Senerity Update from Dark Horizons

POSTED BY: Poetic4U
UPDATED: Sunday, September 5, 2004 11:58
VIEWED: 23621
PAGE 3 of 6

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE

REDNIKKI

Tuesday, May 4, 2004 12:07 PM

I'm not against a movie, don't get me wrong! I'm very, very happy that we get movies. I'm just a greedy, greedy girl and want my Firefly every week. :-)

As far as how long they'll be shooting...movie shoots take far longer than TV shoots. A lot of interviews with movie actors who move to TV have them mentioning that TV moves so fast compared to movies - far more scenes are shot per day. Now, I bet the gang on Firefly could do it faster, but - in Hollywood, if you finish making your movie early and come in under budget, that's a big deal and helps with your rep. (Or so I hear - IANAHP).

Now, the REALLY important thing to do is to convert the hearts and minds of everyone else out there to the Firefly cause, and prime them for the movie. I actually sent a set of disks to an expat friend in New Zealand, who has been watching them with her friends. The reaction (as you can imagine) was..."They cancelled this?" And most of them aren't even SF fans (although several are big LOTR buffs).

SOUTHERNMERC

Tuesday, May 4, 2004 12:15 PM

I have spoken to the other mercenary units out there, and they all agree: Firefly movies AND TV shows are whats needed. This merc sorely wishes for MORE Firefly, wherever it comes from!

'Course, I would PREFER a TV show to only three movies. But I'll take anything I cun git!

Jayne: "See, Vera? You get dressed up, you get taken someplace fun!"

THECLAPS

Tuesday, May 4, 2004 12:48 PM

Quote:
Yay! ...I really like how, in TV, you get a lot of character development, that you just can't get in a film. Am I lame, that I'm feeling awfully sad that it won't come back as a series?

Well, if it's being planned as a trilogy, that means lots of twists and character development from one to the other.

Also, if it does NOT do as well as to warrant another two films, does that mean it will come back as a tv series? or does that mean it's dead?

In any case, granted that the first movie will either set back up a tv series or a precedent for another two movies, we're bound to have non-static story telling and some fun fun Joss Whedon character deaths and changes.

Ain't. We. Just.

EST120

Tuesday, May 4, 2004 1:14 PM

no saffron. that is too bad. she was a great character. if they make a movie trilogy like the other post reports, maybe she will show up. i always felt that our mrs. reynolds and trash were two very light and enjoyable episodes.

BLACKOUTNIGHTS

Tuesday, May 4, 2004 1:17 PM

I wonder what the big deal is with trilogies. I suppose you could say it's like taking three acts and expanding those into longer episodes. Still, why three?

While the denial of a TV show is disappointing, I think several movies should give Whedon a chance to tell us the story he wants to tell. Hopefully we'll get a spectacular conclusion.

The one thing I'm going to miss is the theme song at the beginning. I'd love to see that added to the movie, fact is there's just not any place for it in the movie unless they enter a bar with a band a la Mos Eisley or something. Beginning the movie with the theme song will make it feel like television, and we need something better for our BDM.

Pleasantly surprised at the early 2005 date. Hope they don't rush it and end up with a lesser product. Let's face it, though I loved it, the BDM needs to be better than the two hour pilot if this is going to succeed. Whedon and crew have their work cut out for them.

Bigger budget is good. Having nine main characters costs a lot of money.

Do you wanna be rich?
Do you wanna be a superstar?
Well, honey, you already are.
-Sweet Water from their album "Superfriends"

BROWNCOAT1

Tuesday, May 4, 2004 1:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheClaps:
Quote:
Yay! ...I really like how, in TV, you get a lot of character development, that you just can't get in a film. Am I lame, that I'm feeling awfully sad that it won't come back as a series?

Well, if it's being planned as a trilogy, that means lots of twists and character development from one to the other.

Also, if it does NOT do as well as to warrant another two films, does that mean it will come back as a tv series? or does that mean it's dead?

In any case, granted that the first movie will either set back up a tv series or a precedent for another two movies, we're bound to have non-static story telling and some fun fun Joss Whedon character deaths and changes.

Ain't. We. Just.

Good point.

The quote from Nathan is that if the movie does well, there will be no return to TV. So if the movie does not meet Universal's expectations, then what? Does Firefly die? Does it return to TV?

While I will have to be happy w/ the movies, it just doesn't seem right not to have Firefly back on TV. Regardless of what the real reasons might be Firefly is a story that needs to be told on TV weekly, as Joss orginially intended. Now we will get two hours of story every two years. That seem right to you?

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

REDNIKKI

Tuesday, May 4, 2004 1:57 PM

I think if the movie doesn't do well, it means there's no more Firefly. If no one sees it, what incentive would there be to have a new series?

CLEANER

Tuesday, May 4, 2004 2:42 PM

I doubt anything is set in stone and will probably be determined not only on the success of the movie but also the sales of the series on DVD. Remember Firefly has screened in very few countries at this date and there is a huge potential audience out there who have never heard of the wonderful show called Firefly.

If the movie does well (not a huge success) and all those that have not seen the TV series are inspired to buy dvds by the truck loads. The financial planners may end up in a position where a second movie may be risky but a TV series/DVDs that can be onsold to other countries may make more financial sense.

At least I can hope this happens, I don't think I could handle the stress of waiting a year between installments

MAKEROFPATHS

Tuesday, May 4, 2004 3:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
10 weeks and 50 million dollars, that seems a bit long for just one movie in the first place. Think about it a second. They are going to take 10 weeks and 50 million dollars to do what they used to be able to do in 2 weeks, for about 4 million dollars. Figure a 2 hour movie, that is essentially the equivalent of 2 episodes. I know budgets for film goes up, but this seems a bit much for just a single movie.

I see your point. I also thought 10 weeks quite a long time. It only took Joss 30 days to shoot the 2hr pilot and he said he wouldn't know what to do with all that time -- some days he sent everyone home early.

BROWNCOAT1

Tuesday, May 4, 2004 3:40 PM

Another thing to bear in mind; the original budget was set at $35 million, but according to reports, the new budget is $50 million. What has changed to increase the budge $15 million and how will that effect expectations for the movie? What ticket sales figure will now be accepted by Universal as successful?

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

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE