PDA

View Full Version : Movies not to threatre, just DVD? :( lame



HarSins
January 17th, 2007, 10:10 AM
Woulda been better in theatre :(

TheNarims
January 17th, 2007, 10:16 AM
It would not really have been better. It is better for Stargate to find out if there are enough, who want the movies and then go for a theatrical release with another movie.

Also here in my country there are not many people going to the cinema anymore, so it might be very risky to bring a movie into the theatres, otherwise Stargate maybe ends up like Star Trek: Nemesis.

Ganthet Jr.
January 17th, 2007, 10:40 AM
Not so lame, actually. If the big extra bucks were paid to get the films to the silver screen, SO much money would be lost. Even if every Gater went to see it, there'd be even more who would see the trailer and shrug it off. Films only do go theatrically if they appeal to the masses.

TheNarims
January 17th, 2007, 10:50 AM
There would also be many who are going to download it, has it has happened to the Bond movie, which has been released lately.
And if the DVD movies are released everywhere at the same time, there maybe won't be so many downloading it.

nihela
January 17th, 2007, 10:59 AM
There would also be many who are going to download it, has it has happened to the Bond movie, which has been released lately.
And if the DVD movies are released everywhere at the same time, there maybe won't be so many downloading it.

I can't believe you're that gullable. IMHO you'll have to wait a couple of days, a week tops and it will be all over the net...

Metonic
January 17th, 2007, 11:02 AM
It would not really have been better. It is better for Stargate to find out if there are enough, who want the movies and then go for a theatrical release with another movie.

Also here in my country there are not many people going to the cinema anymore, so it might be very risky to bring a movie into the theatres, otherwise Stargate maybe ends up like Star Trek: Nemesis.

NEMESIS WAS MY FAVORITE ST MOVIE!... I mean, they coulda did better with the villian. but other than that... I LOVED IT! God.. now i gotta watch it. Seriously.. data dieing brings a tear to my eye lol

Theater release in the US is better. Also, direct to DVD movies dont do as well as theaters.This is because people believe them to be low budget and not worthy of company backing it. Very rare is it that a movie gets big without going to the big screen. By bringing it to the big screen you give it to a larger audience. Once it failes then you step it down to Direct DVD.. like the american pie series.

Daniel Jackson
January 17th, 2007, 11:03 AM
Why does it matter if it's being released in theaters or on DVD? The method of release has nothing to do with the quallity of the story being told.
A theatrical release would not end up like Star Trek: Nemesis. That movie bombed, because it was a bad movie released between Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings. The movie didn't stand a chance! It had nothing to do with a lack of interest.
People are going to download regardless of weather it's released in theaters or on DVD.

Instead of whining about how it's not a theatrical release, why don't you be happy that we're getting two two-hour movies this fall? :jack:

Jackie
January 17th, 2007, 11:10 AM
Woulda been better in theatre :(

It should be shown on Skiffy as a event movie and then they should release the DVD.

I can't see outting it in the theater when viewership to the theater is down from a decade ago anyways. More people are staying hom and renting, buying, or downloading the movies now.

Watching it in a "home theater' would be grand--it would provide the effect that a theater gives off.

TheNarims
January 17th, 2007, 12:03 PM
I think it should be released first on DVD and then shown on Scifi, because MGM is probably going to make more money, when doing this.

kirmit
January 17th, 2007, 01:11 PM
I know it sounds selfish but I really wouldn't want these movies aired on sci-fi ever, after the complete disrespect theyve shown stargate, they don't deserve to gain money from airing the movies.

TheNarims
January 17th, 2007, 01:18 PM
I agree with you and I don't think it sounds selfish. After SciFi has done to Stargate they don't deserve to get any episodes or movies at all.

Truskawka
January 17th, 2007, 01:19 PM
I know it sounds selfish but I really wouldn't want these movies aired on sci-fi ever, after the complete disrespect theyve shown stargate, they don't deserve to gain money from airing the movies.

Agree completely. Skiffy should be THE LAST channel on MGM's list of potential broadcasters.

jenks
January 17th, 2007, 01:23 PM
I can't believe you're that gullable. IMHO you'll have to wait a couple of days, a week tops and it will be all over the net...

How is that being gullable? Studies have shown that less people resort to downloading something they want to see when it is released at the same time everywhere. Ofcourse there would still be loads of people downloading, but there would be less than if the movie was released in the US a few months before everywhere else.

Agent_Dark
January 17th, 2007, 03:59 PM
DVDs > Theatre these days.

Metonic
January 17th, 2007, 04:26 PM
Instead of whining about how it's not a theatrical release, why don't you be happy that we're getting two two-hour movies this fall? :jack:

..one two hour movie. they shoot them one at a time. They only mentioned release and production on the first.


Also... I'd rather have 20 43 to 45 minute episodes.

I would go to see it in theater.... but it might take time for me to buy it on DVD. Im a theater person. Where I pay attention to each and every detail because I wont see it again for months, theres no interuptions, ect

Jackie
January 17th, 2007, 04:28 PM
I know it sounds selfish but I really wouldn't want these movies aired on sci-fi ever, after the complete disrespect theyve shown stargate, they don't deserve to gain money from airing the movies.

True, skiffy was the first network that came to mind.

I would hope it would be shown on any cable or broadcast station and then DVD. Showtime would be excellant since they had SG-1 first.

Daniel Jackson
January 17th, 2007, 04:37 PM
..one two hour movie. they shoot them one at a time. They only mentioned release and production on the first.
Two two-hour movies, and they mentioned titles, the plot, and production info. for both movies.


Also... I'd rather have 20 43 to 45 minute episodes.
The show is cancelled, whut anyone wants is irelavent, because it won't happen. MGM didn't have to greenlight the movies, ya know. Don't be spoiled and take comfort in that SG-1 will continue as a film series.


I would go to see it in theater.... but it might take time for me to buy it on DVD. Im a theater person. Where I pay attention to each and every detail because I wont see it again for months, theres no interuptions, ect
Hmm... $6 to see it once or $10-15 to own it. I'd rather own it.

Metonic
January 17th, 2007, 04:38 PM
air it on FOX! or.... the CW....LIFE TIME! wooo... not g4. no scifi.

knowing G4 they'll have a "teal'c ticker" and live chat the whole time ruining the movie just like they ruin star trek

RepliHawk
January 17th, 2007, 05:52 PM
I think it should be released first on DVD and then shown on Scifi, because MGM is probably going to make more money, when doing this.

Sounds good to me

maylet
January 17th, 2007, 06:37 PM
At least we have to movies, it would be worse if we didn't have it

Metonic
January 17th, 2007, 08:24 PM
Two two-hour movies, and they mentioned titles, the plot, and production info. for both movies.
"The first film will enter pre-production in March and begin filming in April, with an expected DVD release in the fall." I read that article... but i seen i nthe othero ne it said, the FILMS are expected to be released next fall.. But. If they release movies that close... SG-1 just became power rangers with monthly movies.... Needs ATLEAST 6 months... It's movie time not show time.



The show is cancelled, whut anyone wants is irelavent, because it won't happen. MGM didn't have to greenlight the movies, ya know. Don't be spoiled and take comfort in that SG-1 will continue as a film series.
If MGM would of went to lets say... Theater i wouldnt mind. I just dont want SG-1 to end up like power rangers or dragonballz or any of thsoe other tv shows that release movies every other day on DVD. And I would trust a series of movies that are put on bigscreen before i would direct tod dvd sitting next to the olsen twins.



Hmm... $6 to see it once or $10-15 to own it. I'd rather own it.
$8
AND YES I WOULD PAY. There is nothing better than the movies. You watch it at home and a number of interuptions occur, u watch it at the movies, and if its as good as i hope, itll keep people to occupied to make interuptions. If its real good itll draw viewers in to watch the reruns or even atlantis..Hell, it would bring viewers into watch another one. And another and another and another. It would truely be at james bonds level as MGM wishes.

Daniel Jackson
January 17th, 2007, 10:51 PM
"The first film will enter pre-production in March and begin filming in April, with an expected DVD release in the fall." I read that article... but i seen i nthe othero ne it said, the FILMS are expected to be released next fall.. But. If they release movies that close... SG-1 just became power rangers with monthly movies.... Needs ATLEAST 6 months... It's movie time not show time.
MGM will not be producing monthly movies, and there are only two Power Rangers movies. I don't know where you're getting your information from. There will be two SG-1 movies released this fall, likely spaced apart by a month or two. If these two movies sell well, there will be a third movie in 2008.


If MGM would of went to lets say... Theater i wouldnt mind. I just dont want SG-1 to end up like power rangers or dragonballz or any of thsoe other tv shows that release movies every other day on DVD. And I would trust a series of movies that are put on bigscreen before i would direct tod dvd sitting next to the olsen twins.
As I said, Power Rangers only has two movies, and they are theatrical releases. I can't speak for the other show. Why on Earth does the method of distribution matter?! The plan is to have two movies out this year and then one, new movie out each year starting next year. It's also been said that future SG-1 movies may be promoted to big budget theatrical films. In any event, the upcoming pair of SG-1 movies will not be under the girly children's movie section with the Olsen Twins. It would be in the sci-fi section with movies that had a theatrical release.


$8
AND YES I WOULD PAY. There is nothing better than the movies. You watch it at home and a number of interuptions occur, u watch it at the movies, and if its as good as i hope, itll keep people to occupied to make interuptions. If its real good itll draw viewers in to watch the reruns or even atlantis..Hell, it would bring viewers into watch another one. And another and another and another. It would truely be at james bonds level as MGM wishes.
Why pay $8 to see it once when for a few more dollars you can own the movie? :confused: I agree that the movie theater is a lot of fun, but I wouldn't say it's better than seeing it at home. It's different. Going to the movie theater is an outing you can do with your family and friends. It's a thrill ride, and there are no interuptions. Then again, watching a movie at home is convenient and you have the option to pause for bathroom and snack breaks. When I watch a movie at home, there are only ever three types of interuptions: snacks, bathroom, or telephone. None of those bother me, because I just press the pause button.

You need to realise that Stargate is a television franchise, thus a movie is risky. You also need to realise that times have changed. The movies have become very expensive and illegal downloading has become very easy. Making a big budget movie is a gamble, because a lot of people would rather just wait for the DVD. If that happens, the movie is a bomb and the studio looses money. They can recover via DVD sales, but that pretty much kills the chance of having any kind of sequel. That is why MGM is doing direct-to-video. While I was hoping for a theatrical release myself, this is the next best thing and logically the best coarse of action.

The casual viewer doesn't care about Stargate beyond the random rerun on TV. Fans of Atlantis who don't care about SG-1 aren't going to go see an SG-1 movie just because it has Stargate in the title. An SG-1 movie is going to draw in two crowds: SG-1 fans and people who like science-fiction. Unfortunately, that audience is shrinking so direct-to-video is a necessary move.

Franklyn Blaze
January 18th, 2007, 12:49 AM
NEMESIS WAS MY FAVORITE ST MOVIE!... I mean, they coulda did better with the villian. but other than that... I LOVED IT! God.. now i gotta watch it. Seriously.. data dieing brings a tear to my eye lol

I'm going so OT here. Nemesis? I hated it. After they lost Data I was so depressed. I complained to the manager to give me my money back for such an awful experience, and he did. I scapled it to a friend and went an bought ice cream.

I know I'll get the dvd's, preorder if possible. Hopefully they will be in HD DVD or blu ray so the graphics will look awesome on my flat screen. I want to get my mony's worth.

prion
January 18th, 2007, 04:58 AM
There's no way MGm is giong to spend the money to release a TV movie to a theatrical release. Financially, it's not very wise. While SG has a core audience, it's not a LARGE audience. SERENITY did poorly in theaters but wellin DVD. It might show on TV though first (the SG movies).