Why must there be a theatrical release?

[Daniel Jackson]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

[Bytor]

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]

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

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

[Daniel Jackson]

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?

Spoiler:

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]

double post

[GSRgategirl923]

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.

[Bytor]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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

[GSRgategirl923]

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]

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.