Charybdis wrote:Err... Thanksgiving is the 4th Thursday, not 3rd!
Meh. I just know that every four years or so it is on my brother's birthday.
Seriously, I just mis-typed the number.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 52 guests
Re: Updates from David | |
---|---|
by Weird Harold » Sun Jul 03, 2016 9:10 pm | |
Weird Harold
Posts: 4478
|
Meh. I just know that every four years or so it is on my brother's birthday. Seriously, I just mis-typed the number. .
. . Answers! I got lots of answers! (Now if I could just find the right questions.) |
Top |
Re: Updates from David | |
---|---|
by isaac_newton » Mon Jul 04, 2016 5:57 am | |
isaac_newton
Posts: 1182
|
Hah - I was hoping that's what it ment So not summer/sutumn 2017 then |
Top |
Re: Updates from David | |
---|---|
by Eagleeye » Mon Jul 04, 2016 8:32 am | |
Eagleeye
Posts: 750
|
Did David mentioned something about Snippets from "Shadow of Victory" - or the possible e-ARC publication date?
Oh, but thanks for the Update, nonetheless! |
Top |
Re: Updates from David | |
---|---|
by Theemile » Mon Jul 04, 2016 9:46 am | |
Theemile
Posts: 5241
|
Thank you, Duckk!
******
RFC said "refitting a Beowulfan SD to Manticoran standards would be just as difficult as refitting a standard SLN SD to those standards. In other words, it would be cheaper and faster to build new ships." |
Top |
Re: Updates from David | |
---|---|
by Duckk » Mon Jul 04, 2016 12:25 pm | |
Duckk
Posts: 4200
|
Snippets and EARC won't begin until he finishes his rewrite. Expect at least another month. -------------------------
Shields at 50%, taunting at 100%! - Tom Pope |
Top |
Re: Updates from David | |
---|---|
by justdave » Mon Jul 04, 2016 4:35 pm | |
justdave
Posts: 127
|
Good to hear that the MWW and family are well enough to allow him to 'crunch'! |
Top |
Re: Updates from David | |
---|---|
by WeberFan » Mon Jul 04, 2016 7:00 pm | |
WeberFan
Posts: 374
|
Duckk: Thanks a whole bunch for the update . While I think we'd all like David's "work product" sooner rather than later, I definitely understand and empathize! The more important thing for me is that David and Sharon are doing well and his creative juices are flowing smoothly. |
Top |
Re: Updates from David | |
---|---|
by JohnRoth » Tue Jul 05, 2016 9:33 pm | |
JohnRoth
Posts: 2438
|
Thanks for the update!
So, early Aghast at the earliest. |
Top |
Re: Updates from David | |
---|---|
by Vince » Tue Jul 05, 2016 9:52 pm | |
Vince
Posts: 1574
|
So are you aghast that it's August at the earliest? -------------------------------------------------------------
History does not repeat itself so much as it echoes. |
Top |
Re: Updates from David | |
---|---|
by OrlandoNative » Wed Jul 06, 2016 12:14 am | |
OrlandoNative
Posts: 361
|
That seems strange, considering that many, though not all, SciFi movies and series did quite well. The Star Trek franchise basically made Paramount; and the original series has morphed into what, 7 movies, and 5 TV series? Not to mention royalties from books and toys? There are about a dozen book series, and hundreds of books by dozens of authors, all of which are licensed by Paramount. Interestingly enough, I seem to remember that the original Star Trek series had a budget not to exceed $100k per episode, and many cost much less - even though a lot of the special effects were "cutting edge" and expensive at the time. That's about $2m for a whole year. How many individual movies lately have cost so little? 2001 (made at about the same time frame) had a $12m budget, and has grossed over $190m since then world-wide. I'd say that's a fairly good return on the original investment. Star Wars is similar. Look at the run of the Stargate series - 10 years on TV for the original series, 6 or 7 for the Atlantis variant. For that matter, lately we've had the Twilight Saga, Hunger Games, and Divergent series movies. None of which lost money for their makers. I've seen many more comedy and "reality" series die an early death. I don't think it's the *studios*. Universal, Columbia, etc have all had scifi and fantasy releases on a relatively consistent basis. It's not the big screen, it's the *small* one. Which is strange, since the cost of a single movie is often more than the cost for a whole year of a TV series. For some reason, only a few networks tend to offer that kind of programming. Syfy (obviously); and, to some extent, Showtime. Note they're cable, not broadcast. Occasionally another network will air something as well, but most are stuck in those unrealistic "reality" shows, comedies, and police and medical dramas, with soaps and game shows during the day. It's the network TV executives that seem the most biased. The fact is that people *like* to dream. The allure of the "what if". People see reality, comedy, and drama every day of their lives. After a while it gets stale. "Yield to temptation, it may not pass your way again."
|
Top |