THE CHRONICLES OF RIDDICK & why we won't see a continuation of BSG - Page 2

dah66 · June 30th, 2004, 03:07 PM

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 · June 30th, 2004, 08:22 PM

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

BSGDAN · July 1st, 2004, 04:57 AM

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 · July 1st, 2004, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jewels

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 · July 1st, 2004, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

Dan,

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

Dave

thomas7g · July 1st, 2004, 04:16 PM

Quote:

"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.

kingfish · July 1st, 2004, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thomas7g

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.

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

thomas7g · July 2nd, 2004, 01:18 AM

yup he did!

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!

bsg1fan1975 · July 2nd, 2004, 03:22 AM

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

kingfish · July 2nd, 2004, 03:36 PM

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

:

peter noble · July 3rd, 2004, 02:52 AM

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 · July 3rd, 2004, 06:39 AM

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

BSGDAN · July 3rd, 2004, 08:21 AM

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 · July 3rd, 2004, 03:46 PM

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 · July 3rd, 2004, 05:16 PM

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 · July 3rd, 2004, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BSGDAN

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
________
HEAD SHOP

martok2112 · July 6th, 2004, 01:12 PM

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 · July 6th, 2004, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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)

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.

jewels · July 6th, 2004, 08:40 PM

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 · July 6th, 2004, 09:28 PM

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

jewels · July 6th, 2004, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thomas7g

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.

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 · July 7th, 2004, 01:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by repcisg

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.