Lights... Camera... ACTION!!: A Hollywood Quest

IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT
Hi Magoose here one of the guys helping Duke.

So we have some bad news.

The quest has been canceled as duke does not want to write it anymore.

I'm going to ask if I can take over for it, because I like this quest, and it would be a shame to kill it
TBF, Mags, you have been doing a lot of the heavylifting for the quest, so this will be in good hands. :)

To be clear to everyone, this is just me burning out on imagination of the quest, since my muse has been hitting me over the head a lot with so many different ideas that I just can't find myself too interested in this.

I'll still hang out here, though, since this still does have a sepcial place in my heart.

I'd like to thank you all for making this a wonderful experience while it lasted.

I'd also like to thank @Magoose, @Fluffy_serpent, and @Martin Noctis for doing so much to help prepare and write this quest. I couldn't have done it without you all. :D

I'll see you all around.

With so many regards, Duke William Of.
 
Last edited:
She seriously doesn't know?
Remember all the times that I said Bruce could hide from the media, thanks to that reward you gave him? Well, it happened there.

Bruce went in as a John Doe.

The doctors didn't know who he was until after Carrie went in.

and they told them not to release it to the press.

So its less that she didn't know and the media wasn't after it, and more like the information was suppressed by our friends and family.
 
... I'll come back to you on that...
Huh, what do you mean?
However, I, unfortunately, can only give some of this:

[]John Milnus has some good ideas. (John is beginning to develop weird ideas)
[]I think that Most of the Cold War propaganda is stupid, and needs to be more entertaining (The US government wants you to make anti-communist propaganda! Wait really, why? What have the Soviets done to warrant that?)
[]KANE LIVES! (Unknown Effect, but clearly it can only be good!)
Thank you! Any reward is a good one!

Hmm, I'm conflicted. John developing new and weird ideas is always good, but the second option could perhaps give us the chance to make the movie. And the third can only lead to great things I'm sure!

I'm going to have to think about it, I'm not sure what to select.
 
Gain Trait: Unreasonable Expectations: People seem to think you are destined for greatness. (If you fail on a role, suffer a -5 to all rolls on the following movie, while if you are successful gain a successive +5 for every passed role. This caps at +50 to all rolls if you succeed. Only works for movies, not TV shows or commercials.)
Looking back, this trait seems to have been forgotten like that one sock to finish the pair... Right now, it'd provide a +15 if my calculations are correct.
 
Hey guys. Look, I've been feeling like my Pitch for the Red Alert movie is perhaps not something everyone agrees or wants to see done. Now, I don't know if it's just me, after all I've been feeling a bit tired and lethargic these last few days, and it's possible I'm projecting. But whether it is or not, I just want to say that in no way did I do this with the intent of sidelining the Original Command and Conquer Games, or just ignore them and letting them fall by the wayside. It's just that, for me, Red Alert was the first Command and Conquer franchise I played, and I did not even see any connections with the Tiberium Sun elements as I was unaware of their existance until I finished playing Yuri's Revenge.

The whole Soviet Ending gained a new perspective afterwards.

When I made the Pitch I did it with the expectations that perhaps we could have the Tiberium Sun Franchise done in a different set of movies, separate from Red Alert, which is why I did not add the character of Kane beyond just having him be a Secret Soviet Agent that could be better developed in a sequel. However, i feel like I've done dirty to the "Messiah" and to his fans, and I feel that his role in future movies can bee fixed to better reflect what the character should be.

So, that's what I wanted to say.

And @Magoose , I'll be chosing the following as my reward.

[]KANE LIVES! (Unknown Effect, but clearly it can only be good!)
 
Five Dates
Five Dates
Directed By: Bruce O'Brian
Produced By: Gary Kurtz, Bruce O'Brian
Distribution: Lucasfilms Unlimited
Starring: Bruce O'Brian, Carrie O'Brian, Mark Hamil, Joseph O'Brian, Debbie Reynolds, Michael Jackson, Robin Williams.

Film Quality
D100 + 60 => 106
Audience Roll:
D100 + 40 => 90
Critic Roll:
D100 + 20 => 21

Budget: 2.5 Million
Domestic Gross: 81,187,856
International Gross: 66,402,537
Total Gross: 146,090,393

Bruce's Cut (50%): 73,795,196
-------------------------------------------

Honestly, if it were not for Star Wars Burnign up the chart, and you forgetting that a love story in February may have been better… you did not care. Good ole audiences were happy to see another great film by Carrie and Bruce, especially with Star Wars being the talk of the town still, and raking in so much money.

The fact you could see people coming in to watch Star Wars with Five Dates was something that filled you with a great deal of joy. It was not the best picture ever, hell you never once denied it. But there was always something that felt nice, doing something on your own, while also proving you could do something else other than being a pretty face or a presence on the camera.

It was a gift, that you and Carrie made for one of each other. And you loved it.

And it seems everyone else was too.

One of the truly fun things about the success was simple.

Joseph O'Brian was back in the talk of Hollywood. The old veteran of war and television finally shows up in a triumphant return where his son helps him. Everyone had a favorite, yet despite the obvious praise to you and Carrie, it was Joseph that was on everyone's lips. Dad finally got his big break.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yet not everyone was happy. And by Everyone, you meant the critics.

"The film is a schlocky mess of two tones, a comedy that strikes out, and a love story that is too slow and boring to be anything else other than a slow-burning mess that overstays its welcome, even when the film is 90 minutes long. Should have focused on the most interesting part, the relationship between two parents and their children, rather than the two leads, struggles.

Bruce O'Brian is supremely talented with the camera, and his shots are good, even great when he is showing the true intimacy between himself and his wife Carrie, but they serve no purpose besides worshiping something that does not exist, not allowing the subject and the scene to breath naturally.

Michael Jackson, for all his greatness on stage, seems like an afterthought on the script and fails to be interesting as a character. Robin William's Character causes some of the word mistakes in the film, and I fail to see any picture edited in any way, where his presence improves the picture.

The saving grace of this film, besides his attempts at artistic merit, was that of the mature relationship between the leads and their parents, who I think was superbly played by Joseph O'Brian and Debbie Reynolds. Yet even for their talents on celluloid, they could not save a film that should have been a masterpiece, where the director chose to try two things, rather than stick to one thing that would have made it great.

But for all my harshness of this review, I give it 2 Stars out of 4. It is a valiant first effort with greatness that is brimming underneath the surface if only the director could stay focused."


Roger Ebert, The Chicago Sun.

AN: Ouch.
 
We should make a movie featuring a biting satire of Ebert. In OTL he was actually rather amused by the parodies of him and Gene Siskel in the 1998 Godzilla film. In fact as far as they were concerned the only problem was the fact that their in-film doppelgängers weren't killed off.
 
Film QualityD100 + 60 => 106
Audience Roll:
D100 + 40 => 90
Critic Roll:
D100 + 20 => 21



WHAT THE FUCK?! Is this the result of some sort of grand conspiracy among the critics and film intellectuals orchestrated by Sidney as a retaliation against Star Wars being a grand success? I can see why such an unorthodox approach to romance and a slow burn story by a first timer with two plots would not vibe with critics, but a legit 1 when it's a 106 in quality and audiences seem to love it? What the hell happened? I also thought reaction rolls were done on 20d5 dice?

Oh well, I guess this has firmly cemented to Bruce that critics don't mean shit and it's the will and love of the people who matter first and foremost. By the way Magoose, I thought the Strike bonus to critic and audience reaction was a +30. Also did we get a x2 or x4 multiplier for profit?
 
It seems to fit. I mean, for all that we may have done a good movie (and it was a good movie) we cannot please everyone. Not to mention that Ebert made some good points in his criticism, as for all that we got good results in the dice, we are still too green as a Director. We should take this as a learning experience, and seek to try and take more Direction actions in order to improve.

Then we can rub his face on it.
 
Oh fuck did I sabotage things with the Synopsis? I just wanted to create a frame of reference for future mentions of the film and story stuff so we know just what the hell Five Dates was about, but I may have created a good chunk of the problems Ebert described.
 
I also thought reaction rolls were done on 20d5 dice?
no. did I confuse film and TV when i said that?
WHAT THE FUCK?! Is this the result of some sort of grand conspiracy among the critics and film intellectuals orchestrated by Sidney as a retaliation against Star Wars being a grand success?
The problem with the film that released is that no one really knew what to expect.

Also, no Sid had nothing to do with this, Roger just didn't like the movie.
Oh well, I guess this has firmly cemented to Bruce that critics don't mean shit and it's the will and love of the people who matter first and foremost. By the way Magoose, I thought the Strike bonus to critic and audience reaction was a +30. Also did we get a x2 or x4 multiplier for profit?
it was 20, and that +30 was from the Eisner Group that won't start till next year.

And that was x4
Oh fuck did I sabotage things with the Synopsis? I just wanted to create a frame of reference for future mentions of the film and story stuff so we know just what the hell Five Dates was about, but I may have created a good chunk of the problems Ebert described.
No you did not.

do not think that.
 
Last edited:
Hey sorry would someone mind reminding me who's in charge of Columbia Pictures again?


Also good lord, those rolls.
 
Back
Top