Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New Riddick Movie Made Possible By Games?

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the this-is-why-gamers-are-scarier-than-bikers dept.

Movies 160

Hugh Pickens writes "Scott Harris writes on Moviefone that the economics of Hollywood are often baffling, as DVD sales, broadcast fees and merchandising tie-ins balance against advertising costs and pay-or-play deals to form an accounting maze. The latest example is the untitled sequel to The Chronicles of Riddick, released in 2004 to a slew of negative reviews and general viewer indifference. Despite its hefty $105 million budget, most of which was spent on special effects, the film topped out at a paltry $57 million domestically. So how can a sequel be made if the movie lost money? The answer has to do with ancillary profits from revenue streams outside the box office. While the combined $116 million worldwide probably still didn't cover distribution and advertising costs, it likely brought the film close to even, meaning DVD sales and profits from the tie-in video game franchise may have put the movie in the black. In addition, Riddick itself was a sequel to Pitch Black, a modestly budgeted ($23 million) success back in 2000. Extending the franchise to a third film may help boost ancillary profits by introducing the Pitch Black and Chronicles of Riddick DVDs and merchandise to new audiences, meaning that the new film may not even need to break even to eventually turn a profit for the studio."

cancel ×

160 comments

Radical Fucking Concept (4, Insightful)

PakProtector (115173) | more than 4 years ago | (#31165848)

Maybe we could spend another 23 million on the third film, like they did on the original, and instead of all those flashy bullshit effects ADD SOME FUCKING INTERESTING, COMPELLING, WELL WRITTEN PLOT?!

Re:Radical Fucking Concept (5, Insightful)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 4 years ago | (#31165900)

Exactly. Does anybody remember seeing a movie called the Cube?

Wow. Just wow. What a cool concept. Not going to spoil it for those that haven't seen it, but who would have imagined that a single set. Yes. A single set could be used to produce a compelling, edge of your seat movie plot, and on the budget of an oily rag and a used stick of gum.

Contrast this with its sequel. Cube 2 - hypercube! High budget, and loads of crap.

I really thought pitch black was an awesome movie, even if loosely based on the Asimov novel Nightfall. Unfortunately, the sequel didn't measure up to the first movie, but it was entertaining nonetheless.

Call me a die hard old school kinda guy, but I miss *good* science fiction. As in science fiction that contains plausible science, and good social commentary, not this whole fantasy style Avatar kind of science fiction movie.

Surely I don't stand alone.

Re:Radical Fucking Concept (2)

PakProtector (115173) | more than 4 years ago | (#31165932)

Seriously. Pitch Black was one of the best movies I'd seen in years.

Re:Radical Fucking Concept (2, Insightful)

Rhaban (987410) | more than 4 years ago | (#31166798)

Seriously. Pitch Black was one of the best movies I'd seen in years.

Pitch black was one of the only movies I'd seen in years that deserved to be labelled as Science Fiction.

Third Film? Wha? (1)

Daengbo (523424) | more than 4 years ago | (#31167428)

I was under the strange impression that Riddick was already a trilogy [amazon.com] . Sure, one of the films was animated, but that doesn't stop it from existing.

Re:Third Film? Wha? (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 4 years ago | (#31167580)

Yeah. Tell that to all the folks that start yelling "canon! canon! it's not canon!" when you bring up Star Trek: The Animated Series.

All animation is just kid's stuff, after all.

Re:Radical Fucking Concept (1)

Mishotaki (957104) | more than 4 years ago | (#31166040)

Hollywood should stop being so focused on special effects and shoud focus more on a decent plot and make damned well sure that the actors can and will make that plot interesting.

Re:Radical Fucking Concept (2, Insightful)

MBaldelli (808494) | more than 4 years ago | (#31169184)

Hollywood should stop being so focused on special effects and shoud focus more on a decent plot and make damned well sure that the actors can and will make that plot interesting.

What else are they going to use to cover up the fact that Hollywood is filled with 95% hacks with no talent to actually write and infinite amounts of talent to ass-kiss?

Re:Radical Fucking Concept (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31166810)

Cube 2 had a high budget? I thought it was just a standard Generic Canadian Sci-fi Made-for-Syfy movie.

Cube Zero, on the other hand...

Re:Radical Fucking Concept (2, Insightful)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 4 years ago | (#31166846)

Go watch Moon, I think you'll like it.

Re:Radical Fucking Concept (1)

e2d2 (115622) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168486)

Moon is a testament to Sam Rockwell's ability as an actor. He literally carries the whole movie, it's pretty much just him. That movie was a must see for any science-fiction fan.

Re:Radical Fucking Concept (1)

ShannaraFan (533326) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168860)

Ditto what he said. Moon is a great film...

Re:Radical Fucking Concept (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31166854)

Its not science fiction, but "12 Angry Men" takes place mostly in one set and is superb film. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050083/

Re:Radical Fucking Concept (1)

jedrek (79264) | more than 4 years ago | (#31166868)

Cube had to be the biggest bunch of bullshit I'd ever seen in a movie theater. First time I'd every considered leaving in the middle of a movie.

Re:Radical Fucking Concept (4, Insightful)

cbhacking (979169) | more than 4 years ago | (#31166870)

While I agree with the general gist of your comment, I find your beef with Avatar a little ridiculous... you want *more* hard science and social commentary? Heck, 90% of the criticism of Avatar that I've heard is that the social commentary is a little heavy-handed (I disagree, but then I spent most of the movie on the edge of my seat in excitement - I barely even noticed the social aspects until afterwards, which is what I think was intended).

"Plausible science":
Slower-than-light starships that take 6 years to reach Alpha Centauri, and have lots of little touches like giant heat-radiation fins.
Room-temperature superconductor (unobtanium) is the most valuable material known (one of the critical points not mentioned on-screen, but well documented in supplementary material).
Said superconductor (including mountains largely composed of it) floats when placed in a strong magnetic field.
Only very brief periods of full darkness on a moon orbiting a gas giant.
Human-breathable airspaces are pressurized above the external atmosphere, limiting internal mixing of gases in the case of a breach.
The jungle is *full* of insect life.
Low gravity allows for huge flying lifeforms and immense trees.
Consistent language with syntax and grammar.

OK, some of that is largely just a "did their homework" sort of deal, but there's more. I'm not claiming that the movie required no suspension of disbelief, or that there aren't any holes in the explanations, but it's still a good cut above the majority of science fiction, especially in video.

"Good social commentary":
Doing the right thing for your people vs. doing the right thing as a person (patriotism vs. morality).
Science vs. business.
Greed as a controlling factor in behavior.
Property rights vs. access to resources.
How we treat those we deem primitive, savage, or alien.
Environment vs. industrialism.

I could go on a lot longer with this, or flesh out any of those points much more. Suffice to say, there's a lot of good reflections on humanity in there... maybe not quite as much as District 9 (as another recent example) but it certainly wasn't lacking.

Re:Radical Fucking Concept (1)

Pax681 (1002592) | more than 4 years ago | (#31166976)

cube was indeed a fantastic movie.. it was based on a film from the 60's by , of all people, Jim Hensen of muppets fame.

see linky here [wikia.com]

while not as gruesome as the remake still quite a decent movie in it's own right

Re:Radical Fucking Concept (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 4 years ago | (#31167958)

I saw it. It wasn't that great, really. It was called Can and starred Oscar the grouch as a serial killer offing the other muppets.

Re:Radical Fucking Concept (1)

Reisrdok (1361907) | more than 4 years ago | (#31167032)

I could not agree more. Science fiction is almost dead. Even all the good series have been cancelled or 'spinoffed' to death.

Re:Radical Fucking Concept (1)

Xanlexian (122112) | more than 4 years ago | (#31167086)

Cube was also filmed in only 17 days, entirely 'out of order', and has no real soundtrack.

Re:Radical Fucking Concept (1)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 4 years ago | (#31167110)

I really thought pitch black was an awesome movie, even if loosely based on the Asimov novel Nightfall.

Huh? How do you figure? As far as I can tell, Pitch Black is as related to Nightfall as Finding Nemo is to Jaws.

Re:Radical Fucking Concept (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31167130)

Exactly. Does anybody remember seeing a movie called the Cube? Wow. Just wow. What a cool concept. Not going to spoil it for those that haven't seen it, but who would have imagined that a single set. Yes. A single set could be used to produce a compelling, edge of your seat movie plot, and on the budget of an oily rag and a used stick of gum.

The funny thing here is you are talking about a flashy big-budget (relatively speaking) gore-filled dumbed-down remake of Cube. The original is from 1969.

Re:Radical Fucking Concept (1)

Walt Dismal (534799) | more than 4 years ago | (#31167394)

I agree. A lot of today's 'science fiction' movies or TV media don't understand the critical difference between science fiction and science fantasy. True science fiction is substantially logical and derives from established truths together with a few key core assumptions that are believable extrapolations. But science fantasy often instead merely overlays the vocabulary of science/technology as a sugary coating over the rotten filling of bad soft science coupled with illogical and unfounded jumps over cause and effect and logic. It's generally not easy for anyone technical to suspend disbelief over some of the whoppers commonly in this kind of thing. The British Dr Who under the noncredible Russell T Davies was pretty cringeworthy in this way, for example. The Docter getting a hand get cut off only to immediately regenerate a new one in 30 seconds. Egad. Even a 12 year old won't buy that. But good past media science fiction even in the crude 1950s was fairly credible. Take Forbidden Planet for example. For me, even as old as it is now, it's still more enjoyable than STNG which made me wince, too often. Gimme the best of the good old days and enough of these callow soft-sci pretenders, time for some pros instead of amateurs.

Re:Radical Fucking Concept (1)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 4 years ago | (#31167756)

Exactly. Does anybody remember seeing a movie called the Cube?

Wow. Just wow. What a cool concept. Not going to spoil it for those that haven't seen it, but who would have imagined that a single set. Yes. A single set could be used to produce a compelling, edge of your seat movie plot, and on the budget of an oily rag and a used stick of gum.

Contrast this with its sequel. Cube 2 - hypercube! High budget, and loads of crap.

Cube Zero was actually halfway decent - check it out if you haven't.

Re:Radical Fucking Concept (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 4 years ago | (#31167870)

The second movie sucked because they did way too much.

Movie 2 needed to be Riddick being hunted on the Ice planet, movie 3 him at the Prison...... ect...

Honestly, they could have easily made the ice planet part and the prison part movies on their own if they hired decent writers,(and honestly someone who can act) and desired to make something epic.

Now you got it stretched out to a 5 movie string for the low budget level and you get a foaming at the mouth fanbase like Matrix and Harry potter had.

Hollywood has nobody left that has a clue how to make good movies or even a good series of films.

Re:Radical Fucking Concept (1)

4181 (551316) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168176)

Exactly. Does anybody remember seeing a movie called the Cube?

Wow. Just wow.

Does anybody remember seeing a movie called Cube 2: Hypercube?

Wow. (That's "wow" spelled backwards.)

Re:Radical Fucking Concept (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31166038)

I'm compelled to agree, but, I did enjoy the story of the visually bloated second movie. I don't think anyone has ever questioned why it costs $105 million USD, or SO, for special effects... are these guys renting out big blue, or what?

Re:Radical Fucking Concept (4, Insightful)

Shadow of Eternity (795165) | more than 4 years ago | (#31166046)

Riddick being a badass was fine. Riddick being a Magic badass fighting other magic badasses with magic magic magic....

No.

Re:Radical Fucking Concept (4, Insightful)

fractoid (1076465) | more than 4 years ago | (#31166124)

Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh! Yes, this, exactly! Riddick was a True Neutral tough guy in a gritty Aliens-esque universe. There was nothing wrong with that. Why the hell does the sequel have him as a ninja shaman fighting against quasi-zombie vampire religious goons? What made them think it was a good idea to turn him from an extremely capable ex-con into a cliche'd "last living survivor of an ancient and powerful uber-race"? Bleh.

Re:Radical Fucking Concept (1)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 4 years ago | (#31166680)

At the end of Chronicles he has an army now. I expect the third movie to be basically just Dune, but with Riddick instead of Atreides.

Re:Radical Fucking Concept (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 4 years ago | (#31167920)

chaotic-neutral? not a chance, pay attention to the storyline, he did some really bad things.

riddick at his heart is a chaotic-evil. He is out for himself and himself alone, they ruined that in the second movie making him into a superhero.

He is a ruthless killer with street skillz. he NEEDED the others in pitch black to survive. Honestly, if you really look at it, he needed the others as bait for the creatures so he could get to where he wanted to go.

Turning him into a flicking epic hero with save the universe intentions was a spit in the face of the original.

Re:Radical Fucking Concept (2, Insightful)

n4f (1473103) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168684)

There's definitely more to Riddick than a chaotic evil convict out for no one but himself. He was a protector of Jack during a good portion of the movie, especially after the reveal that Jack was a girl. Remember, Johns wanted to sacrifice Jack as bait for the monsters, and Riddick ends up shooting him.

Riddick's gut instinct was survival, and he probably started out wanting to use the group to get himself off of the planet. However, at the end Carolyn convinces him to save the remainder of the crew, and is struck with guilt when she sacrifices herself to save them. Thought it showed great growth with Riddick's character, and made him much more interesting than just a morally gray killer.

I dunno, I might have saw much more into the movie than I was supposed to :)

Re:Radical Fucking Concept (3, Insightful)

afidel (530433) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168962)

Nah, if he was chaotic evil he would have taken off once he reached the ship, him going back shows he really is chaotic neutral leaning towards good. Killing alone does not evil make, it's all in your intentions and who's judging you.

Re:Radical Fucking Concept (1)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 4 years ago | (#31167784)

Riddick being a badass was fine. Riddick being a Magic badass fighting other magic badasses with magic magic magic....

Agreed.

In Pitch Black he was a convict from a rather inhospitable planet. Reminded me a bit of the Fremen from Dune. Physically superior to your average human being, maybe... But still a normal human being. No magical powers or anything.

In Chronicles of Riddick he turned into some kind of magical superman... And he was fighting the undead... And there were transparent, floating elementals... Just plain ridiculous.

I could enjoy some of the action and set pieces... But it was a lousy sequel to Pitch Black

Re:Radical Fucking Concept (1)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168274)

Yeah but think about the topic at hand... the GAME Chronicles of Riddick was good.

It didn't have the weird and bad art design of the movie.
It didn't have any "magic" or anything that could be construed as "magic." (Well... maybe the one bit with his eye replacement.)
It had a well-told, tight story.
It had action sequences significantly better than the ones in the movie.

If the game was good, and it was, and this movie is being made as a result of the game, it'll probably be good.

I'm frankly shocked at the number of people posting here who have seen the (shitty) movie but haven't played the (excellent) video game-- what's wrong with you people? Play the game! It's good!

Re:Radical Fucking Concept (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31167494)

As someone who REALLY likes crappy movies... Chronicles of Riddick wasn't NEARLY as crappy as the kind of movies *I* like.

Re:Radical Fucking Concept (1)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 4 years ago | (#31167752)

Maybe we could spend another 23 million on the third film, like they did on the original, and instead of all those flashy bullshit effects ADD SOME FUCKING INTERESTING, COMPELLING, WELL WRITTEN PLOT?!

Agreed.

Pitch Black was a fun, compelling, tense movie. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Chronicles of Riddick, however, was crap. A few good bits here and there... But they really lost the path. Somehow they went from a reasonably-believable sci-fi setting with space ships and aliens to some kind of pseudo-fantasy setting with invisible floating elementals and undead. WTF?

Re:Radical Fucking Concept (1)

Sausage Nibblets (1469103) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168714)

You know how in Pitch Black, Riddick was a true anti-hero: A complete asshole who only looked out for himself, and several times almost abandoned his party to save himself? And then in Chronicles of Riddick he was a PG-13 action hero who lost all of the qualities that made him so interesting in the first one? Yeah, in this new movie they should do the opposite of that and make him back into a criminal who takes the path of least resistance to make his life better, not a brooding, angsty douche bag.

Yeah, ok. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31165892)

How about no.

Theater Chronicles of Riddick sucked because... (1)

electrosoccertux (874415) | more than 4 years ago | (#31165902)

It was rushed. Terrible organization of scenes, none of it made sense. I saw the original one on TV and, owning the DVD, was baffled by how horrible it was. I had no idea. Explains those negative reviews.

Check the Directors Cut. Enjoyed it a lot. Not confusing at all like the theater release was. I'm excited about a 3rd.
Pitch Black also notable, just an all-around fun Sci-Fi/Suspense/Thriller.

Re:Theater Chronicles of Riddick sucked because... (1)

Barny (103770) | more than 4 years ago | (#31165988)

If you never watch bad films, you will have no idea just how good some are, you need a yard stick somewhere :)

However I liked both the films so far, and hope they spend the time needed to make a 3rd (well 4th, since there was an animated tie in from pitch black to chronicles) rather than just making some craptacular action film with no storyline (not looking at anyone in particular, *cough* 2012 *cough*).

Diesel is perfect for this role, kinda the same way Keanu Reeves was perfect as Ted Logan, its not just type-casting, the roles were made for them :)

Re:Theater Chronicles of Riddick sucked because... (1)

eparker05 (1738842) | more than 4 years ago | (#31166000)

I agree that the DVD version is better, TBH I loved it even before I saw the extended cut.

But, I was bothered by the epic ripoff of the Borg: Necromongers? yea.

Re:Theater Chronicles of Riddick sucked because... (2, Interesting)

networkzombie (921324) | more than 4 years ago | (#31166022)

I second that. I was confused and disappointed by the film until I saw the Directors Cut. It explains all of the gaping holes left by the theatrical version. There is also a great animated film called The Chronicles of Riddick: Dark Fury. It takes place in the time between Pitch Black and The Chronicles of Riddick. It went straight to DVD, but I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Re:Theater Chronicles of Riddick sucked because... (1)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 4 years ago | (#31167798)

It was rushed. Terrible organization of scenes, none of it made sense.

My big problem with Chronicles of Riddick wasn't any of the cinematography or plot or anything like that... It was the jump from a sci-fi setting to a fantasy setting.

Check the Directors Cut. Enjoyed it a lot. Not confusing at all like the theater release was.

The director's cut is actually worse, in my opinion, than the theatrical release.

During the big brawl on the prison planet there's a kind of explosion that kills a pile of badguys and knocks Riddick out. In the theatrical release this is some kind of energy pistol exploding for some reason. In the director's cut this is Riddick channeling the anger of all the dead people from his home planet.

Re:Theater Chronicles of Riddick sucked because... (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 4 years ago | (#31169064)

My big problem with Chronicles of Riddick wasn't any of the cinematography or plot or anything like that... It was the jump from a sci-fi setting to a fantasy setting.

That's pretty much how I felt about Event Horizon. Sci-Fi turned thriller. I was getting into it, right up to the end.

Re:Theater Chronicles of Riddick sucked because... (1)

armchairyoda (529134) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168534)

Amen to the director's cut. It added in alot of the backstory about how he was the last Furian (sp?) and suddenly made all the WTF scenes from the theatrical version make sense. I considered it a whole different, and better, movie after seeing the DC.

Why all the negativity in the article? (5, Insightful)

insanecarbonbasedlif (623558) | more than 4 years ago | (#31165914)

So some people didn't like the movie? I did, and I know many people who do to. I personally am interested in a third movie for the movie's sake. If you didn't like the second one, don't pay to see the third. You don't have to see movies you don't like. Riddick rocks and anyone that doesn't think so can just ignore it.

Re:Why all the negativity in the article? (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 4 years ago | (#31166002)

Agreed. I love the franchise. Forget the plot, it was always about the characters. Specifically Riddick. What's not to like about a bunch of bad-asses backstabbing each other?

The whole baseless critique is nothing but flamebait. To hell with you Scott!

Re:Why all the negativity in the article? (2, Insightful)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#31166074)

Yeah I liked the film too; guess that means we have bad taste in movies :) On a more serious note, I think that the problem most people had with the film was due to the theatrical release of Chronicles of Riddick as it had a few scenes cut out that a lot of people felt left the plot incomplete.

Re:Why all the negativity in the article? (2, Insightful)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 4 years ago | (#31167812)

Yeah I liked the film too; guess that means we have bad taste in movies :) On a more serious note, I think that the problem most people had with the film was due to the theatrical release of Chronicles of Riddick as it had a few scenes cut out that a lot of people felt left the plot incomplete.

The reason I disliked Chronicles of Riddick was the transition from a sci-fi story to basically magic.

It felt more like a new Conan movie than a sequel to Pitch Black.

Re:Why all the negativity in the article? (0, Redundant)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 4 years ago | (#31167840)

Yeah I liked the film too; guess that means we have bad taste in movies

Some of the action was fun. Some of the visuals were impressive. I did, in general, enjoy myself.

But I went to the theater to see a sequel to Pitch Black. I wanted to see a badass criminal in a science fiction setting. I wanted to see aliens, maybe some more monsters... I wanted to see more struggles with morality and trust and personal demons.

Instead... I got a fleet of undead warriors being led by some kind of half-ghost taking the advice of a floating, invisible woman. Instead of being a badass, Riddick is channeling the psychic anger of all the dead people on his homeworld.

I was not impressed.

Re:Why all the negativity in the article? (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 4 years ago | (#31167954)

I like the movie for one reason... they actually had a competent sound engineer mixing the surround sound.

Many movies today have incredibly bad surround like they threw it in last minute by offering a sound guy free lunch to assemble the side and rear tracks.

Nobody's played the game! (1)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168354)

What's really driving me nuts is that none of these commenters have played the game! Which is not only the *topic* of the article (you know, purple means games section), but is one of the greatest FPSes in the last 10 years. I mean, in a thread above yours, someone even mentions some shitty direct-to-video DVD without bothering to mention the game we're all supposed to be talking about!

It's named Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay, BTW.

I guess it just goes to show the motto here should be: "Slashdot Games: The only games forum on the web filled with people who don't play games!"

Hollywood accounting (1)

sapphire wyvern (1153271) | more than 4 years ago | (#31165918)

But, of course, even if the new film makes a mint for the studio via DVD sales, merch, and "ancillary income streams", none of that will count for suckers who agreed to take percentages of the net profit in their contracts.

Re:Hollywood accounting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31165946)

At this point, I think you have to be pretty oblivious to notice that Hollywood's out to sucker everyone (as with big music). Ditto for your lawyer and agent, unless they're in on it. How do they keep it up, exactly?

Re:Hollywood accounting (1)

PakProtector (115173) | more than 4 years ago | (#31165950)

You always ask for a piece of the gross. The net... THE NET IS FANTASY.

Bad marketing, good movie. (3, Insightful)

miffo.swe (547642) | more than 4 years ago | (#31165972)

Chronicles of Riddick is one of the better Sci-fi movies i know. I had to search for it a long time before i got to see it in cinema and then even longer before i could get my hands on the DVD. Never once did i see any marketing at all.

I thought this was one of those rare occasions where the sequel is much better than the original. I was pretty impressed by how they managed to squeeze a whole world out of the minimal plot in Pitch Black.

Re:Bad marketing, good movie. (1)

JackieBrown (987087) | more than 4 years ago | (#31166010)

I agree. I really didn't care for Pitch Black (I didn't dislike I just didn't really find it entertaining or even interesting.)

I really enjoyed Chronicles of Riddick. I may have seen the director's, cut though, which I hear was a lot more coherent. I didn't see it at the theaters since it was billed as a sequel to Pitch Black.

Re:Bad marketing, good movie. (1)

Shadow of Eternity (795165) | more than 4 years ago | (#31166088)

There's an easy way to tell: Was riddick badass or magic. If he had dragonballZ magic powers then you saw the director's cut version, if he was just a vanilla badass with a mythic backstory then you saw the regular version.

Re:Bad marketing, good movie. (1)

JackieBrown (987087) | more than 4 years ago | (#31166666)

Guess I saw the regular one then.

Re:Bad marketing, good movie. (1)

Shadow of Eternity (795165) | more than 4 years ago | (#31166968)

Yeah. Take the Crematoria escape scene for example, in the director's cut when he's surrounded he gets a time-stopping psychic meeting with a Furyan girl who puts a magic glowing palmprint on his chest that lets him unleash a magic burst of energy in all directions to blow everybody up.

The story may have been more complete and coherent in the director's cut version, but it came at the cost of making Riddick a bald Goku.

Re:Bad marketing, good movie. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31167586)

Phew, I was fortunate in that way as well. Perhaps the story raping magic powers where a karmic revenge from the puritan writers who thought it would be inconceivable to let the hero be a raping murderer from the Pitch Black, even though real life historical heroes are often of the same sort.

Re:Bad marketing, good movie. (1)

Stoutlimb (143245) | more than 4 years ago | (#31166096)

I have to agree... The Chronicles of Riddick was an amazing scifi tribute to Robert E. Howard. I guess because I'm a fan, I got to see many layers in the movie that other people missed. This is one of my all time favourite scifi movies as well... i wonder how they will build on a sequel, there is so many places this can go and be done well.

Re:Bad marketing, good movie. (1)

budgenator (254554) | more than 4 years ago | (#31167626)

I think your right there, but still defeating the necromancers was his sole destiny, he has no purpose in life and the most powerful army in the galaxy, the only thing he can't do is say "OK everybody, that was fun but the parties over, just go home now" like Alexander the Great did.

Re:Bad marketing, good movie. (1)

Arthur Grumbine (1086397) | more than 4 years ago | (#31166360)

Wow. There must be some serious hate out there for Chronicles in order for you to get a Troll mod. My friends and I all enjoyed Chronicles as much as Pitch Black, even with the gaping plot holes. A very fun popcorn-sci-fi.

Ooh a sequel! (3, Funny)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#31165974)

Sequels are so much better than original stories!

Prequels are even better than sequels.

I can't even describe how great Reboots are.

Re:Ooh a sequel! (1)

Rollgunner (630808) | more than 4 years ago | (#31166006)

Now, to be fair, a sequel has an unique advantage over an original story: You don't have to spend half your screen time developing your characters.

Whether you spend that extra time wisely is up to the driector, writers, and actors... but the *potential* is inherent.

Re:Ooh a sequel! (2, Insightful)

Facegarden (967477) | more than 4 years ago | (#31166550)

Sequels are so much better than original stories!

Prequels are even better than sequels.

I can't even describe how great Reboots are.

Funny, but I do get some appreciation about seeing *more* of a character I liked, as long as they don't screw it up. But I liked Riddick so I'd love to see another movie. I feel like trilogies are usually plenty, because then things get tired and you wonder why the director is still doing the same old song (if they even use the same one), but one or two sequels can be good to further develop a story that, if good enough, needed more than a couple hours to tell.
-Taylor

Re:Ooh a sequel! (1)

Makawity (684480) | more than 4 years ago | (#31166970)

Yeah, this "prequels are even better" rule worked wonders with Star Wars.

Re:Ooh a sequel! (5, Informative)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#31167006)

The Star Wars what? There are only 3 Star Wars movies. Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi.

La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La

This would be "Riddick 4". (4, Informative)

Pantero Blanco (792776) | more than 4 years ago | (#31165992)

The Chronicles of Riddick WAS "Riddick 3".

1. Pitch Black
2. Dark Fury
3. Chronicles of Riddick

Re:This would be "Riddick 4". (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31166834)

Chronologically *phwoop* they were released in this order:

1. Pitch Black
2. Chronicles of Riddick (11 June, 2004)
3. Chronicles of Riddick: Dark Fury (15 June, 2004)

The dates are complimentary of the IMDB.

To whom it may concern, phwoop is the sound my sense of humor made when it leaped out of my nose, to escape my brain. If you happen to find it (check your shoe), please return it. It's a pathetic little thing, kinda looks like this emoticon ;S

Re:This would be "Riddick 4". (1)

mister_dave (1613441) | more than 4 years ago | (#31167022)

Nope. It would be Riddick 5

1. Pitch Black
2. Into Pitch Black [youtube.com]
3. Dark Fury
4. Chronicles of Riddick

Re:This would be "Riddick 4". (1)

Fresnik (697835) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168230)

You could throw in Escape from Butcher Bay while you're at it. It was made around the same time as Dark Fury and Chronicles of Riddick, but is chronologically a prequel to Pitch Black.

Escape from Butcher Bay was a solid game (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31166028)

It helps that Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay was a genuinely excellent game on both the XBox and PC. Movie adaptations usually suck, but this game had top of the line graphics, brutal hand-to-hand combat, the voice of Vin Diesel (like him or not, he is start power) and plenty of mature content. No lame PG-13 prison planet.

Advertised budget != Actual budget (4, Interesting)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 4 years ago | (#31166058)

Anyone who has watched the film industry knows the published budget number have nothing to do with the actual budget. They published 107 million? Actual cost was probably closer to 50 million. Producing such a movie today would probably cost 30 million (what did an episode of BSG cost by the 5th season? 1 million per hour?). Most of the budget is going to be Vin Diesel's fee, after that it's just production cost and advertising. The published cost of the movie will be 100 million again, for tax reasons

Economics (3, Insightful)

ZorbaTHut (126196) | more than 4 years ago | (#31166214)

Remember, folks: piracy is killing movies. That's why good movies like The Chronicles of Riddick didn't make money. Because of piracy. And despite the fact that the movie didn't make money, they're making a sequel, which might not make money either, which can also be blamed on piracy.

And yet, despite the fact that both of these movies didn't make money (piracy), somehow the studio remains profitable.

Hell, with profits like these, who needs "profitable movies"?

Re:Economics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31166472)

It's all bollocks, check out comments 31166058 [slashdot.org] and 31166392 [slashdot.org] . And then go to Wikipedia and check out budgets for movies like "Saw" or "The Proposal" where a movie officialy budgeted at 20-30 M max (or less than 20M in case of the "Saw") brings in easily $400M+

Re:Economics (1)

eharvill (991859) | more than 4 years ago | (#31167312)

Really, a troll mod? I guess it's still too early for the mods...

Re: The Riddick Franchise (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31166216)

I guess you do keep what you kill.

As guru said (1)

Fotograf (1515543) | more than 4 years ago | (#31166364)

if it hurts you, dont don it. Why you are still doing it? Ah right, because you still make load of money, regardles of what crap it is thanks to multilevel scheme of MPAA &co.

Summary? like does anyone read those anymore? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31166392)

I don't care about CoR, not Pitch Black. But I care about the summary. I thought slashdot was pretending to be targeting the intelligent crowd?
Despite its hefty $105 million budget, most of which was spent on special effects, the film topped out at a paltry $57 million domestically. So how can a sequel be made if the movie lost money? The answer has to do with ancillary profits from revenue streams outside the box office. While the combined $116 million worldwide probably still didn't cover distribution and advertising costs, it likely brought the film close to even, meaning DVD sales and profits from the tie-in video game franchise may have put the movie in the black.
Distribution of the movie and advertising, last time I checked, was covered from the movie budget... This "statement" takes up half the summary and tries to convince us that $105M > $116M.
Really, slashdot? Really?

The Chronicles of Riddick (4, Interesting)

Aceticon (140883) | more than 4 years ago | (#31166448)

"The Chronicles of Riddick" was a great action movie with a dark Sci-Fi/Fantasy background - in fact it might be quite a unique mix of genres: certainly the (Futuristic Black-Magic) background to the story is way off anything else Hollywood ever made.

That said, it's not surprising that those that first saw "Pitch Black" and then went to see "The Chronicles of Riddick" as a sequel were disapointed: to put it simply "Pitch Black" was a finelly tuned Horror-Action movie while The Chronicles was more of a Rambo style action movie (chewing gum for the brain) Sci-Fi/Fantasy movie with an anti-Hero as the main character (although Riddick as a character was much more developed in the second movie).

Personally I thoroughly enjoyed both movies in different ways, although this might be because I first saw "The Chronicles of Riddick" and then went looking for "Pitch Black" instead of the other way around so I didn't saw the second movie in the
expectation it would be a continuation of the first.

Re:The Chronicles of Riddick (1)

Facegarden (967477) | more than 4 years ago | (#31166534)

"The Chronicles of Riddick" was a great action movie with a dark Sci-Fi/Fantasy background - in fact it might be quite a unique mix of genres: certainly the (Futuristic Black-Magic) background to the story is way off anything else Hollywood ever made.

That said, it's not surprising that those that first saw "Pitch Black" and then went to see "The Chronicles of Riddick" as a sequel were disapointed: to put it simply "Pitch Black" was a finelly tuned Horror-Action movie while The Chronicles was more of a Rambo style action movie (chewing gum for the brain) Sci-Fi/Fantasy movie with an anti-Hero as the main character (although Riddick as a character was much more developed in the second movie).

Personally I thoroughly enjoyed both movies in different ways, although this might be because I first saw "The Chronicles of Riddick" and then went looking for "Pitch Black" instead of the other way around so I didn't saw the second movie in the
expectation it would be a continuation of the first.

That is exactly how it happened for me too. I loved Chronicles, then went back and found Pitch Black. Which, if anything, left me feeling a bit wanting, because Chronicles has such a larger budget for big grand scenes. Still, Pitch Black is awesome for not being too grand, and just being a genuinely good movie, so I still love it.

I think the order or viewing probably matters a lot.
-Taylor

Re:The Chronicles of Riddick (1)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 4 years ago | (#31167928)

That said, it's not surprising that those that first saw "Pitch Black" and then went to see "The Chronicles of Riddick" as a sequel were disapointed: to put it simply "Pitch Black" was a finelly tuned Horror-Action movie while The Chronicles was more of a Rambo style action movie (chewing gum for the brain) Sci-Fi/Fantasy movie with an anti-Hero as the main character (although Riddick as a character was much more developed in the second movie).

Added emphasis on what my big problem was...

The first movie was generally believable sci-fi. You had some kind of relatively slow ship transporting an awful lot of people in some kind of suspended animation... You've got a barely-habitable planet with some really weird day/night cycles... You've got a completely subterranean and photo-phobic ecosystem... You've got an assortment of dirty, gritty, realistic-looking gadgets and devices... You've got a criminal from a fairly hostile planet who may be physically superior to your average human, but he's still purely human...

Chronicles of Riddick gave us a fleet of undead warriors... Led by some kind of half-ghost guy with his soul trailing behind him... And they were all taking advice from an invisible lady who can float on thin air... You've got people hopping from one planet to another with very little time lapse... You've got some kind of human bloodhounds that can follow a scent across the stars... You've got Riddick channeling the psychic anger of a dead race...

It felt more like I was watching some swords & sorcery fantasy movie than a sequel to Pitch Black.

Awesome! (1)

Facegarden (967477) | more than 4 years ago | (#31166516)

Wow, this is awesome!
I genuinely really liked the Chronicles of Riddick, which prompted me to see and also love Pitch Black. I think that Riddick is one of the most bad-ass characters I have seen in a movie*, and i really enjoyed both movies. I consider them very different, but I liked them both. I'd love to see a third and obviously just hope they don't screw it up. I really just never thought they would make one though, so this is awesome news!

And since I'm telling the world what I think, I also think of Master Chief from Halo when I think of similarly badass characters. Anyone else get that? They're both just *so* good at what they do, which is half killing, half not dying, and half staying undetected. *So* good they get three halves. Bah, I'm being a bit fanboyish.
-Taylor

*yes, i'm young and/or unworthy and you've seen some other way more bad-ass character in some movie. it's just my opinion, don't worry. He killed someone with a teacup! Funny and badass combined are what amuse me.

New movie made possible by *really good* games (4, Insightful)

jparker (105202) | more than 4 years ago | (#31166524)

Attention every IP holder looking to create licensed games: the reason this worked is that the game was truly excellent. (PC 90, Xbox 88 http://www.gamerankings.com/browse.html?search=chronicles+of+riddick&numrev=3&site= [gamerankings.com] )

Bad games suck long-term value out of the IP and into short-term profits; great games add enduring value to the IP. I've made games with licensed IP before, and I'm almost certain to do so again, so I care about this sinking in. There are lots of reasons that movie games are usually poor, but one of the biggest is that the license holders think that the added value of the license will make up for a rushed job*. The license will sucker some people into buying, but there's a big cost to that. Please, Hollywood, find a way to work with us so that we can both make great product. There's more fun (and more money) for everyone that way.

*Why is the job rushed you ask? That's the biggest problem with movie games - differing production cycles. Movies have a really long pre-prod with ~3 guys on it, followed by production in something like 1 yr. Games (good, big, AAA ones) want around 6 months pre-prod with ~10 (plus ideally engine dev with 10-20). Then it's 18-24 months of full production, and you can see where the problem comes in. Especially when the game usually needs to wait to design key assets/areas until they can see what the movie is doing.

Re:New movie made possible by *really good* games (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31167046)

Yeah, unlike the movie, game was excellent. Competing in that year with Far Cry, HL2 and Doom 3 (maybe also FEAR?) and IMHO had the best 3D engine compared among those (or at least the lightning model, shadows and use of normal mapping). Gameplay was also quite good. Btw. there is a "remastered" version, with updated engine and detail level.

Re:New movie made possible by *really good* games (1)

boxwood (1742976) | more than 4 years ago | (#31167294)

I recall at the time Vin Diesel formed his own game development studio to makes sure they got the game right. Apparently he was well aware of the problem with video game made from licensed movies. The game was a prequel to the movie so they didn't have to wait for the movie to be finished pre-production to start work. They already knew how Riddick would look like and they were free to make the setting to look anyway they liked because it didn't appear in the movie.

Re:New movie made possible by *really good* games (1)

Fallen Seraph (808728) | more than 4 years ago | (#31167846)

Yup, Tigon Studios. Viesel is a huge video game fan and apparently was very involved in the production of the game. He basically wanted to make the kind of game he'd want to actually go out and pay to play, regardless of the IP it was attached to. I remember buying Doom 3 and pirating Riddick when it came it. Doom 3 disappointed me, accused me of cracking it and pirating it when I didn't (I had to get a crack to run it just because it felt having a certain type of disc burning app meant I was pirating it), and just overall sucked. Riddick had comparable graphics, better performance, better storyline, better characterization, was longer, and was WAY more fun to play. I went out and bought it immediately as a show of support for games like that. Glad to see that money's helping the franchise. Hopefully they'll take some cues from the game, which was more similar to Pitch Black's vision of the universe than Chronicles in my opinion.

Re:New movie made possible by *really good* games (1)

budgenator (254554) | more than 4 years ago | (#31167690)

either that or go into Resident Evil mode and do the game first, movie later.

Re:New movie made possible by *really good* games (1)

Fallen Seraph (808728) | more than 4 years ago | (#31167822)

Video game based movie != Movie based video game

YUO FAoIL IT (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31166596)

rul/es to follow [goat.cx]

Insanity-based accounting isn't new then? (1)

h00manist (800926) | more than 4 years ago | (#31166862)

And here I thought accounting based on the principle losing-money-is-profitable was invented by the much-maligned dotcom industry in Silicon Valley in the late 90s. Or was that on Wall st in the 80s? Well it seems like it's a bit older in Hollywood...

Wild guess (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#31167490)

So how can a sequel be made if the movie lost money?

One, by someone else. Two, perhaps the backers didn't lose their shirts and still have some money left.

You might as well ask how Apple could produce the iPhone, when the Newton was such a failure.

What is it, stupid question day?

It's about time to stop this nonsense... (1)

argStyopa (232550) | more than 4 years ago | (#31167556)

First it's violence.
Now "New Riddick Movie Made Possible By Games?"

I'm sick and tired of video games being blamed for all the horrible things that happen in the world.

Hollywood movies are only expected to recover 20% (1)

Dare978Devil (960329) | more than 4 years ago | (#31167746)

Hollywood movies on average only generate 20% of their revenue from ticket sales. The rest is from DVD, BluRay, rentals, merchandising, airlines, hotels, pay-per-view, cable, and the dozens of secondary ways you can watch a movie these days. The 105 million reported cost is inflated to the maximum possible in order to put the studio in a loss position. Then they report only 57 million domestically, which makes it seem like they took a bath on the project. Not so. By making 50% domestically, Chronicles is well above the expected 20%. That is why everything is sequels these days. The costs of marketing a sequel are a fraction of the costs of an original film because everyone is already familiar with the characters. Fans will see it no matter the reviews, and making a sequel automatically increases ancillary revenue for the first film through increased DVD sales and rentals. It's win-win for the studio, which is why there will be an endless supply of reboots and sequels for the foreseeable future. Consider this little nugget. "Return of the Jedi" cost 32.5 million in 1983. It has grossed 475 million worldwide including the 1997 re-release. It has also generated more than a billion dollars in merchandising, and hundreds of millions in DVD, BluRay, LaserDisc, Video, sales and rentals. And yet, David Prowse, who played Darth Vader and had a Net % of Profits clause in his contract, has received a letter every year for nearly 30 years from the studio claiming it has yet to make any money from the movie so it has paid him nothing. How is that possible? Because of Hollywood accounting. The numbers are all fabricated. They take executives lavish salaries in 2008 and write them off as costs incurred against profitable films like Jedi because that executive was involved in "releasing the film in a new format" or some other such drivel. And that despite the fact that the "supposed" cost was incurred 25 years after the release of the film. DD.

Re:Hollywood movies are only expected to recover 2 (1)

Silvrmane (773720) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168194)

Return of the Jedi has not come out on BluRay yet.

Feature film as cutscene (1)

ewg (158266) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168158)

So the feature film becomes a very specialized kind of cutscene.

No mention of the third movie already out? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31169238)

There are 3 Riddick movies out already. Pitch Black, Chronicles, and Dark Fury [imdb.com] . It is animated but tells the story in between the two others.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...