Source:
http://gateworld.net/news/2008/03/iark_of_truthi_hits_the_dvd_top_.shtml

> Stargate: The Ark of Truth is off to a great start in its North
> American DVD release, landing in the Top 10 on the national DVD sales
> chart in its first week.
>
> The film ranked ninth on the chart, according to Video Business.
> Among direct-to-DVD releases, it was second only to Disney's Snow
> Buddies.
>
> The Top 10 chart for the week is heavy with new releases, including
> DreamWorks's Bee Movie (first place) and recent Oscar winner No
> Country For Old Men (second). Disney's 101 Dalmations took third
> place in its second week of release.
>
> Bee Movie earned about $50 million in its first week, according to
> Reuters. The Ark of Truth picked up 9.3 percent of that, according to
> the sales chart, or about $4.65 million. This was about $500,000 shy
> of eighth place.
>
> The film had a reported production budget of $7 million.
>
> The Ark of Truth has also sat at or near the top of Amazon.com's
> daily sales charts for the past several weeks.
>
> Also new on DVD is SCI FI Channel's recent miniseries Tin Man, which
> landed in twentieth place.
>
> Stargate: The Ark of Truth is on DVD at stores everywhere in North
> America! Learn more in GateWorld's movie guide, and order now at
> Amazon.com.

This is good news for the franchise. Hopefully this will lead to more
direct to DVD movies being made after Continuum.

"Universe_JDJ" <universejdj@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fs2nnn$du2$1@aioe.org...
> Source:
> http://gateworld.net/news/2008/03/iark_of_truthi_hits_the_dvd_top_.shtml
>
>> Stargate: The Ark of Truth is off to a great start in its North
>> American DVD release, landing in the Top 10 on the national DVD sales
>> chart in its first week.
>>
>> The film ranked ninth on the chart, according to Video Business.
>> Among direct-to-DVD releases, it was second only to Disney's Snow
>> Buddies.
>>
>> The Top 10 chart for the week is heavy with new releases, including
>> DreamWorks's Bee Movie (first place) and recent Oscar winner No
>> Country For Old Men (second). Disney's 101 Dalmations took third
>> place in its second week of release.
>>
>> Bee Movie earned about $50 million in its first week, according to
>> Reuters. The Ark of Truth picked up 9.3 percent of that, according to
>> the sales chart, or about $4.65 million. This was about $500,000 shy
>> of eighth place.
>>
>> The film had a reported production budget of $7 million.
>>
>> The Ark of Truth has also sat at or near the top of Amazon.com's
>> daily sales charts for the past several weeks.
>>
>> Also new on DVD is SCI FI Channel's recent miniseries Tin Man, which
>> landed in twentieth place.
>>
>> Stargate: The Ark of Truth is on DVD at stores everywhere in North
>> America! Learn more in GateWorld's movie guide, and order now at
>> Amazon.com.
>
> This is good news for the franchise. Hopefully this will lead to more
> direct to DVD movies being made after Continuum.

So long as they give "Replicators" a frigging rest.

"Universe_JDJ" <universejdj@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fs2nnn$du2$1@aioe.org...
> Source:
> http://gateworld.net/news/2008/03/iark_of_truthi_hits_the_dvd_top_.shtml
>
>> Stargate: The Ark of Truth is off to a great start in its North
>> American DVD release, landing in the Top 10 on the national DVD sales
>> chart in its first week.



Why not a theatrical release, and then go to DVD?


--
JK Sinrod
www.MyConeyIslandMemories.com

"JK" <jksinrod*SPAM*@aol.com> wrote in message
news:47e5d3b7$0$15189$607ed4bc@cv.net...
>
> "Universe_JDJ" <universejdj@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fs2nnn$du2$1@aioe.org...
>> Source:
>> http://gateworld.net/news/2008/03/iark_of_truthi_hits_the_dvd_top_.shtml
>>
>>> Stargate: The Ark of Truth is off to a great start in its North
>>> American DVD release, landing in the Top 10 on the national DVD sales
>>> chart in its first week.
>
>
>
> Why not a theatrical release, and then go to DVD?

The movies would probably "bomb" in the cinemas. The only way they could do
it would be a big budget and perhaps bring in a couple of "big name" actors
to perhaps play the baddies or something similar.

There has always been talk of a sequel to the original movie by the same
team that directed the original. Quite how that would work I don't know.

Martin wrote:
> "JK" <jksinrod*SPAM*@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:47e5d3b7$0$15189$607ed4bc@cv.net...
>> "Universe_JDJ" <universejdj@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:fs2nnn$du2$1@aioe.org...
>>> Source:
>>> http://gateworld.net/news/2008/03/iark_of_truthi_hits_the_dvd_top_.shtml
>>>
>>>> Stargate: The Ark of Truth is off to a great start in its North
>>>> American DVD release, landing in the Top 10 on the national DVD sales
>>>> chart in its first week.
>>
>>
>> Why not a theatrical release, and then go to DVD?
>
> The movies would probably "bomb" in the cinemas. The only way they could do
> it would be a big budget and perhaps bring in a couple of "big name" actors
> to perhaps play the baddies or something similar.
>
> There has always been talk of a sequel to the original movie by the same
> team that directed the original. Quite how that would work I don't know.
>
>

The original creators disagree with the whole SG-1 series don't they?

Martin wrote:
> "Universe_JDJ" <universejdj@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fs2nnn$du2$1@aioe.org...
>> Source:
>> http://gateworld.net/news/2008/03/iark_of_truthi_hits_the_dvd_top_.shtml
>>
>>> Stargate: The Ark of Truth is off to a great start in its North
>>> American DVD release, landing in the Top 10 on the national DVD sales
>>> chart in its first week.
>>>
>>> The film ranked ninth on the chart, according to Video Business.
>>> Among direct-to-DVD releases, it was second only to Disney's Snow
>>> Buddies.
>>>
>>> The Top 10 chart for the week is heavy with new releases, including
>>> DreamWorks's Bee Movie (first place) and recent Oscar winner No
>>> Country For Old Men (second). Disney's 101 Dalmations took third
>>> place in its second week of release.
>>>
>>> Bee Movie earned about $50 million in its first week, according to
>>> Reuters. The Ark of Truth picked up 9.3 percent of that, according to
>>> the sales chart, or about $4.65 million. This was about $500,000 shy
>>> of eighth place.
>>>
>>> The film had a reported production budget of $7 million.
>>>
>>> The Ark of Truth has also sat at or near the top of Amazon.com's
>>> daily sales charts for the past several weeks.
>>>
>>> Also new on DVD is SCI FI Channel's recent miniseries Tin Man, which
>>> landed in twentieth place.
>>>
>>> Stargate: The Ark of Truth is on DVD at stores everywhere in North
>>> America! Learn more in GateWorld's movie guide, and order now at
>>> Amazon.com.
>> This is good news for the franchise. Hopefully this will lead to more
>> direct to DVD movies being made after Continuum.
>
> So long as they give "Replicators" a frigging rest.
>
>

Agreed.

JK wrote:
> "Universe_JDJ" <universejdj@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fs2nnn$du2$1@aioe.org...
>> Source:
>> http://gateworld.net/news/2008/03/iark_of_truthi_hits_the_dvd_top_.shtml
>>
>>> Stargate: The Ark of Truth is off to a great start in its North
>>> American DVD release, landing in the Top 10 on the national DVD sales
>>> chart in its first week.
>
>
>
> Why not a theatrical release, and then go to DVD?
>
>

Too much background story to explain as well?

"Universe_JDJ" <universejdj@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fs6tbj$n4u$1@aioe.org...
> Martin wrote:
>> "JK" <jksinrod*SPAM*@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:47e5d3b7$0$15189$607ed4bc@cv.net...
>>> "Universe_JDJ" <universejdj@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:fs2nnn$du2$1@aioe.org...
>>>> Source:
>>>> http://gateworld.net/news/2008/03/iark_of_truthi_hits_the_dvd_top_.shtml
>>>>
>>>>> Stargate: The Ark of Truth is off to a great start in its North
>>>>> American DVD release, landing in the Top 10 on the national DVD sales
>>>>> chart in its first week.
>>>
>>>
>>> Why not a theatrical release, and then go to DVD?
>>
>> The movies would probably "bomb" in the cinemas. The only way they could
>> do it would be a big budget and perhaps bring in a couple of "big name"
>> actors to perhaps play the baddies or something similar.
>>
>> There has always been talk of a sequel to the original movie by the same
>> team that directed the original. Quite how that would work I don't know.
>
> The original creators disagree with the whole SG-1 series don't they?

Don't know. The Series did follow the movie quite well. There was talk I
think of a sequel trhat would take a different route. Personally I don't
think it would work. People are too familiar with it now. When they did the
Star Trek movies, they had to stick to the TV show "universe".

Same with Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The TV show took the basis of the movie,
but really changed it quite a bit. If they were to make a sequel to it
based on the TV success they'd have to go with the TV "Buffy world" and not
the movie (the movie stank if I remember)

None of the actors in SG1 are "big stars". They'd have to bring in at least
one or two top actors. You could have the TV cast there, but I'm not so sure
that going straight to DVD isn't such a bad idea these days. An awful lot of
people won't go and see a movie in the cinema, they simply wait for it to
come out on DVD. I'd love to know what big movies like say Harry Potter make
in DVD sales as opposed to say Cinema sales.

In article <Hp6dnRCxJdFTLHranZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com>,
"Martin" <nonhere@nonhere.com> wrote:

> Same with Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The TV show took the basis of the movie,
> but really changed it quite a bit. If they were to make a sequel to it
> based on the TV success they'd have to go with the TV "Buffy world" and not
> the movie (the movie stank if I remember)

The movie WAY more than stank.

--
Star Trek 09:

No Shat, No Show.
http://www.disneysub.com/board/noshat.jpg

Martin wrote:

> None of the actors in SG1 are "big stars". They'd have to bring in at least
> one or two top actors. You could have the TV cast there, but I'm not so sure
> that going straight to DVD isn't such a bad idea these days. An awful lot of
> people won't go and see a movie in the cinema, they simply wait for it to
> come out on DVD. I'd love to know what big movies like say Harry Potter make
> in DVD sales as opposed to say Cinema sales.
..
..
Realistically, I don't think there is ANYBODY in either series that is
a name the average person would know, other than RDA. And RDA seems
like he is done with the SG universe. You may get recognition of Ben
Browder and Claudia Black, but only from Farscap fans... and let's face
it, that's a very select group of people!

It'd be cool to see Sean Connery play an evil threat to the galaxy
character, though! Maybe Harrison Ford could play the "about to retire
general" they always have running the base. Is Hayes still President in
SG world? Maybe bring back William Devane.

Universe_JDJ wrote:

> Too much background story to explain as well?
..
..
That never stopped Star Trek...

"JK" <jksinrod*SPAM*@aol.com> wrote in message
news:47e5d3b7$0$15189$607ed4bc@cv.net...
>
> "Universe_JDJ" <universejdj@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fs2nnn$du2$1@aioe.org...
>> Source:
>> http://gateworld.net/news/2008/03/iark_of_truthi_hits_the_dvd_top_.shtml
>>
>>> Stargate: The Ark of Truth is off to a great start in its North
>>> American DVD release, landing in the Top 10 on the national DVD sales
>>> chart in its first week.
>
>
>
> Why not a theatrical release, and then go to DVD?
>
>
>

Having read the replies:

Its not to do with back story or big names.

I can only assume the writers knew they didn't have a compelling story and /
or a way to present it.

We only have to look at Serenity, its success and critical acclaim to
discount both arguments. Serenity proves beyond any doubt that you don't
need to worry about back story or big names to make a successful movie.

The problem with SG1 was its success. Some one should have stood up ages ago
and finished it. But no, the greedy execs just had to wring ever dollar
possible out of it, and left nothing substantial left. It should have
finished with the Go'auld (sp? sorry). Their defeat should have been a
movie. Had that been a success, and it could have easily been, then they
could have gone for a spin off, or start up again with 5 years of properly
though out SG seasons.

Its a crying shame what SG has become.

AC

"AC" <xxxx@xxxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:CvqGj.26673$%N1.26639@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "JK" <jksinrod*SPAM*@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:47e5d3b7$0$15189$607ed4bc@cv.net...
>>
>> "Universe_JDJ" <universejdj@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:fs2nnn$du2$1@aioe.org...
>>> Source:
>>> http://gateworld.net/news/2008/03/iark_of_truthi_hits_the_dvd_top_.shtml
>>>
>>>> Stargate: The Ark of Truth is off to a great start in its North
>>>> American DVD release, landing in the Top 10 on the national DVD sales
>>>> chart in its first week.
>>
>>
>>
>> Why not a theatrical release, and then go to DVD?
>>
>>
>>
>
> Having read the replies:
>
> Its not to do with back story or big names.
>
> I can only assume the writers knew they didn't have a compelling story and
> / or a way to present it.
>
> We only have to look at Serenity, its success and critical acclaim to
> discount both arguments. Serenity proves beyond any doubt that you don't
> need to worry about back story or big names to make a successful movie.
>
> The problem with SG1 was its success. Some one should have stood up ages
> ago and finished it. But no, the greedy execs just had to wring ever
> dollar possible out of it, and left nothing substantial left. It should
> have finished with the Go'auld (sp? sorry). Their defeat should have been
> a movie. Had that been a success, and it could have easily been, then they
> could have gone for a spin off, or start up again with 5 years of properly
> though out SG seasons.
>
> Its a crying shame what SG has become.
>
> AC

But Senenity bombed in the Cinema didn't it? It did well on DVD sales and
the original series got cancelled as well.

There is still a lot they could do with Stargate I think new writers would
help (and perhaps moving the gate out of the Mountain) but for a big budget
movie the producers would need a "name" to promote it.

Martin wrote:

> There is still a lot they could do with Stargate I think new writers would
> help (and perhaps moving the gate out of the Mountain) but for a big budget
> movie the producers would need a "name" to promote it.
..
..
I'm still not signed onto the idea that moving the gate out of
Cheyanne would make for better stories... at least not often enough to
justify an entire series.

In my mind, it simply puts the series TOO far into the realm of SciFi
and would cause casual viewers (non sci-fi nuts) to lose interest. I
think part of the problem with the later seasons was that too many
people had control over gate operations, Earth having multiple
starships, and Super Powerful Amazing Beings Even Worse Than the G'ould.

I agree with the earlier post... SG-1 should have stopped with the
fall of the G'ould. Could have become a movie franchise after that. :)

"Ryan P." <rpaque@delete.this.part.wi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:47ea7bf3$0$6163$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Martin wrote:
>
>> There is still a lot they could do with Stargate I think new writers
>> would help (and perhaps moving the gate out of the Mountain) but for a
>> big budget movie the producers would need a "name" to promote it.
> .
> .
> I'm still not signed onto the idea that moving the gate out of Cheyanne
> would make for better stories... at least not often enough to justify an
> entire series.
>
> In my mind, it simply puts the series TOO far into the realm of SciFi and
> would cause casual viewers (non sci-fi nuts) to lose interest. I think
> part of the problem with the later seasons was that too many people had
> control over gate operations, Earth having multiple starships, and Super
> Powerful Amazing Beings Even Worse Than the G'ould.
>
> I agree with the earlier post... SG-1 should have stopped with the fall
> of the G'ould. Could have become a movie franchise after that. :)

I just think a new location might "freshen" the show up. A purpose built
location for the gate and perhaps some new way of runnig it would give the
writers more ideas? I agree with you that it got a little confusing. Was the
IOA in charge? Was it the Pentagon? All very muddled at times.

They also need to accept with all that has gone on the world would be aware
that there was something going on. There is no way that the space battle
that took place in Lost City would not have been oticed by civilian space
centres around the world. Even amateur astronomers would have picked up that
sort of fleet. I mean you can see the space shuttle and the ISS with the
naked eye!!!

They've pushed that story to the limits I think.

"Martin" <nonhere@nonhere.com> wrote in message
news:_LCdnYPeb-eR1XvanZ2dnUVZ8vSdnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> The movies would probably "bomb" in the cinemas. The only way they could
> do it would be a big budget and perhaps bring in a couple of "big name"
> actors to perhaps play the baddies or something similar.
>


We see real pieces of junk do multi millions at the box office before
they go to DVD. It already has big special effects. I don't see how it would
hurt to let it play for a couple of weeks, then go to DVD?


--
JK Sinrod
www.MyConeyIslandMemories.com

In article <47eb179f$0$5636$607ed4bc@cv.net>,
"JK" <jksinrod*SPAM*@aol.com> wrote:

> "Martin" <nonhere@nonhere.com> wrote in message
> news:_LCdnYPeb-eR1XvanZ2dnUVZ8vSdnZ2d@bt.com...
> >
> > The movies would probably "bomb" in the cinemas. The only way they could
> > do it would be a big budget and perhaps bring in a couple of "big name"
> > actors to perhaps play the baddies or something similar.
> >
>
>
> We see real pieces of junk do multi millions at the box office before
> they go to DVD. It already has big special effects. I don't see how it would
> hurt to let it play for a couple of weeks, then go to DVD?

Well, to start with, you'd have to make a movie first, not a DVD.
Shooting something for theatrical distribution is a much bigger deal
than shooting something for home video.

--
Star Trek 09:

No Shat, No Show.
http://www.disneysub.com/board/noshat.jpg

"Martin" <nonhere@nonhere.com> wrote in message
news:l_ydnbJhft3h_3fanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "AC" <xxxx@xxxx.xxx> wrote in message
> news:CvqGj.26673$%N1.26639@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
>>
>> "JK" <jksinrod*SPAM*@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:47e5d3b7$0$15189$607ed4bc@cv.net...
>>>
>>> "Universe_JDJ" <universejdj@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:fs2nnn$du2$1@aioe.org...
>>>> Source:
>>>> http://gateworld.net/news/2008/03/iark_of_truthi_hits_the_dvd_top_.shtml
>>>>
>>>>> Stargate: The Ark of Truth is off to a great start in its North
>>>>> American DVD release, landing in the Top 10 on the national DVD sales
>>>>> chart in its first week.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Why not a theatrical release, and then go to DVD?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Having read the replies:
>>
>> Its not to do with back story or big names.
>>
>> I can only assume the writers knew they didn't have a compelling story
>> and / or a way to present it.
>>
>> We only have to look at Serenity, its success and critical acclaim to
>> discount both arguments. Serenity proves beyond any doubt that you don't
>> need to worry about back story or big names to make a successful movie.
>>
>> The problem with SG1 was its success. Some one should have stood up ages
>> ago and finished it. But no, the greedy execs just had to wring ever
>> dollar possible out of it, and left nothing substantial left. It should
>> have finished with the Go'auld (sp? sorry). Their defeat should have been
>> a movie. Had that been a success, and it could have easily been, then
>> they could have gone for a spin off, or start up again with 5 years of
>> properly though out SG seasons.
>>
>> Its a crying shame what SG has become.
>>
>> AC
>
> But Senenity bombed in the Cinema didn't it? It did well on DVD sales and
> the original series got cancelled as well.

I wouldn't say bombed, but it wasnt a block buster.

Yes the series was cancelled, but that misses the point. After 15 eps, they
managed to make a great movie. SG1 had 10 seasons and the movie was weak.

Actually that arguement can work both ways. Hmmm

>
> There is still a lot they could do with Stargate I think new writers would
> help (and perhaps moving the gate out of the Mountain) but for a big
> budget movie the producers would need a "name" to promote it.

Agreed. New writers and a year or two gap.

A big name would be OK. Dont see that being a problem, unless egos get int
he way!!!!

AC

"Martin" <nonhere@nonhere.com> wrote in message
news:l_ydnbJhft3h_3fanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "AC" <xxxx@xxxx.xxx> wrote in message
> news:CvqGj.26673$%N1.26639@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
>>
>> "JK" <jksinrod*SPAM*@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:47e5d3b7$0$15189$607ed4bc@cv.net...
>>>
>>> "Universe_JDJ" <universejdj@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:fs2nnn$du2$1@aioe.org...
>>>> Source:
>>>> http://gateworld.net/news/2008/03/iark_of_truthi_hits_the_dvd_top_.shtml
>>>>
>>>>> Stargate: The Ark of Truth is off to a great start in its North
>>>>> American DVD release, landing in the Top 10 on the national DVD sales
>>>>> chart in its first week.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Why not a theatrical release, and then go to DVD?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Having read the replies:
>>
>> Its not to do with back story or big names.
>>
>> I can only assume the writers knew they didn't have a compelling story
>> and / or a way to present it.
>>
>> We only have to look at Serenity, its success and critical acclaim to
>> discount both arguments. Serenity proves beyond any doubt that you don't
>> need to worry about back story or big names to make a successful movie.
>>
>> The problem with SG1 was its success. Some one should have stood up ages
>> ago and finished it. But no, the greedy execs just had to wring ever
>> dollar possible out of it, and left nothing substantial left. It should
>> have finished with the Go'auld (sp? sorry). Their defeat should have been
>> a movie. Had that been a success, and it could have easily been, then
>> they could have gone for a spin off, or start up again with 5 years of
>> properly though out SG seasons.
>>
>> Its a crying shame what SG has become.
>>
>> AC
>
> But Senenity bombed in the Cinema didn't it? It did well on DVD sales and
> the original series got cancelled as well.
>
> There is still a lot they could do with Stargate I think new writers would
> help (and perhaps moving the gate out of the Mountain) but for a big
> budget movie the producers would need a "name" to promote it.
>

Sorry, to add:

They did basically move the gate; Atlantis. And, thats not that great.

But Im very much with you about the writers and for that matter the
production staff. I think I posted that ages ago, or it might have been in a
forum. Either way, Im back to the idea that it should have stopped with the
defeat with the Goa'uld, had a break, then come back with a new fresh
series. Perhaps a movie in between, perhaps as a pilot for a new series.

AC

"JK" <jksinrod*SPAM*@aol.com> wrote in message
news:47eb179f$0$5636$607ed4bc@cv.net...
>
> "Martin" <nonhere@nonhere.com> wrote in message
> news:_LCdnYPeb-eR1XvanZ2dnUVZ8vSdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>
>> The movies would probably "bomb" in the cinemas. The only way they could
>> do it would be a big budget and perhaps bring in a couple of "big name"
>> actors to perhaps play the baddies or something similar.
>>
>
>
> We see real pieces of junk do multi millions at the box office before
> they go to DVD. It already has big special effects. I don't see how it
> would hurt to let it play for a couple of weeks, then go to DVD?
>
>
> --
> JK Sinrod

Cinemas won't run it! You'd have to invest a lot in publicity and
advertising and the potential return would not be enough. You have to look
at what it might be running alongside in the cinemas. Get Angelia Jolie to
play Hathor and you might stand a chance :-)

"Anim8rFSK" <ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ANIM8Rfsk-B6ACE9.21203026032008@news.west.cox.net...
> In article <47eb179f$0$5636$607ed4bc@cv.net>,
> "JK" <jksinrod*SPAM*@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> "Martin" <nonhere@nonhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:_LCdnYPeb-eR1XvanZ2dnUVZ8vSdnZ2d@bt.com...
>> >
>> > The movies would probably "bomb" in the cinemas. The only way they
>> > could
>> > do it would be a big budget and perhaps bring in a couple of "big name"
>> > actors to perhaps play the baddies or something similar.
>> >
>>
>>
>> We see real pieces of junk do multi millions at the box office before
>> they go to DVD. It already has big special effects. I don't see how it
>> would
>> hurt to let it play for a couple of weeks, then go to DVD?
>
> Well, to start with, you'd have to make a movie first, not a DVD.
> Shooting something for theatrical distribution is a much bigger deal
> than shooting something for home video.
>



Seems to me that it's not all that big a difference, but I know know the
figures.... do you?


--
JK Sinrod
www.MyConeyIslandMemories.com

In article <48190595$0$11600$607ed4bc@cv.net>, "JK" <jksinrod*SPAM*@aol.com> wrote:
>
>"Anim8rFSK" <ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:ANIM8Rfsk-B6ACE9.21203026032008@news.west.cox.net...
>> In article <47eb179f$0$5636$607ed4bc@cv.net>,
>> "JK" <jksinrod*SPAM*@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Martin" <nonhere@nonhere.com> wrote in message
>>> news:_LCdnYPeb-eR1XvanZ2dnUVZ8vSdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>> >
>>> > The movies would probably "bomb" in the cinemas. The only way they
>>> > could
>>> > do it would be a big budget and perhaps bring in a couple of "big name"
>>> > actors to perhaps play the baddies or something similar.
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> We see real pieces of junk do multi millions at the box office before
>>> they go to DVD. It already has big special effects. I don't see how it
>>> would
>>> hurt to let it play for a couple of weeks, then go to DVD?
>>
>> Well, to start with, you'd have to make a movie first, not a DVD.
>> Shooting something for theatrical distribution is a much bigger deal
>> than shooting something for home video.
>>
>
>
>
> Seems to me that it's not all that big a difference, but I know know the
>figures.... do you?
>
>
From what i understand, they dont hold theatrical rights to the Stargate name.

"GMAN" <glenzabr@dontspammebro.xmission.com> wrote in message
news:fvbjdv$f0p$4@news.xmission.com...
> In article <48190595$0$11600$607ed4bc@cv.net>, "JK"
> <jksinrod*SPAM*@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>"Anim8rFSK" <ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net> wrote in message
>>news:ANIM8Rfsk-B6ACE9.21203026032008@news.west.cox.net...
>>> In article <47eb179f$0$5636$607ed4bc@cv.net>,
>>> "JK" <jksinrod*SPAM*@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Martin" <nonhere@nonhere.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:_LCdnYPeb-eR1XvanZ2dnUVZ8vSdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>>> >
>>>> > The movies would probably "bomb" in the cinemas. The only way they
>>>> > could
>>>> > do it would be a big budget and perhaps bring in a couple of "big
>>>> > name"
>>>> > actors to perhaps play the baddies or something similar.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We see real pieces of junk do multi millions at the box office
>>>> before
>>>> they go to DVD. It already has big special effects. I don't see how it
>>>> would
>>>> hurt to let it play for a couple of weeks, then go to DVD?
>>>
>>> Well, to start with, you'd have to make a movie first, not a DVD.
>>> Shooting something for theatrical distribution is a much bigger deal
>>> than shooting something for home video.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Seems to me that it's not all that big a difference, but I know know
>> the
>>figures.... do you?
>>
>>
> From what i understand, they dont hold theatrical rights to the Stargate
> name.

You have to persuade the cinemas to take it as well. If they took Stargate,
they wouldn't be showing something else, the cinemas would want to know it
would get bums on seats. Without a "big name" that wouldn't happen (even if
the film sucked people would still go if it had say Tom Cruise, Russel
Crowe, Angelina Jolie etc. in it)

In article <JYCdnbJlervmgIfVRVnytQA@bt.com>, "Martin" <nonhere@nonhere.com> wrote:
>
>"GMAN" <glenzabr@dontspammebro.xmission.com> wrote in message
>news:fvbjdv$f0p$4@news.xmission.com...
>> In article <48190595$0$11600$607ed4bc@cv.net>, "JK"
>> <jksinrod*SPAM*@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>"Anim8rFSK" <ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>news:ANIM8Rfsk-B6ACE9.21203026032008@news.west.cox.net...
>>>> In article <47eb179f$0$5636$607ed4bc@cv.net>,
>>>> "JK" <jksinrod*SPAM*@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Martin" <nonhere@nonhere.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:_LCdnYPeb-eR1XvanZ2dnUVZ8vSdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>>>> >
>>>>> > The movies would probably "bomb" in the cinemas. The only way they
>>>>> > could
>>>>> > do it would be a big budget and perhaps bring in a couple of "big
>>>>> > name"
>>>>> > actors to perhaps play the baddies or something similar.
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We see real pieces of junk do multi millions at the box office
>>>>> before
>>>>> they go to DVD. It already has big special effects. I don't see how it
>>>>> would
>>>>> hurt to let it play for a couple of weeks, then go to DVD?
>>>>
>>>> Well, to start with, you'd have to make a movie first, not a DVD.
>>>> Shooting something for theatrical distribution is a much bigger deal
>>>> than shooting something for home video.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Seems to me that it's not all that big a difference, but I know know
>>> the
>>>figures.... do you?
>>>
>>>
>> From what i understand, they dont hold theatrical rights to the Stargate
>> name.
>
>You have to persuade the cinemas to take it as well. If they took Stargate,
>they wouldn't be showing something else, the cinemas would want to know it
>would get bums on seats. Without a "big name" that wouldn't happen (even if
>the film sucked people would still go if it had say Tom Cruise, Russel
>Crowe, Angelina Jolie etc. in it)
>
>
Well right now James Spader is quite popular on Boston Legal, maybe moreso
than when he starred in Stargate. So just add in another A-list actor and
you'd sell tickets.
Spaders gonna need to lose a few pounds, so will Kurt Russell!!!!!

"GMAN" <glenzabr@dontspammebro.xmission.com> wrote in message
news:fvndpb$re3$4@news.xmission.com...
> In article <JYCdnbJlervmgIfVRVnytQA@bt.com>, "Martin"
> <nonhere@nonhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>"GMAN" <glenzabr@dontspammebro.xmission.com> wrote in message
>>news:fvbjdv$f0p$4@news.xmission.com...
>>> In article <48190595$0$11600$607ed4bc@cv.net>, "JK"
>>> <jksinrod*SPAM*@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>"Anim8rFSK" <ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:ANIM8Rfsk-B6ACE9.21203026032008@news.west.cox.net...
>>>>> In article <47eb179f$0$5636$607ed4bc@cv.net>,
>>>>> "JK" <jksinrod*SPAM*@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Martin" <nonhere@nonhere.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:_LCdnYPeb-eR1XvanZ2dnUVZ8vSdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > The movies would probably "bomb" in the cinemas. The only way they
>>>>>> > could
>>>>>> > do it would be a big budget and perhaps bring in a couple of "big
>>>>>> > name"
>>>>>> > actors to perhaps play the baddies or something similar.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We see real pieces of junk do multi millions at the box office
>>>>>> before
>>>>>> they go to DVD. It already has big special effects. I don't see how
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> would
>>>>>> hurt to let it play for a couple of weeks, then go to DVD?
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, to start with, you'd have to make a movie first, not a DVD.
>>>>> Shooting something for theatrical distribution is a much bigger deal
>>>>> than shooting something for home video.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Seems to me that it's not all that big a difference, but I know know
>>>> the
>>>>figures.... do you?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> From what i understand, they dont hold theatrical rights to the Stargate
>>> name.
>>
>>You have to persuade the cinemas to take it as well. If they took
>>Stargate,
>>they wouldn't be showing something else, the cinemas would want to know it
>>would get bums on seats. Without a "big name" that wouldn't happen (even
>>if
>>the film sucked people would still go if it had say Tom Cruise, Russel
>>Crowe, Angelina Jolie etc. in it)
>>
>>
> Well right now James Spader is quite popular on Boston Legal, maybe moreso
> than when he starred in Stargate. So just add in another A-list actor and
> you'd sell tickets.
> Spaders gonna need to lose a few pounds, so will Kurt Russell!!!!!


I can't see that working. You'd lose all the existing SG-1 fans (after all
the X-Files movies used Gillian Anderson and David Ducovney) if you don't
use the existing crew. What you would need to do is create a Storyline (like
they did with some of the Trek movies) where you can bring in a "big name or
two" as perhaps the baddie's.