PDA

View Full Version : Did anyone think "This could have been shown in theaters"?



Niddle
March 17th, 2008, 12:25 AM
I saw AoT for the first time on Saturday, and sat there looking at the screen, taking it all in, and it hit me "They really COULD have released this as a real movie."

Did anyone else get that feeling, that it would have made it if it'd come out first that way, then DVD later?

Crichiel
March 17th, 2008, 11:39 AM
I saw AoT for the first time on Saturday, and sat there looking at the screen, taking it all in, and it hit me "They really COULD have released this as a real movie."

Did anyone else get that feeling, that it would have made it if it'd come out first that way, then DVD later?

I'm not a hater here. I LOVE the movie. But it wouldn't have worked in a theatre. It would have looked awesome on the big screen, but not many people outside of the Stargate world would have understood a thing that was going on! :S

1138
March 17th, 2008, 06:03 PM
They'd have to rework it to give a lot more context. The replicator subplot (which I loved) probably would have to be taken out to give time to explain the Ori threat and all the needed mythology.

Goauld System Lord
May 28th, 2008, 02:50 PM
That is exactly what I was thinking as well when I first watched it!! It would of looked awesome on the big screen. Even though Continuum is straight-to-DVD, we can hold out hope for the third movie...

:docianime09: :prioranime01:

g.o.d
May 29th, 2008, 06:26 AM
no way!

TBA
May 29th, 2008, 06:27 AM
It'd have looked awesome, but only the Stargate fans would've come and watched it. The other people will probably 'meh' the movie. So, nope.

KJ Gould
June 2nd, 2008, 01:25 PM
No, I don't think so. It was high quality for made-for-TV, but I didn't think it was good enough for theaters.

s09119
June 2nd, 2008, 01:29 PM
Are you kidding me? The effects were nowhere-near theatrical quality, the acting was surprisingly so-so in most non-starring cases, and the storyline was completely unoriginal and rushed.

No way.

Mitchell82
June 8th, 2008, 06:31 PM
Are you kidding me? The effects were nowhere-near theatrical quality, the acting was surprisingly so-so in most non-starring cases, and the storyline was completely unoriginal and rushed.

No way.
The movie was way better than that IMO though I agree it never would have worked in a theatrical setting.

Skydiver
June 9th, 2008, 04:29 AM
it wouldn't have worked. There are too few stargate fans to, even at 10-12 dollars a head, give them the sales they'd need to recoup the money they'd spend getting it mastered to film.

That's usually what 'makes or breaks' a film, the cost of getting it into the theaters is so high that they have to sell millions and millions of tickets to break even. Stargate doesn't have that kind of a following. Heck, star trek barely does anymore.

direct to dvd is the most profitable way to go

Mitchell82
June 9th, 2008, 11:29 PM
it wouldn't have worked. There are too few stargate fans to, even at 10-12 dollars a head, give them the sales they'd need to recoup the money they'd spend getting it mastered to film.

That's usually what 'makes or breaks' a film, the cost of getting it into the theaters is so high that they have to sell millions and millions of tickets to break even. Stargate doesn't have that kind of a following. Heck, star trek barely does anymore.

direct to dvd is the most profitable way to go
Not to mention the budget would be in anwhere from 40-130 million compared to what it was for AOT. They would never make that back not enough fans to justify the expense.

Drax
June 10th, 2008, 12:35 AM
They couldn't put the movie in its current form into cinemas. It wouldn't need an overhaul, they'd have to start over from scratch. For example, a more direct threat to earth, deeper character development, more grand and self-contained action set-pieces.

And one of my favourite missed opportunities would be for the Replicators to actually make it onto the Ori ships, but the IOA plan backfires as Adria takes control of them and uses them as a tool for the destruction of the "non-believers" on Earth or elsewhere. Everything you throw at her, she just deflects it back at you ten times worse. Make her the ultimate unbeatable femme fatale, dammit!!

RepliVeggie
June 15th, 2008, 01:53 AM
I saw AoT for the first time on Saturday, and sat there looking at the screen, taking it all in, and it hit me "They really COULD have released this as a real movie."

Did anyone else get that feeling, that it would have made it if it'd come out first that way, then DVD later?

It wouldn't have worked for one reason. Toooooooo much back story most people wouldn't know. Besides that it would have needed some space battles to make it a movie. With those 2 things it would have made a good theatre movie.

Arga
June 20th, 2008, 06:04 AM
Re: Did anyone think "This could have been shown in theaters"?

I had this feeling during the opening credits... then, no.

Nikki
June 22nd, 2008, 04:00 PM
No.

Just...No.

P-90_177
June 22nd, 2008, 04:04 PM
i love the film. but it's a made for TV movie. no way it would make any money in theatres.

Rac80
June 22nd, 2008, 05:26 PM
as it was nope! if they had gotten rid of the (lame) replicator B-story and made it all about the Ori...yep!

silly sally
June 23rd, 2008, 05:28 AM
Nope.

Dr. Michael Benjamin
June 29th, 2008, 04:00 PM
NO.
I agree the opening sequence was magnificent. The use of the score from the original film was a nice touch. However the way things progressed it seemed as though the producers used nearly all of the $7 million budget shooting that openind scene. The first two minutes of the film held as much excitement and promise as big as the mountains and forests we saw. Nearly right away it falls apart and gives way to great disaapointment. Things quickly settled down into an all-to-familiar and frustrating theme SG-1 picked up in its last two seasons-very lightweight story and campy sci-fi effects.
I won't pick AoT apart again, my review is available elsewhere in the AoT forum.
This film has no business anywhere near a movie theater. If the PTB did make the mistake of releasing it in theaters (which couldn't happen due to the reasons others have already pointed out previously) no doubt AoT would take its place among landmark motion picture achievements as Howard the Duck and Waterworld.
Since the business end of releasing the film in theaters was prohibitive for AoT I will say again the best option for any Stargate release for domestic and international theater chains is simple. MGM should allow Mr. Devlin to return to the story arc he envisioned and bring back Hollywood notables Russell and Spader for the Stargate sequel. Many might disagree but no matter what your opinion may be I'm certain any Devlin sequel would do worlds better in theaters than anything along the lines of AoT.
Also, while not exactly the hottest names in the business right now, Kurt Russell and James Spader are still heavy hitters. They would be a bigger draw for non-Gaters into theaters than would Richard Andersen or Amanda Tapping. Most people outside of the fandom of SG-1 would be left wondering why they should go to a movie where McGuyver fights aliens. This is not a knock on R.A. but Hollywood is all about business, profits, etc. The backstory of any further SG-1 release would be too involved for any casual moviegoer to understand or even care about. Furthermore SG-1 does not have the cast necessary to get people into theaters to watch.
Again, a long answer to a simple question. No. At no time did I think AoT could have been shown in theaters. Thanks. :daniel:

jenks
June 30th, 2008, 01:45 AM
Kurt Russell is still a big name, James Spader isn't, and never was.

redrama9
June 30th, 2008, 02:42 AM
No!

Dr. Michael Benjamin
July 2nd, 2008, 05:19 PM
Kurt Russell is still a big name, James Spader isn't, and never was.


Yes you do have a point. Some older viewers might remember James Spader from his work in films of the late 1980s but his career has been in decline for several years no question. He did give the world a fantastic interpretation of the Daniel Jackson character and I still get a laugh out of his character in the film. Seeing a character like Spader's Jackson interact with Russell's O'Neil is so enjoyable. The chemistry between the two worked so well. The authenticity of the relationship is a wonderful and often underrated strong point of the film.
However, while you do make a valid point I would counter with the argument that Mr. Spader is not be an A-list draw but he is a bigger name than anyone on SG-1. I'm sure you'd agree with me that he is a more recognizable actor than Michael Shanks, Amanda Tapping, or Christopher Judge. While Michael Shanks was, in my opinion, by far the finest actor on SG-1 he does not have the name draw of James Spader. He may in a few years if he finds his way into a few major films but as of yet he's still a minor TV actor with fantastic talent (I wish he'd get his big break already!).
Incidentally jenks, this isn't the first time we've engaged on the Stargate film issue. It's very enjoyable to participate in such lively discussions with you. We may not see eye to eye but its very clear to me that we both share a love of Stargate. Thanks.

Drax
July 7th, 2008, 08:39 PM
James Spader is awesome in Boston Legal as Alan Shore. Many younger audiences would recognise him from that.

Denny Crane.