THE CHRONICLES OF RIDDICK & why we won't see a continuation of BSG

[BSGDAN]

On June 11, Universal Pictures released one of the most spectacular and original scifi films since "Blade Runner": THE CHRONICLES OF RIDDICK. It is a sequel (of sorts) to the film "Pitch Black". Universal spent around $100 million on the film, mainly on the belief that the star-Vin Diesel-had the star power to support it. To date, the film has been an underperformer. I believe there are several reasons for this. First, it's a scifi film. If it doesn't have the words "star" and "wars" in the title, people tend to stay away from the genre, opting instead for garbage like "White Chicks". Another reason is that it was released at a very "crowded" time at the theatre. On it's opening weekend, a total of 5 films in the top 10 grossed over $20 million in ticket sales. And coming only one week after the latest "Harry Potter" film didn't help either. The future doesn't look too good for "Riddick".

My question is...how many scifi fans didn't bother to see this film. Obviously, a whole lot. More importantly, how many BSG fans didn't bother to see it? While I don't believe the BSG fanbase alone could save this film, I do think it sets a bad example for us. Why? Because we are trying to convince Universal that a BSG film would do good business, but we don't demonstrate the power of scifi at the box office by supporting a huge release from that same studio. When they look at the final numbers for "Riddick", they will probably shy away from science fiction for many years. And could we really blame them? I don't think so.

So, if you stayed away because you just had to see "Harry Potter" for the 10th time, give that geek a rest and go check out "Riddick". If you didn't see it because of the negative reviews, well...you know how kind critics are to scifi films in general. And if you didn't see it because you can't pull yourself away from the computer, get up and get some exercise by walking down to the local multiplex and seeing the next true scifi classic: THE CHRONICLES OF RIDDICK.

Dan

[thomas7g]

I haven't seen it.

The reason has more to do with the impression I am getting from the film. It looks dark and gritty. Its more like the new BG than the old one. I'm not looking for a "heavy" experience right now. Life is hard. The news is horribly depressing. And right now I could use a happier film.

Something like the old BG in movie form. :D

I think our fate lies more in shows like Stargate, and perhaps Star Wars, and maybe even Firefly.

The Riddick film would help the new BG more. But like the new BG, watching it could help all scifi and our BG, So I agree with that. But then I don't see the link as very strong.

But if you like Riddick. Enjoy it. See it again. And play the videogame. I hear its REALLY good. And very faithful to the film.

Whatever makes you happy is good.:)

[amberstar]

I saw Riddick and even posted somewhere here about it.
The movie was good but not great. I didn't have enough background information on the characters to form an attachment to them. The theme is dark and would be more suited to the new BSG. IMHO, The Matrix, and The Lord of The Rings were a thousand times better ;)

I did find a good website for Riddick.
http://www.thechroniclesofriddick.com/
When you enter the main site, and meet Toombs you can play an interactive game. That was really fun!

[Charybdis]

thomas7g, now YOUR avatar is dark and gritty!!!!!

[thomas7g]

LOL... you could say that. :D

[Bijou88]

A continuation of the original series is (I am profoundly sad to say) a non starter. From now on the sci fi channel version is what Battlestar Galactica will be in the future. If Riddick had made 100 million at the box office, it would not convince the powers that be to make a proper Battlestar Galactica movie. I love the original series and am genuinely heart sick when I think about the mini series. However, I feel that any hope for a TOS movie is just wishful thinking.

[Dawg]

Bijou, there are a great many people who believe otherwise. They are supported by hard numbers, the sales figures from the DVD set, the sales of the figurines and other TOS BSG merchandise.

And the people we need to hear us do hear us.

And they will hear us even louder in September.

It does not matter that Sci-Fi's BSG was picked up for a series. All the numbers show that TOS is what the fans want to see on the big screen.

Bijou, every voice helps. If what you want, too, is to see a movie based on TOS BSG, then your voice is needed. We're raising the last few dollars so that we can place a color ad in Daily Variety in September, along with the color ad in Cinescape we've already nailed down. Go to the CFF website and contribute (the link is in my sig). Or you can take a few minutes and write a letter or two with the rest of us when those ads come out to show them that this is what you want.

Whether you liked or did not like the sci-fi vision of BSG is immaterial. Whether the tv series does well or tanks does not matter. It's showing the suits that a TOS BSG movie is what we want to see. THAT IS WHAT MATTERS. Nothing else.

And we will see it - regardless of how well Riddick or any other sci-fi movie does.

I am
Dawg
:warrior:

[bsg1fan1975]

I saw Riddick and have to admit it was so confusing. It was an okay movie but I was left with a bad taste in my mouth from it.

[thomas7g]

Bijou-

The Scifi Channel is not the only game in town. Infact its a relatively small player (financially) compared to the people who makes theatrical productions. The old show's resurection will have nothing to do with Scifi Channel. It need not. It will not.

I see the old show coming back in 3-5 years. And I happen to be a pessimist.;)

But of course... if you don't believe that, we all accept that.
:)

[justjackrandom]

I do think that we will see a BSG film as a continuation, but I think it will have more in common, at least in looks and tone, to the new BSG than TOS. It will be “darker and grittier” because that is what the studio think audiences want to see now…and unfortunately they are probably right.

JJR

[BSGDAN]

I don't think you guys are getting my point. When a studio like Universal can't recoup a $100 million investment in a scifi film with a major star like Vin Diesel, why would they want to invest even half of that amount in another scifi property that would star actors that were popular a quarter-century ago? No one here would want to see a continuation more than me, but the failure of the scifi fan community (not to mention the public as a whole) to support this film will no doubt have a lasting effect on how Universal Studios views science fiction in the future.

This post had nothing to do with whether or not "Riddick" was dark and gritty. And as for being reminesent of the new BSG, "Riddick" was 1000% better than that piece of trash.

Dan

[Dawg]

I get your point, Dan. And if we were talking a Wall Street production, I'd even agree.

Is Riddick a Universal project? I don't know. But it really doesn't matter.

We know the right players are interested in doing a TOS BSG movie - Glen Larson and Tom DeSanto. We know this. And because Glen owns the theatrical rights, Universal is not the only studio in the running to "host" the production.

The key to this is letting the studio heads know there is a market out here for a TOS movie. That's what CFF is all about. Think about it - our little community raised $10,000 - and looking to bump that to $12,000 in the next few weeks (we'll do it, too) - to place color ads in two national magazines to raise awareness of the possibility of a TOS movie. Add that with the huge sales of the DVD set, the interest in TOS merchandise --- but I'm repeating myself here.

It doesn't matter, Dan, how good or bad Riddick does. The question they will ask isn't "how well a sci-fi film did in 2004" - it will be "how well will a TOS BSG movie do in 2006". And we need to show them it will do well.

Throwing up our hands and giving up now will insure that the movie will never be made.

Now - do you still think I missed your point?

I am
Dawg
:warrior:

[Charybdis]

Dawg, I admire your optimism, but you seem to feel that there is a strong supposition on the studios part that what happens in the future is not based at all on what happens right now.

You state that the studio will not ask how well a film would do today but how would it do in 2006.. How can that be?? Of course a studio will look at how their film did today. If it crashes and burns like Riddick did, do you ever think that that same studio will say, "aw gee, well, audiences didn't like sci-fi today, but we'll be back in 2006 and they'll love it then!?"

I think not. The movie business is how well did your last movie do?? If this one stunk, they will be unlikely to do another one in the near future...

[KJ]

Guys, i haven't seen the "Riddick" movie yet. since i'm a U.K. BG fan but, if Riddick didn't do so well in the cinemas over there. It is probably due to the piracy issues facing movie releases these days, which is more than a handful at the moment for the film studios. Before you think, person with a camcorder sitting in the front or back row bootlegging the film he or she is watching.

Truth be told bootlegging, is an inside job done by the projectionist or even done by those who work at film studios themselves, behind the filmmakers backs. poor copies they maybe, but it's like this everyday somewhere especially in "Southeast Asia", and "South "America" where bootlegging is a common place thing. And as such, effects the box office business of blockbuster films.

Although pirate copies aren't the full 100% reason why "The Chronicles of Riddick" isn't doing big business, it is a major one. and unfortunately piracy effects some films bigger than it does others, ironic that movies such as the "Harry Potter" Films, "LOTR", "The Star Wars movies" and many others are bootlegged to death yet their box office makes them huge, top ten film grossers of all time, in the annuals of movies ticket sales. and yet other films lose out due to the pirated copies.

This is a serious issue, although E! Entertainment makes light of it, with its top 5 MOVIE and MUSIC downloads chart on a daily basis!

Sad but true folks!

KJ

[Gemini1999]

I think that one of the biggest questions that need to be addressed is the fact that did they really need to spend 100 million to make Riddick in the first place. They could have done an awesome film for at least half that. Having Vin Diesel as your star is hardly a guarantee that it will make back such a hefty sum. His last 2 films were hardly stellar and Pitch Black wasn't a strong enough film to warrant such a big budget sequel. This, and the fact that big budget movies are usually spaced out about a week apart during the summer months. The film had better have "legs" enough to survive that kind of scheduling to begin with.

I did see Riddick and liked it for the production design mostly - the story was kind of weak, but having Dame Judi Dench in it clinched it for me. I just don't think the word of mouth after the initial opening was all that good. It isn't that people won't go see a genre film anymore, it's that they won't see a BAD or MEDIOCRE genre film anymore. When ticket prices are at 9.25 US per ticket, there are some that would rather rent the DVD at 4.25. Remember when Universal released "The Hulk"? It too was a 100 million monster - but it didn't hold up well at the box office.

An example of a film that will probably make its money back and then some, will be Spider-Man 2 - the pre-release press is very exciting and marketing is all over the place! The first showing is tomorrow night at midnight and you know that pre-sale tickets are already being made.

Sci Fi isn't dead at the box office, its just that the audience expects an appropriate bang for their buck. When BSG hits the silver screen (and I really think it will) - it will be a big deal and I hope it will make a lot of money as well. We'll just have to wait and see.

Best to all,
Bryan

[thomas7g]

Truth be told bootlegging, is an inside job done by the projectionist or even done by those who work at film studios themselves, behind the filmmakers backs. poor copies they maybe, but it's like this everyday somewhere especially in "Southeast Asia", and "South "America" where bootlegging is a common place thing. And as such, effects the box office business of blockbuster films. Its China. In order for a film to be seen in China, it has to go through a looong and extensive review system with lots of red tape. So in order to make money you have to submit your films many months in advance (maybe a year) ahead of its premeire date in China. Problem is, some of the pirating companies churning out copies of hollywood films are owned by the Chinese goverment itself. Which makes a tidy profit from these bootlegs. you can buy two movies that are airing in the US for a dollar along the great wall.

China has no real incentive to stop. They dont make money enforcing US patents and copyrights. Especially not hollywood's. And they make ALOT of money bootlegging.

Hollywood could dramatically cut the number of bootlegs available in this country by simply not shipping the movies to China before they are for sale here. Why don't they? Cause a quarter of the earth's population is in China. Which means alot of movie tickets to be sold and huge profits. Essentially...GREED.

:D

Just wanted to add that bit in. Now back to Riddick....

[thomas7g]

I don't think Riddick can kill an entire genre. Its just one film. Just like a bad Julia Roberts film can't stop romantic films from being made.

Also BG has one thing going for it Riddick never had. Actually two. Name and Nostalgia. Both can translate into money in Hollywood.

[BSGDAN]

I never said that the disappointing returns for "Riddick" would kill the scifi genre. What I have tried to make clear is that since Universal produced "Riddick", they will more than likely be a bit gunshy about sinking any more cash into a large scifi production in the near future. Since your hopes for a continuation hinge on a big screen adventure, this creates a big problem for the original BSG universe. Despite Glen Larson's statements, I believe that Universal Pictures will still have some part to play in any future BSG projects. Those in charge could very well say to themselves that a BSG project wouldn't have enough support in the marketplace, given the fact that a film like "Riddick" couldn't lure in the kids with Vin Diesel in the lead.

A few years ago, I thought exactly like you do right now. I believed that the fanbase was strong enough to support a huge revival. Now, I don't know if that's true or not. I want to believe that it is, but what signs are there that we are really a force to be taken seriously (opposed to just another vocal minority). Some would say that the paltry 3.5 million viewers that tuned into the miniseries was enough to kill the revival chances. That if we had supported it, the executives would have viewed the original differently. I believe that we were in a "Damned if we do, damned if we don't" situation with the mini. If we had supported it, and thus driven the ratings higher, the executives would have believed that the mini was what we really wanted. Again, no revival.

I support the revival efforts, and I continue to support the original series with my hard-earned money whenever possible. However, when Universal takes a look at the "Riddick" situation, I believe that they are going to view ALL scifi projects through the same lens. What they see won't be very encouraging to the BSG fanbase.

Dan

[Gemini1999]

Jeez -

I really hate the naysayers.....!

Dan - I don't know what to say here - you said what you wanted to say, people responded and either agreed with you, or not, yet you still keep going on about your "theory" as to why a movie won't be made. But, that's all they are is theories and suppositions. I've never seen anyone outside the film business that was able to second-guess Hollywood execs at what will or won't sell tickets.

Comparing the mini-series against box receipts is the worst arguement yet - a lot of people didn't watch the mini because they didn't like what they saw coming before it aired. It attracted some viewers because they either liked what they saw, or were curious enough to check it out.

Firefly was a series that failed before it even got through the first season - the DVD sales were good enough to get Fox to rethink their opinions of the show and make a feature film. If you want to use something as an example, try waiting until the box office receipts are in on Serenity next year - at least the profile better fits the situation.

I'm not really trying to shoot you down, but unless your are a Universal exec, married to one, or sleeping with one, your theories aren't any more sound than what someone else says here. Some just have a more optimisic view - let them have their dreams, you never know what can happen in Hollywood!

Best regards,
Bryan

[ernie90125]

I agree with the comments that the poor performance of Riddick cannot kill a genre, simple because one film didn't do too well... What it's poor performace can do, put a hole in the budget for future movies though !


I understand the following is a law in Taiwan, - where a lot of conterfeiting goes on (which I don't think is the same as bootlegging !!!!, but that is a seperate argument!)

If a film has been released on X date, then it must be released within 1 month of that date in Taiwan, to remain covered under their copyright law. This is the reason why Star Wars II was released on virtually the same day around the world.

If a film is no longer covered under copyright law, it can be produced for sale in that country. And of course then it can be exported....

But the government of that country will be unlikely to change the law, ad the 1 month rule is there to ensure that their country gets things promptly and doesn't get forgotten....

[shiningstar]

On June 11, Universal Pictures released one of the most spectacular and original scifi films since "Blade Runner": THE CHRONICLES OF RIDDICK. It is a sequel (of sorts) to the film "Pitch Black". Universal spent around $100 million on the film, mainly on the belief that the star-Vin Diesel-had the star power to support it. To date, the film has been an underperformer. I believe there are several reasons for this. First, it's a scifi film. If it doesn't have the words "star" and "wars" in the title, people tend to stay away from the genre, opting instead for garbage like "White Chicks". Another reason is that it was released at a very "crowded" time at the theatre. On it's opening weekend, a total of 5 films in the top 10 grossed over $20 million in ticket sales. And coming only one week after the latest "Harry Potter" film didn't help either. The future doesn't look too good for "Riddick".

My question is...how many scifi fans didn't bother to see this film. Obviously, a whole lot. More importantly, how many BSG fans didn't bother to see it? While I don't believe the BSG fanbase alone could save this film, I do think it sets a bad example for us. Why? Because we are trying to convince Universal that a BSG film would do good business, but we don't demonstrate the power of scifi at the box office by supporting a huge release from that same studio. When they look at the final numbers for "Riddick", they will probably shy away from science fiction for many years. And could we really blame them? I don't think so.

So, if you stayed away because you just had to see "Harry Potter" for the 10th time, give that geek a rest and go check out "Riddick". If you didn't see it because of the negative reviews, well...you know how kind critics are to scifi films in general. And if you didn't see it because you can't pull yourself away from the computer, get up and get some exercise by walking down to the local multiplex and seeing the next true scifi classic: THE CHRONICLES OF RIDDICK.

Dan

Dan .........I disagree with you. The best way to support a continueation
is to stand up and write the powers that be (which includes UNIVERSAL)
that we SUPPORT a DESANTO AND LARSON production.

I don't think that it will help one WHIT to go see each and every
SCIFI that Universal puts out. Not all scifi's equal BSG. And as for
the "GEEK" ........I happen to LIKE harry potter.

[Gemini1999]

Dan .........I disagree with you. The best way to support a continueation
is to stand up and write the powers that be (which includes UNIVERSAL)
that we SUPPORT a DESANTO AND LARSON production.

I don't think that it will help one WHIT to go see each and every
SCIFI that Universal puts out. Not all scifi's equal BSG. And as for
the "GEEK" ........I happen to LIKE harry potter.

SS -

I totally agree with what you are saying here - you either support a continuation, or you don't. It's just that simple.... Universal does't fund one project based on the success or failure over another film just because they share the same genre.

I also agree with you on Harry Potter - I didn't see the first film in the theater, thinking it was just for kids. I watched it on DVD when it came out and was so sorry I didn't see it in the theater when I had the chance. I never read any of the books, but I found out that I had a lot of friends and wives of friends that read the books and saw the movies. You don't have to be a geek to like a good story....

I didn't miss the last Harry Potter film and I didn't miss Prisoner of Azkaban either - I enjoyed the heck out of them.

Rock on girl!
Bryan

[thomas7g]

A few years ago, I thought exactly like you do right now. I believed that the fanbase was strong enough to support a huge revival. Now, I don't know if that's true or not. I want to believe that it is, but ...
A few years ago I believed like you do now. ;)

Personally, I think the demographics for a BG movie is closer to Spiderman2 then Riddick. :)

[thomas7g]

I don't think writing Universal is that effective. I think that is like shouting through a wind tunnel at a closed door. (though I'm not trying to discourage anyone since its just IMHO)

But WHEN the BG movie gets off the ground, and I believe it will, I seriously expect Universal will have nothing to do with it. Don't forget, there are other studios out there. :D

[thomas7g]

Ernie- Interesting factoid!!!!

[braxiss]

sci fi is alive and kicking, we see several good sci fi movies each year. but i think the truth of the issue comes down to do you believe?

i do, i believe that a continuation will happen because the fans are doing what needs to be done to make it a realality. and when it hits the big screen i'll be there, and if the critics say it's a bad film i'll be there, because i believe.

[jewels]

I never said that the disappointing returns for "Riddick" would kill the scifi genre. What I have tried to make clear is that since Universal produced "Riddick", they will more than likely be a bit gunshy about sinking any more cash into a large scifi production in the near future.
Universal is putting $50 million (up from the original 35) into Serenity. They bought the feature film rights from Fox when they saw the 1) fan interest 2) dvd sales figures. (I believe it's sold more copies than it's best viewing night, but that's just a guess).


Since your hopes for a continuation hinge on a big screen adventure, this creates a big problem for the original BSG universe. Despite Glen Larson's statements, I believe that Universal Pictures will still have some part to play in any future BSG projects. Those in charge could very well say to themselves that a BSG project wouldn't have enough support in the marketplace, given the fact that a film like "Riddick" couldn't lure in the kids with Vin Diesel in the lead. Who is Vin Diesel anyway? :D Universal has right of first refusal on a movie, but Larson can shop it to anyone he wants to after that.

A few years ago, I thought exactly like you do right now. I believed that the fanbase was strong enough to support a huge revival. Now, I don't know if that's true or not. I want to believe that it is, but what signs are there that we are really a force to be taken seriously (opposed to just another vocal minority). Some would say that the paltry 3.5 million viewers that tuned into the miniseries was enough to kill the revival chances. That if we had supported it, the executives would have viewed the original differently. I believe that we were in a "Damned if we do, damned if we don't" situation with the mini. If we had supported it, and thus driven the ratings higher, the executives would have believed that the mini was what we really wanted. Again, no revival. Larson and DeSanto both said that the mini could do more to help than to hurt. That's why we attempted to make a home here for fans of all. Encouraging new fans to look into the old and see what was good of it. It worked. :D

I support the revival efforts, and I continue to support the original series with my hard-earned money whenever possible. However, when Universal takes a look at the "Riddick" situation, I believe that they are going to view ALL scifi projects through the same lens. What they see won't be very encouraging to the BSG fanbase. Riddick is an obscure (to the public) Sci Fi novel based story. BSG & SW have histories of mass appeal that most Sci-fi cannot equal. You simply cannot compare them. And lots of people in Hollywood know that BSG is out there.

[bsg1fan1975]

All 3 LOTR films were better than this. Much more worth the price of admission!

[BSGDAN]

"Personally, I think the demographics for a BG movie is closer to Spiderman2 then Riddick."

This comment is a joke, right?

And as for the budget for "Firefly" (or whatever it's being called now) being $50 million, you must realize that that's not very much for a scifi film. Once the various salaries (especially Joss Whedon's) are subtracted, it won't amount to very much. And once it's released upon a public that wouldn't even tune it for free, it will become clear rather quickly that "Firefly: The Movie" was a big mistake.

So, people here don't agree with me. I'm used to that. Just remember that we've been holding letter campaigns, post-a-thons, etc. for many years now (and i've been involved much longer than just about everyone on this board) and nobody has ever listened to us. They listen to jerks like Ron Moore and those that prefer his filth.

Dan

[kingfish]

This is like comparing apples and oranges. Larson owns the movie rights. If he didn't I would say we are cooked , case closed. Banking on sci fi or Universal for a BG movie whether continuation or not is dreaming imho.

[dah66]

I saw Riddick on opening weekend and enjoyed it. Still, I can understand the steep drop off. The film was certainly not the "feel good movie of the summer" and Vin Diesel is not nearly as popular as he was just a few years ago. I can see BSGDAN's point, but it's hard to say how the studio will view the failure of this film. They may just say that there was too much competition, or that Diesel is no longer a big office draw. This was after all a "star vehicle" for him. His face was plastered all over the posters and ads for this, and that's a risky choice for a star that's coming off a string of duds.

Also, money was wasted on this film. For example, the sequence with the alien dogs was visually cool, but it did nothing to further the plot. It was used mainly as a setup for one of the films few jokes ("It's an animal thing.") They could have saved millions by simply not filming this sequence.

If a studio is going to compare the potential success of a Galactica continuation to a modern film, I think it will most likely be after Serenity hits the big screen. It's basically the same setup of a cult show that is canceled after one season and then released to DVD where the sales defy industry expectations.
Then again, I could be completely wrong. Trying to think like a studio executive gives me a headache.

Dave

[jewels]

Dave! good to see you again!! Hope all is well with you.
Jewels

[BSGDAN]

The "dog sequence" in RIDDICK was (as seen in the film) an unimportant scene. However, in the novel, it had importance later on during the escape from Crematoria. I suspect we will see the rest of it on the DVD release, either as a director's cut or in the deleted scenes.

Dan

[dah66]

Dave! good to see you again!! Hope all is well with you.
Jewels

Hi Jewels!!!!

Yep, all is well. I've been pretty busy in my personal life and haven't had the time to post. Hope all is well with you!

Dave

[dah66]

The "dog sequence" in RIDDICK was (as seen in the film) an unimportant scene. However, in the novel, it had importance later on during the escape from Crematoria. I suspect we will see the rest of it on the DVD release, either as a director's cut or in the deleted scenes.

Dan

Dan,

How was the book? Is it a decent novel or just a cheap movie tie-in?

Dave

[thomas7g]

"Personally, I think the demographics for a BG movie is closer to Spiderman2 then Riddick."

This comment is a joke, right?


Of course not. Lots of people aren't thrilled by Riddick. Most who have seen it say it was decent, enjoyed it, but not great. :)

Spiderman is more family entertainment. Exciting and fun and even though it has a bad villian, its basically light hearted. Well... more so than Riddick. BG has tradtiionally light hearted even though it deals with a holocaust and tragic moments.
:D

[kingfish]

Of course not. Lots of people aren't thrilled by Riddick. Most who have seen it say it was decent, enjoyed it, but not great. :)

Spiderman is more family entertainment. Exciting and fun and even though it has a bad villian, its basically light hearted. Well... more so than Riddick. BG has tradtiionally light hearted even though it deals with a holocaust and tragic moments.
:D



On the subject of Spidey, our own Todd "The Hobb" Boyce did the special effects.

:thumbsup:

[thomas7g]

yup he did! :D

BTW- On my last post I didn't mean to come down on anyone who liked Riddick. It sounded much worse than I was thinking.

I know some very wonderful people who liked it. And Good Scifi always helps the genre! :D

[bsg1fan1975]

just because one movie is a flop doesn't mean another isn't going to be!

[kingfish]

Ace, I see you are on the way to your third basestar. :D:

[peter noble]

I honestly can't see the logic in this argument. A bad film is a bad and it doesn't matter what genre it is. The studios are always going to make films in all types of genres.

From what people are saying here, Riddick isn't a bad film and might be one of those that slips under the net, films like The Rocketeer and Buckaroo Banzai.

Besides, I think the final worldwide box office, plus the DVD and TV sales will also add to the final tally as regards profitability.

And as already stated, what's Universal got to do with the viability of a BSG film anyway? A BSG film won't be made by Universal more than likely but I'm sure there will be interest if Glen is shopping it around, as we all know he keeps his cards close to his chest.

Peter

[kingfish]

Peter where did you find that avatar? It looks like a lost scene from the series, I don't recall Apollo cooking.

[BSGDAN]

To Dah66:

The book was very good, but I wouldn't know how to compare it to other "tie-in's" since it's rare that I read them. However, it was written by Alan Dean Foster, and he's usually pretty good.


To everyone:

I feel like the point I have tried to make has been lost here. All I am saying is that sci-fi films have been taking it on the chin in the last few years. Sure, some deserve to (like, say, "Battlefield Earth"), but it seems like mainstream audiences aren't interested in sci-fi unless it has "Star Wars" in the title. I can list a whole string of films that should have been big hits that underperformed at the box office. When studio executives weigh the pros and cons of a BSG production that is a continuation of the original, they will look at the genre as a whole and the "mainstream's" response to it during the past few years. When "Star Wars" hit in 1977, it was a blessing to sci-fi fans because it gave us classics like "Alien", "Star Trek: TMP", and "Battlestar Galactica". It also gave us guilty pleasures like "Battle Beyond the Stars", "Starcrash", and "The Black Hole". However, there hasn't been a boom like that in forever. Scifi is relegated to cheap television productions (like Ron Moore's remake), and worthwhile cinematic efforts like "The Chronicles of Riddick" are passed over for other things. Whether or not Universal has anything to do with a new BSG film may or may not be important. However, no matter who the studio is, they will take into consideration things like box office for films like "Riddick", "Star Trek: Nemesis", "Alien: Resurrection", etc.

Dan

PS Whatever happened to that MGM rumor, and how will it be affected now that MGM is up for sale.

[thomas7g]

Uhmmm......

I think the studios realize that science fiction, and films similiar to that are big blockbuster material.

MATRIX

ARMAGEDDON

STAR WARS 1,2,4,5,6

STAR TREK is still THE FRANCHISE though Berman and Braga has put a hefty dent in it.

STARGATE

and along those lines

XMEN

SPIDERMAN

THE MUMMY 1,2

All these films have similiar qualities. They are all FUN. They aren't gritty and dark. They are all adventures!!!! FUN WILD TIMES in another world!!!

Add to that

JAMES BOND, INDIANA JONES, BRAVEHEART, BATMAN, SHREK, ...

Its a winning formula that the old BG fits into perfectly!

Now Peter is right, one bad film does not effect a genre. What effects movies being made is not the failures but the successes. If some film makes alot of money (and is not seen as a fluke) then every other studio will try to make a film that has the same appeal. Star Wars was so great it created Battlestar Galactica and gave new life to the dormant Star Trek franchise. It made SCIFI a viable genre for big hit movies.

[kingfish]

So true Thomas. If I recall there was also another film that wasn't expected to make it but turned into a mult-million dollar franchise.

























The TERMINATOR.

"Hasta La Vista Baby."

[Gemini1999]

However, no matter who the studio is, they will take into consideration things like box office for films like "Riddick", "Star Trek: Nemesis", "Alien: Resurrection", etc.

Dan -

I didn't miss your point - I did get it and I agree that the genre has been "taking it on the chin" at the box office. At least with the films you listed above...and I'm not saying that you have bad taste in films (I saw them all too). The one thing that they all have in common was an overabundance of expensive SFX, weak storylines and short-sighted studios spending too much money to make them. Those same studios think that the audience is made of morons with too much money, too much time and no discretion when going to the box office. They bank on name recognition to make back their money, but only turn out a mediocre product and think the audience will be satisfied anyway. It isn't the genre that's failing at the box office, its the studios that are...!

The only way we can send a message to the studios is with our wallets - spend our money on the good films and leave the bad ones alone. I know that it's asking a lot, but maybe the studios will see that certain films get the money and the recognition. If you make the mistake of being the kind of person that goes to see every Sci Fi film, good or bad, just because you like the genre - then it's the audience that loses in the end. If we teach them that we want good quality films and not just piece of crap with "Trek" or "Sci Fi" slapped on it, in the end everyone will win.

Best,
Bryan

[martok2112]

I just watched that movie yesterday, along with Spider-Man 2.

Chronicles of Riddick has a really good story. I enjoyed the story aspect of it. Some of the visuals were a little too confusing for me though. In it's effort to be a high-energy sci-fi action flick, it kinda bogs down. But I did love the story.

Apparently, it is part of a trilogy.

BTW, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban ROCKED! What a flick. I almost went and saw it for a second time, but I opted instead to see Riddick and Spidey 2. Both worth the money IMHO.

Respectfully,
Martok2112 (who still hasn't given up hope on the classic BSG, and eagerly awaits the new series)

[shiningstar]

I just watched that movie yesterday, along with Spider-Man 2.

Chronicles of Riddick has a really good story. I enjoyed the story aspect of it. Some of the visuals were a little too confusing for me though. In it's effort to be a high-energy sci-fi action flick, it kinda bogs down. But I did love the story.

Apparently, it is part of a trilogy.

BTW, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban ROCKED! What a flick. I almost went and saw it for a second time, but I opted instead to see Riddick and Spidey 2. Both worth the money IMHO.

Respectfully,
Martok2112 (who still hasn't given up hope on the classic BSG, and eagerly awaits the new series)

I just saw harry Potter and I loved it. And yes I read the book too.

I'm waiting to be able to go see Riddick and Spidey also. :D

[jewels]

Spidey 2 is the right audience for BG. And whoever picked out the preview trailers at the Loews cinema I saw it at: AWFUL choices to mate with that feature. Audience did not match up at all to what they were previewing, only 2 films out of maybe 8 looked worth going to. I could not believe how many groans of disgust I heard, and the theater I was at was using 5 screens and showing it every 1/2 hr Sunday evening--so that 7:30 show was not well attended.

[repcisg]

Ridick is an anti-hero, this charactor type is not popular at this time. Dirty Harry wouldn't play well today either.

[jewels]

Of course not. Lots of people aren't thrilled by Riddick. Most who have seen it say it was decent, enjoyed it, but not great. :)

Spiderman is more family entertainment. Exciting and fun and even though it has a bad villian, its basically light hearted. Well... more so than Riddick. BG has tradtiionally light hearted even though it deals with a holocaust and tragic moments.
:D
Spidey has the right audience too: the 5-6 yr. old boys down my street are all over the Spidey costumes. They might be young to see it in the theatres, but they aren't too young for the toys, etc. It's a movie families can see and have a real hero out of/see the sacrifice for the good of others that heroes and heroines make.

Gee, that theme sounds familiar somehow. :)

Audience = Marketing opportunity= $$$,$$$,$$$

Jewels

[thomas7g]

Ridick is an anti-hero, this charactor type is not popular at this time. Dirty Harry wouldn't play well today either.
Hmmm.... interesting. You may be right. I really don't feel in the mood to see a dark gritty film right now.

I liked Alien and Aliens. But I really am not that interested in that kind of film right now.

Because of what is happening in Iraq, and all the daily news of casualties, I think we are entering a period whcih makes us more interested in escapist kind of stuff. Fun stuff. I think a modern revival of Gilligan's Island would be a blockbuster if it was half decent (and there were more of the cast alive). If I had the power, I would bring back I Dream of Jeannie, Beverley Hilbbillies, Brady Bunch and that kind of stuff.

:salute: