Here’s some pretty good news: Battlestar Galactica showrunner Ronald D. Moore will write a three-picture science fiction series for United Artists, says Variety. The bad news: he’s writing it for United Artists.
But let’s not let UA’s recent difficulties like Lions For Lambs and the press on Valkyrie stack up against Moore’s upcoming movies. With Battlestar drawing to a close I’m truly happy to see that someone else is ready to give Moore a chance to work on a canvas that, if not larger, will at least be accommodating to his ideas. And if UA can let a bomb like Lambs out of the gate unmangled, hopefully they can stay hands off with Moore. (Pray that they do; last time Tom Cruise and Moore worked together we got Mission: Impossible 2.)
If this was from anyone other than the Galactica revivalist, who has fully proven that he can carry a compelling story over an extended period of time, the ‘trilogy’ aspect would bug me a little bit. The success of Lord of the Rings and sequel-ready superhero films has primed studios to think (or hope) that any major new genre project should be spread across more than one film, which is a terrible way to work. (Even if science fiction novels have long been conceived as series rather than standalone projects.) I love the idea of three new movies from Ron Moore, but I’d almost rather see him just work one feature and knock the sumbitch way out of the park.
10 comments
Cool…but…what does the picture of Al Snow have to do with it?
Head, you just made me snort my Cherry Dr. Pepper.
Ron Moore looks like Mancow with long, flowing locks.
The Al Snow comment was gold, too.
Why does he mention MI: 2 like it was a good thing? Is this guy fucking retarded?
Is it just me or does this guy look like a cross between George Lucas and Barry Gibb?
Why is working in trilogies a "terrible way to work?" What proof do you have of that? If the story is longer than 2 (or even 3 hours) … why the fuck not work in trilogies? Why did you say that other than to be an elitist jackass (i.e., film critic)?
And he DOES look like Mancow!
OPIE AND ANTHONY! O&A PARTY ROCK! XM 202!
Battlestar Galactica compelling? Draaaaawwn out is more like it. Big burst of energy at the beginning, bogged down by ridiculous Cylon motivations and backstory.
That is one Luxurious Mane. Worthy of 70s BSG.
"Why is working in trilogies a "terrible way to work?" What proof do you have of that?"
Matrix 2,3
Back to the Future 2,3
Star Wars prequels (and Return of the Jedi)
Spider-Man 3
X-Men 3
Pirates of the Caribbean 2, 3
Is this even a real question, or an idiotic form of sarcasm?
H0LLYWUD TR3L0GY=LEET!@#$
Sam, none of those movies (barring the Star Wars prequels) were GUARANTEED trilogies! I don't think there is a director or studio that would say "hold back the good stuff for the third movie, who cares if the first two tank" … they stunk (in YOUR opinion) because they just weren't very good MOVIES (regardless of their place in a trilogy). Like the original Star Wars (and regardless of what Lucas says), I don't think ANY of those movies were stuck out to actually BE trilogies. Movie Studios (as they do) saw dollars and milked the franchise. Case in point – they would not be visiting the Hobbit now if the Lord of the Rings trilogy stunk up the theater … and that is an example of a set of movies that actually knew they would be a trilogy. Ask Bakshi if his animated version was guaranteed a sequel? Sooooo … blow me. Your argument holds no water.
OPIE AND ANTHONY! O&A PARTY ROCK! XM 202!
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.