Has the bar been lowered?

[Newt]

- by TV movies?

I just watched (out sheer boredom and of lack of options) "Bermuda Tentacles" (2014).  Discussions to do with this one point out logical flaws - characters who were in the line of fire survive and that sort of thing - but ignore other stuff.  I am a very 'visual' person, so maybe it is my personal inclination to notice, but when your featured 'monster' is shown consistently as enormous bluish-grey and white tentacles (with occasional streaks of electric pink) it is jarring to see the hacked-off pieces in the hands of the actors are clearly mottled baby-poop yellowy-brown.  Yet this is accepted/unmentioned.  Is this sort of thing ignored because it is common and/or expected?  There were many other 'wtf'-type situations, but this is the one that started me wondering.  No doubt at all that made-for-TV is held to a different standard, but I find it interesting just where the threshold is set for assessing flaws.  Is it a case of "Well, we all know it's gonna be crud, so let's ignore the egregious stuff and get picky about something else"?  The scum on top of the swamp?  And how deep is that swamp muck expected to be?

[Trevor]

That reminds me of a certain South African made film which shall remain nameless



Umm....  anyway: the set design on this film (made for TV) is so bad that when one character falls against a wall, the wall moves. No thought given or offered that we just might see that. 

[Newt]

Have they no pride?

[Chainsawmidget]

Have they no pride?

They have so little amounts of pride that it's reached negative numbers.