Sci-Fi on the Cheap 353
lowbudgetfun writes "NYTimes.com is reporting on the Sci-Fi channel's huge investment (28 films for $21 million) for original B movies. Includes quotes from B Movie hero, Bruce Campbell." I especially liked this line from the article: "Shot on budgets ranging from $1 million to $2 million, Sci Fi's movies are made in money-saving locales like Bulgaria, Romania and Missouri."
Re:Wait! I'm from Missouri! (Score:0, Insightful)
He didn't say "crappy", he said "money-saving locales". That doesn't mean it's crappy.
For example, you can take holidays on the cheap if you go to resorts in the former Yugoslavia or Albania: the hotels there are luxury hotels, the beaches are clean and the resorts are relatively free of tourist crowds, yet they're not nearly as expensive as on the other side of the Adriatic.
I Wish (Score:5, Insightful)
I also wish that they would throw some of that money at JMS, and let him make "The Memory of Shadows" for TV.
They should also focus less on topic such as ghosts and horror movies. IMHO these do not qualify as real scifi.
Re:Bad Attitude (Score:1, Insightful)
Even if there was a purposeful dig, i wouldn't take a summary or article posted on slashdot too personally.
-Lee
This is not exactly a good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
I enjoy a good number of B-Movies (and even a few C and D-list films), but I get worried when the predominant type of movie being produced is deliberately low-brow and sets the bar so low in fact, a first year film student could trip over it.
The idea that SciFi can be well-written and produced with some care is hard for many people to accept these days, as all they see is schlock put together on the cheap as fast as humanly possible to give the channel in question a quick cash infusion
In a day when even comic books and fantasy novels are taken seriously by the masses due to the amount of effort put into adapting them to the screen, it nearly brings a tear to my eye to consider that the bargain-bin product coming from The SciFi Channel is pretty much the cream of the crop these days.
I really don't know what I would do if a studio announced they were hiring an extremely adept filmmaker and screenwriter to put The Foundation series into theatres.
Probably cry.
I smell a rat! and It'll be on budget for 1.5M (Score:5, Insightful)
On top of this, SciFi is cutting out the Stargate opening credits [gateworld.net] to get more advert time. I know *I* want sci fi to stay 'on air' so i can keep watching Stargate and BSG, but I feel like I'm getting the poo from a 1 million Genetically modified monkeys on typewriters thrown at me with these movies.
PS. Dear SciFi. the idea of mutant screenwriting monkeys is available for a modest sum.
I'm sad this crap gets ratings (Score:1, Insightful)
Doesn't Look Cheap Enough (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:MST3000 (Score:4, Insightful)
MOD UP plus comments (Score:4, Insightful)
Someone mod this up so those of us without NYTimes logins can read.
The critics' disfavor doesn't seem to bother the folks behind the films, who have no pretensions to high art. Bonnie Hammer, the Sci Fi Channel president, likes to refer to the pictures as "popcorn movies for those who love the genre," adding, "Viewers come for the ride; it's a guilty pleasure." Jeff Beach, whose Unified Film Organization has made 20 films for the network, calls them "high-concept action-adventure movies with elements that are fun, whether a creature or a disaster."
I think this is a very good point. There are many among us who will bemoan the fact that the shlock that the Sci-Fi Channel puts out makes our favorite genre look bad. Remember that it's not called The Thoughtful Science Fiction Channel, it's the "Sci-Fi" Channel. It's supposed to be a watered-down "lite" version of science fiction in the same way that "lite" cookies bear only a passing resemblance to a delicious full-fat treat. Yes, the movies they are making are terrible but look at what's out in theaters these days. It seems half the movies are horror films. That entire genre is largely a collection of poorly-executed guilty pleasures used by younger demographics as an excuse to get out of the house and indulge in a guilty pleasure. But, as has been cited on slashdot many times before, the movieplex is becoming an increasingly unpleasant experience. Sci-Fi Channel is simply providing an alternate venue for these low-quality thrillers. I think the Sci-Fi Channel has got a great idea. Now, I'm sure as hell not going to watch any of this crap myself. But that doesn't stop me from being impressed that Sci-Fi has finally started to get its act together.
GMD
Important (Score:3, Insightful)
There's No Logic To The Monsters... (Score:3, Insightful)
support the indies! and they profit (Score:3, Insightful)
it is also way cool because they get to give money to unknown people to create these movies. there is a lot less risk. i think the coolest effect of this is that they will bankroll projects that may never happen otherwise. some of the movies might suck, but that happens anyway. even brilliant filmmakers have to start somewhere. this can be the launch pad to a lot of writers, directors, actors etc etc etc. it keeps more people working on new stuff.
by making 28 films for $21million they realized they are making a far safer bet than making 3 $7million movies. they also are going right on TV and i guess to DVD. they also have the ability to promote them endlessly to their core fans. they will own the broadcast rights forever. it's a brilliant business model.
Wow, none of that is science fiction (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wow, none of that is science fiction (Score:4, Insightful)
Topical, My Shiny Metal Ass! (Score:5, Insightful)
The most important element of a Sci Fi film, Mr. Badish said, "is a topical film that has relevance to our audience. In a film coming up," he added, "stem cells are key to the plot; in another, it's mad cow disease.
No, no, no, no!
The MOST important element of a SciFi film is STORY.
Topicality is about last on the list. I can not express how fucking sick and tired I am of shows that decide to do a "war on drugs" episode, or "child molester" or "euthanasia" or "terrorist" or "ebola" or "flesh-eating mold" or "song lyrics/video game inspires teens to kill" show. They are either totally dull, or so wacked out beyond reasonable that there is no way to willingly suspend disbelief.
If you must do topical, do something that hasn't hit mainstream consciousness yet. Be pre-topical. At least that way, chances are that the BS you make up for the story won't be so obvious.
Otherwise, just focus on the story and give me something to think about, not something that makes my bullshit-detector go off so loud that I can't concentrate on the show.
Please?
Re:Missouri (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, it should be +1, Informative. Missouri wouldn't be allowed into the EU with their laws on capital punishment. Some Americans probably take that as another sign that we all sit and sing kum-bah-yah all day long in our socalist cult, oh well.
Something to be happy about (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:To the NYTimes, Missouri IS Bulgaria (Score:4, Insightful)
Had it occured to you that thats a GOOD thing for your economies?
Perhaps all the wailing and gnashing of teeth over the comparison is brought about solely because of the inferiority complex you are imposing on your self?
why not..... (Score:3, Insightful)
The original dune series was compelling, and wonderfuly great considering the circumstances under which it was made. Acting was OK. CG was OK, but the story was a wonderful adaptaton of the novel.
How about something by asimov? Maybe make a film out of one of the Terry Pratchett novels (and have the side effect of it being hilarious). How about a decent 2001 remake with some new spin on it?
I'm convinced that War of the Worlds could have been a good movie if it wasn't directed by speilberg and didn't have a sky-high budget.
But please. No more B movies. From what I recall, Dune made a mint for SciFi. I doubt they'd recover the costs of all these B movies.
Re:I smell a rat! and It'll be on budget for 1.5M (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Wow, none of that is science fiction (Score:3, Insightful)
Then again, there's "Attack of the Sabretooth"
*cringes*
Cheers!
SB
Dumb Movies Done Dirt Cheap (Score:3, Insightful)
I can understand the limitations of a tight budget, and I can forgive a lot. I can forgive cheesy sets, cinematography, props, acting. . . But I have a hard time time watching movies that are just flat-out blindingly stupid. I also have trouble watching movies that are inferior knock-offs of other movies that were blindingly stupid.
If only they would dig through SF literature, I'm sure they could find a lot more original and plausible ideas to work with. But I think part of the problem is, these guys are fans of B-movies, they come from a B-movie making background, and the only experience they have to draw inspiration from is other B-movies. So we get the same tired, silly, often downright embarrassing stuff rehashed over and over. They're too inbred.
Re:This is not exactly a good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
See, here's the thing though... I like star trek: TNG. Why? Because, it suggests that sometime in the future, mankind will unite, currency will be replaced by an understanding of needs and a willingness to participate in society, all the earth will stand as one. A place where we explore, not invade, a place where we bring peace, not capitalism to other cultures.
Maybe TNG isn't as Sci-Fi as the elitests would like, but it's comforting in a time of uncertainty.
Rather than hire known B directors and writers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is not exactly a good thing (Score:3, Insightful)
See, and this is why people refer to it as "science fantasy".
Re:This is not exactly a good thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Get a grip, only 3000 people died on Sept 11. Forty million or so in WWII, upwards of 5 million in Vietnam; not to consider the deadly ever-present threat of nuclear war for most of 1950-1990 at least. As for economic uncertainty; try the Great Depression for size. All those periods produced thoughtful as well as escapist entertainment.
Re:This is not exactly a good thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Only because there's no other option. Offer us some Klingons to fight instead and just watch all mankind unite in harmony!
Actually I think the TNG vision is a bit depressing. It implies that true socialism is impossible until we invent the replicator...
Re:This is not exactly a good thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, that's true. You forgot fusion power and autonomous robots. Then we can have socialism.
Anything short of that and there is still scarcity. You can't have socialism with scarcity, it's against human nature. People like to have things, even if it means others going without.
If you disagree with that, shut down your computer right now, pack it up, and go sell it. Send the money from the sale to a charity struggling to feed and vaccinate children in third world countries. If everybody did this and put it into a trust, there there would be enough money in perpetuity to buy mosquito nets for all the children sleeping in malaria-infested areas and it would save about a million lives a year.
Nearly as many children died from malaria during the attacks on London as did people in London.
Anyway, after you raise a generation of children who don't experience scarcity you can start implementing socialism. Except it isn't really socialism at that point, even though the ends are the same.