PDA

View Full Version : Why must there be a theatrical release?



Daniel Jackson
September 13th, 2008, 09:24 AM
What's wrong with DVD releases? Sure, we could have big-budget mainstream feature films like Star Trek has had. However, what's wrong with these DVD movies? Sure, they may look like a two-hour episode in terms of production values. Aside from that, they seem epic enough for me. Really, the only difference between a two or three-parter and a movie is going to be the budget and not being split up into two or three parts. There is a benefit to having DVD movies, though. Let's take Star Trek for example. It took two or three years before we'd see a new movie with four years between the 9th and 10th movies. We'll ignore the seven-year gap between 10 and 11 as there were reasons for that. Looking at the SG movies... we got two in one year with a third and maybe fourth coming out next year. If they were doing theatrical movies, we'd have only had one and might not see another until 2010 or 2011. Do you still want a theatrical movie?

jenks
September 13th, 2008, 10:23 AM
The more money there is the more room the writers have to flex their creative muscles, not to mention higher production values and the chance to hire great actors instead of good ones. TPTB in my opinion have proven they can tell great stories, but they're still hampered by their budget, so at least in their case I'm confident that more money would translate into a higher quality product. I'd like to see what they could come up with, though I wouldn't want them to go with a venture that might risk the franchise...

Bytor
September 13th, 2008, 10:25 AM
What's wrong with DVD releases? Sure, we could have big-budget mainstream feature films like Star Trek has had. However, what's wrong with these DVD movies? Sure, they may look like a two-hour episode in terms of production values. Aside from that, they seem epic enough for me. Really, the only difference between a two or three-parter and a movie is going to be the budget and not being split up into two or three parts. There is a benefit to having DVD movies, though. Let's take Star Trek for example. It took two or three years before we'd see a new movie with four years between the 9th and 10th movies. We'll ignore the seven-year gap between 10 and 11 as there were reasons for that. Looking at the SG movies... we got two in one year with a third and maybe fourth coming out next year. If they were doing theatrical movies, we'd have only had one and might not see another until 2010 or 2011. Do you still want a theatrical movie?

I would definitely like to see what they can do with a high budget. Atleast once before the end of the Franchise.

Also, You are assuming that a theatrical release means they won't make any more DVD movies.

Ltcolshepjumper
September 13th, 2008, 10:28 AM
I would like the writers to have a complex plot before they get any sort of higher budget. As long as the plots are simple, the amount of money will have no effect. A longer running time would be good. And again, enough with the OTT one-dimensional plots and bad guys. That was the problem with SGA, AoT, and Continuum.

Daniel Jackson
September 13th, 2008, 10:29 AM
The more money there is the more room the writers have to flex their creative muscles
There was plenty of creativity in the two movies. How will paying the writers more make them more creative? Unless you mean getting feature film writers?


not to mention higher production values and the chance to hire great actors instead of good ones.
I agree on these two points. By actors, I assume you mean supporting roles? The movies keep bringing back characters from the show, so you'd have a feature film filled with TV actors. :S


TPTB in my opinion have proven they can tell great stories, but they're still hampered by their budget
How so? Both SG-1 movies look awesome.


I'd like to see what they could come up with, though I wouldn't want them to go with a venture that might risk the franchise...
It might not risk the franchise, but it would increase the wait between movies from months to years. :S

Bytor
September 13th, 2008, 11:00 AM
They admitted that the budget hampered them. For example, in Continuum. They wanted to show buildings getting blown up around Washington when the Gould ships were in orbit.. but all we got was decent short shot of the ships in orbit hitting a digitized ground.... I would have liked to have seen mass destruction at that point.

Bytor
September 13th, 2008, 11:03 AM
It might not risk the franchise, but it would increase the wait between movies from months to years. :S

again you are assuming that a theatrical release would mean no new DVD's movies

Daniel Jackson
September 13th, 2008, 11:04 AM
They admitted that the budget hampered them. For example, in Continuum. They wanted to show buildings getting blown up around Washington when the Gould ships were in orbit.. but all we got was decent short shot of the ships in orbit hitting a digitized ground.... I would have liked to have seen mass destruction at that point.
While that'd be cool to see, that hardly hurt the movie. Seeing massive ships in orbit firing weapons down toward the surface was dramatic enough. We don't have to see actual cities blowing up. Showing explosions from a distance is just as effective. Did you see Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines?
At the end, when we see Judgment Day... we see nuclear weapons blowing up cities. We see explosions from orbit or from a distance, and that's it.
Exploding buildings aren't that exciting unless the building has played a role in the story. ;)

again you are assuming that a theatrical release would mean no new DVD's movies
You're assuming they can do both.

Daniel Jackson
September 13th, 2008, 11:04 AM
double post

GSRgategirl923
September 13th, 2008, 11:18 AM
What's wrong with DVD releases? Sure, we could have big-budget mainstream feature films like Star Trek has had. However, what's wrong with these DVD movies? Sure, they may look like a two-hour episode in terms of production values. Aside from that, they seem epic enough for me. Really, the only difference between a two or three-parter and a movie is going to be the budget and not being split up into two or three parts. There is a benefit to having DVD movies, though. Let's take Star Trek for example. It took two or three years before we'd see a new movie with four years between the 9th and 10th movies. We'll ignore the seven-year gap between 10 and 11 as there were reasons for that. Looking at the SG movies... we got two in one year with a third and maybe fourth coming out next year. If they were doing theatrical movies, we'd have only had one and might not see another until 2010 or 2011. Do you still want a theatrical movie?


Why can't we have a theatrical release and DVD movies in between? i mean they obviosly don't take nearly as much time and they could do them in between the theatrical releases. :D

Bytor
September 13th, 2008, 11:28 AM
You're assuming they can do both.

no, im not. Im just saying it's a possibility for you to think about, since you are the one that made this thread implying that they can't.

Bytor
September 13th, 2008, 11:30 AM
While that'd be cool to see, that hardly hurt the movie.

Like I said.. this is just 1 example. There are probably many other things they wanted to do. Maybe even each as minor as you think this one is but if you add it all up, the whole would be much greater than the sum of its parts ;)

jenks
September 13th, 2008, 11:34 AM
There was plenty of creativity in the two movies. How will paying the writers more make them more creative? Unless you mean getting feature film writers?

More money won't make the writers more creative, but it will allow them to follow through with ideas they otherwise wouldn't have been able to due to the lack of cash. I've listened to a few commentaries, and there are loads of instances in which the writers have come up with great ideas but have had to change them due to the cost, it'd be nice to see what they'd create if they didn't need to worry about money IMO.


I agree on these two points. By actors, I assume you mean supporting roles? The movies keep bringing back characters from the show, so you'd have a feature film filled with TV actors. :S

Yeah, although I wouldn't be against a Stargate feature that was part of existing canon that used an entirely new cast (like Universe was originally going to be).


How so? Both SG-1 movies look awesome.

I disagree. The sets and special effects are no better than the show, and no where near as good as what you'd get from a big budget movie, not to mention the shooting locations. I'd like to see a planet that doesn't look like Earth, let alone Vancouver.



It might not risk the franchise, but it would increase the wait between movies from months to years. :S

Not necessarily, they could still do DVD movies in-between.

GSRgategirl923
September 13th, 2008, 11:42 AM
no, im not. Im just saying it's a possibility for you to think about, since you are the one that made this thread implying that they can't.

I'm siding with you on this :)

moomin81
September 13th, 2008, 11:48 AM
But they are making straight to DVD movies arent they or have I missed something? I dont think they intend for any of the future movies to be theatrical ones from what I've read.

GSRgategirl923
September 13th, 2008, 12:05 PM
But they are making straight to DVD movies arent they or have I missed something? I dont think they intend for any of the future movies to be theatrical ones from what I've read.

Y'know i don't rmember hearing anything either ... where did you get this idea from ?

katikatnik
September 14th, 2008, 07:35 AM
again you are assuming that a theatrical release would mean no new DVD's movies

Ugh, you believe that they would do a theatrical release AND the DVD movies? O.o They are not able to do two shows at once. They are not able to do two movies for SG-1 and two for SGA at once. But you think that they would be able to do a blockbuster AND the DVD movies? Well, I would love to see that.

In my opinion, it would be either a blockbuster or the DVDs. They wouldn't go both ways because it would be too expensive and they just need to get as much money as possible out of a low cost product. And if they decided to throw a lot of money into a blockbuster, they would cut all other costs. Besides, why would they risk an oversaturation of the market?

I for one, would rather have one or two movies a year than to wait years for one movie. From my experience, huge and cinema aired doesn't always mean better. If I should choose, I would love to see SGU as a regular series, SGA as a miniseries and SG-1 as DVD movies.

Bytor
September 14th, 2008, 08:59 AM
Ugh, you believe that they would do a theatrical release AND the DVD movies? O.o They are not able to do two shows at once. They are not able to do two movies for SG-1 and two for SGA at once. But you think that they would be able to do a blockbuster AND the DVD movies? Well, I would love to see that.

In my opinion, it would be either a blockbuster or the DVDs. They wouldn't go both ways because it would be too expensive and they just need to get as much money as possible out of a low cost product. And if they decided to throw a lot of money into a blockbuster, they would cut all other costs. Besides, why would they risk an oversaturation of the market?

I for one, would rather have one or two movies a year than to wait years for one movie. From my experience, huge and cinema aired doesn't always mean better. If I should choose, I would love to see SGU as a regular series, SGA as a miniseries and SG-1 as DVD movies.

are you ok? C'mon... Filming one theater movie and one DVD movie in a year --- or even a DVD movie the year after the theater release is NOT the same as filming two series at the same time... 2 hours of TV per week.....

katikatnik
September 14th, 2008, 09:39 AM
are you ok? C'mon... Filming one theater movie and one DVD movie in a year --- or even a DVD movie the year after the theater release is NOT the same as filming two series at the same time... 2 hours of TV per week.....

It's not about time, it's about money. A theatrical release would cost MUCH more than the 7 mil. a dvd movie costs. It would cost at least what the show does - 40 mil. and up, if it should be any good. So yeah, I am okay, thank you for asking.

Blistna
September 14th, 2008, 10:04 AM
Ugh, you believe that they would do a theatrical release AND the DVD movies? O.o They are not able to do two shows at once. They are not able to do two movies for SG-1 and two for SGA at once. But you think that they would be able to do a blockbuster AND the DVD movies? Well, I would love to see that.

In my opinion, it would be either a blockbuster or the DVDs. They wouldn't go both ways because it would be too expensive and they just need to get as much money as possible out of a low cost product. And if they decided to throw a lot of money into a blockbuster, they would cut all other costs. Besides, why would they risk an oversaturation of the market?

I for one, would rather have one or two movies a year than to wait years for one movie. From my experience, huge and cinema aired doesn't always mean better. If I should choose, I would love to see SGU as a regular series, SGA as a miniseries and SG-1 as DVD movies.

I would rather have one or two dvd movies, one big screen movie every two years (give or take), and one tv show and hopefully some games thrown into the mix. And the reason they couldn't do two tv shows and two movies a year was because of time, not only because of money. You have to make ten movies (basically, there are 20 episodes, each episode is about 40 minuts, add two of those and your get about 80-90 minutes...). Thats a lot of writing, a lot of filming, a lot of re-filming, a lot of money. If I had to guess, it probably cost about 20-30 million. Thats 60 million a year for two tv shows. How much did those DVD movies cost? Under 10 million. If I remember correctly. You know how much it would cost to bring Atlantis to the big screen? Probably 10-20 million. A low-budget film like House by the producers of X-Men (based on the bestselling novel by Ted Dekker) cost less then 10 million dollars, and they are bringing it to 450 theaters. However the special effects and stuff, it would be about 10-20 million for a big screen release in about 450 theaters. Sure, it wouldn't be anything like James Bond, but if that movie did well the next could afford a bigger budget and more big screens.

In closing, its not only a budget issue, but more of a time issue. It's easier to make a two-hour script then it is to make 40 one-hour scripts. It's also way cheaper to make a two-hour film then it is to make 40 scripts. So, all I'm asking and other fans is this: one tv show (about 20 episodes), one or two dvd releases of SG-1, and a big screen Stargate movie (I think Atlantis is the best bet for this happening). So basically, spend about 37 million dollars. Actually, 27 million, considering the big-screen release wouldn't be every year.


Also Daniel, we have gotten a new harry potter movie every year (basically) and we did get a Lord of the Rings movie every year. We would have the hobbit by now if it wasn't for legal issues. So really...it's very possible we could get two dvd movies every year, a big screen release every two or three years, and a tv show and hopefully some games to go with all of this. I'm not assuming they could, but at the same time, I'm not assuming they can't, unlike some people around here.

Daniel Jackson
September 14th, 2008, 10:17 AM
Are you seriously comparing Stargate to Harry Potter? :confused: Everyone knows about Harry Potter. When I talk to friends (in real life) about Stargate, I get a blank stare. "Stargate, what's that?"

DeRoest
September 14th, 2008, 10:23 AM
DVD movies feel like big t.v. episodes. Wouldn't every one like stargate to feel grand and epic like the original movie again? Come on, Ra [and the Jaffa]from the movie, is probably the only good villain in all of stargate. IMO

Bytor
September 14th, 2008, 10:34 AM
It's not about time, it's about money. A theatrical release would cost MUCH more than the 7 mil. a dvd movie costs. It would cost at least what the show does - 40 mil. and up, if it should be any good. So yeah, I am okay, thank you for asking.

as long as the movies don't lose money its about time.

if the movies suck.. well thats a whole other issue.

katikatnik
September 14th, 2008, 10:59 AM
I very much doubt that a theatrical version of an Atlantis movie or any other SG movie for that matter would cost only 10 mil. dollars. The DVD version cost 7 mil. The X-File movie, as it was posted elsewhere, cost 30 mil. and that wasn't a film where a huge part is special effects only - space battles, cities, all added. And blockbusters aren't filmed within three weeks like the DVD movies. The Stargate movie that started it all cost 55 mil. dollars and that was almost 15 years ago. Try to convert it to what dollar is now, even without the millions for the stars. A DVD movie doesn't have to be as flashy as a theatrical one because it doesn't have to be - it's mostly for already existing fans, the blockbusters need to draw in casual, unaware viewers.


as long as the movies don't lose money its about time.

if the movies suck.. well thats a whole other issue.

Yes, it probably wouldn't lose money but the DVD movie don't lose money either - within 4 weeks, the cost was back. Why should they risk and put huge money into something that might not turn out as profitable as they thought when the DVD movies bring them money enough? It's all about risk and profit.

Besides, I would rather have two DVD movies than one in the cinema. 4 hours of entertainment vs. 2 flashy hours... I would take the first option any time.

Blistna
September 14th, 2008, 01:20 PM
Are you seriously comparing Stargate to Harry Potter? :confused: Everyone knows about Harry Potter. When I talk to friends (in real life) about Stargate, I get a blank stare. "Stargate, what's that?"

I didn't compare them. But you were saying it took a long time to make movies, and it doesn't have to. You pointed to Star Trek, but it could be they were taking there time; who knows. I was pointing to Harry Potter because we did get a movie every year. About every year.

But what about my other points?


DVD movies feel like big t.v. episodes.

Yes, and I actually feel a little cheated waiting so long for a 90 minute episode. Thats what these things feel like.


I very much doubt that a theatrical version of an Atlantis movie or any other SG movie for that matter would cost only 10 mil. dollars. The DVD version cost 7 mil. The X-File movie, as it was posted elsewhere, cost 30 mil. and that wasn't a film where a huge part is special effects only - space battles, cities, all added. And blockbusters aren't filmed within three weeks like the DVD movies. The Stargate movie that started it all cost 55 mil. dollars and that was almost 15 years ago. Try to convert it to what dollar is now, even without the millions for the stars. A DVD movie doesn't have to be as flashy as a theatrical one because it doesn't have to be - it's mostly for already existing fans, the blockbusters need to draw in casual, unaware viewers.

That movie was a blockbuster. Look, all i am asking for is a movie that is longer then 90 minutes, the same or better quaility as the current dvd movies, and to be able to go see it at the theatre. And I'm not even asking for it to be in every theatre. Maybe 450? And I said 10-20 million, because with something like this you do want to advertise in all the right places. So go ahead, doubt that a low-budget film can happen. But I can point to two that had less then a 10 million dollar budget, and were released in 450 theatres. Thr3e and House. And there are tons of others that do the same.

Oh, and a small budget film like that would test the waters. You could make enough money to pay for the film with DVD and theatre release, come home happy, and see if you want to go for a bigger budget.

But as it turns out, may not even matter because there's some sort of legal issue. There can't be a big screen movie until thaat legal issue is fixed. Oh well!

Bytor
September 14th, 2008, 02:16 PM
The Stargate movie that started it all cost 55 mil. dollars and that was almost 15 years ago. Try to convert it to what dollar is now, even without the millions for the stars.
.


Special effects technology was horrible back then compared to now. Now they can do more work and way better work for a fraction of the price. Also they had to pay big bucks for "movie" actors like Kurt Russell, that is money right out the window.

Movies make it to theaters with alot less than 55mil these days.. and they are a hell of alot better than the crappy original stargate movie.

I wouldn't call it a risk unless they plan to spend hundreds of millions on the movie like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings. Hell they throw more than 7 million out there to make crappy movies no-one has ever heard of. Spending 25 mil on stargate theatrical movie a risk? hell atleast they know they have a good fanbase to start with. Both AoT and Continnum probably made more this in world wide sales of the DVD alone.

Aricosaur
September 14th, 2008, 08:14 PM
I am very happy with the DVD movies. I am loving the "2-part episode" feeling so far. I mean, c'mon, we have show that we love that were cancelled but we still get more of our shows, with the same actors and crew.

I would like longer stories yet I don't want extra flotsom to be included just to fill in a longer run time. 2 hours would be great but not if the middle part is boring.



Spending 25 mil on stargate theatrical movie a risk? hell atleast they know they have a good fanbase to start with.
Serenity.

Bytor
September 15th, 2008, 03:24 AM
Serenity.

Firefly had 1 season.. if that. Stargate had a theatrical movie to start with.....10 seasons... a spinoff of 5 seasons.. and 2 successfull DVD movies.

so yea..... Serenity.

GSRgategirl923
September 15th, 2008, 12:53 PM
Wow i cant belive someone was caomparing stargate to harry potter.

-Shakes Head-

Blistna
September 15th, 2008, 04:07 PM
Special effects technology was horrible back then compared to now. Now they can do more work and way better work for a fraction of the price. Also they had to pay big bucks for "movie" actors like Kurt Russell, that is money right out the window.

Movies make it to theaters with alot less than 55mil these days.. and they are a hell of alot better than the crappy original stargate movie.

I wouldn't call it a risk unless they plan to spend hundreds of millions on the movie like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings. Hell they throw more than 7 million out there to make crappy movies no-one has ever heard of. Spending 25 mil on stargate theatrical movie a risk? hell atleast they know they have a good fanbase to start with. Both AoT and Continnum probably made more this in world wide sales of the DVD alone.

Couldn't say it better myself.



Serenity.

Exactly. :-)


Wow i cant belive someone was caomparing stargate to harry potter.

-Shakes Head-

No! No! and NO! I was not comparing SG to Harry Potter. Here is what I said:



Also Daniel, we have gotten a new harry potter movie every year (basically) and we did get a Lord of the Rings movie every year. We would have the hobbit by now if it wasn't for legal issues. So really...it's very possible we could get two dvd movies every year, a big screen release every two or three years, and a tv show and hopefully some games to go with all of this. I'm not assuming they could, but at the same time, I'm not assuming they can't, unlike some people around here.

I said that in reply to this comment:


What's wrong with DVD releases? Sure, we could have big-budget mainstream feature films like Star Trek has had. However, what's wrong with these DVD movies? Sure, they may look like a two-hour episode in terms of production values. Aside from that, they seem epic enough for me. Really, the only difference between a two or three-parter and a movie is going to be the budget and not being split up into two or three parts. There is a benefit to having DVD movies, though. Let's take Star Trek for example. It took two or three years before we'd see a new movie with four years between the 9th and 10th movies. We'll ignore the seven-year gap between 10 and 11 as there were reasons for that. Looking at the SG movies... we got two in one year with a third and maybe fourth coming out next year. If they were doing theatrical movies, we'd have only had one and might not see another until 2010 or 2011. Do you still want a theatrical movie?

See? I wasn't comparing at all, I was just saying it doesn't take more then a year to make a movie. They do it all the time, and I noted Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings as an example. Of course LotR's they made all together, but even still. It wasn't comparing, just using an example.

kymeric
September 18th, 2008, 10:32 AM
What's wrong with DVD releases? Sure, we could have big-budget mainstream feature films like Star Trek has had. However, what's wrong with these DVD movies? Sure, they may look like a two-hour episode in terms of production values. Aside from that, they seem epic enough for me. Really, the only difference between a two or three-parter and a movie is going to be the budget and not being split up into two or three parts. There is a benefit to having DVD movies, though. Let's take Star Trek for example. It took two or three years before we'd see a new movie with four years between the 9th and 10th movies. We'll ignore the seven-year gap between 10 and 11 as there were reasons for that. Looking at the SG movies... we got two in one year with a third and maybe fourth coming out next year. If they were doing theatrical movies, we'd have only had one and might not see another until 2010 or 2011. Do you still want a theatrical movie?

Theatratical costs more, has less creative control and one bomb can sink the whole franchise forever. Ddvd has a smaller budget but they can tell the story THEY want to with minimal interference, theres less risk of a bomb. Really i think that the only benefit of a big theatre sg film would be a huge special effects budget, but thats not important to sg, flashy aliens and PEWPEW are only the background for CHARACTERS and the storys on sg.

The effects on continuum were beautiful, but what made the film was sg1 and their reactions to the situation they were in and the relationships between them.

NKDietrich
September 19th, 2008, 05:37 AM
You think a TV series that gets 1.0-1.4 ratings has enough of a fan base to support a feature film? Ehhhh. I have my doubts. I don't think they could ever make a profitable movie out of it.

That's probably why we haven't seen it.

jenks
September 19th, 2008, 06:32 AM
You think a TV series that gets 1.0-1.4 ratings has enough of a fan base to support a feature film? Ehhhh. I have my doubts. I don't think they could ever make a profitable movie out of it.

That's probably why we haven't seen it.

No TV series has enough of a fan base to support a feature film. Any TV to movie adaptation would have to aim for a wider audience, either that or be sufficiently low budget so that it didn't matter.

Mac Jackson
September 19th, 2008, 07:19 AM
Hi, I've been enjoying all thoughts on this subject. I personally have never valued Theatrical movies over a TV series. So many tend to look at Theatrical movies as the be all-end all, must strive to get there top of the success mountain. My thought is: Who are we trying to impress and at what cost? I understand the desire to reach a wide audience but any 2 hour movie only stays in the spot light for the time it's in the theaters and then only in the hearts of the fans like us who came from the TV show and would love any release(at this point) equally on DVD first or through the big screen.

It use to be said that big screen movies were better from a money stand point because it was less time/work over all to make and a bigger profit. We now know that not to be true anymore since most revenue comes from the DVDs after the movie is done. Besides, look what good movies do...they try to have a TV series. :)

For me I think a series is more important the a big screen movie. You get more time to develop characters, storylines and mythology plus a happy loyal audience who get their fix week after week. Movies have a 2 hour window to get all the plot and characters right. If done right (and so few movies are) it only leaves you wanting more...like wanting a TV series.

My suggestion in the case of our beloved Stargate francise: Instead of TPTB trying to get some script to the big screen for bragging rights they should continue to make DVD movies and focus on 2 things that would equal what a Big Screen movie would do: excellent scripts that satisfy the viewer and better marketing. If the marketing is done so enough new people see it to create a buzz and then hear what a great movie it is they'll be more likely to rent/buy it and add to the buzz.
Overall it should be about the craft not the check.
That's my thought anyway. :jack_new_anime18:
Thank you,

Mike1989
September 19th, 2008, 08:39 AM
Was the original stargate movie a theatrical release?

Because I'm sure that it was and did pretty well. So as long as the movie is well written, can have the non-stargate fans not wondering what is going on, and of course not alienate the stargate fans or tv series watchers. Then I'd be all for going to watch Stargate on the big screen.

Jumper_One
September 19th, 2008, 10:34 AM
You think a TV series that gets 1.0-1.4 ratings has enough of a fan base to support a feature film? Ehhhh. I have my doubts. I don't think they could ever make a profitable movie out of it.

That's probably why we haven't seen it.

1.1-1.4 for live+ sd ;)

NKDietrich
September 19th, 2008, 01:25 PM
No TV series has enough of a fan base to support a feature film. Any TV to movie adaptation would have to aim for a wider audience, either that or be sufficiently low budget so that it didn't matter.

Yeah, and they'd have to bring in better known actors. I love our Stargate actors but they don't have the box office draw that is necessary for a big budget movie. And a small budget movie would just be a less cost-efficient DVD movie. Look at the recent X-Files movie. It only cost $30 million to make, but it only grossed about $25 million worldwide, so they have to wait for the DVD release for it to be profitable anyway. They could have made the same profits with a lot less overhead by just going straight-to-DVD.


Was the original stargate movie a theatrical release?

Because I'm sure that it was and did pretty well. So as long as the movie is well written, can have the non-stargate fans not wondering what is going on, and of course not alienate the stargate fans or tv series watchers. Then I'd be all for going to watch Stargate on the big screen.

It didn't have any expectations to live up to. It had the benefit of being a fresh idea. It also had Kurt Russell, who at the time was a big box office draw. Just doing an SG-1 theatrical release would bomb terribly, or just be a glorified DVD movie and follow the path of the X-Files as I mentioned above.

Platschu
September 29th, 2008, 01:16 PM
I think they could make a third SG-1 theatrical movie from 20-30 million dollar. If they spend only 10-15 million for giving bigger pay checks, traveling to exotic film locations or creating more CGI alien / world / ship, than this staff can make a wonderful and "cheap" movie. Technically a 20-30 million budget is far bigger than a "normal" DVD movie's budget (7-10 million). I think it could work, if MGM could be braver. A new and very exiting SG-1 adventure can pull new viewers to the franchise and even if it would be a complete financial catastrophe, than they could win back the budget from DVD sales. Ok, I will stop here, because I am dreaming only. :o :p