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."

Comments

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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?

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.