Just saw a TV commercial for Episode I, now in 3D. (Coming out in theatres this Feb.)
Sigh. He still ain’t gettin’ it. It’s the writing that broke that movie. Not the special effects.
Why, how much money do you think it’ll make?
Less than the 2D did. (Which is still gonna be more than I’ll ever earn. 
)
Domestic might be less. I imagine the foreign grosses will be large. Might actually do really well in other countries.
Is it going against any significant competition, especially in the foreign markets?
I’m entertained by the thought of an unemployed 30 year old single mother being able to write seven bestselling books all by herself.
Of course, you believe that every writer gets published only after they’ve perfected their book. A publisher would never say, “this chick can’t write her way out of a brown paper bag, but the ideas/premise are golden”.
hmmmmm
I dont know. Looking here IMDB link, I assume only Ghost Rider II would offer much.
Marley, guess who wrote these words?
Are we in the BBQ pit? Let me look around…ummmm…NOPE!!!
Listen, this is a disussion board, I’m entitled to give my opinion. I’ve seen people give opinions with much more circumstantial evidence. If you can’t handle debating my POV using your own advice, maybe scroll on by…
The unemployed single mother only wrote a one maybe two books. Then she was a wildly successful writer who wrote a few more books with the same characters and themes over the course of several years.
My point, though, is that by spending X to repackage 'em this way, he can swiftly make back, uh, X+Y.
A 30 year old single mother writing ONE bestselling book by herself? No problem.
And then parlaying that into 6 more books when she was no longer 30, no longer single, and with sufficient time/money to write as she pleased? Not a stretch at all.
How about a publisher that says, “Holy Cow! This book’s sold 30000 volumes in 3 months! She’s already one of the best selling writers in the UK. I don’t care if this crazy lady writes upside and naked. We’ve got to get her to write more books and laugh at her clunky prose all the way to the bank!”?
This really does read like a WTC conspiracy theory.
I am reminded of an anecdote Isaac Asimov once told about receiving a crank letter alternately arguing that 1)Albert Einstein had stolen the Theory of Relativity from some other physicist and 2)Albert Einstein invented a completely bogus Theory of Relativity which was then foisted upon the world by a conspiracy of physicists. The writer kept switching back and forth between these theses, giving no sign of noticing that they were mutually exclusive.
Sure. It’s his intellectual property, and he can re-release anytime and anyway he wants. (nude musical, anyone?) And he’ll make a little more money off the retreads.
But MY point was only speaking to my point of view, in that, making it 3D isn’t going to make it “better”, nor draw ME into the theatre (nor buy the DVD) again. YMMV. I understand that. 
What, successful writers are born in the womb and ordained from the moment they emerge from their mothers’ birth canals?
Every successful writer, before he or she became successful, was a nobody, whether that was an unemployed 30-year-old single mother, or a 30-year-old actor whose only education was at a free school in Warwickshire.
You keep tripping over your own insinuations. At least you could go to the effort of making this conspiracy coherent.
I’ve actually worked in the publishing business for the best part of the last 20 years. I am very aware of the role of publishers and editors. Authors come to publishers with all kinds of levels of skill, and, yes, some books are ghostwritten (mostly non-fiction memoirs and the like).
What I fail to see is any actual evidence that these particular works were not written by J. K. Rowling. All you have come to the table with are baseless speculations based on your disrespect for her particular life story.
And, frankly, most of what you say is incoherent.
(But of course the best evidence that the Harry Potter books were not ghostwritten is that a ghostwriter would have written them much better.)
You’ve been posting here for about a year, so I think you should know that the rules prohibit insulting other posters, which I did not do, and that interrupting a thread to argue with the moderators is discouraged. J. K. Rowling doesn’t post here as far as I know, and I didn’t insult her. I was referring to your characterization of her as someone who participated in a large conspiracy that involved ripping off other published works, but who was too dumb to change the name of her main character to insulate herself (and her publisher) from the risk of lawsuits.
Nobody said otherwise. However, please familiarize yourself with the rules, because you do have to follow them.
Your reading skills aren’t good enough to comprehend a one-sentence messageboard post, yet you claim the expertise to determine whether published literature was ghostwritten.
What I’m also amused with is the idea “I’m going home”,
except, when he’s not.
Actually, as long as the conspiracy-theory stuff is flying around in this thread, I can’t help but wonder if he did this to to synergize with the Red Tails release: to hedge against possible losses, or to get a second bite at the apple on the talk-show circuit, or to offer theaters a package deal, or whatever.
Wow, I really did think Seamus had meant to write ‘editor’ at first. Guess I was totally wrong.
Back to George and his ball, I say let him. Judging by the prequels anything new he’d do would only tarnish Star Wars further at this point.
A conspirator is a person involved in a conspiracy, not a person who believes in a conspiracy. When Marley called the “head conspirator” an idiot, he was talking about J.K Rowling, not you.
I, too, have seen opinions given with much more circumstantial evidence than you’ve provided. In fact, an opinion with any circumstantial evidence would be more than what you’ve provided here. “Hey, this lady wrote a book, and then she wrote more books,” does not count as “evidence” that she had someone else write them for her.
When ‘Anonymous’ (the recent film claiming the Earl of Oxford wrote Shakespeare’s plays) came out, the Washington Post quoted a Shakespeare scholar:
“You have these sublimely beautiful creations that you think only a supernatural being could have created,” he says. “It immediately suggests, ‘Could it really have been a country hick that didn’t go to college?’ The best analysis, I think, is: A welfare mother couldn’t have written ‘Harry Potter.’ And maybe 400 years from now, someone will say that.”
Turns out he was off by 400 years.