GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Firefly' Gets Its Feature Wings

POSTED BY: SLAYERFAITH
UPDATED: Saturday, March 6, 2004 18:26
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 5378
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, March 4, 2004 4:58 AM

SLAYERFAITH


News article about Serenity Movie
http://www.thefutoncritic.com/cgi/gofuton.cgi?action=home

"Wednesday, March 3, 2004 - 12:32 PM
'Firefly' Gets Its Feature Wings
By Brian Ford Sullivan

CHICAGO (thefutoncritic.com) -- Universal Pictures has greenlighted "Serenity," a feature film based on the short-lived FOX series "Firefly." The studio snagged the feature rights to "Firefly" from 20th Century Fox Television back in September (read the story).

Production on the project, budgeted in the mid-eight figures, is set to begin in June for a 2005 release date. Joss Whedon, the show's creator and executive producer, is on board to write and direct the project, which will see all nine original cast members - Nathan Fillion, Gina Torres, Morena Baccarin, Jewel Staite, Adam Baldwin, Sean Maher, Summer Glau, Ron Glass and Alan Tudyk - reprising their roles.

Whedon told Daily Variety the title shift is designed to give the franchise some distance from the TV version. "It was important that people understand that the movie isn't the series," he said. "The movie is bigger, more epic than anything you can do in a series." He also added he went out of his way to make sure the script was accessible to audiences who never tuned into "Firefly." "You're not going to bring people into a movie if you're explaining all the time what happened before," Whedon added.

Details about "Serenity" weren't released however Whedon specified the feature is set about six months after the TV show left off.

Barry Mendel ("Unbreakable," "The Sixth Sense"), Alissa Tager and Mutant Enemy's Chris Buchanan are executive producing the project in addition to Whedon."

~~looks like ALL the actors will be back despite the posting in the Variety article~~


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

Thursday, March 4, 2004 5:09 AM

SAMURAIX47


Quote:

budgeted in the mid-eight figures


~$50 million... is that a mid-8 figure? Wow that's a huge budget compared to a television episode. What was the total cost for the series?

Jaymes

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

Thursday, March 4, 2004 5:20 AM

JAHZARA


Quote:

$50 million... is that a mid-8 figure? Wow that's a huge budget compared to a television episode. What was the total cost for the series?

Jaymes



I read in another thread ranting about the cancellation that is was around $25 million. I know they'll do a wonderful job, I just wonder if $50 million is enough for a sci-fi movie. I know Firefly isn't about the special effects, but still...

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

Thursday, March 4, 2004 6:03 AM

KOZURE


Wow, did I ever not expect to see a day when people would be worried that $50 million dollars might not be enough to make a good science fiction movie.

Independence Day: $71 million
Battlefield Earth: $80 million
Star Wars: Attack of the Clones: $115 million
Terminator 3: $170 million

Terminator 3, in particular, (for me) tanked both as a good movie and in North American sales.

Proof positive that over-inflated Hollywood budgets don't guarantee a good movie.

Conversely, low budgets don't rule out good movies. Star Wars was made on a budget of $11,000,000, which adjusted from 1976 to 2004 dollars is around $45,000,000 dollars.

...and not to rain on anyone's parade, but there have been many a movie further down the productuction line than "Serenity" which have come to untimely ends. Even a movie by an critically-acclaimed director with a all-star cast and a huge budget have foundered after principal photography was started. Witness "Lost in La Mancha", the story of a great movie that never was.


Kozure the Kamikaze Highlander

Proud Citizen of Canada-That-Was

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

Thursday, March 4, 2004 6:42 AM

KALATHENA


Too true, Kozure. Look at what's *still* happening the the next Exorcist movie. They've had death of original director, abandonment by lead actor, firing of second director, a re-write of over 85% of the original script, three separate shootings, a budget that has tirpled and they STILL don't know when it will hit the screen.

Yay! Glad to hear about the rest of the cast. Very very cool.

--Kala

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

Thursday, March 4, 2004 6:50 AM

SNIPER


If it is true, it's good to see that EVERY one is coming back.

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

Thursday, March 4, 2004 7:55 AM

BROWNCOAT1

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


I am thinking that a "mid eight figure budget" will be sufficient to get a good quality movie. The beauty of Firefly is that they don't have all those lasers, blasters, light sabers, and other high tech sci fi gadgets to spend money on for special effects.

I think Kozure is right in that big budgets do not guarantee a good movie, and his example of T3 was an excellent example.

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


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

Thursday, March 4, 2004 8:08 AM

ZENOPHITE


i think the series itself showed plenty of quality at whatever it cost, which most certainly was less than the eight figures they will be getting for 2 hours worth of serenity, so i have no doubts they will do a great job.
Keep in mind that many big budget sci-fi movies blow money on the actors which usually have alot of name recognition and thus high pricetag. this won't be the case with our beloved crew.
also alot of the budget is indeed because of all the excesses in costuming set building and the rest ala lucas' dismal prequels.
All in all the entire sci-western setting for firefly makes it a far more economic proposition in my opinion

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

Thursday, March 4, 2004 8:11 AM

UGAUSNUSC


I dont know if anyone has noticed but in all the different articles on the new FF movie, when it lists the returning cast members, Ron Glass 'Book" is not amoung them. It is this way on the news on the universal studios website. Do you think he will not be returning?

nick

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

Thursday, March 4, 2004 8:27 AM

SLOWSMURF


Even more important is the lack of mention of Alan, aka Wash.

However, the fact they aren't listed doesn't mean, especially at this early stage, they won't be in the movie. Merely that they have not been signed as of yet to be in the movie. There are many reasons why that could be.

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

Thursday, March 4, 2004 8:36 AM

HENKINS


Two things:

1) this article says that Ron and Alan are back, unlike in other articles.
2) $50 million should be plenty considering that they probably don't have half their budget tied into actor salaries (which usually takes up a lot of movie busgets). And, if I recall, for the show they had used a relatively unknown fx house, who usually lowball costs to develop a rep. Might they do the same for the feature?

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

Thursday, March 4, 2004 8:51 AM

FORRESTWOLF


It's not just lasers they'll be avoiding paying for - think of all those alien costumes they won't need! No wierd noses, no latex (though blue nitrile will definitely be a must).

Am I right to guess that CGI will tie up the FX budget? And, of course, I'm sure they'll spend a fair bit on doing Serenity's interior really, really well. Who knows? Maybe they'll build more of the EXTERIOR this time!

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

Thursday, March 4, 2004 9:04 AM

KINGOFKOINS


Quote:

Originally posted by henkins:
Two things:

1) this article says that Ron and Alan are back, unlike in other articles.
2) $50 million should be plenty considering that they probably don't have half their budget tied into actor salaries (which usually takes up a lot of movie busgets). And, if I recall, for the show they had used a relatively unknown fx house, who usually lowball costs to develop a rep. Might they do the same for the feature?



The FX company that Firefly used was Radium, which became Zoic, a company headed by Loni Peristere. Now, seeing as Loni did the cg effects on Buffy, and then went over to Firefly to do a magnificent job, I see no reason why Joss wouldn't have them do it again.

--------------------------------
It's sickening how comforting the privacy of the mind can be.
"Bible's broken; contradictions, false logistics. Doesn't make sense." - River
http://stripe.filetap.com

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

Friday, March 5, 2004 3:09 AM

DRAKON


Quote:

Originally posted by kingofkoins:
Quote:

Originally posted by henkins:
Two things:

1) this article says that Ron and Alan are back, unlike in other articles.
2) $50 million should be plenty considering that they probably don't have half their budget tied into actor salaries (which usually takes up a lot of movie busgets). And, if I recall, for the show they had used a relatively unknown fx house, who usually lowball costs to develop a rep. Might they do the same for the feature?



The FX company that Firefly used was Radium, which became Zoic, a company headed by Loni Peristere. Now, seeing as Loni did the cg effects on Buffy, and then went over to Firefly to do a magnificent job, I see no reason why Joss wouldn't have them do it again.



From seeing their work in Battlestar Galactica, the only problem I can see would be having the right equipment for big screen work. It will be at a higher resolution than TV (although not sure how it would compare to HDTV.) That means longer render times or faster render farms. And whatever they need to dump their work to film, vice tape.

Not serious problems at all really. The talent is there, and the equipment may not be cheap, but it won't cost a (relatively speaking) arm and a leg.

Besides which, it would be a great opportunity for them to break into feature films.

BTW, wife had something. She was wondering when the "Serenity" Press kits come out, if they will market them ahead of the movie. Looking at how much Firefly press kits went for on E-bay, and noting the fanatical insane devotion of his fans, Joss might be able to reduce costs somewhat by making more of those press kits and selling them to us. I'd buy one or twelve.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Friday, March 5, 2004 3:13 AM

DRAKON


Quote:

Originally posted by Kozure:
Wow, did I ever not expect to see a day when people would be worried that $50 million dollars might not be enough to make a good science fiction movie.

Independence Day: $71 million
Battlefield Earth: $80 million
Star Wars: Attack of the Clones: $115 million
Terminator 3: $170 million

Terminator 3, in particular, (for me) tanked both as a good movie and in North American sales.

Proof positive that over-inflated Hollywood budgets don't guarantee a good movie.



If it were anyone but Joss at the helm, I would be worried about the big budget. You are right and there is a ton of drek out there to prove that big budgets don't make good movies. In fact, it seemed the trend was the bigger the budget, the more it was spent on CGI and not on story, plot, writing or characters. Which made for lousy movies.

Sometimes a big budget can be a hindrance. But I doubt this will be the case here.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Friday, March 5, 2004 6:15 AM

BROWNCOAT1

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


Drakon wrote:

Quote:

BTW, wife had something. She was wondering when the "Serenity" Press kits come out, if they will market them ahead of the movie. Looking at how much Firefly press kits went for on E-bay, and noting the fanatical insane devotion of his fans, Joss might be able to reduce costs somewhat by making more of those press kits and selling them to us. I'd buy one or twelve.


Hell yeah! I would love to have a press kit for my Firefly collection. I have not been able to afford the $500 plus they sold for on Ebay, but I would gladly pay a reasonable price for several of them.

I agree w/ your idea that it would be a great way to help reduce costs by selling them to fans.


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


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

Saturday, March 6, 2004 12:21 PM

MISGUIDED BY VOICES


Quote:

Originally posted by Drakon:
From seeing their work in Battlestar Galactica, the only problem I can see would be having the right equipment for big screen work. It will be at a higher resolution than TV (although not sure how it would compare to HDTV.) That means longer render times or faster render farms. And whatever they need to dump their work to film, vice tape.



As I recall, they did some tests of "porting up" the B5 graphics to a movie screen, and it apparently looked pretty good. The $35 mill quoted does seem light, but there are minimal development costs (although even if they didn't trash the sets they may not be detailed enough for the movie screen - although given the commentaries, maybe not)



"I threw up on your bed"

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

Saturday, March 6, 2004 12:29 PM

ECMORGAN69


I just have one question about the sets. Assuming they weren't trashed when "Firefly" went off the grid, is it really possible that they weren't detailed enough? From watching all the DVDs a lot, if there was one thing I did notice, it was that the sets were enormously detailed. Sure, it wasn't all prettified, like a "Star Trek" set, but it had the right...um, texture would be the best way to put it. It felt lived in. It felt necessarily simplified. The only detailing that was missing was for some of the technology that never got covered yet. For example, they, maddeningly, never discussed the nature of the propulsion system that Serenity uses.

I hope that they don't make any serious deviations from the old Firefly-class transport we've all come to know and love.

They can have my "Firefly" DVDs when they pry them from my cold, dead fingers....

Oh yeah, you, FOX TV!!

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

Saturday, March 6, 2004 1:32 PM

MISGUIDED BY VOICES


Quote:

Originally posted by ecmorgan69:
I just have one question about the sets. Assuming they weren't trashed when "Firefly" went off the grid, is it really possible that they weren't detailed enough? From watching all the DVDs a lot, if there was one thing I did notice, it was that the sets were enormously detailed. Sure, it wasn't all prettified, like a "Star Trek" set, but it had the right...um, texture would be the best way to put it.



The Trek sets as you saw them on TV weren't built for scrutiny on a big screen - they can get away with stuff because of that, and hence even though the sets were "detailed", the same object may need to be re-done for the cinema - best example I can come up with would be computer screens, which can't show in jokes anymore, if they are going to appear large on screen.



"I threw up on your bed"

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

Saturday, March 6, 2004 2:04 PM

SHINY


Quote:

Originally posted by ecmorgan69:
I just have one question about the sets. Assuming they weren't trashed when "Firefly" went off the grid, is it really possible that they weren't detailed enough?



The sets were dismantled shortly after GORRAM FOX cancelled our show.

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

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

Saturday, March 6, 2004 2:38 PM

GTHING


Let's make Joss Whedon's name frequently be written in the same sentence with Peter Jackson. i.e. We can make this movie a huge success.

Excerpt from My Genre Geek Resume:
~huge Odyssey 5 fan (despite its cancellation)
~dangerously obsessed with BtVS and Angel
~former Andromeda fan

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

Saturday, March 6, 2004 5:54 PM

ECMORGAN69


Quote:

Originally posted by Shiny:
Quote:

Originally posted by ecmorgan69:
I just have one question about the sets. Assuming they weren't trashed when "Firefly" went off the grid, is it really possible that they weren't detailed enough?



The sets were dismantled shortly after GORRAM FOX cancelled our show.

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



Answers that question... ARRRGGHHH!!

They can have my "Firefly" DVDs when they pry them from my cold, dead fingers....

Oh yeah, you, FOX TV!!

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

Saturday, March 6, 2004 6:26 PM

MELEAUX


ya know what did bug me about the set though-
those goofy steps leading out of the kitchen. rememeber how they sort of overlaped diagonally.it looked very easy to trip on.uhm i'm sorry i just realised this is sort of of the topic-
yea ff movie and yea all the crew

She understands, she doesn't comprehend

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

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

FFF.NET SOCIAL