the trailers that preceded another film. Although it is not listed in the "upcoming attractions" of the Brazilian franchise of Cinemark, and it is possible that, if it was pulled out in the last minute, maybe there was no time to pull the previews that had been inserted in the trailers for other films. Blast that Universal Studios! They are almost as bad as FOX! Regards, Redux 02:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

According to a post made on Whedonesque on October 22nd, yes, Serenity has been cancelled for Brazil. I'm guessing the preview was missed. Maestro1ca 9:40, 8 November 2005 (EDT)

Our anonymous friend at 24.7.196.180 added Germany and Greece to the list of countries where Serenity's theatrical release has been cancelled. I can't confirm that at any of the usual online sources, and the list was getting pretty long anyway, so I just changed it to "many countries". If our friend was capable of using talk pages or edit summaries, I'd ask for a source, but given his habitual silence, what's the point? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I've just done some research on Brazilian cinema-related websites, and it is right, the theatrical release has been cancelled. In fact, here's some specifics: the movie was scheduled to premiere on November 11; on November 3, an official communication from United Artists, which is who was to distribute the movie in Brazil, informed that "by decision of the Universal Studios, the movie 'Serenity' is no longer being released in Brazilian cinemas. Instead, it is going straight to DVD". A precise date for the DVD release was not given, although it is quite possible that it might be the same as the U.S. release date (December 20). I'm not sure whether this should be included in the article, although I suppose that the information might be the same for Argentina and maybe Mexico (but I'm speculating here, what I've said is confirmed for Brazil only). Oh, and the "unofficial" reason (that is, not admitted officially, but everybody knows) for not releasing the movie in Brazil (and certainly elsewhere) was the perceived "poor" performance of the movie in US theaters. Unbelievable, how does Joss Whedon manage to get involved with people almost as problematic as those over at FOX?? Maybe it's a curse... ;) Regards, Redux 21:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Perceived? The film's performance in the USA was poor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.196.180 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey, what do you know, it speaks! 24.7.196.180, I'm so glad that you decided to actually grace us with your words on the talk page that I'm not even upset at your reversion to the erroneous $40 million figure (citations of a $40 million budget are just rounding the $39 million up). Please, continue to engage in dialogue with your fellow editors — it's how Wikipedia builds consensus!

Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: Our newly-vocal friend said that Serenity's had "simply poor results" in the Netherlands, Germany and Italy. According to Box Office Mojo, the film played in only 12 theaters in the Netherlands, so it's not surprising that the take was small. And it's still in the top 10 in Germany, despite a lot of big-name competition including Harry Potter — I think we need to wait a bit on that. (So far I'd describe the German b.o. as "fair", neither a hit nor a flop.) It does appear that the film sank like a stone in Italy, so I've added that to the page.

See, when you engage the other editors in conversation, you can get consensus! We can work together instead of sniping at each other like schoolkids! What a concept! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey, it´s a miracle he had the chance to actually make this movie! 40 Mio $ out of nowhere is a pretty big achievement! And I don´t care what anybody thinks - this movie will rock! :) --84.169.22.114 11:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow, that "Whedon has said that he feels the success of the film would be based on DVD sales." doesn't really contribute anything. The "success of the film"? You mean that the chances of a sequel are probably at this point all resting on the DVD sales, because it's clear to anyone that has their five senses that the film wasn't a box office success. I think the comment needs to be clearer... The film will not be considered a box office success even if the DVD sells well, because the film still was a box office failure...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.196.180 (talk • contribs)

First off, that quote is saying nothing about "box office success". It's talking about the overall profit for the movie.

What quote? It wasn't even a quote...it was a vague "Whedon has said that he feels the success of the film would be based on DVD sales" with no URL that would direct us to any actual Whedon interview or anything, plus it sounded like a subtle POV-pushing line (The film hasn't made back its budget, but hey, Whedon has said that the film's success isn't about Box Office...it's all in the DVD man!)

With DVDs nowadays many films will easily make a profit just on their sales due to how much money the studios make off each sale (some estimates I have read put it at around $10 per DVD).  Kevin Smith recently posted on AintItCoolNews that even if his upcoming Clerks 2 movie skipped going to theatres entirely he would easily make back the budget in no time just on DVD sales.  He points out that DVD sales pushed Jersey Girl into profit making territory.  And many movies have been shown to quickly make a profit due to strong DVD sales (Blade is one such film that is mentioned often).  So yes, the quote is accurate, with healthy DVD sales Serenity could end up being what Universal and others might consider a success.  But I hate how everybody wants to label it a box office success or failure.  Those kind of terms are too subjective in my mind and read too much into the numbers because one could quite easily argue that the box office numbers were sufficient to put Serenity close enough to the money making range that healthy DVD sales will push it into a net profit.  And couldn't one consider that a success?  Universal might.  My opinion, the wikipedia article should not put a subjective success or failure label on it and just present the numbers.  Let people come to their own conclusions.  Maestro1ca 20:23, 8 December 2005 (EST)

Again, I'd like to thank 24.7.196.180 for engaging the rest of us in dialogue instead of edit warring. If only he or she had done this back in October! But it's better to learn late than not at all. One more step: you can sign your talk page posts by typing four tildes like so: ~~~~.

As for the question of the film's success or failure, at this stage it is fair to say that Serenity was not a box office success, and the article should say that. (I don't know whether "box office failure" is entirely accurate either, though.) Is the current "performed modestly" too euphemistic? Would "performed disappointingly" be better, or is that too POV? (I'm sure that Serenity's bashers weren't disappointed.)

Finally, does anyone have the source and context for the Joss quote? If we had that, it would probably help with deciding whether it's appropriate for this section, or for the article in general. (I removed the "DVD is the new box office" bit, which seemed a bit too much like spin to me, but others may disagree.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I deleted the comment again...it's simply too vague and out of context and it should IMO be accompanied with a quote URL. It actually sounds more like apologizing, as if you were saying "The film's box office was this, but it's ok, the success of the film rests on the DVD and Whedon feels the same...he said it ..." This king of vague, unsubstantiated add-on are routinely deleted, why does this one have to stay? Unless, the fans of the film want to push a subtle POV?

I personally like the idea of using "performed modestly". It probably won't please everyone (those who want to label it a failure and those who want to argue that it still could be a success) but in my mind it fits. "Performed disappointingly" still seems too POV to me. -- Maestro1ca 9:24, 9 December 2005 (EST)

I think the best way to put it is "performed below expectations" Pretty neutral, not POV pushing and nothing that will displease either those who want to label the film a "flop" or a "hit" You can't tell me that any film that gets releases isn't expecting AT LEAST to make its budget back. And It's safe to say that Universal wasn't expecting for the film's release to be cancelled in all those markets...