Why Riddick 3?

Posts : 343 Join date : 2012-10-04 Location : Ohio

Why the hell is there a third Pitch Black/Riddick movie? I was watching Vin Diesel on Craig Ferguson, where Craig couldn't believe there wasn't more interest in Fast & Furious films than Riddick. My guess is because Craig is a big scifi fan and it's bad scifi even for movie standards

There won't be a third Hellboy.

There won't be sequels to Dredd, Unbreakable, The Incredibles, John Carter or Lone Ranger.

But there are three Riddick films?

Admin Posts : 1186 Join date : 2012-09-13

I never saw the second one. Pitch Black was bad enough for me. Best movie VD has ever done was Iron Giant. I agree,i can't believe three movies of Riddick come out, but critics say John Carter was the worse movie ever made?

Posts : 183 Join date : 2012-09-13 Location : Vancouver

I liked Pitch Black a lot. It was a self contained survival story with a mysterious and cool character. But, as is too often the case with such characters who become popular, anything that made them interesting to begin with has to be dissected as the spotlight is shined on them. Wolverine is obviously the best example of this: Works brilliantly as a side character, the loner, the hidden past, the bad ass attitude -but popularity means money and so these characters are ripped apart as they're bought into the limelight.

Chronicles of Riddick was a mess, and I've no intention of following the character's adventures any further. Oh well.

Subject: Re: Why Riddick 3? Sat Sep 07, 2013 5:54 am

A guy I knew back in the '80s compared Wolverine to Fonzie from "Happy Days". When he was first introduced, he was a supporting character, Ritchie's biker friend who looked like a hood and was a bit dangerous. But as Fonzie became more popular, he became the central character; and as that happened, he became cuddlier and lost his dangerous edge.

Posts : 302 Join date : 2012-09-14 Location : Salem, MA

I read someplace that Vin Diesel financed most of this movie himself? I don't know how possible that is, so maybe he provided the initial investment that made it more worthwhile for the studio to spend money on it.

Okay, here's an interview where the director talks about the budget and the filming process, and how this one was made more cheaply than some of those other movies. They don't name a figure, but they say:

Quote :: Our budget in this case, it's closer to Pitch Black than not. Pitch Black was $22 million. Chronicles was probably $105. And this is a lot closer to Pitch Black than Chronicles. So your money is spread pretty thin.

http://www.firstshowing.net/2013/interview-riddick-writerdirector-david-twohy-on-using-cgi-in-sci-fi/

That would seem to explain why this movie gets made while John Carter 2 does not.

Admin Posts : 1186 Join date : 2012-09-13

JamesCarter wrote:: I liked Pitch Black a lot. It was a self contained survival story with a mysterious and cool character...

I couldn't get past the premise of the film.

A species that devours the entire living population of a planet, every single creature, leaving it completely desolate and devoid of any food for them to eat, yet the species now trapped on this now squalid planet with no eco system, somehow does not die out. So somehow the entire billion plus population of batlike scavengers survives by eating the occasional handful of space travellers.

I seem to recall there was more i didn't like, but i don't remember off the top of my head, but it was quite some time ago when i saw it.

Posts : 343 Join date : 2012-10-04 Location : Ohio

Peter Urkowitz wrote:: That would seem to explain why this movie gets made while John Carter 2 does not.

Yeah, I get that. And from the box office, it would appear it was a good gamble that paid off for him.

I still would have preferred to see a Hellboy 3