PDA

View Full Version : Is anyone else worried



knowles2
January 26th, 2009, 10:10 PM
that having Richard Dean Anderson star in third movie will restrict the scale of the movie.
Given that the previous movies had less the spectacular effects, with a lot especially continuum being reuse from previous episodes in the film, and well Lost city look more spectacular than the two newer films.
It seem to me in the last two films most of the money went to the actors and very little seem to have been spent on the actual film. And RDA said to be the most expensive by far I fear this will again reduce the budgets of other areas of the film like sets, cgi.

Replicator Todd
January 26th, 2009, 10:13 PM
I thought Continnum had great effects! Ah well, either way i'm happy just to see RDA on-screen again!

Khentkawes
January 26th, 2009, 10:38 PM
I thought the special effects in both AoT and Continuum were fantastic! I really had no complaints about that. Of course, I watch Stargate for a lot of reasons besides the special effects.

In Continuum, I do think that the Arctic filming probably took up a fair amount of their budget, but I don't think the rest of the movie suffered from the inclusion of the Arctic scenes, so again I have no complaints about how that turned out.

I assume that RDA is expensive, but I don't think the rest of the production will suffer because of that. The only thing I would worry about is that they will focus on RDA to the exclusion of the other actors. I really don't want the rest of the team to be reduced to supporting roles in favor of a heavy focus on RDA as the spot-light. But that's a concern that I've brought up many times in various other threads, so I'll stop now.

In answer to the question: no, I'm not worried. Stargate has always proven that they can do a lot with a very small budget. So, I'm not worried that the sets, effects, or other production elements will suffer.

BeardedKirk
January 26th, 2009, 11:17 PM
In Continuum, I do think that the Arctic filming probably took up a fair amount of their budget, but I don't think the rest of the movie suffered from the inclusion of the Arctic scenes, so again I have no complaints about how that turned out.

Especially with the USS Alexandria! Also it doesn't say that they went over their $7m budget anywhere that i've seen. So you really don't know how much they really spent on the film.

But again no, i'm not worried. I'm just happy Jack's back!

Phenom
January 26th, 2009, 11:21 PM
Doesn't bother me in the slightest (not that I think it will be an issue anyway). I love RDA for his acting ability and delivery of his dialogue. His comic timing is impeccable and I would imagine most love him for this, not so much the action scenes.

mattyg1987
January 27th, 2009, 01:51 AM
Given that the previous movies had less spectacular effects, with a lot especially continuum being reuse from previous episodes in the film, and well Lost city look more spectacular than the two newer films.


What are you on about? I didn't see any re-uses of visual effects, other than the wormhole effects, the supergate connecting, and the Odyssey orbitting earth and going through hyperspace. The effects in Continuum were all brand spanking new.

rob-ward
January 27th, 2009, 04:04 AM
I have no problem with RDA in the move and I think that his presence will add a lot more to the move than it could possible take away due to the extra cost, and we have seen many time the quality of effects and story that the stargate crew can create on a tight budget.

silly sally
January 27th, 2009, 04:21 AM
that having Richard Dean Anderson star in third movie will restrict the scale of the movie.
Given that the previous movies had less the spectacular effects, with a lot especially continuum being reuse from previous episodes in the film, and well Lost city look more spectacular than the two newer films.
It seem to me in the last two films most of the money went to the actors and very little seem to have been spent on the actual film. And RDA said to be the most expensive by far I fear this will again reduce the budgets of other areas of the film like sets, cgi.

Well Vala isn't going to be in the movie. so they'll have more money; hope they drop Cam and Landry as well so that they have more money for the special effects :D

BeardedKirk
January 27th, 2009, 04:28 AM
Well Vala isn't going to be in the movie. so they'll have more money; hope they drop Cam and Landry as well so that they have more money for the special effects :D

Well, although i would miss Cam & Hank, i think they should keep Vala in as she is half of the special effects for me!;)... (Thank god my girlfriend doesn't come on here.... Oh hi honey! How ar- *ow* ***OWW!***)

silly sally
January 27th, 2009, 04:40 AM
Well, although i would miss Cam & Hank, i think they should keep Vala in as she is half of the special effects for me!;)... (Thank god my girlfriend doesn't come on here.... Oh hi honey! How ar- *ow* ***OWW!***)

I agree; out of the three Vala was the best/funniest; Sadly, we know Vala isn't going to be in this movie :(

BeardedKirk
January 27th, 2009, 04:47 AM
I agree; out of the three Vala was the best/funniest; Sadly, we know Vala isn't going to be in this movie :(

**BeardedKirk would agree with the shame of it, but is currently being buried under the patio...**

ShardsofGlass
January 27th, 2009, 05:15 AM
I'm not worried about special effects. I'm worried that the movie won't be something I want to see. I can't stand silly Jack, and I don't want the rest of the cast to have small roles, since they're the ones I like better than RDA anyway. So my worry is too much Jack, and silly Jack.

sanctuary4all
January 27th, 2009, 05:33 AM
**BeardedKirk would agree with the shame of it, but is currently being buried under the patio...**


Hehe Too funny. Poor fella. Wives'll do that occasionally.

dmovies
January 27th, 2009, 06:48 AM
I agree; out of the three Vala was the best/funniest; Sadly, we know Vala isn't going to be in this movie :(

I'm going to have to disagree with Vala is the best/funniest-I found her character to be a very poor fit with the rest of the cast. I would rather just see the original 4 members of SG1 in the 3rd movie. IMO SG1 ended with
season 8.

Shivari
January 27th, 2009, 07:17 AM
No, I'm not worried at all. I miss Jack, he's a brilliant team-leader, and I think his appearance in the third movie won't lessen development of other characters, on the contrary, it will unite them togeher.
And about expenditure on sets - I also think AoT and Continuum were great, nothing seemed "cheap" to me. And IMHO cost of RDA and cost of sets are incomparable. To be honest,I don't mind to see them all together sitting and chatting in cafe))
So answer is "no".

magictrick
January 27th, 2009, 07:33 AM
If this is going to be mainly about Jack, then it would make sense to have the original characters back as well (Carter, Daniel, Teal'c) and focus on them as opposed to the newer characters.

hedwig
January 27th, 2009, 08:02 AM
Nope. No worries at all. Having RDA in the film won't likely have any impact on the quality of effects or storyline or budget. I think it will be outstanding regardless of how much it costs to have him in the movie.

Plus, I've often wondered if the salaries of actors are actually part of the production costs or separate from production costs?

amconway
January 27th, 2009, 08:22 AM
Not a bit! Comparing the movies negatively to Lost City is getting a lot of play on the forum right now, but I don't buy it. The effects in the movies were great. That's clearly important to them.
I wouldn't actually mind a movie that required less special effects, maybe something that focused on the character's interactions with an alien species, but that's beside the point.
Whatever the case, RDA wants to do the movie, and knows what the budget is as well as we do. He's not going to make them break the bank. And they won't pay him so much that they don't have enough money left to make a movie.

knowles2
January 27th, 2009, 08:54 AM
Nope. No worries at all. Having RDA in the film won't likely have any impact on the quality of effects or storyline or budget. I think it will be outstanding regardless of how much it costs to have him in the movie.

Plus, I've often wondered if the salaries of actors are actually part of the production costs or separate from production costs?

They all part of the same budget, at least on the pirates of the caribean, the actors pay took up more than half the budget of the second and third film, and I am talking about just the primary characters.
Actors wages nowadays are often the most expensive part of the production. I would not be surprise if it took at a quarter of the budget of each of the last two film. Makes you feel sorry for the people who spends the hours stuck in a room doing all the hard stuff that actually entertain the audience. The editors, the cgi artist, the dubbers, sound effects artist. Try and watch the actors with out the post production and you see it actually these guys which makes films enjoyable.

amconway
January 27th, 2009, 09:07 AM
Makes you feel sorry for the people who spends the hours stuck in a room doing all the hard stuff that actually entertain the audience. The editors, the cgi artist, the dubbers, sound effects artist. Try and watch the actors with out the post production and you see it actually these guys which makes films enjoyable.

Try watching CGI/sound effects without the actors! Lol! That's not entertainment, it's a demo reel.
Seriously, theatre, film, and television are entirely about the acting. The rest is just eyecandy. While some viewers might like the space battles more than plot and characterization, that sure isn't most people. Most people are there for the story and the characters, with or without special effects.

Petra
January 27th, 2009, 09:07 AM
that having Richard Dean Anderson star in third movie will restrict the scale of the movie.
Given that the previous movies had less the spectacular effects, with a lot especially continuum being reuse from previous episodes in the film, and well Lost city look more spectacular than the two newer films.
It seem to me in the last two films most of the money went to the actors and very little seem to have been spent on the actual film. And RDA said to be the most expensive by far I fear this will again reduce the budgets of other areas of the film like sets, cgi.

Nope, I'm not worried. I wouldn't mind if the movie didn't have much CGI, but I don't think it will come to that. Besides the special effects in the previous movies weren't that bad..
and your resoning is kinda flawed. First you say that Lost City, very Jack/RDA heavy, had great special effects (I agree btw) then you say that the movies, very RDA light (he had a very small role in just one of them), severly lacked in this department and you attribute it to the presence of RDA...?

Bareassedmunky
January 27th, 2009, 09:22 AM
To all the people who defended the special effects in the movies, I don't think the point is that they were bad in the movies, just not better than the show, despite the fact that the producers claimed that they were so keen to make movies because they wanted to tell bigger, better stories. In terms of special effects - compare the dogfight in continuum to the one in EatG. Take a look at Ba'al's failsafe room, the background is out of focus the whole time - you take one look at that, and you know it is greenscreen rather than a real set - this reminds the audience that it is fiction, just in the same way as if a boom mic came into frame (ok, not to the same degree, but it has the same effect). I will admit that the plains of celestas looked fantastic compared to in the series though.

But with regards to the original point of the thread, if I was negotiating RDA's contract, I'd offer him the same as the other cast up front (maybe a little more), but offer a larger share of the profits. This would help to control the budget while also help to secure him, but that is just what I would do.

amconway
January 27th, 2009, 09:42 AM
To all the people who defended the special effects in the movies, I don't think the point is that they were bad in the movies, just not better than the show, despite the fact that the producers claimed that they were so keen to make movies because they wanted to tell bigger, better stories. In terms of special effects - compare the dogfight in continuum to the one in EatG. Take a look at Ba'al's failsafe room, the background is out of focus the whole time - you take one look at that, and you know it is greenscreen rather than a real set - this reminds the audience that it is fiction, just in the same way as if a boom mic came into frame (ok, not to the same degree, but it has the same effect). I will admit that the plains of celestas looked fantastic compared to in the series though.

I guess I disagree with the basic premise of the argument that is being made, not by you, specifically, but in general, that what make a movie 'bigger' is an increase in the number and quality of special effects. I'd be perfectly happy with a movie that included no special effects other than the opening of the gate.
To me, 'bigger' is the breadth of the story and taking it out of the regular soundstages. The remarkable location shooting in both movies did this, as did the plotline and character dilemmas in Continuum. Special effects are nice, but they're just frosting. It's about the cake. (and yes, I know you are all thinking "the cake is a lie", but in this case, it isn't. ;) )

Bareassedmunky
January 27th, 2009, 04:45 PM
I guess I disagree with the basic premise of the argument that is being made, not by you, specifically, but in general, that what make a movie 'bigger' is an increase in the number and quality of special effects. I'd be perfectly happy with a movie that included no special effects other than the opening of the gate.
To me, 'bigger' is the breadth of the story and taking it out of the regular soundstages. The remarkable location shooting in both movies did this, as did the plotline and character dilemmas in Continuum. Special effects are nice, but they're just frosting. It's about the cake. (and yes, I know you are all thinking "the cake is a lie", but in this case, it isn't. ;) )

I completely agree with you that a movie can be bigger without special effects. My favourite episodes are the ones like 'allegiance' and '100 days' - both of which have little in the way of special effects. And I agree that continuum had a big scope (AoT didn't so much since the story was a squashed version of what seasons 11 + 12 would have been).

Bearing in mind that Jack was in a dozen episodes after he left the show, if they spend a large proportion of the extra money (I have no idea about how much he costs, and I do think he will improve the moves, so I am playing devil's advocate here), then the scope will have to reigned in - less money = less time + less spectacular location shoots.



But this thread seems to have been started to specifically discuss special effects, so you can't really complain that people are discussing special effects in this thread about...special effects

amconway
January 27th, 2009, 04:50 PM
I completely agree with you that a movie can be bigger without special
effects. My favourite episodes are the ones like 'allegiance' and '100 days' - both of which have little in the way of special effects. And I agree that continuum had a big scope (AoT didn't so much since the story was a squashed version of what seasons 11 + 12 would have been).

Bearing in mind that Jack was in a dozen episodes after he left the show, if they spend a large proportion of the extra money (I have no idea about how much he costs, and I do think he will improve the moves, so I am playing devil's advocate here), then the scope will have to reigned in - less money = less time + less spectacular location shoots.

I think it's quite likely that he could be persuaded to take a percentage of the profits, which are pretty much guaranteed, in lieu of some of his salary.


But this thread seems to have been started to specifically discuss special effects, so you can't really complain that people are discussing special effects in this thread about...special effects

Ah, but the title doesn't ask me to discuss special effects. It asks if I am worried about the possibility of there being less. And I'm discussing my lack of worry and the reasons thereof--completely on topic! ;)

the fifth man
January 27th, 2009, 05:42 PM
I'm not worried. I look forward to seeing more of Jack in this one. As for the special effects in AOT and Continuum, I thought they were magnificent.

willkani
January 27th, 2009, 06:06 PM
be good to see o'niell proper again he is a legend of the franchise

jnolan
January 27th, 2009, 06:16 PM
I'm not worried about that at all. I think having RDA in the movie will make up for anything the movie is lacking. But I don't think the movie will the lacking just because RDA is in it.

elwood
January 27th, 2009, 06:16 PM
Try watching CGI/sound effects without the actors! Lol! That's not entertainment, it's a demo reel.

OH, you mean Star Wars Eps 1, 2, and 3.

Linda06
January 28th, 2009, 11:05 AM
Well, although i would miss Cam & Hank, i think they should keep Vala in as she is half of the special effects for me!;)... (Thank god my girlfriend doesn't come on here.... Oh hi honey! How ar- *ow* ***OWW!***)

Ooh busted :p

But no i'm not worried...I'm just glad ill se my Jack again :D

leiasky
January 28th, 2009, 11:27 AM
If you look at the numbers of AoT vs Continuum, it's pretty solid proof that RDA brings in a lot of sales. He may cost more than the other actors, but when all is said and done, the bottom line (money) is worth the investment.

I thought the effects were fine in both movies. An orchestral score isn't cheap either, and they had it for Continuum. Totally made the whole thing seem more theatrical. It was beautiful.