Sci-Fi on the Cheap

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!

[Roland Piquepaille]

I know it's a crappy place to live, but comparing us to Bulgaria? Thats a little harsh.

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

[FS1]

I wish they would focus on producing more original series to replace the ones they dropped. I also think they should pick up popular sci-fi shows dropped by other networks. Farscape was one of the best Scifi shows on TV. While I didn't really care for Firefly, it has a proven audience. Scifi should be all over this property once the movie is released.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the idea is that the "Missouri" being lumped in with far away locales which would be considered lower budget to shoot in than LA. I don't think the humor was drawn from the status of bulgaria.

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

[Y-Crate]

Here you have one very good reason why SciFi as a genre, is not taken seriously by most people over the age of 12.

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

[MrLint]

Every time I see a commercial for one of these cinematic disasters (and I don't just mean the actual disaster films) I cringe, and ask myself why are they wasting money on this crap. To this say I miss 'The Invisible Man' the series. I donno if they ran out of money or budget, but it was clever deep and well written, instead we get another snake of the week movie.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no redeeming campiness, just horrible writing with poor production values. A standard Dr. Who at least has some good writing, even when there is no budget for visuals. That alien apocalypse tripe was horrible. What a waste of Campbell. I'm sorry to hear this is working for Sci-Fi. In general, their lineup is shabby. I may soon confess that I'm becoming a Galactica convert, but I hate to see Sci-Fi's otherwise shabby efforts being rewarded with ratings. I guess we will never see Sci-Fi for thinkers when crap gets the flies.

Doesn't Look Cheap Enough

[Doc Ruby]

If only the SciFi Channel followed the original formula for B movies that made them so great: low budget affects the special effects, and even the acting, but not the quality of the story. 99% of the stuff I see on that channel (as I channelsurf) wears all its small budget on its CG.

Re:MST3000

[sTalking_Goat]

Oh, if MST3K is ever revived they'll have plenty of material to work with. [schlocktoberfest.com]

MOD UP plus comments

[GuyMannDude]

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

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

This is really important if you want Sci-Fi to stick around. SciFi really is not cost effective. You'd get the same amount of viewers for a reality show for less than a 10th of the cost. If they pull this off we still have chance to see some shows we might actually like rather than more shows about celebs we don't care about.

There's No Logic To The Monsters...

[__aaclcg7560]

Sci-Fi Channel is turning the monsters-and-oversexed-teens formula into a cliche. I was watching their Saturday lineup (e.g., snakes, bigfoot, sabertooth tigers), it was all the same. If I wanted to see the same crap over and over again, I would watch the Friday The 13th DVDs that have oversexed teens who are better screamers.

support the indies! and they profit

[johnpaul191]

they make a better return on the slew of low budget movies. people will watch them. there is that certain acceptance of lo-fi effects and whatever of a low budget movie... where as with Spiderman or something really expensive people always expect more.

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

[Urusai]

...just 1950s type monster flicks, by the sound of it. Thank you SciFi for taking the Sci out of Fi. Leaving us with Fi. I guess.

Re:Wow, none of that is science fiction

[ScrewMaster]

The Sci-Fi channel has never been about science fiction, not in the fine tradition of Arthur C. Clarke, George O. Harrison and the other hard science fiction authors. Hell, having that John Edwards "Crossing Over" psychic crap turned me off to them for quite a while, just on principle. "Sci-Fi" channel, my ass. They're a fantasy escapist channel, producing films with a technological veneer to make them palatable to those who don't know the difference. About the only redeeming products they have right now are the two Stargate franchises. Those aren't exactly science fiction either, but they are incredibly well-produced and are very entertaining, and are about the only thing on that channel that I can stomach, besides some of their re-runs of older theater films.

Topical, My Shiny Metal Ass!

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

From the article:

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

[Kjella]

[The European Union] might consider to accept Missouri as well if you will behave and make some progress...

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

[NDPTAL85]

Lets just be glad that the Sci-Fi channel has gotten back to real actual science fiction, crappy though it may be, instead of the Crossing Over psuedo-mystical fantasy bullshit they were so enamored of before.

Re:To the NYTimes, Missouri IS Bulgaria

[the_weasel]

Had it occured to you that maybe all they were saying is that it can be cheaper to film in Missouri than it is in Hollywood, just like the same is true of Bulgaria and other mentioned Nations.

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.....

[moosesocks]

Why not make one great movie for $21 million.

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

[maxume]

I-Man was great! Who cares if they cut the opening credits? What purpose do they serve? I have been wondering about this lately, why do shows(networks) spend so much time on branding themselves(shows)? People will watch what they watch, word-of-mouth is better advertising than the most exciting 'making-of' shot. And by exciting, I don't know what I mean, who watches a making of? Seinfeld wasn't successful because of the porn music, just funnier. This holds true for most watchable television, the opening sequence and credits don't really matter. Star Trek wouldn't be what it was without The Shat, but it would probably still be something that lots of people are interested in, what does it matter which monkeys posed and made the noises? I guess they might pick up 2 or 3 viewers a week with the spiffy opening sequence.

Re:Wow, none of that is science fiction

[shadowbearer]

I'm pretty much in agreement with you - but I'll add that SciFi buying the rights to air BG2003 and Firefly (and doing it the CORRECT WAY for the latter! although I do wish they'd marathon it) has gone a long way toward redeeeming them in my eyes. Hopefully they'll take the hint when Friday nights become watched again... and nice lineup there ;)

Then again, there's "Attack of the Sabretooth"

*cringes*

Cheers!
SB

Dumb Movies Done Dirt Cheap

[Zobeid]

What really gripes me is the themes -- they are so trite and sensationalistic. Seriously. . . I can't see how it costs that much more to make a movie with an intelligent premise, as compared with an ignorant one.

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

[zerocool^]

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

[John Meacham]

They should sponsor individuals just out of film/writing school with a vision who would be willing to work on a small budget to get their chance. Sure they might end up with some failures, but they also might produce some gems. All in all I think it would be a better investment than consistant crap.

Re:This is not exactly a good thing

[ArsSineArtificio]

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.

See, and this is why people refer to it as "science fantasy".

Re:This is not exactly a good thing

[1u3hr]

they just want to see some escapist entertainment. We are in a time where many people are very uncertain about the future. I don't what to sound like Jon Katz here but events like 9/11 have really affected people deeply.

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

[meringuoid]

Human beings have been fighting and killing each other forever.

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

[bill_mcgonigle]

Actually I think the TNG vision is a bit depressing. It implies that true socialism is impossible until we invent the replicator...

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.