Updates from David

kzt wrote:It's easy to show how a media property is a sure winner if you only look at the winners. And the people that run studios only invest in things they think are winners (or are low cost and ideologically correct). It turns out that they are not always right.

Let me remind you of some of the other SF/F films out there that you have somehow failed to mention:

John Carter lost $122 million dollars.
The most well known story of Japan, the 47 Ronin, was turned via the magic of Hollywood into a $150 million crater.
Green Lantern lost $90 million
Jupiter Ascending lost $87 million.
Treasure Planet lost $85 million.
Supernova lost $82 million.
Tomorrowland lost $76 million
Battlefield Earth lost $73 million
Red Planet lost $63 million
Sphere lost $61 million

None of this mentioned movies are worth to be mentioned.
Battlefield Earth for example was shown in German TV within a series 'Worst Movies ever'
Whoever invested into this movies, the losses are well earned.

I often read about 'RFC' what is this standing for?

Hans wrote:<snip>

I often read about 'RFC' what is this standing for?

RFC = RunsForCelery = David Weber's name when he posts here. He hasn't posted much lately though, since he's very busy with writing.

MaxxQ wrote:

Hans wrote:<snip>

I often read about 'RFC' what is this standing for?

RFC = RunsForCelery = David Weber's name when he posts here. He hasn't posted much lately though, since he's very busy with writing.

Thanks

Hans wrote:

kzt wrote:It's easy to show how a media property is a sure winner if you only look at the winners. And the people that run studios only invest in things they think are winners (or are low cost and ideologically correct). It turns out that they are not always right.

Let me remind you of some of the other SF/F films out there that you have somehow failed to mention:

John Carter lost $122 million dollars.
The most well known story of Japan, the 47 Ronin, was turned via the magic of Hollywood into a $150 million crater.
Green Lantern lost $90 million
Jupiter Ascending lost $87 million.
Treasure Planet lost $85 million.
Supernova lost $82 million.
Tomorrowland lost $76 million
Battlefield Earth lost $73 million
Red Planet lost $63 million
Sphere lost $61 million

None of this mentioned movies are worth to be mentioned.
Battlefield Earth for example was shown in German TV within a series 'Worst Movies ever'
Whoever invested into this movies, the losses are well earned.

I often read about 'RFC' what is this standing for?

Battlefield Earth was so bad that one critic speculated that certain scenes looked like someone had urinated on the print and that it wasn't a bad idea.

IIRC the movie was bankrolled by John Travolta and his buddies at Scientology.

saber964 wrote:Battlefield Earth was so bad that one critic speculated that certain scenes looked like someone had urinated on the print and that it wasn't a bad idea.

IIRC the movie was bankrolled by John Travolta and his buddies at Scientology.

That just sounds... weird. I thought that the 'official' Scientology folks did everything they could not to remind people that LRH wrote science fiction that read suspiciously like church 'doctrine'.

I was most disappointed by John Carter being so bad. I've re-read the covers off of those books for decades and was really hoping for a good visual rendition, especially given the budget.

Characters win over audiences more than any magic or tech, and the Honorverse has some good ones, but it would still be hard to translate it into a money-making movie or series.

aairfccha wrote:

MaxxQ wrote:IIRC, BSGs final season was a bit hit or miss due to having to be more or less made up as they went, because they thought they weren't going to be renewed.

Don't forget B5 Crusade - cancelled before the first broadcast, not even the first season was completed.

Interestingly enough, allegedly the B5 creator had it's future mapped out. I can't remember exactly for how many years of shows, but at least 5. However, after season 4 episode 22, they seemed to lose track. Either they skipped over episodes that would have made it a smoother story line, or else just dropped the outline, I'm not sure.

Crusade had some good episodes, but others seemed "out of place". Especially "Strangers from down the street"; which was an obvious takeoff on the X-files.

I think it might have done better if it had been better "positioned".

mhicks wrote:Safehold is easy sets, pick a castle and old time stuff that is already used now. reuse sets for Game of Thrones, Loard of the Rings, and Outlander... the list grows, boats from the Pirates of the Caribbean. No need for big space ships and futuristic stuff once humanity makes it to Safehold.

You're assuming all those series/movies etc were made by the same studio, and you can get them interested in producing the new series. If one is Universal, another MGM, etc, you're not going to be able to combine the sets.

Also, while GoT is still in production, I'm not sure there are any more LotR movies still left to make. If not, the sets have probably been broken down and disposed of. Maybe some costumes and such are still available, but the sets themselves may be gone.

Lunan wrote:but much harder to find 7 and a half foot tall lepricans i would think (david has said its an irish acsent)

You really think most giants and dwarves in todays movies are really the height they appear to be?

Most of that is camera angle, background, and clever mixing.

A decade or 2 ago, it might have been easier to actually hire some actors based on the size of the character, but today computer processing time is cheaper than salaries.

kzt wrote:Well, of course they screwed up. They didn't go into this planning on losing their shirts, however it still worked out that way. And they keep this in mind when instead they go for reboots of old successful movies or sequels to successful movies instead of something new.

Unfortunately, it seems to me that "reboots" of "old successful movies" rarely seem to be any better than the original they're "rebooting". Usually they're worse.

Let's face it. Usually what makes or breaks a movie are the actors, the story line, and how "realistic" - or at least believable - it is when all put together. If you change one or more of those ingredients, it's really a whole new movie, not a "reboot". People *remember* movies. Even younger folks today can enjoy 2001, the first 3 Star Wars films, or just about any other show or movie - they're almost all available *somewhere* on the net, even if cable hasn't brought them back in years.

There have been a few exceptions. For example, I thought the remake of the Bond flick Casino Royale was better than the original.

That brings up another point. Actor changing. While I liked many of the Bond films, having so many different actors playing the title role over the years certainly didn't inspire any sense of continuity. While one could point to Dr Who as a series where the main character gets replaced as well, at least there's a built in explanation as to how and why he "changes" that most other series of show episodes or movies lack.

saber964 wrote:
Battlefield Earth was so bad that one critic speculated that certain scenes looked like someone had urinated on the print and that it wasn't a bad idea.

IIRC the movie was bankrolled by John Travolta and his buddies at Scientology.

I thought the book was fairly good, though longer than it probably should have been.

But the movie adaptation sucked; again, mostly, because it didn't really follow the book story line closely enough and include what really made the story *interesting*.

All those "executives" really need to do for any movie based on a book is to read the original story, compare it to the script, and see how closely it at least follows the original story line. If it's too different, what made the book a good seller probably isn't going to help make the movie one.