<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_17_0611259</id>
	<title>New Riddick Movie Made Possible By Games?</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1266431820000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hughpickens.com/" rel="nofollow">Hugh Pickens</a> writes <i>"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 <a href="http://insidemovies.moviefone.com/2010/02/12/chronicles-of-riddick-3-vin-diesel/">latest example is the untitled sequel to <em>The Chronicles of Riddick</em></a>, 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 <a href="http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2010/02/riddick/">profits from the tie-in video game franchise</a> may have put the movie in the black. In addition, <em>Riddick</em> itself was a sequel to <em>Pitch Black</em>, a modestly budgeted ($23 million) success back in 2000. Extending the franchise to a third film may help boost ancillary profits by introducing the <em>Pitch Black</em> and <em>Chronicles of Riddick</em> 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."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>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 did n'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 .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>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.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31182318</id>
	<title>Re:Radical Fucking Concept</title>
	<author>dpastern</author>
	<datestamp>1266494340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm still trying to figure out why people hated the sequel so much.  Plenty of action, lush looking film, good score, good SFX, far better than the original movie imho.  It's one of my faves.</p><p>Dave</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm still trying to figure out why people hated the sequel so much .
Plenty of action , lush looking film , good score , good SFX , far better than the original movie imho .
It 's one of my faves.Dave</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm still trying to figure out why people hated the sequel so much.
Plenty of action, lush looking film, good score, good SFX, far better than the original movie imho.
It's one of my faves.Dave</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165914</id>
	<title>Why all the negativity in the article?</title>
	<author>insanecarbonbasedlif</author>
	<datestamp>1266349800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>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.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So some people did n'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 did n't like the second one , do n't pay to see the third .
You do n't have to see movies you do n't like .
Riddick rocks and anyone that does n't think so can just ignore it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>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.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165972</id>
	<title>Bad marketing, good movie.</title>
	<author>miffo.swe</author>
	<datestamp>1265054460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>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.</p><p>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.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>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 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>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.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165918</id>
	<title>Hollywood accounting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266349800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>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.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>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 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>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.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31167954</id>
	<title>Re:Why all the negativity in the article?</title>
	<author>Lumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1265034360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like the movie for one reason... they actually had a competent sound engineer mixing the surround sound.</p><p>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.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>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 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>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.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166058</id>
	<title>Advertised budget != Actual budget</title>
	<author>Hadlock</author>
	<datestamp>1265055480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>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</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>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</tokentext>
<sentencetext>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</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31171838</id>
	<title>Re:New movie made possible by *really good* games</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265048460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I completely agree. But could you please stop using the word &ldquo;IP&rdquo; (other than for IP protocol related things)?<br>Because by definition and by the laws of physics, there can not possibly be such a thing as &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo;. It&rsquo;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.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>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 .
: /</tokentext>
<sentencetext>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.
:/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166392</id>
	<title>Summary? like does anyone read those anymore?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265016780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't care about CoR, not Pitch Black. But I care about the summary. I thought slashdot was pretending to be targeting the intelligent crowd?
<br>
<i>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.</i>
<br>
Distribution of the movie and advertising, last time I checked, was covered from the movie budget... This "statement" takes up half the summary and tries to convince us that $105M &gt; $116M.
<br>
Really, slashdot? Really?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't care about CoR , not Pitch Black .
But I care about the summary .
I thought slashdot was pretending to be targeting the intelligent crowd ?
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 did n'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 .
Distribution of the movie and advertising , last time I checked , was covered from the movie budget... This " statement " takes up half the summary and tries to convince us that $ 105M &gt; $ 116M .
Really , slashdot ?
Really ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't care about CoR, not Pitch Black.
But I care about the summary.
I thought slashdot was pretending to be targeting the intelligent crowd?
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.
Distribution of the movie and advertising, last time I checked, was covered from the movie budget... This "statement" takes up half the summary and tries to convince us that $105M &gt; $116M.
Really, slashdot?
Really?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31170492</id>
	<title>I really liked Chronicles</title>
	<author>GodfatherofSoul</author>
	<datestamp>1265044440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>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 <i>The Wicker Man</i> 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 cult.  Throw in some neat, characters like Thandie Newton as the ambitious hottie wife of a junior officer and you had a good flick.  In fact, my only knock was the over-the-top depiction of Riddick as a badass.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the few times a sequel takes a new direction and works .
I have n't seen a change-up work that well since Aliens ( I am NOT putting CoR in the same league ) .
It did n'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 cult .
Throw in some neat , characters like Thandie Newton as the ambitious hottie wife of a junior officer and you had a good flick .
In fact , my only knock was the over-the-top depiction of Riddick as a badass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>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 cult.
Throw in some neat, characters like Thandie Newton as the ambitious hottie wife of a junior officer and you had a good flick.
In fact, my only knock was the over-the-top depiction of Riddick as a badass.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166038</id>
	<title>Re:Radical Fucking Concept</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265055120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm compelled to agree, but, I did enjoy the story of the visually bloated second movie.  I don't think anyone has ever questioned why it costs $105 million USD, or SO, for special effects... are these guys renting out big blue, or what?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm compelled to agree , but , I did enjoy the story of the visually bloated second movie .
I do n't think anyone has ever questioned why it costs $ 105 million USD , or SO , for special effects... are these guys renting out big blue , or what ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm compelled to agree, but, I did enjoy the story of the visually bloated second movie.
I don't think anyone has ever questioned why it costs $105 million USD, or SO, for special effects... are these guys renting out big blue, or what?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166000</id>
	<title>Re:Theater Chronicles of Riddick sucked because...</title>
	<author>eparker05</author>
	<datestamp>1265054820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree that the DVD version is better, TBH I loved it even before I saw the extended cut.</p><p>But, I was bothered by the epic ripoff of the Borg: Necromongers? yea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree that the DVD version is better , TBH I loved it even before I saw the extended cut.But , I was bothered by the epic ripoff of the Borg : Necromongers ?
yea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree that the DVD version is better, TBH I loved it even before I saw the extended cut.But, I was bothered by the epic ripoff of the Borg: Necromongers?
yea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166028</id>
	<title>Escape from Butcher Bay was a solid game</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265055060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It helps that Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay was a genuinely excellent game on both the XBox and PC. Movie adaptations usually suck, but this game had top of the line graphics, brutal hand-to-hand combat, the voice of Vin Diesel (like him or not, he is start power) and plenty of mature content. No lame PG-13 prison planet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It helps that Chronicles of Riddick : Escape from Butcher Bay was a genuinely excellent game on both the XBox and PC .
Movie adaptations usually suck , but this game had top of the line graphics , brutal hand-to-hand combat , the voice of Vin Diesel ( like him or not , he is start power ) and plenty of mature content .
No lame PG-13 prison planet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It helps that Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay was a genuinely excellent game on both the XBox and PC.
Movie adaptations usually suck, but this game had top of the line graphics, brutal hand-to-hand combat, the voice of Vin Diesel (like him or not, he is start power) and plenty of mature content.
No lame PG-13 prison planet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31167928</id>
	<title>Re:The Chronicles of Riddick</title>
	<author>Ephemeriis</author>
	<datestamp>1265034240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>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/<b>Fantasy</b> movie with an anti-Hero as the main character (although Riddick as a character was much more developed in the second movie).</p></div><p>Added emphasis on what my big problem was...</p><p>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 physically superior to your average human, but he's still purely human...</p><p><i>Chronicles of Riddick</i> gave us a fleet of undead warriors...  Led by some kind of half-ghost guy with his soul trailing behind him...  And they were all taking advice from an invisible lady who can float on thin air...  You've got people hopping from one planet to another with very little time lapse...  You've got some kind of human bloodhounds that can follow a scent across the stars...  You've got Riddick channeling the psychic anger of a dead race...</p><p>It felt more like I was watching some swords &amp; sorcery fantasy movie than a sequel to <i>Pitch Black</i>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>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 physically superior to your average human , but he 's still purely human...Chronicles of Riddick gave us a fleet of undead warriors... Led by some kind of half-ghost guy with his soul trailing behind him... And they were all taking advice from an invisible lady who can float on thin air... You 've got people hopping from one planet to another with very little time lapse... You 've got some kind of human bloodhounds that can follow a scent across the stars... You 've got Riddick channeling the psychic anger of a dead race...It felt more like I was watching some swords &amp; sorcery fantasy movie than a sequel to Pitch Black .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>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 physically superior to your average human, but he's still purely human...Chronicles of Riddick gave us a fleet of undead warriors...  Led by some kind of half-ghost guy with his soul trailing behind him...  And they were all taking advice from an invisible lady who can float on thin air...  You've got people hopping from one planet to another with very little time lapse...  You've got some kind of human bloodhounds that can follow a scent across the stars...  You've got Riddick channeling the psychic anger of a dead race...It felt more like I was watching some swords &amp; sorcery fantasy movie than a sequel to Pitch Black.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165848</id>
	<title>Radical Fucking Concept</title>
	<author>PakProtector</author>
	<datestamp>1266349140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>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?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>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 ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>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?
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31167840</id>
	<title>Re:Why all the negativity in the article?</title>
	<author>Ephemeriis</author>
	<datestamp>1265033580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yeah I liked the film too; guess that means we have bad taste in movies</p></div><p>Some of the action was fun.  Some of the visuals were impressive.  I did, in general, enjoy myself.</p><p>But I went to the theater to see a sequel to <i>Pitch Black</i>.  I wanted to see a badass criminal in a science fiction setting.  I wanted to see aliens, maybe some more monsters...  I wanted to see more struggles with morality and trust and personal demons.</p><p>Instead...  I got a fleet of undead warriors being led by some kind of half-ghost taking the advice of a floating, invisible woman.  Instead of being a badass, Riddick is channeling the psychic anger of all the dead people on his homeworld.</p><p>I was not impressed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah I liked the film too ; guess that means we have bad taste in moviesSome of the action was fun .
Some of the visuals were impressive .
I did , in general , enjoy myself.But I went to the theater to see a sequel to Pitch Black .
I wanted to see a badass criminal in a science fiction setting .
I wanted to see aliens , maybe some more monsters... I wanted to see more struggles with morality and trust and personal demons.Instead... I got a fleet of undead warriors being led by some kind of half-ghost taking the advice of a floating , invisible woman .
Instead of being a badass , Riddick is channeling the psychic anger of all the dead people on his homeworld.I was not impressed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah I liked the film too; guess that means we have bad taste in moviesSome of the action was fun.
Some of the visuals were impressive.
I did, in general, enjoy myself.But I went to the theater to see a sequel to Pitch Black.
I wanted to see a badass criminal in a science fiction setting.
I wanted to see aliens, maybe some more monsters...  I wanted to see more struggles with morality and trust and personal demons.Instead...  I got a fleet of undead warriors being led by some kind of half-ghost taking the advice of a floating, invisible woman.
Instead of being a badass, Riddick is channeling the psychic anger of all the dead people on his homeworld.I was not impressed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31168714</id>
	<title>Re:Radical Fucking Concept</title>
	<author>Sausage Nibblets</author>
	<datestamp>1265038200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know how in Pitch Black, Riddick was a true anti-hero: A complete asshole who only looked out for himself, and several times almost abandoned his party to save himself? And then in Chronicles of Riddick he was a PG-13 action hero who lost all of the qualities that made him so interesting in the first one? Yeah, in this new movie they should do the opposite of that and make him back into a criminal who takes the path of least resistance to make his life better, not a brooding, angsty douche bag.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know how in Pitch Black , Riddick was a true anti-hero : A complete asshole who only looked out for himself , and several times almost abandoned his party to save himself ?
And then in Chronicles of Riddick he was a PG-13 action hero who lost all of the qualities that made him so interesting in the first one ?
Yeah , in this new movie they should do the opposite of that and make him back into a criminal who takes the path of least resistance to make his life better , not a brooding , angsty douche bag .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know how in Pitch Black, Riddick was a true anti-hero: A complete asshole who only looked out for himself, and several times almost abandoned his party to save himself?
And then in Chronicles of Riddick he was a PG-13 action hero who lost all of the qualities that made him so interesting in the first one?
Yeah, in this new movie they should do the opposite of that and make him back into a criminal who takes the path of least resistance to make his life better, not a brooding, angsty douche bag.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166516</id>
	<title>Awesome!</title>
	<author>Facegarden</author>
	<datestamp>1265018280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, this is awesome!<br>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!</p><p>And since I'm telling the world what I think, I also think of Master Chief from Halo when I think of similarly badass characters. Anyone else get that? They're both just *so* good at what they do, which is half killing, half not dying, and half staying undetected. *So* good they get three halves. Bah, I'm being a bit fanboyish.<br>-Taylor</p><p>*yes, i'm young and/or unworthy and you've seen some other way more bad-ass character in some movie. it's just my opinion, don't worry. He killed someone with a teacup! Funny and badass combined are what amuse me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>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 do n'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 Master Chief from Halo when I think of similarly badass characters .
Anyone else get that ?
They 're both just * so * good at what they do , which is half killing , half not dying , and half staying undetected .
* So * good they get three halves .
Bah , I 'm being a bit fanboyish.-Taylor * yes , i 'm young and/or unworthy and you 've seen some other way more bad-ass character in some movie .
it 's just my opinion , do n't worry .
He killed someone with a teacup !
Funny and badass combined are what amuse me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>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 Master Chief from Halo when I think of similarly badass characters.
Anyone else get that?
They're both just *so* good at what they do, which is half killing, half not dying, and half staying undetected.
*So* good they get three halves.
Bah, I'm being a bit fanboyish.-Taylor*yes, i'm young and/or unworthy and you've seen some other way more bad-ass character in some movie.
it's just my opinion, don't worry.
He killed someone with a teacup!
Funny and badass combined are what amuse me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165902</id>
	<title>Theater Chronicles of Riddick sucked because...</title>
	<author>electrosoccertux</author>
	<datestamp>1266349680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>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.</p><p>Check the Directors Cut. Enjoyed it a lot. Not confusing at all like the theater release was. I'm excited about a 3rd.<br>Pitch Black also notable, just an all-around fun Sci-Fi/Suspense/Thriller.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>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 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>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.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165950</id>
	<title>Re:Hollywood accounting</title>
	<author>PakProtector</author>
	<datestamp>1266350160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You always ask for a piece of the gross.  The net... THE NET IS FANTASY.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You always ask for a piece of the gross .
The net... THE NET IS FANTASY .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You always ask for a piece of the gross.
The net... THE NET IS FANTASY.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31169238</id>
	<title>No mention of the third movie already out?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265040120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are 3 Riddick movies out already. Pitch Black, Chronicles, and <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0407658/" title="imdb.com" rel="nofollow">Dark Fury</a> [imdb.com]. It is animated but tells the story in between the two others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are 3 Riddick movies out already .
Pitch Black , Chronicles , and Dark Fury [ imdb.com ] .
It is animated but tells the story in between the two others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are 3 Riddick movies out already.
Pitch Black, Chronicles, and Dark Fury [imdb.com].
It is animated but tells the story in between the two others.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31167784</id>
	<title>Re:Radical Fucking Concept</title>
	<author>Ephemeriis</author>
	<datestamp>1265032980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Riddick being a badass was fine. Riddick being a Magic badass fighting other magic badasses with magic magic magic....</p></div><p>Agreed.</p><p>In <i>Pitch Black</i> he was a convict from a rather inhospitable planet.  Reminded me a bit of the Fremen from <i>Dune</i>.  Physically superior to your average human being, maybe...  But still a normal human being.  No magical powers or anything.</p><p>In <i>Chronicles of Riddick</i> he turned into some kind of magical superman...  And he was fighting the undead...  And there were transparent, floating elementals...  Just plain ridiculous.</p><p>I could enjoy some of the action and set pieces...  But it was a lousy sequel to <i>Pitch Black</i></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>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 Black</tokentext>
<sentencetext>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 Black
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31167294</id>
	<title>Re:New movie made possible by *really good* games</title>
	<author>boxwood</author>
	<datestamp>1265027040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I recall at the time Vin Diesel formed his own game development studio to makes sure they got the game right. Apparently he was well aware of the problem with video game made from licensed movies. The game was a prequel to the movie so they didn't have to wait for the movie to be finished pre-production to start work. They already knew how Riddick would look like and they were free to make the setting to look anyway they liked because it didn't appear in the movie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I recall at the time Vin Diesel formed his own game development studio to makes sure they got the game right .
Apparently he was well aware of the problem with video game made from licensed movies .
The game was a prequel to the movie so they did n't have to wait for the movie to be finished pre-production to start work .
They already knew how Riddick would look like and they were free to make the setting to look anyway they liked because it did n't appear in the movie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I recall at the time Vin Diesel formed his own game development studio to makes sure they got the game right.
Apparently he was well aware of the problem with video game made from licensed movies.
The game was a prequel to the movie so they didn't have to wait for the movie to be finished pre-production to start work.
They already knew how Riddick would look like and they were free to make the setting to look anyway they liked because it didn't appear in the movie.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31167494</id>
	<title>Re:Radical Fucking Concept</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265029500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As someone who REALLY likes crappy movies... Chronicles of Riddick wasn't NEARLY as crappy as the kind of movies *I* like.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone who REALLY likes crappy movies... Chronicles of Riddick was n't NEARLY as crappy as the kind of movies * I * like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone who REALLY likes crappy movies... Chronicles of Riddick wasn't NEARLY as crappy as the kind of movies *I* like.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31171578</id>
	<title>Re:Radical Fucking Concept</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1265047680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>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.<br>Just. one. part!<br>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.</p><p>300 is the perfect example of a art-only movie. (Or Sin City.)<br>And every movie where you walked out of the cinema, and just looked at the world from a different perspective, or that deeply moved you, was a atmospheric one.</p><p>The same is true for games. Except that, because games are a superset of movies, games also include gameplay/mechanics.</p><p>What counts is the experience as a whole. The word <em>experience</em> must be stressed here.<br>Which can be a nice balance of all those above elements. But it doesn&rsquo;t have to. Since the balance is not the point. The resulting experience is.</p><p>I must say, I really like the Riddick world and character.</p><p>But I recommend playing the Riddick game (the Dark Athena one). As it is a really great game. Back when Doom 3, Half-Life 2 and Far Cry came out, Riddick stole the show. (At least from our p.o.v. here.) It plainly was the most fun and surprising game with the greatest graphics. (The <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIrArnIBCxI" title="youtube.com">cryo prison exercise area in space</a> [youtube.com] anyone? Just wow.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>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 moved you , was a atmospheric one.The same is true for games .
Except that , because games are a superset of movies , games also include gameplay/mechanics.What counts is the experience as a whole .
The word experience must be stressed here.Which can be a nice balance of all those above elements .
But it doesn    t have to .
Since the balance is not the point .
The resulting experience is.I must say , I really like the Riddick world and character.But I recommend playing the Riddick game ( the Dark Athena one ) .
As it is a really great game .
Back when Doom 3 , Half-Life 2 and Far Cry came out , Riddick stole the show .
( At least from our p.o.v .
here. ) It plainly was the most fun and surprising game with the greatest graphics .
( The cryo prison exercise area in space [ youtube.com ] anyone ?
Just wow .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>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 moved you, was a atmospheric one.The same is true for games.
Except that, because games are a superset of movies, games also include gameplay/mechanics.What counts is the experience as a whole.
The word experience must be stressed here.Which can be a nice balance of all those above elements.
But it doesn’t have to.
Since the balance is not the point.
The resulting experience is.I must say, I really like the Riddick world and character.But I recommend playing the Riddick game (the Dark Athena one).
As it is a really great game.
Back when Doom 3, Half-Life 2 and Far Cry came out, Riddick stole the show.
(At least from our p.o.v.
here.) It plainly was the most fun and surprising game with the greatest graphics.
(The cryo prison exercise area in space [youtube.com] anyone?
Just wow.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166046</id>
	<title>Re:Radical Fucking Concept</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265055300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Riddick being a badass was fine. Riddick being a Magic badass fighting other magic badasses with magic magic magic....</p><p>No.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Riddick being a badass was fine .
Riddick being a Magic badass fighting other magic badasses with magic magic magic....No .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Riddick being a badass was fine.
Riddick being a Magic badass fighting other magic badasses with magic magic magic....No.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31171692</id>
	<title>Re:This would be "Riddick 4".</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1265048040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think one should also count Return to Butcher Bay too. It&rsquo;s a game, but it&rsquo;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.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>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 .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>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.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166022</id>
	<title>Re:Theater Chronicles of Riddick sucked because...</title>
	<author>networkzombie</author>
	<datestamp>1265055060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>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.</htmltext>
<tokenext>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 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>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.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165992</id>
	<title>This would be "Riddick 4".</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265054760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Chronicles of Riddick WAS "Riddick 3".</p><p>1. Pitch Black<br>2. Dark Fury<br>3. Chronicles of Riddick</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Chronicles of Riddick WAS " Riddick 3 " .1 .
Pitch Black2 .
Dark Fury3 .
Chronicles of Riddick</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Chronicles of Riddick WAS "Riddick 3".1.
Pitch Black2.
Dark Fury3.
Chronicles of Riddick</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166970</id>
	<title>Re:Ooh a sequel!</title>
	<author>Makawity</author>
	<datestamp>1265023320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, this "prequels are even better" rule worked wonders with Star Wars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , this " prequels are even better " rule worked wonders with Star Wars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, this "prequels are even better" rule worked wonders with Star Wars.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31257284</id>
	<title>Re:This would be "Riddick 4".</title>
	<author>NuShrike</author>
	<datestamp>1265108940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well going by this math, then Matrix 3 was actually Matrix 4.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well going by this math , then Matrix 3 was actually Matrix 4 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well going by this math, then Matrix 3 was actually Matrix 4.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166074</id>
	<title>Re:Why all the negativity in the article?</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1265055660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah I liked the film too; guess that means we have bad taste in movies<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)  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.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>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 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>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.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31167690</id>
	<title>Re:New movie made possible by *really good* games</title>
	<author>budgenator</author>
	<datestamp>1265031720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>either that or go into Resident Evil mode and do the game first, movie later.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>either that or go into Resident Evil mode and do the game first , movie later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>either that or go into Resident Evil mode and do the game first, movie later.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31176478</id>
	<title>Likeable story/Mythos/Character</title>
	<author>Zot Quixote</author>
	<datestamp>1265020620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Likeable story/Mythos/Character but Vin Diesel is such a ham he kills it for me. Maybe they could do a Batman/James Bond thing and recast the lead?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Likeable story/Mythos/Character but Vin Diesel is such a ham he kills it for me .
Maybe they could do a Batman/James Bond thing and recast the lead ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Likeable story/Mythos/Character but Vin Diesel is such a ham he kills it for me.
Maybe they could do a Batman/James Bond thing and recast the lead?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31171034</id>
	<title>Re:New movie made possible by *really good* games</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265046180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't expect it to ever happen on a regular basis, Avatar being a rare example of what you are describing. I come from the other side of the fence. Say you are talking a 2 year commitment, sometimes games take considerably longer for the AAA titles we're talking about. Look at it this way. Directors and Producers generally do a film a year. A list actors do on average two a year. In a two year period the interest on a 100 million dollars is considerable and likely more than your game's budget. There's a lot of incentive to fast track films. In the same vein there's a lot of incentive to fast track IP games based on films. Due to scheduling and the cost of extended productions the game will always come out the looser. It's the reality of film production. I've seen productions panic over delaying a film's release 3 to 6 months let alone adding a year to the schedule. Some directors do take longer to make films and at times you'll have one like Avatar where they have a very long schedule but they will always be rarities. The blockbusters ironically nearly killed off visionary filmmakers. I started off in the industry as the boom hit. When films like Jaws and Star Wars showed films could make vast sums of money fast the suits rolled in. I'm not talking studio moguls I'm talking Wall Street business types that saw it as an investment. It changed everything. Since then they have tried to run films like a business. It's where these all star cast films come from where the film is packed with stars because the spread sheet shows if you put this Director with these actors it'll make 'X' dollars. It doesn't work that way but all they know are spread sheets and they see no difference in building a car or making a movie. Art has been replaced with the bottom line. It's very rare to have a visionary with the power or resources to make it happen. Right now I'd say there are two clear examples, Lucas and Cameron. To a lesser extent Spielberg. Even with his track record he has limits on what the studios and backers will let him do. Cameron has two runaway hits in a row that are number one and two for highest grossing films. Lucas has the personal resources to do whatever he wants. Everyone else has to answer to accountants.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't expect it to ever happen on a regular basis , Avatar being a rare example of what you are describing .
I come from the other side of the fence .
Say you are talking a 2 year commitment , sometimes games take considerably longer for the AAA titles we 're talking about .
Look at it this way .
Directors and Producers generally do a film a year .
A list actors do on average two a year .
In a two year period the interest on a 100 million dollars is considerable and likely more than your game 's budget .
There 's a lot of incentive to fast track films .
In the same vein there 's a lot of incentive to fast track IP games based on films .
Due to scheduling and the cost of extended productions the game will always come out the looser .
It 's the reality of film production .
I 've seen productions panic over delaying a film 's release 3 to 6 months let alone adding a year to the schedule .
Some directors do take longer to make films and at times you 'll have one like Avatar where they have a very long schedule but they will always be rarities .
The blockbusters ironically nearly killed off visionary filmmakers .
I started off in the industry as the boom hit .
When films like Jaws and Star Wars showed films could make vast sums of money fast the suits rolled in .
I 'm not talking studio moguls I 'm talking Wall Street business types that saw it as an investment .
It changed everything .
Since then they have tried to run films like a business .
It 's where these all star cast films come from where the film is packed with stars because the spread sheet shows if you put this Director with these actors it 'll make 'X ' dollars .
It does n't work that way but all they know are spread sheets and they see no difference in building a car or making a movie .
Art has been replaced with the bottom line .
It 's very rare to have a visionary with the power or resources to make it happen .
Right now I 'd say there are two clear examples , Lucas and Cameron .
To a lesser extent Spielberg .
Even with his track record he has limits on what the studios and backers will let him do .
Cameron has two runaway hits in a row that are number one and two for highest grossing films .
Lucas has the personal resources to do whatever he wants .
Everyone else has to answer to accountants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't expect it to ever happen on a regular basis, Avatar being a rare example of what you are describing.
I come from the other side of the fence.
Say you are talking a 2 year commitment, sometimes games take considerably longer for the AAA titles we're talking about.
Look at it this way.
Directors and Producers generally do a film a year.
A list actors do on average two a year.
In a two year period the interest on a 100 million dollars is considerable and likely more than your game's budget.
There's a lot of incentive to fast track films.
In the same vein there's a lot of incentive to fast track IP games based on films.
Due to scheduling and the cost of extended productions the game will always come out the looser.
It's the reality of film production.
I've seen productions panic over delaying a film's release 3 to 6 months let alone adding a year to the schedule.
Some directors do take longer to make films and at times you'll have one like Avatar where they have a very long schedule but they will always be rarities.
The blockbusters ironically nearly killed off visionary filmmakers.
I started off in the industry as the boom hit.
When films like Jaws and Star Wars showed films could make vast sums of money fast the suits rolled in.
I'm not talking studio moguls I'm talking Wall Street business types that saw it as an investment.
It changed everything.
Since then they have tried to run films like a business.
It's where these all star cast films come from where the film is packed with stars because the spread sheet shows if you put this Director with these actors it'll make 'X' dollars.
It doesn't work that way but all they know are spread sheets and they see no difference in building a car or making a movie.
Art has been replaced with the bottom line.
It's very rare to have a visionary with the power or resources to make it happen.
Right now I'd say there are two clear examples, Lucas and Cameron.
To a lesser extent Spielberg.
Even with his track record he has limits on what the studios and backers will let him do.
Cameron has two runaway hits in a row that are number one and two for highest grossing films.
Lucas has the personal resources to do whatever he wants.
Everyone else has to answer to accountants.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166502</id>
	<title>Oblig Zero Punctuation</title>
	<author>AlgorithMan</author>
	<datestamp>1265018100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/714-The-Chronicles-of-Riddick-Assault-on-Dark-Athena" title="escapistmagazine.com">http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/714-The-Chronicles-of-Riddick-Assault-on-Dark-Athena</a> [escapistmagazine.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/714-The-Chronicles-of-Riddick-Assault-on-Dark-Athena [ escapistmagazine.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/714-The-Chronicles-of-Riddick-Assault-on-Dark-Athena [escapistmagazine.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31167746</id>
	<title>Hollywood movies are only expected to recover 20\%</title>
	<author>Dare978Devil</author>
	<datestamp>1265032500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hollywood movies on average only generate 20\% of their revenue from ticket sales.  The rest is from DVD, BluRay, rentals, merchandising, airlines, hotels, pay-per-view, cable, and the dozens of secondary ways you can watch a movie these days.  The 105 million reported cost is inflated to the maximum possible in order to put the studio in a loss position.  Then they report only 57 million domestically, which makes it seem like they took a bath on the project.  Not so.  By making 50\% domestically, Chronicles is well above the expected 20\%.  That is why everything is sequels these days.  The costs of marketing a sequel are a fraction of the costs of an original film because everyone is already familiar with the characters.  Fans will see it no matter the reviews, and making a sequel automatically increases ancillary revenue for the first film through increased DVD sales and rentals.  It's win-win for the studio, which is why there will be an endless supply of reboots and sequels for the foreseeable future.

Consider this little nugget.  "Return of the Jedi" cost 32.5 million in 1983.  It has grossed 475 million worldwide including the 1997 re-release.  It has also generated more than a billion dollars in merchandising, and hundreds of millions in DVD, BluRay, LaserDisc, Video, sales and rentals.  And yet, David Prowse, who played Darth Vader and had a Net \% of Profits clause in his contract, has received a letter every year for nearly 30 years from the studio claiming it has yet to make any money from the movie so it has paid him nothing.  How is that possible?  Because of Hollywood accounting.  The numbers are all fabricated.  They take executives lavish salaries in 2008 and write them off as costs incurred against profitable films like Jedi because that executive was involved in "releasing the film in a new format" or some other such drivel.  And that despite the fact that the "supposed" cost was incurred 25 years after the release of the film.

DD.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hollywood movies on average only generate 20 \ % of their revenue from ticket sales .
The rest is from DVD , BluRay , rentals , merchandising , airlines , hotels , pay-per-view , cable , and the dozens of secondary ways you can watch a movie these days .
The 105 million reported cost is inflated to the maximum possible in order to put the studio in a loss position .
Then they report only 57 million domestically , which makes it seem like they took a bath on the project .
Not so .
By making 50 \ % domestically , Chronicles is well above the expected 20 \ % .
That is why everything is sequels these days .
The costs of marketing a sequel are a fraction of the costs of an original film because everyone is already familiar with the characters .
Fans will see it no matter the reviews , and making a sequel automatically increases ancillary revenue for the first film through increased DVD sales and rentals .
It 's win-win for the studio , which is why there will be an endless supply of reboots and sequels for the foreseeable future .
Consider this little nugget .
" Return of the Jedi " cost 32.5 million in 1983 .
It has grossed 475 million worldwide including the 1997 re-release .
It has also generated more than a billion dollars in merchandising , and hundreds of millions in DVD , BluRay , LaserDisc , Video , sales and rentals .
And yet , David Prowse , who played Darth Vader and had a Net \ % of Profits clause in his contract , has received a letter every year for nearly 30 years from the studio claiming it has yet to make any money from the movie so it has paid him nothing .
How is that possible ?
Because of Hollywood accounting .
The numbers are all fabricated .
They take executives lavish salaries in 2008 and write them off as costs incurred against profitable films like Jedi because that executive was involved in " releasing the film in a new format " or some other such drivel .
And that despite the fact that the " supposed " cost was incurred 25 years after the release of the film .
DD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hollywood movies on average only generate 20\% of their revenue from ticket sales.
The rest is from DVD, BluRay, rentals, merchandising, airlines, hotels, pay-per-view, cable, and the dozens of secondary ways you can watch a movie these days.
The 105 million reported cost is inflated to the maximum possible in order to put the studio in a loss position.
Then they report only 57 million domestically, which makes it seem like they took a bath on the project.
Not so.
By making 50\% domestically, Chronicles is well above the expected 20\%.
That is why everything is sequels these days.
The costs of marketing a sequel are a fraction of the costs of an original film because everyone is already familiar with the characters.
Fans will see it no matter the reviews, and making a sequel automatically increases ancillary revenue for the first film through increased DVD sales and rentals.
It's win-win for the studio, which is why there will be an endless supply of reboots and sequels for the foreseeable future.
Consider this little nugget.
"Return of the Jedi" cost 32.5 million in 1983.
It has grossed 475 million worldwide including the 1997 re-release.
It has also generated more than a billion dollars in merchandising, and hundreds of millions in DVD, BluRay, LaserDisc, Video, sales and rentals.
And yet, David Prowse, who played Darth Vader and had a Net \% of Profits clause in his contract, has received a letter every year for nearly 30 years from the studio claiming it has yet to make any money from the movie so it has paid him nothing.
How is that possible?
Because of Hollywood accounting.
The numbers are all fabricated.
They take executives lavish salaries in 2008 and write them off as costs incurred against profitable films like Jedi because that executive was involved in "releasing the film in a new format" or some other such drivel.
And that despite the fact that the "supposed" cost was incurred 25 years after the release of the film.
DD.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31167022</id>
	<title>Re:This would be "Riddick 4".</title>
	<author>mister\_dave</author>
	<datestamp>1265023980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nope. It would be Riddick 5</p><p>
1. Pitch Black<br>
2. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcxtxCWM1Dk" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">Into Pitch Black</a> [youtube.com] <br>
3. Dark Fury<br>
4. Chronicles of Riddick</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope .
It would be Riddick 5 1 .
Pitch Black 2 .
Into Pitch Black [ youtube.com ] 3 .
Dark Fury 4 .
Chronicles of Riddick</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope.
It would be Riddick 5
1.
Pitch Black
2.
Into Pitch Black [youtube.com] 
3.
Dark Fury
4.
Chronicles of Riddick</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31168158</id>
	<title>Feature film as cutscene</title>
	<author>ewg</author>
	<datestamp>1265035560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So the feature film becomes a very specialized kind of cutscene.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So the feature film becomes a very specialized kind of cutscene .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the feature film becomes a very specialized kind of cutscene.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165892</id>
	<title>Yeah, ok.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266349560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about no.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about no .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about no.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166096</id>
	<title>Re:Bad marketing, good movie.</title>
	<author>Stoutlimb</author>
	<datestamp>1265055960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>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.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>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 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>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.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31173268</id>
	<title>Re:The Chronicles of Riddick</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1265052720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"The Chronicles of Riddick" was a great action movie with a dark Sci-Fi/Fantasy background</p></div></blockquote><p>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!</p><p>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.</p><blockquote><div><p>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</p></div></blockquote><p>Not the case for me at all.  I saw both when they came out, and still liked both, the sequel more than the original.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The Chronicles of Riddick " was a great action movie with a dark Sci-Fi/Fantasy backgroundAgreed .
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 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 aroundNot the case for me at all .
I saw both when they came out , and still liked both , the sequel more than the original .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The Chronicles of Riddick" was a great action movie with a dark Sci-Fi/Fantasy backgroundAgreed.
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 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 aroundNot the case for me at all.
I saw both when they came out, and still liked both, the sequel more than the original.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166524</id>
	<title>New movie made possible by *really good* games</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265018460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Attention every IP holder looking to create licensed games: the reason this worked is that the game was truly excellent. (PC 90, Xbox 88 <a href="http://www.gamerankings.com/browse.html?search=chronicles+of+riddick&amp;numrev=3&amp;site=" title="gamerankings.com">http://www.gamerankings.com/browse.html?search=chronicles+of+riddick&amp;numrev=3&amp;site=</a> [gamerankings.com])</p><p>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.</p><p>*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.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>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&amp;numrev = 3&amp;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 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>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&amp;numrev=3&amp;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.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31169978</id>
	<title>Babylon A.D.</title>
	<author>zero0ne</author>
	<datestamp>1265042640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought Babylon A.D. was the 3rd Riddick movie???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought Babylon A.D. was the 3rd Riddick movie ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought Babylon A.D. was the 3rd Riddick movie??
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166364</id>
	<title>As guru said</title>
	<author>Fotograf</author>
	<datestamp>1265016420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>if it hurts you, dont don it. Why you are still doing it? Ah right, because you still make load of money, regardles of what crap it is thanks to multilevel scheme of MPAA &amp;co.</htmltext>
<tokenext>if it hurts you , dont don it .
Why you are still doing it ?
Ah right , because you still make load of money , regardles of what crap it is thanks to multilevel scheme of MPAA &amp;co .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if it hurts you, dont don it.
Why you are still doing it?
Ah right, because you still make load of money, regardles of what crap it is thanks to multilevel scheme of MPAA &amp;co.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31167490</id>
	<title>Wild guess</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1265029440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So how can a sequel be made if the movie lost money?</p></div></blockquote><p>One, by someone else.  Two, perhaps the backers didn't lose their shirts and still have some money left.</p><p>You might as well ask how Apple could produce the iPhone, when the Newton was such a failure.</p><p>What is it, stupid question day?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So how can a sequel be made if the movie lost money ? One , by someone else .
Two , perhaps the backers did n'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 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>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?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31168354</id>
	<title>Nobody's played the game!</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1265036580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>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!</p><p>It's named Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay, BTW.</p><p>I guess it just goes to show the motto here should be: "Slashdot Games: The only games forum on the web filled with people who don't play games!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>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 : " Slashdot Games : The only games forum on the web filled with people who do n't play games !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>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: "Slashdot Games: The only games forum on the web filled with people who don't play games!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166360</id>
	<title>Re:Bad marketing, good movie.</title>
	<author>Arthur Grumbine</author>
	<datestamp>1265016420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>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.</htmltext>
<tokenext>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 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>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.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31171700</id>
	<title>Re:Bad marketing, good movie.</title>
	<author>Rysc</author>
	<datestamp>1265048040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>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.</p><p>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 more is said about both of those things in your average James Bond movie).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>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 more is said about both of those things in your average James Bond movie ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>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 more is said about both of those things in your average James Bond movie).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166216</id>
	<title>Re: The Riddick Franchise</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265057520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess you do keep what you kill.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess you do keep what you kill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess you do keep what you kill.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31167752</id>
	<title>Re:Radical Fucking Concept</title>
	<author>Ephemeriis</author>
	<datestamp>1265032620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>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?!</p></div><p>Agreed.</p><p><i>Pitch Black</i> was a fun, compelling, tense movie.  I thoroughly enjoyed it.</p><p><i>Chronicles of Riddick</i>, 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?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>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 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>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?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31168534</id>
	<title>Re:Theater Chronicles of Riddick sucked because...</title>
	<author>armchairyoda</author>
	<datestamp>1265037360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Amen to the director's cut. It added in alot of the backstory about how he was the last Furian (sp?) and suddenly made all the WTF scenes from the theatrical version make sense. I considered it a whole different, and better, movie after seeing the DC.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Amen to the director 's cut .
It added in alot of the backstory about how he was the last Furian ( sp ?
) and suddenly made all the WTF scenes from the theatrical version make sense .
I considered it a whole different , and better , movie after seeing the DC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amen to the director's cut.
It added in alot of the backstory about how he was the last Furian (sp?
) and suddenly made all the WTF scenes from the theatrical version make sense.
I considered it a whole different, and better, movie after seeing the DC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31167312</id>
	<title>Re:Economics</title>
	<author>eharvill</author>
	<datestamp>1265027220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Really, a troll mod?  I guess it's still too early for the mods...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really , a troll mod ?
I guess it 's still too early for the mods.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really, a troll mod?
I guess it's still too early for the mods...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166550</id>
	<title>Re:Ooh a sequel!</title>
	<author>Facegarden</author>
	<datestamp>1265018700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sequels are so much better than original stories!</p><p>Prequels are even better than sequels.</p><p>I can't even describe how great Reboots are.</p></div><p>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.<br>-Taylor</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sequels are so much better than original stories ! Prequels are even better than sequels.I ca n'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 do n'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</tokentext>
<sentencetext>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
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31168274</id>
	<title>Re:Radical Fucking Concept</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1265036220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah but think about the topic at hand... the GAME Chronicles of Riddick was good.</p><p>It didn't have the weird and bad art design of the movie.<br>It didn't have any "magic" or anything that could be construed as "magic." (Well... maybe the one bit with his eye replacement.)<br>It had a well-told, tight story.<br>It had action sequences significantly better than the ones in the movie.</p><p>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.</p><p>I'm frankly shocked at the number of people posting here who have seen the (shitty) movie but haven't played the (excellent) video game-- what's wrong with you people? Play the game! It's good!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah but think about the topic at hand... the GAME Chronicles of Riddick was good.It did n't have the weird and bad art design of the movie.It did n'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 number of people posting here who have seen the ( shitty ) movie but have n't played the ( excellent ) video game-- what 's wrong with you people ?
Play the game !
It 's good !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>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 number of people posting here who have seen the (shitty) movie but haven't played the (excellent) video game-- what's wrong with you people?
Play the game!
It's good!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31167556</id>
	<title>It's about time to stop this nonsense...</title>
	<author>(arg!)Styopa</author>
	<datestamp>1265030220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First it's violence.<br>Now "New Riddick Movie Made Possible By Games?"</p><p>I'm sick and tired of video games being blamed for all the horrible things that happen in the world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>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 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>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.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166862</id>
	<title>Insanity-based accounting isn't new then?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265022000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>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...</htmltext>
<tokenext>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.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>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...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166448</id>
	<title>The Chronicles of Riddick</title>
	<author>Aceticon</author>
	<datestamp>1265017440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"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.</p><p>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).</p><p>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<br>expectation it would be a continuation of the first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" 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 did n't saw the second movie in theexpectation it would be a continuation of the first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"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 theexpectation it would be a continuation of the first.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165974</id>
	<title>Ooh a sequel!</title>
	<author>BadAnalogyGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1265054520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sequels are so much better than original stories!</p><p>Prequels are even better than sequels.</p><p>I can't even describe how great Reboots are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sequels are so much better than original stories ! Prequels are even better than sequels.I ca n't even describe how great Reboots are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sequels are so much better than original stories!Prequels are even better than sequels.I can't even describe how great Reboots are.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31167798</id>
	<title>Re:Theater Chronicles of Riddick sucked because...</title>
	<author>Ephemeriis</author>
	<datestamp>1265033160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It was rushed. Terrible organization of scenes, none of it made sense.</p></div><p>My big problem with <i>Chronicles of Riddick</i> 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.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Check the Directors Cut. Enjoyed it a lot. Not confusing at all like the theater release was.</p></div><p>The director's cut is actually worse, in my opinion, than the theatrical release.</p><p>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 the anger of all the dead people from his home planet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was rushed .
Terrible organization of scenes , none of it made sense.My big problem with Chronicles of Riddick was n'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 the anger of all the dead people from his home planet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>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 the anger of all the dead people from his home planet.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166596</id>
	<title>YUO FAoIL IT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265019240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">rul/es to follow</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>rul/es to follow [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>rul/es to follow [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166214</id>
	<title>Economics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265057460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember, folks: <i>piracy is killing movies</i>. 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.</p><p>And yet, despite the fact that both of these movies didn't make money (piracy), somehow the studio remains profitable.</p><p>Hell, with profits like these, who needs "profitable movies"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember , folks : piracy is killing movies .
That 's why good movies like The Chronicles of Riddick did n't make money .
Because of piracy .
And despite the fact that the movie did n'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 did n't make money ( piracy ) , somehow the studio remains profitable.Hell , with profits like these , who needs " profitable movies " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>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"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_0611259_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31167752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_0611259_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31168534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_0611259_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31167312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_0611259_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31167954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_0611259_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31171692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_0611259_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31171838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_0611259_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_0611259_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31167690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_0611259_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31257284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_0611259_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_0611259_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31171578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_0611259_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31167294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_0611259_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31167494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_0611259_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31167840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_0611259_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_0611259_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31167784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_0611259_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31168354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_0611259_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31182318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_0611259_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31173268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_0611259_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31171700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_0611259_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_0611259_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31167022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_0611259_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_0611259_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_0611259_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_0611259_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31167798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_0611259_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31171034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_0611259_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_0611259_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31168714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_0611259_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31168274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_0611259_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31167928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_0611259.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165972
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31171700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166360
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_0611259.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166074
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31167840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31168354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31167954
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_0611259.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31167928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31173268
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_0611259.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31257284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31167022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31171692
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_0611259.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31167294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31171034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31171838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31167690
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_0611259.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165950
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_0611259.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166550
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_0611259.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166862
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_0611259.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166046
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31168274
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31167784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31171578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31167494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31168714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31167752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31182318
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_0611259.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31167312
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_0611259.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31165902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31167798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31168534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31166000
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_0611259.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_0611259.31167746
</commentlist>
</conversation>
