Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Movies Sci-Fi Games

New Riddick Movie Made Possible By Games? 160

Posted by Soulskill
from the this-is-why-gamers-are-scarier-than-bikers dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Riddick Movie Made Possible By Games?

Comments Filter:
  • by PakProtector (115173) <cevkiv@NOSPAm.gmail.com> on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @01:39AM (#31165848) Journal

    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?!

    • by Cryacin (657549) on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @01:47AM (#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.
      • Seriously. Pitch Black was one of the best movies I'd seen in years.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Rhaban (987410)

          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.

        • by sammy baby (14909)

          Scared the living crap out of me. It wasn't Alien, but it was damn close.

        • You know what was even better? Chronicles of Riddick.

          Am I the only person who thought that Riddick had all of the qualities listed in the first post? It was different, original and entertaining. Pitch black was just an above average shooting gallery.

      • by Mishotaki (957104)
        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: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by MBaldelli (808494)

          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: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by AbRASiON (589899) *

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

        • by e2d2 (115622)

          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.

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

        • by jgtg32a (1173373)

          Do not read the Wiki article before hand, I get the feeling that I would have liked the movie a lot more because I only thought it was Ok

      • by jedrek (79264)

        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.

      • by cbhacking (979169) <been_out_cruisin ... nOSPam.yahoo.com> on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @05:00AM (#31166870) Homepage Journal

        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.

        • by jgtg32a (1173373)

          The biggest problem with Avatar is that the Na'Vi are morally irreproachable, and by morally irreproachable I mean beyond any Saturday morning cartoon good. The humans were over the top the bad guys, the kind who enjoy kicking kittens (I think I should mention something about the Na'Vi's appearance).

          District 9 on the other hand, the prawns are animals, there's nothing likable about them, I mean fuck 'em. The biggest criticism I have about it is the Prawn Johnson was too human compared to the rest of them.

          • That was my complaint as well. I would have liked two things changed:

            1) Moral culpability of the Na'vi: Can't they do SOMETHING bad? Perhaps a second population ("Vi'Na", Green) comprising the other half of the population. All the same characteristics as the Na'Vi, except the two groups butcher each other like savages when they get half a chance. This also makes for a far more interesting dynamic with the Earthlings.

            2) Moral justification for the Humans: Unobtainium is necessary to....(fill in the bla

          • by mhajicek (1582795)

            The biggest problem with Avatar is that the Na'Vi are morally irreproachable, and by morally irreproachable I mean beyond any Saturday morning cartoon good. The humans were over the top the bad guys, the kind who enjoy kicking kittens (I think I should mention something about the Na'Vi's appearance).

            I have to disagree with your assessment. Some of the Na'Vi were reactionary and eager to kill. Most of the humans were just doing their jobs and following orders, as most European Americans did while "the West was won" from the Native Americans. In both cases it was largely the leaders who made the "evil" decisions.

      • by c6gunner (950153)

        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.

      • 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 caus
        • There are plenty of bad science things going on in the old doctors. For example the old 60s radio show too much of it takes place in this solar system and Mars is a threat... We pretty much knew there wasn't armies on mars back then. come on. The doctor's regeneration has never been believable except perhaps the 1st few which were slower and had side effects etc. Some stuff is just to help the plot.

          Wince moments of too much melodrama are a much much bigger problem in the new Who show as well as trying to t

      • 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.

      • by Lumpy (12016)

        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 ha

      • Cube was cool because of the NOVELTY factor, not because it was a particularly good movie. As for CoR, the director's cut is much better than the theatrical version, mainly because they have quite a bit of the cut exposition that connects everything together. Concerning Dances with Smurfs, it had plenty of social commentary and hard science, it's just that the social commentary aspects were completely at odds with the science of the movie. After all, if the unobtanium were really that valuable, they would h

      • Pff. Cube was just SAW with a set artwork consisting of a single cubic room. ^^

      • by Hatta (162192)

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

        Wow. Just wow. What a cool concept

        I think having Jim Henson producing it had something to do with that. No amount of money can replace genius.

      • Great movie, Cube. I can't think of any faults with it, honestly. It's like Twelve Angry Men, only with death traps.

        I've always thought that Chronicles of Riddick was underrated. Sure it wasn't up to the benchmark set by Pitch Black, but I found the Director's Cut to be quite enjoyable. Weird, but enjoyable.

    • by Shadow of Eternity (795165) on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @02:15AM (#31166046)

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

      No.

      • by fractoid (1076465) on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @02:32AM (#31166124) Homepage
        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.
        • by Canazza (1428553)

          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.

        • by Lumpy (12016)

          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 uni

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by n4f (1473103)

            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

            • by jgtg32a (1173373)

              No I saw the same, he appeared CE because he's been on the run for a long time and was only concerned about saving himself.

          • by afidel (530433) on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @09:46AM (#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.
          • You didn't watch the second movie did you? He never saved the universe. He wanted to rescue the one person he cared about, that was all. When they took her from him and converted her, he killed their leader for it. There's no indication at the end of the movie that he doesn't make the Necros twice as evil as they were before he took over.

          • by fractoid (1076465)
            So? Did you see 'good' anywhere in the description? Likewise he does some really good things (saving Jack, doing his best to save Carolyn.) He doesn't adhere to evil as an ideal any more than he adheres to good. As far as I can tell, while the others at the beginning paint a chaotic-evil picture, his actual behaviour is true neutral.
        • If you watch the videos with Vin about the making of the second movie, a lot of its purpose was to flesh out the character of Riddick where they had barely scratched the surface in the first movie. It was already obvious that he was somehow fundamentally different from others around him and not just an escaped con in the first movie.

          Personally the second movie worked. Its a totally different style of movie to the first, but the story works, especially in the DVD/BD release with full director's cut footage

          • by fractoid (1076465)
            Yes but he's a gnarly ex-con not a fucking wizard.

            (If I seem hasrh here... It is by the juice of Grappo that thoughts acquire fluidity, The lips acquire Stains, The Stains become a warning, It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.)
        • by ukyoCE (106879)

          Agreed. Making him the last of an uber-race basically trashes his every accomplishment as "oh, he was just born awesome".

          Midichlorians in Star Wars did the exact same thing. "Oh, Luke didn't work hard, he just licked walls of midichlorian-tainted paint as a kid"

      • 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 B

      • by Blakey Rat (99501)

        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 num

        • I played the game. I liked it, what I didn't like was throwing up several times because of the FoV changes and wonky field of view when crouched.

    • 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?

    • Would you please keep your trolling to yourself. If you want to have a story, read a book. The plot is just one part of a movie.
      Just. one. part!
      Two others are the feelings/atmospheres (emotional brain) it creates, and the aesthetics/art (the non-logic creative half of the brain). Even technology can be a dominant part.

      300 is the perfect example of a art-only movie. (Or Sin City.)
      And every movie where you walked out of the cinema, and just looked at the world from a different perspective, or that deeply move

  • 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.

    • by Barny (103770)

      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

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by networkzombie (921324)
      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.
    • 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 t

      • by nschubach (922175)

        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.

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

          Event Horizon could have been great. The truly spooky horror elements, the sci-fi elements, and one of the coolest spacecraft engines in the history of cinema. Yet they fumbled it so badly, it's one of the most disappointing letdowns around.

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

            Event Horizon could have been great. The truly spooky horror elements, the sci-fi elements, and one of the coolest spacecraft engines in the history of cinema. Yet they fumbled it so badly, it's one of the most disappointing letdowns around.

            Yup. I was really enjoying Event Horizon... Very cool, very creepy, very suspenseful. Then that doctor guy turned into some kind of axe murderer and it may as well have been another installment of Halloween.

        • by wagnerrp (1305589)
          That's pretty much how I felt about Sunshine. I was getting into it, right up until it turned out to be another Event Horizon.
          • That's pretty much how I felt about Sunshine. I was getting into it, right up until it turned out to be another Event Horizon.

            Yup. Loved that movie up until the burned guy shows up and starts killing people.

            Seriously... The sun is failing, the ship is damaged, your crew is falling apart, you're the last hope for humanity... Plenty of tension... And then they throw in some crazy burned guy to start murdering people.

            Bleh.

  • 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.
    • 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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by wizardforce (1005805)

      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: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Ephemeriis (315124)

        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.

    • by Lumpy (12016)

      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.

    • 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: "Slas

  • 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.

  • by miffo.swe (547642) <`daniel.hedblom' `at' `gmail.com'> on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @02:01AM (#31165972) Homepage Journal

    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.

    • 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.

      • 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.

        • Guess I saw the regular one then.

          • 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.

    • by Stoutlimb (143245)

      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.

      • 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.

    • 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.
    • by Rysc (136391) *

      I am not in the camp of CoR haters, but if you think this was a good Sci-Fi film you are out of your mind.

      In the first place it's not Sci-Fi, it's action adventure. It may have a futuristic setting but futuristic is not the sole requirement of Sci-Fi! As an action adventure movie it's decent, but as a sequel to Pitch Black it sucks due to character butchery and cosmic mission creep (big time!) and small-universe syndrome. As Sci-Fi it sucks because it says almost nothing about science or society (in fact mo

  • by BadAnalogyGuy (945258) <BadAnalogyGuy@gmail.com> on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @02:02AM (#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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Facegarden (967477)

      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

  • by Pantero Blanco (792776) on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @02:06AM (#31165992)

    The Chronicles of Riddick WAS "Riddick 3".

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

    • I think one should also count Return to Butcher Bay too. It’s a game, but it’s clearly made to fit in there like a movie. (By the way: The game was better than all those movies together. Or than Doom 3 or Far Cry.)

  • by Hadlock (143607) on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @02:18AM (#31166058) Homepage Journal

    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 (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ZorbaTHut (126196) on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @02:51AM (#31166214) Homepage

    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"?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @02:52AM (#31166216)

    I guess you do keep what you kill.

  • by Aceticon (140883) on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @03:44AM (#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.

    • "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

    • 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 phys

    • by evilviper (135110)

      "The Chronicles of Riddick" was a great action movie with a dark Sci-Fi/Fantasy background

      Agreed. However, it bears pointing-out that the THEATRICAL version was quite good, while I found the "DIRECTORS CUT" to be a steaming pile of crap, with all kinds of silliness and clumsy additional scenes. And Netflix ONLY stocks the latter... d'oh!

      Also, I have to mark it down some for the absolutely stupid names chosen. eg. "Fury-ons". Ditto for a few ridiculous and heavy-handed plot-points.

      Personally I thoroughl

  • 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

  • by jparker (105202) on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @04:01AM (#31166524) Homepage

    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.

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

    • I completely agree. But could you please stop using the word “IP” (other than for IP protocol related things)?
      Because by definition and by the laws of physics, there can not possibly be such a thing as “intellectual property”. It’s an oxymoron. coming from mixing up the very different rule sets of meatspace and bitspace. It makes you look like a fool, even with a comment as good as this one. Which is unfortunate. :/

  • 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...
  • 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?

  • 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.

  • So the feature film becomes a very specialized kind of cutscene.
  • One of the few times a sequel takes a new direction and works. I haven't seen a change-up work that well since Aliens (I am NOT putting CoR in the same league). It didn't turn into a rehashed monster flick knockoff of the first. And, I LOVED the death cult. The comparisons to the cult in Conan are woefully weak. Why not call it a knockoff of The Wicker Man if you're going to call it Conan in space? The visuals were original and beautiful from Crematoria to New Mecca to the Art Deco motif of the death

A language that doesn't have everything is actually easier to program in than some that do. -- Dennis M. Ritchie

Working...