I posted this a long time ago and it's a three year old article, but they are still using the same formula.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/scifi.html
Gee,and I always thought they used duct tape and baling wire! :bouncegiggle:
Trek, great article. I usually lack the patience to read anything over three paragraphs long, but I couldn't pull myself away! Heh heh. :thumbup:
So, when are they going to get around to making Hyote? :wink:
I figure it's something I really don't want to know, like how they make hotdogs.
While a great article nonetheless, I still think that those guys are completely disillusioned as to what they are actually releasing onto the movie watching public with these Sci Fi channel original movies.
I attribute the majority of the problem due to how every low budget filmmaker has access to CGI now and will use that instead of old school practical effects, which is why the old monster movies are so good and cheesy to behold. And most of the time the CGI in these Sci Fi flicks ends up looking like a poor PS2 game (or even worse a crappy PS1 game like the somewhat recent Raptor Island). I can't stand crappy CGI. But I have a fondness for crappy old school animatronics and puppetry and the like.
Those old monster movies have a charm that still resonates to this date because these people went into remote locations, set up cameras, put a guy in a crappy monster suit and made a movie, lots of time without a logical script.
Quote from: Raffine on August 07, 2007, 08:50:37 PM
I figure it's something I really don't want to know, like how they make hotdogs.
(chokes on coffee) :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :thumbup:
Wow. Anyone else find it almost blasphemous that the president of SciFi channel is (was??) named Hammer?
One more thing: seven acts? Is this the natural evolution of the MTV style of film-making? With a run time of 88 minutes, that's a bit over 12 minutes per act. Not a lot of depth there, huh?
The point that shouldn't be lost here is the number of people watching these things. Getting 1.5 to 2 million viewers is damned good ratings for a cable channel.
They get ratings and the things are cheap to produce and when you figure that one episode of the Stargate shows costs $1.6 million to make Scifi is getting a helluva bargain. So don't expect them to quit making them anytime soon.
So the stuff they were buying was actually worse than the stuff they are producing? Impressive.
I think the thing they're overlooking is that the good B-movies of the past had likable characters and an interesting plot that had some suspense to it. Two things that are almost never seen in Sci-Fi originals. They go on and on about stuff being a metaphor for something else, good grief. Anything can be a metaphor for anything, the vast majority of people don't even notice that crap. I mean, Stephen Hawking revises his theory about information being able to escape from a black hole, and these goofs come up with a monster coming out of a black hole...as a metaphor? Huh...what?
Bottom line is that a good bad movie has good characters and a good story, not bargain basement CGI every 7 minutes. And it needs boobs, another thing most of their movies lack in the extreme. I mean, I realize their movies are made for TV, but they could at least give us a well-endowed babe in a skin-tight T-shirt. It's not like acting talent is any sort of consideration in their productions.
I'd rather see a bad movie with some puppet/costume work, rather than CGI/Window's Paintbrush graphics.
I mean honestly, even if the costume's bad, it at least shows some effort than letting a 7 year old use the paintbrush on Windows Paint.
I wish they would give the horror movies a break and do some actual Sci-fi movies.
Good movies? GOOD movies?
You....have totaly unrealistic expectations.....
Sci-Fi can eat my galaxy spanning shorts...
I've always wondered that as well as to why they call themselves the Sci-Fi channel and yet all of their original movies are horror flicks.