Movie Stumbling Block!! by Calhoun

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Movie Stumbling Block!!

POSTED BY: CALHOUN
UPDATED: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 03:07
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4682
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, February 5, 2004 10:04 PM

What the hell is this?

How the hell can they just say the problem lies elsewhere and leave it at that?

Dont they know the angst they are causing?

If they kept us informed we may be able to help..

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 6, 2004 12:02 AM

STEVE580

I'm sure if there was anything we could do to help, they'd let us know. The 'stumbling block' is probably just how difficult it is to write the script, or something along those lines...
-Steve

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 6, 2004 12:09 AM

CALHOUN

I dont want speculation.. I want hard data.

Surely the script wouldn't be a stumbling block, I bet Joss's baby would write itself.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 6, 2004 12:34 AM

ZAPHODB

The script has been written. Joss mentioned he had completed it at the LA Comic Con back in December.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=3578#38334

Industrial Looniee & Madness - http://www3.telus.net/vchrusch

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 6, 2004 6:36 AM

BROWNCOAT1

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.

Looks the "stumbling block" is most likely legalities, money, percentages, that sort of paperwork garbage that all the lawyers have to take care of.

I imagine this is just a slow down, not an obstacle.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 6, 2004 9:01 AM

JRC

As has been mentioned in a couple of other threads posted by myself and others, we think that these obstacles or stumbling blocks may be a couple of the principle actors have been asked to star in some pilots for other TV shows. IF that is the case, they may not be available to appear in Firefly right away.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 6, 2004 10:30 AM

GHOULMAN

^^^ THAT would be the worst news ever. I can't expect anyone to just 'pause' thier career, though I have kidnapped Gina and now keep her in a steel and velor cage. She keeps screaming Canadian cable sucks... sheesh, I hooked it up just for her!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 6, 2004 10:39 AM

JASONZZZ

Unfortunately, it might be awhile before a movie will be made. Frankly, JW has not directed a movie before - and I am assuming he wants to direct this one, since movie script writers usually command very little in the way of anything (in the movie making process) compared to just about anyone else in a movie. Moreover, first time Directors, even if they have proven themselves to be brilliant screen writers and doing TV stuff, are often asked to Direct other things the studio has in mind first - to *prove* they can indeed be a director for a specific result that the studio want, re: to make money. Terry Gilliam in his "Brazil" battle is a classic story.

Quote:
Originally posted by BrownCoat1:
Looks the "stumbling block" is most likely legalities, money, percentages, that sort of paperwork garbage that all the lawyers have to take care of.

I imagine this is just a slow down, not an obstacle.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 6, 2004 11:22 AM

UNICORN

I have a theory that ownership of the rights to the show may be the stumbling block. A while back, there was a thread on this site about whether FOX still owned any rights to Firefly or if not, then who did. I don't believe we ever established who owns the property right now. I know Joss has been very loyal to FOX in saying they've presented no obstacles to his finding a home for the show elsewhere, but I personally have never forgiven them and wouldn't put anything past them. I think this is an evil FOX plot. Of course, I have only my own deep-seated paranoia to fuel this theory.

There is no such thing as a weed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 7, 2004 12:08 PM

MISGUIDED BY VOICES

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
Unfortunately, it might be awhile before a movie will be made. Frankly, JW has not directed a movie before - and I am assuming he wants to direct this one, since movie script writers usually command very little in the way of anything (in the movie making process) compared to just about anyone else in a movie. Moreover, first time Directors, even if they have proven themselves to be brilliant screen writers and doing TV stuff, are often asked to Direct other things the studio has in mind first - to *prove* they can indeed be a director for a specific result that the studio want, re: to make money.

I wonder if Mark Steven Johnson's Daredevil may help on that front - okay, he was a movie director, but he had not done anything that would suggest he should get to direct a major superhero movie, and that turned out pretty cool.

Joss has shown he can direct pretty well, and presumably keep the whole shebang generally on budget, and they could always do a Kevin Smith and put someone with him (though the guy they had on the show seemed to be getting sufficient props - sorry, can't recall his name and I have lent my DVDs out to catch another (fire)fly in the web)

"I threw up on your bed"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 7, 2004 1:26 PM

CAINUNABLED

My guess is that Universal wants to change the script. Perhaps they found that the script Whedon turned in was not appealing enough to an audience that had not watched the show. Or maybe they want to mess with the script to the point where the movies violates the continuity of the show.

"Till human voices wake us, and we drown."
--T.S. Elliot

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 7, 2004 1:35 PM

MISGUIDED BY VOICES

Quote:
Originally posted by cainunabled:
My guess is that Universal wants to change the script. Perhaps they found that the script Whedon turned in was not appealing enough to an audience that had not watched the show. Or maybe they want to mess with the script to the point where the movies violates the continuity of the show.

Studio will always want to change the script - I don't know how Joss has done it, but presumably its he who has sole control of the writing (save that as the IP in the show is presumably owned by Fox or WB, and so they could throw him off and go again) and he has a "walk away" option.

I'd assumed it was more about costs, share of profits and the like. Joss may have turned in a cheap script to maximise profit even on a pure fan turnout, or a more expensive script and they need to decide whether to cut back. It amazes me they threw near $100 mill at the last Trek film, given they know how much profit it can likely make.

"I threw up on your bed"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 7, 2004 1:46 PM

CAINUNABLED

I am very glad you told me that. I was really worried. I know it is a feature film and everything, but do you have any idea whether Universal wants to go straight to dvd with it or actually release it in theaters?

"Till human voices wake us, and we drown."
--T.S. Elliot

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 7, 2004 2:07 PM

MISGUIDED BY VOICES

Quote:
Originally posted by cainunabled:
I am very glad you told me that. I was really worried. I know it is a feature film and everything, but do you have any idea whether Universal wants to go straight to dvd with it or actually release it in theaters?

Not sure, but I can hazard a guess that you couldn't make it pay on a Direct-to DVD basis (that said, I think that's what they are doing with Starship Troppers 2, which may suggest another model to release on).

I would imagine it has to be big screen or nothing in FF's case though.

"I threw up on your bed"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 7, 2004 2:44 PM

CAPNRAHN

Actually, depending onthe 'quality' a film can make MORE of a profit in Direct to Video, in either VHS or DVD or a combo.

"Time Cop 2 - The Berlin Decsision" is a good example of high production values, stellar cast and over good film that went DtV.

In my opinion, it was far superior to the first TimeCop.

Most folks don't know that OVER half of a films final budget is advertisment and distrubution,

Usually that is where the film-makers pocketbook is screwed.

The process of getting a film released is much akin of asking a favor from The Godfather - if you catch my drift.

IE: If you {filmmaker} are part of the family {FOX,Universal etc}, no problem - gidda outta here, da fam'ly takes care of it's own.

Be an indpendent - well ... you better hope your groveling skills or chutza'pa is enough for thr $$$ holders to take interest.

Remember, Joss is esentailly an Independent, but with good connections/contracts ... and those can breakdown eaiser that if he was 'family' and had sold his soul/vision, via long term contract, to the studio/production company.

"Remember, there is only ONE absolute - There ARE NO absolutes!!!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 7, 2004 4:48 PM

SHINY

Quote:
Originally posted by CapnRahn:
Remember, Joss is esentailly an Independent,

Not just an independent, but also a bona-fide Browncoat, and a big-damn-heroic one at that!

RIVER
Purple elephants are flying.
MAL
Good. Thanks for the update.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 7, 2004 4:50 PM

MAKEROFPATHS

Quote:
Originally posted by BrownCoat1:
Looks the "stumbling block" is most likely legalities, money, percentages, that sort of paperwork garbage that all the lawyers have to take care of.

This is my guess, too. I'm thinking -- speculation mode on -- a deal is done, but who's taking what risk and for how long, how much and "what are you going to do for me (distributor) if I take this risk" are all the details that are retarding the forward motion. I'm also thinking Fox Home Ent might want the DVD rights to the film, or at least right to bid. I'm also thinking, as someone else postualted, each cast member is probably moving on in their career and making committments that may cause some delays, which then change all the above details, thus Foxing up the deal. Then again, maybe not.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 7, 2004 5:17 PM

CAINUNABLED

I heard that Nathan Fillion is doing a pilot that will be airing on fox. The actress who played Inara is doing a show on NBC that has already recieved rave reviews even though it hasn't aired yet (i think). What about everyone else? Is Gina Torres still on 24?

Till human voices wake us, and we drown.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 7, 2004 6:05 PM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.

Foxing up the deal.

That expression should be added to the lexicon.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 7, 2004 8:30 PM

LINDLEY

Yes, Gina Torres is still on 24. However, her role is such that she might not be on it for long---she's a side character in a minor plotline, at least so far.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 8, 2004 3:15 PM

STEVE580

Quote:
I wonder if Mark Steven Johnson's Daredevil may help on that front - okay, he was a movie director, but he had not done anything that would suggest he should get to direct a major superhero movie, and that turned out pretty cool.

Yeah, it did...if by "pretty cool" you mean "shitty"!

Eh-hem. Anyways; Zoe has a job, and Fox sucks - go on...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 8, 2004 3:49 PM

DTT

Quote:
Originally posted by Veteran:

Foxing up the deal.

That expression should be added to the lexicon.

I used that in my amazon review the other day. Great minds hate fox alike.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 9, 2004 12:22 PM

MISGUIDED BY VOICES

Quote:
Originally posted by Steve580:
Yeah, it did...if by "pretty cool" you mean "shitty"!

Hey, I liked it - not as much as Spiderman, which I grew up with, but I thought it was a good take on the feel of Daredevil (don't know the specifics of the character at all well). I'm hoping he takes a shot at Midnight Nation, which was the rumour.

"I threw up on your bed"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 9, 2004 6:53 PM

LEEH

I'd guess that it's either getting the rights from Fox, or Universal having doubts about a script that is trying to please fans while also introducing a universe to people who haven't seen it before. Actors can always be gotten during hiatus; these shows don't produce year-round, and Nathan's only got a pilot anyway, with no guarantee it will be picked up. As for Joss directing--that's the least of it. Hell, Patty Jenkins got financing for "Monster" as a first-time writer AND director, and ditto for Tom McCarthy and "The Station Agent." Joss has such a strong track record, and has directed so much TV, that that would be the least of their worries.

If you listen to Peter Jackson talk about the problems involved in bringing LOTR to the screen, you get a good sense of what lies behind these things: 1) property rights; 2) money; 3) money.

It's so cruel that we are at the mercy of an industry that cares for nothing other than the bottom line!

"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle. . . ."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 10, 2004 12:21 PM

MISGUIDED BY VOICES

Quote:
Originally posted by LeeH:
It's so cruel that we are at the mercy of an industry that cares for nothing other than the bottom line!

To be fair, we would never have got the show in the first place. Its only because Joss seemed to be hitting the bottom line that they took a punt on him - and its a lot of money to throw at the screen, particularly when they may not see a return on their investment for 5 years when syndication begins. Not much you can do with 13 episodes.

I can understand the reasons behind it, I just wish they would take a longer term view, rather than throwing pasghetti at the wall and seeing what sticks. Surely its better to let a show grow rather than lose three or four shows with development funds in a row?

"I threw up on your bed"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 11, 2004 3:07 AM

DRAKON

Quote:
Originally posted by LeeH:
It's so cruel that we are at the mercy of an industry that cares for nothing other than the bottom line!

Every time I hear a complaint like this, I hear this line from Amadeus.

Quote:

Oh, bello, bello, bello! Come on now, be honest. Wouldn't you all rather listen to your hairdressers than Hercules? Or Horatius? Or Orpheus? All those old bores! people so lofty they sound as if they shit marble!

You are not going to pay money for a movie, if you don't want to see it. Different folks like different things. And the only way to get folks in seats is to make something folks will like.

And they have no idea what the next thing everybody will like is. So either the movie business watches its bottom line, and makes movies that folks will pay to see, or else they go bankrupt, and make NOTHING!

I don't like a lot of things that are out, on TV or in the theaters. But I ain't got the magic insight to determine what every one the planet SHOULD want, should want to fork over their dough for. Nor any will to coerce folks money from them for a movie I want made.

And I doubt very much you'd like it if I did have it.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE