Firefly' Gets Its Feature Wings

POSTED BY: SlayerFaith
UPDATED: Sunday, March 7, 2004 04:26
VIEWED: 7053
PAGE 2 of 3

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 NEXT PAGE

SLOWSMURF

Thursday, March 4, 2004 6:27 PM

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.

HENKINS

Thursday, March 4, 2004 6:36 PM

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?

FORRESTWOLF

Thursday, March 4, 2004 6:51 PM

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!

KINGOFKOINS

Thursday, March 4, 2004 7:04 PM

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

DRAKON

Friday, March 5, 2004 1:09 PM

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?"

DRAKON

Friday, March 5, 2004 1:13 PM

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?"

BROWNCOAT1

Friday, March 5, 2004 4:15 PM

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."

MISGUIDED BY VOICES

Saturday, March 6, 2004 10:21 PM

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"

ECMORGAN69

Saturday, March 6, 2004 10:29 PM

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!!

MISGUIDED BY VOICES

Saturday, March 6, 2004 11:32 PM

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"

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 NEXT PAGE