TV Series instead of Films

If they go this route the should consider Manticore Rising since the series is really the rise of Manticore from a single system to an Empire. Single system, Alliance, then Empire.

Just a thought, back to Dragon Age Inquisition for me... at least until we get another book from the Mad Wizard.

George J. Smith wrote:

dreamrider wrote:Snip

...but I am shocked, shocked and saddened, that you have never heard of:
Stargate: SG1
Stargate: Atlantis
Stargate: Universe
Firefly, or
(the best parallel) Battlestar Galctica (redux)

Mmmm...

SG1 10 Seasons
Atlantis 5 Seasons
Universe 2 Seasons
Firefly 1 Season

is there a pattern developing here?

T&R
GJS

So, we're ignoring BSG because it doesn't fit the hypothesis?

dr

Yeah, a TV series would have to go the Game Of Thrones route or else it'd be entering Star Trek and Stargate territory. I would simply cal it Honor Harrington, as there really is no single descriptive title from the books that can be used to encompass all of them as "Game Of Thrones" does. Using "Manticore" in the title would be a mistake, as no one outside the fan base would know what it means, and that's a bad idea. The show would be about Honor and her adventures, so why not use the main character's name as the title.

I can see the first two books plus all of the pre-OBS stories provinding enough material for at least 2, maybe 3 seasons depending on how long they are. If the show proves popular enough and lasts that long, then you can move into the Haven War, which has plenty of enough material to last the rest of the show's run. Alternatively, you can do OBS and HOTQ in the first season, then move into the Haven war, which means you could use the one book title that fits--War Of Honor for the series title.

Incidentally, I believe Stargate: SG1 was cancelled by Showtime after the 5th season, but SciFI scooped it up to produce a 6th season, then furthur ones. The producers actually thought the show was going to end after the 7th, then 8th, then 9th season, but SciFI kept renewing it. Then in the 10th season the producers thought the series woud simply keep on going, but it turned out to be the final one.

Stargate: Atlantis was pushed aside for Stargate: Universe since it wasn't all grimdark like nBSG, which SG:U was supposed to be.

dreamrider wrote:
So, we're ignoring BSG because it doesn't fit the hypothesis?

dr

Well I believe BSG had 2 bites at the cherry, and to be honest, I watched some of the 1st bite but due to being overseas and unable to watch the 2nd bite (except when I was on leave) I didn't get into it and I'm not sure which of the 2 had the most episodes, so I couldn't say if it fit the curve or not.

61Cygni wrote:Yeah, a TV series would have to go the Game Of Thrones route or else it'd be entering Star Trek and Stargate territory. I would simply cal it Honor Harrington, as there really is no single descriptive title from the books that can be used to encompass all of them as "Game Of Thrones" does. Using "Manticore" in the title would be a mistake, as no one outside the fan base would know what it means, and that's a bad idea. The show would be about Honor and her adventures, so why not use the main character's name as the title.
snip...

Forester called his series "Hornblower"
Would "Harrington" suffice??

Story wise a TV series would make more sense than isolated movies.

BUT.

Science Fiction and Fantasy (unless of a more urban/contemporary settings) have ALWAYS struggled as TV series.
It is my firm belief that this has a lot to do with the costumes and settings that look too cheap, and only the most passionate followers are willing/able to look past that (I personally cannot).

Sure, SF and fantasy are not "mainstream", yet when you think about movies with ADEQUATE production values, you'll see the opposite happens: think about Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Avatar!
People will flock to see such movies, even if they're not "their genre", because at the end of the day they can provide true escapism for everyone.

This belief is reinforced by the only real known (to me) counter-example: Game of Thrones.
It's the first Fantasy TV-series where production values rival those of big-budgeted movies, the costumes look great and, oh!:
everyone watches it.
Sure, there's the mature themes, the sex and the Zeitgeist effect, but I'm convinced that with the cheesy-looking sets and costumes of the fantasy TV series of old it would have bombed or just found the usual smallish, niche-sized following.

TV series of this kind really do have a hard time, because as cheesy and cheap as they often look, they probably **STILL** cost a lot more than a regular urban setting based show.

In the end, I'd probably be a bit disappointed if this goes the TV route: yeah it could work, and it could work GREAT, but it'd need a GoT-level treatment or better (minus the unnecessary sex, thanks) and I honestly fear it wouldn't get it.
With a movie you have the chance to go "all out" in a single shot and hope to hit audiences at the right time.
Still plenty of unknown variables, but it'd like these odds better, personally.

George J. Smith wrote:Forester called his series "Hornblower"
Would "Harrington" suffice??

T&R
GJS

Technically, I don't think Forrester called his series anything at all. They didn't really name series a hundred years ago.

Dr. Arroway wrote:This belief is reinforced by the only real known (to me) counter-example: Game of Thrones.
It's the first Fantasy TV-series where production values rival those of big-budgeted movies, the costumes look great and, oh!:
everyone watches it.
Sure, there's the mature themes, the sex and the Zeitgeist effect, but I'm convinced that with the cheesy-looking sets and costumes of the fantasy TV series of old it would have bombed or just found the usual smallish, niche-sized following.

Not everyone. I have not seen a single episode, nor have I watched any trailers/previews/parodies/anything else associated with GoT. I don't plan to ever watch it.

Haven't read the books either, and also have no plans to ever do so.

Edit: Oh, and the only Stargate I've ever seen is the original movie. OTOH, I watched both seasons of the original BSG back when they first aired, and only watched BSG(reboot) after all four seasons had aired.

Dr. Arroway wrote:This belief is reinforced by the only real known (to me) counter-example: Game of Thrones.
It's the first Fantasy TV-series where production values rival those of big-budgeted movies, the costumes look great and, oh!:
everyone watches it.
Sure, there's the mature themes, the sex and the Zeitgeist effect, but I'm convinced that with the cheesy-looking sets and costumes of the fantasy TV series of old it would have bombed or just found the usual smallish, niche-sized following.

I too have never watched GoT. There is a series on network television that is fantasy, and seems to have reasonable good costumes sets - "Once Upon a Time" on ABC. Interesting plot lines and characters - now in its 3rd or 4th season.

Well, the Limited Series format usually also entails a larger budget per episode, but Dr. Arroway’s point is well taken. I would much rather see no TV series than a poorly costumed (and let’s not forget poorly cut, egat) budget version.

Basically I was thinking along the line of Evergreen branching out inot the TV series business with this project as their only/flagship product line. Else stamping up the budget for a second movie would be the way to go.

As for “Game of Thorns” (a “Once Upon a Tile” place, right?):
So ok, yes, I have been watching (the first 3 seasons anyway), but with only two likeable & one love-or-leave character (non-spoiler: the events of “the Red Wedding” didn’t change that count for me), I mostly followed it out of “I have started watching, might as well finish” rather than anything more.

During early season 4, the channel provider fell out of my standard package, and I haven’t been assed to find it online/buy a larger package … which I guess makes this one a “love-or-leave” series for me: not quite as bleh as “How much I should bother why you met their mother”, but GoT still has a few seasons to spare to make up the difference.

fallsfromtrees wrote:

Dr. Arroway wrote:This belief is reinforced by the only real known (to me) counter-example: Game of Thrones.
It's the first Fantasy TV-series where production values rival those of big-budgeted movies, the costumes look great and, oh!:
everyone watches it.
Sure, there's the mature themes, the sex and the Zeitgeist effect, but I'm convinced that with the cheesy-looking sets and costumes of the fantasy TV series of old it would have bombed or just found the usual smallish, niche-sized following.

I too have never watched GoT. There is a series on network television that is fantasy, and seems to have reasonable good costumes sets - "Once Upon a Time" on ABC. Interesting plot lines and characters - now in its 3rd or 4th season.