Why there is hope

thomas7g · October 18th, 2004, 09:48 AM

I seem to have to repeat this alot....

Most people believe that the scifi series is the only game in town. Its not. Most people think that because there already is one Battlestar Galactica being made on TV there can't be another version.

Fans think in terms of story continuity. That these two Battlestar Galacticas conflict. Therefore you can only have one.

That is NOT how hollywood works. It works by profit and lawsuits. Can a revival make money? Can it do so without someone else suing and getting all the profits? Those are the only two questions that matter in getting the revival film made. The ONLY TWO.

IF a Battlestar Galactica revival movie hit the theaters WOULD PEOPLE SEE IT? if the answer is yes. Then the film can get made barring legal problems.

Of course Universal will not make a revival at this point. It deligitimizes its current Battlestar Galactica product. That affects profit. BUT....

But in our favor, the rights to a movie version rests largely in Glen Larson's hands. NOT UNIVERSAL.

When Disney put out the Lion King, another studio tried to rip Disney off by making The King Lion, staring Zimba. When Star Wars made billions in the 70s, ABC tried to ride their coattails by creating Battlestar Galactica.

If Tom DeSanto and Glen Larson approached a studio, say MGM with a good story about the original cast...and say the new show was hot, number 1 in the ratings, sponsers were pauing top dollar for adtime. And a line of toys and lunchboxes were selling like hotcakes. And all this money was being made. Tom and Glen point to this, Battlestar Galactica is a HOT property. It makes alot of money for Universal. LOTS OF MONEY.

Now Mr MGM exec, here is a script, here is the legal license, you can use the name BATTLESTAR GALACTICA . Fans are paying thousands of dollars to make ads begging for this!

Now do you think that MGM exec would turn down the chance to make millions out of respect for Universal's show?

thomas7g · October 18th, 2004, 09:55 AM

Now I often say we have a good chance for a film in 2008. Well.. there is!

Larson spent alot of money for the rights to do a film. HE SPENT MONEY. And he has expressed that he wants to do revival provided he believes people will want to see it.

Tom DeSanto also has expressed that he too STILL wants to do a film despite the fact that the Moore has his show.

Both has said publically that the existance of the new show is NOT a problem. It only matters if people will pay to see a revival movie.

And the reason I say 2008 is because that is the next gap we see in their schedules. Right now they both are contracted to different productions. And they can't make `BG right now. But they can in a few years.

So in 2008 we will know if they are serious. But all signs looks good.

peter noble · October 18th, 2004, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thomas7g

Tom DeSanto also has expressed that he too STILL wants to do a film despite the fact that the Moore has his show.

Actually Thomas, it's my understanding from some information that was passed on to me recently that DeSanto still wants to do BSG on TV, but obviously can't until the new show has run its course.

Best,

Peter

Dawg · October 18th, 2004, 10:41 AM

And I'll add to that to say that the more positive noise we can make in support of the idea of a continuation movie, the easier it will be for Larson and DeSanto to get it made. That's what the CFF is all about, after all - to alert the non-internet fan (and studio suits) that there is an audience waiting for this movie.

We must get away from the instant gratification demand that's been foisted on us by MTV and the quick-cut, sound-bite-driven evening news. Even if everything was lined up now it would be at least two years before we saw anything, and they certainly wouldn't announce it this soon, anyway.

The CFF goal is to awaken the sleeping giant. We've known from the start that any fruits of our efforts would take years to ripen, but now is the time to start making that positive noise.

Keep writing letters. Keep the dream alive.

I am
Dawg

kingfish · October 18th, 2004, 12:34 PM

Another continuation option:

Direct to DVD:

I have thought of this and it is feasible. Look at the movie Sniper with Tom Berenger and Billy Zane. I was in Blockbusters and saw Sniper 3 on the shelf. I saw Sniper 2 which was also direct to dvd and it was pretty good.

<Walks toward the airlock>

kingfish · October 18th, 2004, 02:31 PM

2008:

Way too long to wait, 06 is better.

2)Glen and Tom approach the studio and show that the Moore version is a hit, studio tells them that Moore's formula works so why gamble on the original concept. Glen and Tom walk out unable to convince the studio. We are FRACKED.

kingfish · October 18th, 2004, 02:44 PM

3) How they can MAKE a DIFFERENCE ie prove a point:

A) Larson can show that sales for the original BG are through the roof. Proof is positive in the DVD sales.

Larson can point to the CFF and the ad. The Ad shows what we want clearly and boldly to the point.

C) Buying anything OS strengthens our cause. Trading cards, comics, Hatch's Books, ect

jewels · October 18th, 2004, 02:45 PM

Paul. For 2006 we'd already have to at least greenlighted and most likely in pre-production. Which is exactly where Transformers is at the moment with a 2006 release date.

We are not fracked. Someone who loves the original series because he created it, owns the movie rights. He likes to make money and wants to make a movie.

It's part of that "there is no bad publicity" thing. We could be helped by the attention the new series generates. Remember, Hollywood works like no other rational place on the planet. Tom's theory about them shopping the movie rights as the new series does OK is not off base. Trek had 2 timelines going simultaneously (movies & TNG, movies & DS9, TNG movies & ST:V)

kingfish · October 18th, 2004, 02:48 PM

Jewels all of the Trek shows were continuations of Roddenberry's original premise.

kingfish · October 18th, 2004, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jewels

Paul. For 2006 we'd already have to at least greenlighted and most likely in pre-production. Which is exactly where Transformers is at the moment with a 2006 release date.

We are not fracked. Someone who loves the original series because he created it, owns the movie rights. He likes to make money and wants to make a movie.

It's part of that "there is no bad publicity" thing. We could be helped by the attention the new series generates. Remember, Hollywood works like no other rational place on the planet. Tom's theory about them shopping the movie rights as the new series does OK is not off base. Trek had 2 timelines going simultaneously (movies & TNG, movies & DS9, TNG movies & ST:V)

The only way the new BG could have helped our cause is if it was true remake with Glen at the helm. This isn't a Glen Larson creation. It is BG in LOGO only. If they copy Larson in any way, Larson receives a check, intellectual rights.

jewels · October 18th, 2004, 03:24 PM

You are thinking like someone not from Hollywood.

You kind of have to turn the equation on it's head. It has more to do with Brand Name than with plot content or characters or storylines. Hollywood thinks only in terms of "can we market it to get a good profit out of it?" Solid brand name=solid profit.

Larson owns movie rights to the Brand Name. If RDM series does well: more of Brand Name will be desired by Hollywood. The BRAND will be perceived as a moneymaker. Any movie of RDM's series will be a Universal property (unless they dump it like Fox did to Firefly/Serenity). Larson can sell something based on the classic Brand Name story to any studio he wants to work with. Hollywood wants more Brand Name and Larson can give it to them.

If RDM's series flops, Larson can wait a bit (Entertainment Execs with their short attention spans and all) then walk in with his idea and run with it. The wait gives him time to finish his Knight Rider movie, also.

You know, 2008 is a very logical number, the more I think about it. Everybody's free (Larson and DeSanto) by late 2006, early 2007. New series will either thrive wonderfully or die an uneventful death by then (just looking objectively--network track records and such).

It would be an absolute scream to me if "BG classic continued" was the "sleeper, summer breakout blockbuster" on the 30th anniversary of it's Canadian theatrical release. That would just kick.

Jewels

BST · October 18th, 2004, 03:29 PM

Paul,

Quit trying to be rational about this, we're talking about movie studios, remember?

Just think of it like this - Moore "borrowed" from the original - mainly, the name. Moore's show becomes a hit. Moore's show generates a following.....during the next couple of years....

Then, at your neighborhood movie studio, in walks Larson and DeSanto, pitching the idea of a theater film, "borrowing" new-found recognition from Moore's show, having proof of sustained interest with DVD sales and CFF ad campaign, having SOLE rights to the theater film production, i.e., no messy litigation with Universal. (Larson's past successes and DeSanto's current successes will give them at least some consideration.)

Turnabout is fair play, my friend.

All's fair in love, war, and the movies!!

>> oops, Jewels slipped in that post while I was typing this. Great minds think alike, eh?

Sci-Fi · October 18th, 2004, 05:05 PM

Off Topic:

thomas7g...wasn't Disney (The Lion King) sued by whoever own the rights from Tezuka/ Mushi Productions (Jungle Emperor aka Kimba the White Lion, first shown in 1965) over copyrights? And Disney sued to stop the showing of the Tezuka Productions' 1997 Jungle Emperor Leo movie at the 1998 Toronto FantAsia Film Festival?
http://www.kimbawlion.com/rant2.htm

kingfish · October 18th, 2004, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jewels

You are thinking like someone not from Hollywood.

You kind of have to turn the equation on it's head. It has more to do with Brand Name than with plot content or characters or storylines. Hollywood thinks only in terms of "can we market it to get a good profit out of it?" Solid brand name=solid profit.

Larson owns movie rights to the Brand Name. If RDM series does well: more of Brand Name will be desired by Hollywood. The BRAND will be perceived as a moneymaker. Any movie of RDM's series will be a Universal property (unless they dump it like Fox did to Firefly/Serenity). Larson can sell something based on the classic Brand Name story to any studio he wants to work with. Hollywood wants more Brand Name and Larson can give it to them.

If RDM's series flops, Larson can wait a bit (Entertainment Execs with their short attention spans and all) then walk in with his idea and run with it. The wait gives him time to finish his Knight Rider movie, also.

You know, 2008 is a very logical number, the more I think about it. Everybody's free (Larson and DeSanto) by late 2006, early 2007. New series will either thrive wonderfully or die an uneventful death by then (just looking objectively--network track records and such).

It would be an absolute scream to me if "BG classic continued" was the "sleeper, summer breakout blockbuster" on the 30th anniversary of it's Canadian theatrical release. That would just kick.

Jewels

Jewels you are right, I am not from Hollywood. What i do know is $$$$$$. Hollywood wants a return on investment for the greenbacks it shells out. There had to be a demand for our product. When the original Star Wars was released there was a demand for sci fi products and Larson invented Battlestar Galactica a now sleeping giant. The giant can awaken. No matter what we are told about os the show is a hit and still is. Look at the dvd sales. I said that earlier but people will not spend $100.00 for a set out of curiosity. The ones buying os sets are FANS whether active online or not. The fans are out there somewhere beyond the heavens. Excuse the pun. I have talked to people who don't even know about the online clubs.

thomas7g · October 18th, 2004, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sci-Fi

Off Topic:

thomas7g...wasn't Disney (The Lion King) sued by whoever own the rights from Tezuka/ Mushi Productions (Jungle Emperor aka Kimba the White Lion, first shown in 1965) over copyrights? And Disney sued to stop the showing of the Tezuka Productions' 1997 Jungle Emperor Leo movie at the 1998 Toronto FantAsia Film Festival?
http://www.kimbawlion.com/rant2.htm

I was a big fan of kimba!!!!

I also had friends who worded at Disney at the time and soon after worked there myself. I remember that fight. I remember my fellow coworkers were SHOCKED when I showed them my old videotapes of the original Kimba.

And then they just didn't want me to ever talk about it again. They loved the Lion King, and it hurt them too much to be reminded it wasn't an original idea.

NO. There was no PUBLIC lawsuit. If anything happened it was completely out of the publics eye. Even the company had no info on this. I do know that the family of the late Osamu Tezuka issued a public statement basically saying that they took the Lion King's use of the "Jungle Taitei" (Jungle Emporer) plotline as praise and flattery.

I assume there was a peaceful lucrative SECRET settlement made.

Thanks for reminding me of Kimba!

Who the one who lives in deepest darkest Africa?
Who's the one who brought the Jungle fame?

thomas7g · October 18th, 2004, 08:37 PM

I think most people can't grasp the concept that there are can be two different Battlestar Galactica productions at the same time.

That is an ethical limitation. Studios aren't ethical. Only legally prudent.

Larson and DeSanto STATED that there can be a movie AND a tv show. The only barrier is that enough people will still want the old show revived. Or will they have moved on.

jewels · October 18th, 2004, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thomas7g

I think most people can't grasp the concept that there are can be two different Battlestar Galactica productions at the same time.

That is an ethical limitation. Studios aren't ethical. Only legally prudent.

Larson and DeSanto STATED that there can be a movie AND a tv show. The only barrier is that enough people will still want the old show revived. Or will they have moved on.

The only movement I've noticed is that those people who like the new show, are generally ones that are also gung-ho on the original Battlestar Galactica. Hmmm.
Kingfish, I still see lots of profit motivation for Larson & whatever studio has the get-go to back it.