Looks like Stargate is officially done

[AJ86]

It had a production budget of $7,000,000, but that doesn't include the cost of manufacturing or advertising. And the gross revenue doesn't indicate the cut that goes to retailers where the DVDs were sold, which could be quite substantial, especially at the inflated prices the movie was sold early in its release.

And the best indicator that these didn't blow MGM's socks off: additional DVD movies are dead in the water, despite the fact that scripts for at least two of them are already completed.

There's also the fact MGM was going bankrupt. That's not to say that the performance of the DVD sales wasn't underwhelming, but I don't think it's an accurate picture of the whole story either.

When you are bankrupt and restructuring, you focus on things that are profitable and slash everything that's not. That there are no further SG movies on the horizon should tell you how it balanced out from MGM's end. If they made decent money, they would be an important part of a restructuring package. While the Stargate franchise may be worth something to MGM, it is evidently not worth enough for them to invest money into it right now.

The release of Continuum was followed almost immediately by the recession and the ass falling out of the DVD market. A relatively safe yet small earner got a whole lot more risky over night, plus compared to The Hobbit and Bond a Stargate DVD movie is small potatoes.

 

[Saquist]

Wow, what on Earth are you talking about?!

I suspect that is a false question
You don't really want to know or you already know and you're being purposely incredulous. Likely it's the latter.

It's like you think you pull out some random thing and it actually makes sense! Have fun mumbling to yourself!

Metaphors are often random and
no sound is required for me to compose responses to your post.

Mr Awe

Saquist

It's quite evident Saquist's one and only strategy--one which is not very effective, by the way--is to claim his views are incontrovertible facts

Nice fat strawman there.
If you can't accurately represent another's position or claim you should avoid doing so. Mutilating the arguments of others smacks of desperation.

[You can say it as many times as you like, Saquist. Doesn't make it so.

As long as you continue to back down when pressed for evidence, then I really don't have to.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

It's quite evident Saquist's one and only strategy--one which is not very effective, by the way--is to claim his views are incontrovertible facts

Nice fat strawman there.
If you can't accurately represent another's position or claim you should avoid doing so. Mutilating the arguments of others smacks of desperation.

[You can say it as many times as you like, Saquist. Doesn't make it so.

As long as you continue to back down when pressed for evidence, then I really don't have to.

"Desperation"? You are gravely exaggerating the importance of what goes on here.

I'm mostly just curious to see how long you can keep this up. You have a pathological need to get in the last word, don't you?

 

[Saquist]

"Desperation"? You are gravely exaggerating the importance of what goes on here.

A clumsy word admittedly, it might merely be indolence, but you bothered to make a reply, and a flawed one at that, so I figured if it was indolence then you would have made some evasive comment as before, rather than that you countered using a straman. And straman fallacies are used as last resorts. They attempt to create an argument that is easier to confront rather than confront the argument presented. This implies that ego or bravado impeded the option of concession or withdraw.

I'm mostly just curious to see how long you can keep this up. You have a pathological need to get in the last word, don't you?

You're speculating.
It's not about last words. It's about reply. The conversation sucessfully moved on until, Awe felt the need to make reply and you reinforced him, so now we've come full circle.

The only reason one would bring up "last words" is if victory or failure was the only consideration in making reply. Seeing as you avoided the facts 2x, strawman-ed (which is the same as a lie) and then ra ra ra-ed like a cheerleader on Awe's "coat-tails" back into the same discussion after it had moved on....

My only concern is accuracy.
Oh...yeah. And objectivity. (In case you forgot)

 

[Mr Awe]

"Desperation"? You are gravely exaggerating the importance of what goes on here.

A clumsy word admittedly, it might merely be indolence, but you bothered to make a reply, and a flawed one at that, so I figured if it was indolence then you would have made some evasive comment as before, rather than that you countered using a straman. And straman fallacies are used as last resorts. They attempt to create an argument that is easier to confront rather than confront the argument presented. This implies that ego or bravado impeded the option of concession or withdraw.

I'm mostly just curious to see how long you can keep this up. You have a pathological need to get in the last word, don't you?

You're speculating.
It's not about last words. It's about reply. The conversation sucessfully moved on until, Awe felt the need to make reply and you reinforced him, so now we've come full circle.

The only reason one would bring up "last words" is if victory or failure was the only consideration in making reply. Seeing as you avoided the facts 2x, strawman-ed (which is the same as a lie) and then ra ra ra-ed like a cheerleader on Awe's "coat-tails" back into the same discussion after it had moved on....

My only concern is accuracy.
Oh...yeah. And objectivity. (In case you forgot)

Yeah, you definitely have a last word issue. All evidence points towards that inescapable conclusion. That's an accurate and objective conclusion.

Mr Awe

 

[JarodRussell]

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-m34GUn0QqA[/yt]

 

[Saquist]

Yeah, you definitely have a last word issue. All evidence points towards that inescapable conclusion. That's an accurate and objective conclusion.

Mr Awe

If all the evidence means but a singular quanta then it's circumstantial. Far from inescapable as conclusions go. You're still projecting. Note: I answered your post directly. As I did with Maxwell. Consider the mass of evidence against you and Maxwell as to who has "last word issues". Maxwell avoided facts 3x. Maxwell produced a strawman to avoid my argument, cheerleading the discussion back to character assassination rather than remaining somewhat on topic.

As for yourself, I can't fault you for replying after so long which led to the return of the subject, but you brought nothing of substance just statements of confidence about what you think you understand about my motives. Now you're got me replying to character attacks aswell. You too avoid all of the content of my last post.

Your post above is best described as a retort or quip as an author would call it. Quips are nothing more than short jibes of no substance. No effort. They have a ridiculing factor. They are by nature evasive. Your last two post have been jibes. It's High School style sociology. That's a vernacular I've never spoken. And like pubescent behavior in that enviroment there is a predilection to initiate conflict where there was none previously. You saw someone different and it likely threatened you emotionally and you sought engagement. Now you're finding difficulty disengaging with bravado intact.

Sorry, that's not my problem.
I make it a matter of practice to defend my position not to approach others and force them to defend their position and then when they refuse to concede to call foul. That's why I said you're projecting. That's why I suspect you do have issues because even though you and others began the exchange (likely because you felt threaten by negative criticism against something YOU liked) about SGU it's now about you vs. myself.

You got yourself into this, I suggest you not ask your opposition to bail you out.

 

[JarodRussell]

FUSHTA!

 

[Mr Awe]

Yeah, you definitely have a last word issue. All evidence points towards that inescapable conclusion. That's an accurate and objective conclusion.

Mr Awe

If all the evidence means but a singular quanta then it's circumstantial. Far from inescapable as conclusions go. You're still projecting. Note: I answered your post directly. As I did with Maxwell. Consider the mass of evidence against you and Maxwell as to who has "last word issues". Maxwell avoided facts 3x. Maxwell produced a strawman to avoid my argument, cheerleading the discussion back to character assassination rather than remaining somewhat on topic.

As for yourself, I can't fault you for replying after so long which led to the return of the subject, but you brought nothing of substance just statements of confidence about what you think you understand about my motives. Now you're got me replying to character attacks aswell. You too avoid all of the content of my last post.

Your post above is best described as a retort or quip as an author would call it. Quips are nothing more than short jibes of no substance. No effort. They have a ridiculing factor. They are by nature evasive. Your last two post have been jibes. It's High School style sociology. That's a vernacular I've never spoken. And like pubescent behavior in that enviroment there is a predilection to initiate conflict where there was none previously. You saw someone different and it likely threatened you emotionally and you sought engagement. Now you're finding difficulty disengaging with bravado intact.

Sorry, that's not my problem.
I make it a matter of practice to defend my position not to approach others and force them to defend their position and then when they refuse to concede to call foul. That's why I said you're projecting. That's why I suspect you do have issues because even though you and others began the exchange (likely because you felt threaten by negative criticism against something YOU liked) about SGU it's now about you vs. myself.

You got yourself into this, I suggest you not ask your opposition to bail you out.

Yep, that's what I thought, adds to the more than ample evidence I've observed in making my accurate and objective conclusion. It's like handing you the rope . . . and you willingly oblige!

Mr Awe

 

[JarodRussell]

PALOSHTOI!

 

[Saquist]

Yep, that's what I thought,

I doubt that. Once again you've ignored everything to make a jibe remark. That's the 3rd time.

adds to the more than ample evidence

Declarative's without analysis is as ineffective as confidence statements. Without analysis it's like standing before a judge and giving your opening statement and ONLY your opening statement. Laying down the evidence along with your premise of speculation allows us to examine any syllogisms and facts that you maybe using to form your hypothesis or conclusion. Without them you're pretty much naked.

I've observed in making my accurate and objective conclusion.

You could have observed the Roswell Landing but with out laying down the evidence you say you saw "objectively", then it might aswell be a hoax.

It's like handing you the rope . . . and you willingly oblige!

Mr Awe

Metaphors are like songs. They help you to express yourself. They don't prove a case though.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

This thread is winning some kind of TrekBBS record for pointlessness.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

And that's up against some pretty stiff competition, if you've seen the Wonder Woman thread lately. Not to mention the one about Spock shouting. And all of TNZ.

 

[JarodRussell]

SYLVANIA!

 

[RoJoHen]

This thread is winning some kind of TrekBBS record for pointlessness.

Yeah, this thread just needs to be closed.

It's turned into an argument about how people argue, and nobody is going to win because nobody will let anyone else have the last word.

 

[JarodRussell]

Jesus Christ, everyone wants to have the last word in this.

 

[Gepard]

I know, right?

 

[JarodRussell]

It's madness.

 

[Kemaiku]

Wibble!

 

[JarodRussell]

We'll all lose, because some crazy moderator will close this an then post his last word.