Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
SyFy's lackluster homemade projects are terrible. I can't even comprehend how worse they could do with such filth that they parade before our eyes on a nightly basis. The only salvation is when a Stargate Derivative or Star Trek midnight run appears. By that time my sanity is on the verge of diving off into a science fiction related coma.
The film you provided the clip of is a Roger Corman production,and though I've not seen the film,It seems to be right up Cormans alley.
Most of his movies fall into the goofy but fun category,and he's even produced a few classics in his career, Death Race 2000 and Rock and Roll High school among them.
Now,It does seem that SyFy does have a bit of a "fetish" with "when various animals go batgak/get mutated/ etc",but in a way,that in itself is a Science fiction staple,the SyFy network just executes the premise poorly most of the time.
I am both selfish and chaotic. I value self-gratification and control; I want to have things my way, preferably now. At best, I'm entertaining and surprising; at worst, I'm hedonistic and violent.
WarOne wrote:And they don't make amends with the fact that they throw around 1-2 million for B-rated movies like that, WHICH are intended to be B-rated movies.
I still don't have to like them...
The whole point of B movies is that you're NOT supposed to like them, you're just supposed to turn off your brain for an hour and a half and laugh at all the stupid stuff and enjoy yourself.
If you go in there expecting a solid plot or excellent writing and acting it's your own fault.
WarOne wrote:And they don't make amends with the fact that they throw around 1-2 million for B-rated movies like that, WHICH are intended to be B-rated movies.
I still don't have to like them...
Oh, I agree you don't have to like them.
I would however point out that what SyFy does, is not that far removed from what Science fiction film makers,of the B-movies variety,have done for decades.
low bugget flms (and in current Hollywood adjusted cost 1-2 million dollars is low budget),that are cranked out rather quickly,for a limited audience,have been a huge part of the Sci-Fi film experince.
I am both selfish and chaotic. I value self-gratification and control; I want to have things my way, preferably now. At best, I'm entertaining and surprising; at worst, I'm hedonistic and violent.
WarOne wrote:SyFy's lackluster homemade projects are terrible. I can't even comprehend how worse they could do with such filth that they parade before our eyes on a nightly basis. The only salvation is when a Stargate Derivative or Star Trek midnight run appears. By that time my sanity is on the verge of diving off into a science fiction related coma.
LACKLUSTER?!
Do you even realize who does 90% of these terrible SyFy movies?
Roger Corman.
Look up his list of movies and you'll see why these movies get such a big reception. The man's a legend when it comes to cheesy science fiction--and he always does it well.
WarOne wrote:SyFy's lackluster homemade projects are terrible. I can't even comprehend how worse they could do with such filth that they parade before our eyes on a nightly basis. The only salvation is when a Stargate Derivative or Star Trek midnight run appears. By that time my sanity is on the verge of diving off into a science fiction related coma.
LACKLUSTER?!
Do you even realize who does 90% of these terrible SyFy movies?
Roger Corman.
Look up his list of movies and you'll see why these movies get such a big reception. The man's a legend when it comes to cheesy science fiction--and he always does it well.
Exactly,Roger Corman has produced some of the most entertaining cheese any one could want to view,in fact...I would say with no hesitation,that any one who watches Roger Corman's " Fantastic 4" will enjoy it much more than the two latest FF films.
I am both selfish and chaotic. I value self-gratification and control; I want to have things my way, preferably now. At best, I'm entertaining and surprising; at worst, I'm hedonistic and violent.
Some of the Sci-Fi movies actually have the bones of something decent. Editting for TV usually kills it, but from time to time I see something I like.
Considering the production values for a lot of them indicate that there's actually a budget, it's a shame they don't tighten things up a bit. I know it's ironically hip and all to be a "B movie", but dang, some of these just need a nudge of love and they'll actually be *good* movies.
I'm not like them, but I can pretend.
Observations on complex unit wound allocation: If you're feeling screwed, your opponent is probably doing it right.
Sci-fi makes these movies because they come in on time, on budget, have a known audience and will still get reasonable viewing numbers with repeat viewings.
It is unfortunate but decent quality television is risky. It can take a long time to develop, and by necessity it will need to be something new, for which there might not be an audience.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
WarOne wrote:Well, this is true. SyFy does not have the clout to attract screenwriters and scripts that HBO and other major networks can attract.
HBO is also a premium service, people have to pay extra to access it. As a result HBO has to offer something considerably different from mainstream viewing to get viewers. That’s an environment that encourages risk, so HBO takes risks on different concepts.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
WarOne wrote:Well, this is true. SyFy does not have the clout to attract screenwriters and scripts that HBO and other major networks can attract.
Hahahaha, now I know you're talking out of your ass.
So Roger Corman, one of the big names of B-movies during the 60s and 70s is a nobody?
Or hey, let's go with the crew from the Stargate shows--the behind the scenes crew has remained basically the same, albeit with the cast swapping. They started off on Showtime, and Showtime let that batch go.
Then hell, let's go the Eureka, Warehouse 13, and now Haven crews too.
Obviously they're people "HBO and other major networks" must not want, huh?
SyFy doesn't, contrary to your belief, just hire random donkey-caves off the street to produce their TV shows. They also, recently, have had a lot of the programming that they aired under rebroadcasting(Doctor Who, Torchwood, and Primeval off the top of my head) pulled because of BBC America actually taking off.
FITZZ wrote:...I would say with no hesitation,that any one who watches Roger Corman's " Fantastic 4" will enjoy it much more than the two latest FF films.
..well I wouldn't go that far , although I thought the Thing suit/effect was better perhaps.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
As I've said before, SyFy's problem is that they p*ss all over their brand (and science fiction in general) with that garbage. Despite the work of the Bradburys, Herberts and Asimovs, lots of people still associate science-fiction with that kind of cheesy crud, and those movies just help reinforce that stereotype.
It's no wonder so few people outside of critics and a core group of fans watched Battlestar Galactica or took it seriously. It was on a crud channel filled with drek programming (and it was named "Battlestar Galactica")...so why would the average TV viewer even give it a chance? Why wouldn't they think it was more of the same? You really can't blame viewers for staying away.
Either they want their brand to be associated with drek, or they've done a *terrible* job of brand management.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/07/21 14:31:15
Kanluwen wrote:
Hahahaha, now I know you're talking out of your ass.
Thank you. At least it allows me to make a living for a freakish ability. What's your talent? Stating the obvious?
Kanluwen wrote:
So Roger Corman, one of the big names of B-movies during the 60s and 70s is a nobody?
Yes.
Oh wait, you want me to explain. Very well.
Roger Corman's best works were when he was young and active. His groundbreaking work from that time period is not what he makes today.
Arguably, it is like hiring Louie Anderson to host the Family Feud show- its a sad attempt to inject life into a product using a tired professional.
So in short, nobody today.
Kanluwen wrote:
Or hey, let's go with the crew from the Stargate shows--the behind the scenes crew has remained basically the same, albeit with the cast swapping. They started off on Showtime, and Showtime let that batch go.
Okay, my criticism goes to the B-rated movies. I hold Stargate and Star Trek in high esteem. Not everything of SG and ST are great, mind you, but much easier to palpitate than movies that make Will Ferrell and Keanu Reeves brilliant actors. Far fetched plots (even for science fiction movies) don't help either. coupled with the sense that the SyFy channel does not really seem to care has really aggrivated me when I see movies like that scrawl through commercials.
And yes, SyFy eventually picked up SG-1 and helped spin off 2 more live action series in the SG universe. But I didn't see a bidding war go on for the creative content of the series to go to another station. Show me there were other interested parties and I can concede the point that the SG creative team was what other networks wanted.
Kanluwen wrote:Then hell, let's go the Eureka, Warehouse 13, and now Haven crews too.
Up until Eureka was created, the two writers who pitched Eureka were nobodies in the business. Warehouse 13 was helped along by Jane Espenson (Buffy the Vampire Slayer), and Haven I have not seen, but know it is based off of Stephen King's works.
But again, these series are not B-rated movies. In fact, a good deal of the time the SyFy channel has little direct invovlement in the creative process of these series (but keep in mind that Eureka and SyFy are both owned by NBC).
Your trying to pollute my argument by trying to pass off works not controlled by SyFy but instead are broadcast by them.
Kanluwen wrote:Obviously they're people "HBO and other major networks" must not want, huh?
Correct. I don't think HBO and other major networks want such gems like "Sharks in Venice," "Puppet Master vs Demonic Toys," "Mega Piranha," "Dinocroc vs Supergator," ect. to be produced for them.
Kanluwen wrote:SyFy doesn't, contrary to your belief, just hire random donkey-caves off the street to produce their TV shows. They also, recently, have had a lot of the programming that they aired under rebroadcasting(Doctor Who, Torchwood, and Primeval off the top of my head) pulled because of BBC America actually taking off.
And that is a rather smart move on the part of the SyFy channel to pick up content that they themselves cannot be creative enough to produce (through the hiring of creative writers and screenplays).
And that goes back to my point: SyFy attracts crap to produce crap. In the grand scheme, they may have a few good nuggets of watching worth within the mess, but by and large SyFy does not produce anything good.
That amazing obvious stating ability is quire a rare talent indeed.
And yes, the things that SyFy produce are pretty much not worth watching.
Keep in mind I am separating that from things that they bought the right to air, such as SG, and the many series that they also have on their channel. Those have actual creative thought behind them.
And if you are going to lump Roger Corman's prior works as being SyFy dribble, that is a slap in his face to the work he produced, PRIOR to Crappy Mutated Animals:The Movie.
And Avatar was good from a standpoint that it had good story structure, a coherent plot, and was reasonably graspable by the average audience member as plausible.
But Smurfs in Space will not be a groundbreaking masterpiece except in the graphics department, which I must admit blew me away. But graphics a movie does not make. Avatar had a cliched plot and it was hard to like most of the characters as they were pretty standard cookie-cutter designs that Cameron sacrificed for his greater vision, which was to push the envelope in computer generated movies.
EDIT:
And if you want to see the inspiration of Avatar unfold before you, watch Avatar: The Prequel-
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2010/07/21 16:32:29
WarOne wrote:That amazing obvious stating ability is quire a rare talent indeed.
And yes, the things that SyFy produce are pretty much not worth watching.
Keep in mind I am separating that from things that they bought the right to air, such as SG, and the many series that they also have on their channel. Those have actual creative thought behind them.
Except they don't really air anything that isn't actually produced by them anymore. Stargate: SG-1 post season 3 was all Sci-Fi, Atlantis was all Sci-Fi, SGU has been all Sci-Fi, Battlestar Galactica was all Sci-Fi, Haven, Eureka, and Warehouse 13?
All Sci-Fi Channel. Anyone else airing it is buying the rights from them.
And if you are going to lump Roger Corman's prior works as being SyFy dribble, that is a slap in his face to the work he produced, PRIOR to Crappy Mutated Animals:The Movie.
You must not have seen most of his movies. He's always had a tongue in cheek humor, which fits the B-movie genre perfectly.
You guys are taking this far too seriously. This movie looks hilarious and I'm pretty sure that's what they're going for. Even the music in the background says this is a joke. It's one of those movies where you and your friends can pretend to be the crew from MST3K and mock it the whole time.
-to many points to bother to count.
, 
, 
, and a little 
and now VC