This weekend at the box office - 10.03.2005

[ThirdWizard]

I'm just going by opinions of people on other forums. A common statment was that it seemed like a TV movie instead of a regular major big screen flick. I can't confirm or deny such things as I haven't seen it.

"I heard it on the internet!"

 

[EricNoah]

I thought it was pretty cinematic. This coming from someone who hasn't seen the series on TV.

I also probably wouldn't have gone if I hadn't been invited by some friends. It would have been a "rent later" film for me instead of "see now" if not for that. I consider myself a sci-fi fan but avoid bad movies or iffy movies. The reviews on this were looking pretty strong before I went so that was encouraging. But not enough to push me into seeing it without an good reason.

 

[Shadowdancer]

Firefly is no Star Wars. It never will be.

Thank God! I'd hate to lose the quality.

87% of professional film critics thought it was a good film. I seriously doubt they consider it a B-movie. And most of these folks don't watch much or any TV (Ebert watches none, for example), so it's not like they're a bunch of Firefly fans.

Doesn't mean you'll like it, or that you have any respect for the opinions of movie critics, but a B-movie isn't going to get that kind of approval.

Wrong. Professional film critics give approval to B-movies all the time. Calling a film a B-movie doesn't mean it's bad, or of lesser quality than an A-list movie. It just means its being made by, and stars, relatively unknown or unproven talent.

Think of it in baseball terms, where you have the major leagues, then the AAA farm clubs, AA farm clubs, A farm clubs, Rookie Leagues, etc. Some of the guys playing in the minor leagues will one day be in the major leagues. Some of them already have been, and are in the decline of their career. Some will never make it. Same thing with motion pictures -- some of the people making B-movies will go on to be big stars or directors or screenwriters; some won't.

Professional film critics regularly are impressed by, and give good reviews to, B-movies. They often put B-movies on their lists of the year's best movies. Part of their job is -- or should be -- to steer audiences toward good B-movies, to help audiences discover the stars of tomorrow, the talented people the masses haven't heard of yet. The first Star Wars movie was a B-movie. So was the first Terminator movie.

 

[Broccli_Head]

I think the Reavers following Serenity out from the Ion Cloud around Mr. Universe's planetoid was cinematic as was the subsequent skirmish.

Reminded me of fights in CJ Cherryh's Downbelow Station or Niven/Pournelle's A Mote in God's Eye, and not cheezy like some recent cinema space battles with ficticious space noise and bolts of light....

 

[Cthulhudrew]

I'm just going by opinions of people on other forums. A common statment was that it seemed like a TV movie instead of a regular major big screen flick. I can't confirm or deny such things as I haven't seen it.

I've seen this opinion elsewhere, and frankly, it just doesn't make any sense to me. What, exactly, is the difference between a "tv movie" and a "major big screen flick?"

(Not bagging on Flexor, just the criticism itself which, as noted, I've seen before.)

 

[Fast Learner]

Wrong. Professional film critics give approval to B-movies all the time. Calling a film a B-movie doesn't mean it's bad, or of lesser quality than an A-list movie. It just means its being made by, and stars, relatively unknown or unproven talent.

Wrong, that's not what B-movie means at all.

That was the idea behind the term, back in the 50s. What it means now is a low-quality film, poorly made and potentially laughable. It might still be some fun, but it's a poor film.

What you described is an independent movie, which are called "independent movies," or when made by a big studio, "like an independent movie." Reviewers give them good marks all the time.

You have misdefined today's actual use of the term "B-movie."