General Discussions

Will Peter Pan sink the Firefly movie?

POSTED BY: mojoeca
UPDATED: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 20:44
VIEWED: 7729
PAGE 1 of 3

Friday, January 2, 2004 2:45 PM

Universal's latest, the $100 million+ Peter Pan has bombed in a major way, taking in just $20 million to date. Hate to ask it, but could this box office bomb make Universal a bit gun-shy about the decidedly riskier venture of a FIREFLY movie?

--- Joe

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

Friday, January 2, 2004 2:49 PM

.....
...
..
.
?
...
...noo...

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

Friday, January 2, 2004 3:32 PM

How is Firefly more risky than that terrible remake of Peter Pan they were trying to force down the public's throats?

1. Firefly's going to cost less to produce comparatively,
2. it'll be made in record time provided they get started on it in the first quarter of 2004,
3. and no one knows how it's going to end.

Whereas this latest variant on Peter Pan was a time consuming and cost-defective project that didn't need to get told because the story's already been told over and over, and better, and this variant wasn't promising much in the way of a new approach.

Joss Whedon's Firefly is an original tale, not something based on a rehashed children's story over a century old.

Furthermore, Peter Pan appeals to some children and parents, and is limited in demographics to a family oriented audience. Firefly targets middle class men and women from 18-45, and therefore the lion's share of a financially lucrative consumership. If they get a PG-13 or R rating, Mutant Enemy's gonna rake it in. Trust me. They. Can't. Lose.

Four of the best looking women in Hollywood. Five if they throw in Saffron. Men with guns. Space races and bar room brawls. Occasional uprisings and rebellions. A story about ordinary people in the extraordinary squeeze between a freedom stifling conservative government on the one side and completely insane marrauding psychopaths on the other. You got your intrigue, your romance, your multiple levels of humor from cerebral to dark to slapstick, fun special effects, great music, heart pounding cinematography and editing... Shall I go on?

If they film it, we will come.

------------------------------
"Hang on, travelers..."

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

Friday, January 2, 2004 4:15 PM

Plus, Universal is able to calculate the costs on this one. Since there exists a cast and crew that is used to work together fast, as making TV is very much faster than making a Movie (so I have heard),
It is not likely that they will fall behind schedule or over budget. So they will know how much money they will have to invest before the production starts, and they should know by now how many dedicated fans are out there, so they will know that they can't possibly lose money on this one.

Also, Universal needs to create "the next Star Trek" or they are financially doomed.

They will make it. Mark my words!

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

Friday, January 2, 2004 4:18 PM

If Peter Pan affects Firefly in any way I will go to Neverland myself and kill the little green bugger.

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

Friday, January 2, 2004 4:29 PM

To further reinforce the fact that boobtoob to silverscreen films are more cost effective to produce, the budget for Star Trek Generations was only $35 million. It made almost that much in its first weekend, grossed $120 million worldwide in the box office and over $80 million in video rentals.

The X-Files movie back in 1998 cost $66 Million. It recouped half that in its first weekend and grossed over $83 million box office in less than five months. That doesn't count overseas profits or VHS/DVD rentals and sales. And my bet is that if you combined the salaries of Duchovny & Anderson for being the principals in X-Files Fight The Future, it'd come out to roughly half the combined salaries of the nine principals in Firefly. Not that they're not worth more. They are. But they didn't have as much a chance to build their fan base and most of the talents in Firefly don't have the pull like Duchovny did five years ago. Fillion, Torres and Glass might be able to ask for more, but the others will be bringing in salaries that while respectable will surely not break Universal's pocketbook.

Fight The Future was on location all over Canada and the U.S., whereas most of Firefly will be done either in front of the refurbished/recycled Serenity set, or in front of a greenscreen so the CGI boys can play. While CGI is expensive, overall the effects for Firefly will be conservative. We're not talking Return of the King here.

I'm thinking Firefly the Movie will fall somewhere between those two benchmarks. It'll cost roughly $45-50 million to produce, and will easily recoup that the first month of release. While it may not be a blockbuster that rakes in over a hundred mill its first weekend, Firefly will be a formidable contender for any summer or Christmas release.

------------------------------
"Hang on, travelers..."

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

Saturday, January 3, 2004 12:38 AM

Wow.

I'm most impressed with your well thought out and articulate pro-argument for Firefly: The Movie, Zach.

*suspiciously* Are you a brainiac out in the World?



Let's not forget that a vast majority of people thought that a pirate movie would tank hard, too. And just look what PiratesOTC has done to date. I don't think anyone can ever really know for sure how a movie is going to do. Unfortunately, the viewing public is an extremely fickle creature. Of course, I'll make everyone I know go see Firefly, whether they want to or not!

BoomerGoodheart

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

Saturday, January 3, 2004 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by mojoeca:
Peter Pan has bombed in a major way...

Hmm, I wonder why Peter Pan isn't so popular these days. A boy in green tights who sleeps at Neverland....




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

Saturday, January 3, 2004 2:06 AM

He's got a point, there.

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

Saturday, January 3, 2004 3:02 AM

actually, cheaper than that! 45-50 million would mean a very very effects coated movie.

But look at the movie D&D, they had to hire out hte hwoel city of Prague, make costumes, expensive sets, and awesome CGI dragons. Plus pay for Jeremy Irons. Total cost? 35 Million. It didnt do well in theateres, but I love that Gorram Movie!

People only beleive somehting if it's in a movie

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