Slashdot Mirror
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."
I know it's a crappy place to live, but comparing us to Bulgaria? Thats a little harsh.
It's the perfect place to shoot a remake of, "The Day the Earth Stood Still".
But this is slashdot. A slashdoter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber!
Great we can get new episodes of Mystery Science Theatre 3000
GETPKG - Package Management for Slackware
Although Mansquito was awesome in its sheer stupity.
No, Mansquito was awesome due to the offalistic explosion of awfulness that inhabited the plot and burst out at random intervals.
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
Watch out for the mansquitoes.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
July 10, 2005
B Movies Invade Your TV!
By LEWIS BEALE
"ATTACK OF THE SABRETOOTH." "Bloodsuckers." "The Man With the Screaming Brain." And, most indelible of all, "Mansquito."
A combination of outrageous genre concepts, low-budget filmmaking and sensationalized titles like the roll call above are all part of the Sci Fi Channel's attempt to establish a presence on Saturday nights, when a good number of potential viewers are out, asleep or watching reruns. The programming strategy has been a major success, with numbers that far exceed anyone's expectations.
"Alien Apocalypse," Sci Fi's biggest Saturday hit, attracted 2.7 million viewers in March. That may be a pittance for CBS or NBC, but it constitutes a major audience for a niche network. And besides, said Steve Sternberg, a television analyst at MagnaGlobal USA, "Friday and Saturday have become very weak nights for the broadcast networks," which, he explained, "have not been able to draw enough viewers with original entertainment series. Cable networks can flourish with much smaller audiences. Original horror and sci-fi movies seem like the perfect programming for Saturday night."
"They're good at the 'D' word, demographics," said Bruce Campbell, a star of B movies who also wrote, directed and starred in the "Screaming Brain" film, to be shown in September. "I think they're micromarketing," he said, "which in this fragmented world makes sense. They're saying, 'Who's at home on Saturday night?' "
The answer might be surprising. Nearly half of Sci Fi's audience is female, and in the highly sought-after 25-to-54-year-old demographic category, Sci Fi is the No. 4 basic cable network on Saturdays, behind TNT, USA and TBS.
Sci Fi's foray into Saturday night mayhem began in 2002, when network executives realized that cheap, independently made genre pictures, an important element of their programming mix, were hardly being produced any more. So, said Tom Vitale, the Sci Fi Channel's senior vice president for original movies "We had a choice of recycling older movies or going out and trying to create original movies ourselves. We went back to these producers who made genre movies, and asked them if they wanted to make them with us."
People like Ken Badish jumped at the chance. Mr. Badish's company, Active Entertainment, will have produced nine Sci Fi movies by the end of 2005, high-concept features like "Mansquito" (experiment gone awry creates man-mosquito hybrid!), and "Alien Lockdown" (government science produces horrific slime thing!).
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. Secondly, there's a good story. Like we're shooting a 'Jaws'-kind of movie featuring a giant squid. We make a reasonable use of C.G.I., because the audience wants that escapist thing. And we add emotional content, so the audience can feel for the characters."
Often that amounts to borrowing shamelessly from works like "Alien," "The Fly" and "The Thing" and then adding ideas gleaned from Scientific American or Wired.
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. They're cast with B-list celebrities like Luke Perry and Stephen Baldwin, with the occasional big-picture actors - Sean Astin and John Rhys-Davies of "Lord of the Rings" - making an appearance. The network pays $750,000 for domestic TV rights, and the producers make their money back through international and DVD sales.
But are the films any good? Critics have not found much to praise, though some seem to have tried pretty hard. Virginia Heffernan of The New York Times said "Chupacabra: Dark Seas" (monster runs amok on a cruise liner!) was "founded on broad clichés, overacted and clumsily blocked." But she added that the casting of serious actors like Mr. Rhys-Davies and Gianc
Hello lowbudget ... although the article matybe is interesting (as for the news is) i kinda don't like attitude. What is the funny thing about bulgaria. I LIVE here and i am proud. I have net and probably win more money compared to our standards than you. What makes you think you are better than me.
I don't intend this to be flame ... but i feel outraged
In fire we trust http://www.getoto.net
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.
A Fatal OE Exception has occurred, Sig will now reboot.
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.
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.
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.
--
make install -not war
Bulgaria and Romania is joining the European Union in a couple of years. We might consider to accept Missouri as well if you will behave and make some progress...
We didn't have enough Tremors movies.
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
watch this
First of all, some Brucelore... In Albuquerque, "The Man With the Screaming Brain" showed this weekend, and then is showing again in a couple days, with Bruce being present but those tickets all sold out long ago, so... if you snoozed, you losed. Also, Bruce will be at Page 1 Bookstore autographing his book. Of course, I'm sure he's on a whirlwind tour and visiting other cities, so wherever you are: pay attention and you'll get to meet the man, the myth, the legend.
Second: about B movies. In the last few years I've become aware of some local low-budget filmmakers, and I even got to be a zombie extra a little while back. (Maybe calling these "B" movies is a stretch, as they would go ape at the thought of a budget anywhere near the magnitude of a million dollars.) Of these people's work, one thing I've noticed is this: you can't show this stuff on TV. People, you are not seeing the "cream of the crop" on SciFi channel, because the best cheap movies have sex in them. No, they're not porn, but they're not prude either. (Oh, and they tend to be gorier than what even American TV tolerates.) Now, don't get me wrong: these movies aren't great. But they're better than the SciFi channel stuff, and they'll get some sincere laughs out of you if nothing else. Find your local cult video store if you have one, and start talking to people. Find your local filmmakers, and check out the crazy shit they're doing. SciFi channel's movies will bore you to tears after you do that.
Third, about micro-marketing. I amazes me that TV execs are actually asking questions like, "Who's at home on Saturday night?" That is so twentieth century. I have had my Tivo for nearly five years now! Is routine time-shifting (by "routine," I mean even more effortless than VCRs which have been around for decades) still not commonplace? If not, it's making me wonder if I can make money selling fully configured MythTV boxes or something, because people who watch TV need this technology whether they know it yet, or not. ;-) Timeslots, what an obsolete concept.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
They should have just hired the slashdot editors. They have proven before that they are capable of remaking articles for next to nothing.
...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.
They lost the rights to Star Trek to Spike TV. They cannot afford to pick up Doctor Who reruns, or any other BBC SciFi (Red Dwarf, Blake's Seven, Star Cops, etc). They canceled FarScape and Lexx, WTF? Those where good shows and they flushed them down the toliet!
They remade BattleStar Galactica into a Space Opera, more emphesis on Opera than Space. Cyclons look and act human now, they stole^H^H^H^H^H^Hborrowed that from "The Terminator". A few characters got their gender changed.
SciFi had a chance to pick up "Space: Above and Beyond" one of the best SciFi shows made on network TV, and they refused.
Stargate SG1 wasn't lame enough, so they made a Stargate Atlantis, and now they recognize the lameness and are trying to change the actors with some who were on FarScape in an effort to jumpstart the show. Yet it jumped the shark long ago.
Now SciFi is buying movies that I can rent for $1 at the local video stores because they are B-Movies that hardly anyone wants to see, so they got marked down. Some are two for $1. At least the video rentals of those movies won't be edited for TV with all the good parts taken out.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
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?
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
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.
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
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?
- sarcasm is just one more service we offer -
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.
http://notanumber.net/
What that term actually says is that 'People in Missouri make almost as much as people in the UK or Belgium'. Oooo, scary. Almost as much!
Its economy is larger than those of Ireland, Luxembourg, Finland, Greece, or Portugal
Luxembourg? WTF? Do they even have an 'economy'? And didn't you then say it has a larger population than Ireland and Finland?
So, to rephrase that paragraph in a saner manner:
That means that people in Missouri make slightly less than people the UK or Belgium, and slight more more than those in France, Germany, Italy, or Spain. It is larger than Luxembourg (Yes, you didn't say that, but everyone is bigger than Luxembourg.), Ireland, and Finland, and thus so is its economy.
The one unqualified comparison is that its economy is bigger than Greece and Portugal, and it's probably smaller. Those are some real EU leaders, there.
This has been a your daily lesson of 'How to lie with statistics'. if you look at what he claims, you can see Missouri fits in perfectly as a member of the EU. (Except that it's not a county, of course, nor is it in Europe.)
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?