Would somebody from the SciFi Channel please tell me why you insist on putting out this garbage when there is so much good stuff out there? Have you people just flat out never heard of Issac Asimov, Andre Norton, Ray Bradbury, or Piers Anthony?
shareI think the notion behind Sci-fi Channel Original movies is to spread out a lot of money over a ton of movies with little budget rather than lump it into one or two Major Motion Picture(s). This way of thought allows them to be in constant production and they'll always have something new to add to their library (which is rather large). If they produced something decent, that would cost more money and they'd have to cut the amount of movies they make, thus reducing the feed to their library. As much as I hate the movies they produce, at least there is somewhat of a variety, even tho 99% of them suck. It's an intelligent concept for a company that relies on commercials and video sales as it's sole income... Buy a script for a really cheap price, showcase some unknown *actors (they'll work just for the exposure), shoestring the post-production and voila, you have an Original Scifi production. It's a shrewd business practice and exposes them as a bunch of cheap bastards, but that's how business works and money outweighs shame in the corporate world. Like it or not, this is the optimum way for a "free" independent channel to function.
* Many SAG contracts stipulate the actor must be present in X amount of films in X amount of time. This is the reason why you'll sometimes find a known actor in some of these movies. This also explains why some refined actors will take small roles in great films. Case in hand... John Hurt as Mr. Ollivander in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.
"A naked American man stole my balloons".
An American Werewolf In London
I of course do not doubt you in any way shape or form but that makes no sense. The SciFi Channel's crap movies leads to crap ratings and crap video sales. If putting out crap was the way to make money than why does every other television channel, HBO, CBS, etc., try to put out a quality product? Thanks for letting me vent.
PS Yes I do recognize that not everything that HBO and CBS puts out is quality. :)
HBO is a money maker, there's no question about that. But because SciFi is an independent "free" station where HBO was and still is a "pay" cable station, they have an good amount of cash going back into the kitty. Remember, HBO has been in around for about 35 years and CBS has been since the dawn of television. CBS, NBC, ABC and the rest of the big wheels are not mere channels, they're network mogals, plus none of the fore-mentioned produce films and are on the NYSE.
Hope that helped.
If you were a writer or producer, who would you rather work for?
As you said, "The SciFi Channel's crap movies leads to crap ratings and crap video sales"... Hell, these flicks don't rate at all! Nothing on SciFi has ever even made it to the Nielsen rating. But as far as video sales go, read some threads bud, there's a slew of people who actually love this trash and rent them, then buy them. Ironically, these are the same people who rank on Uwe Boll for making crap!
ps.. Mind you, what I stated in my 1st reply is just my theory.
"A naked American man stole my balloons".
An American Werewolf In London
I know I shouldn't jump in here, it will only lead to excessive trolling and people yelling at me, but it sounds like you two actually have a debate as to what's going on and would like real info.
So, the fact is that you are absolutely correct to say that Sci-fi would rather spend $35 million dollars to make 50 movies than make one movie of "quality" (although movies like Babylon AD cost more than that).
Ratings wise, Flu Bird Horror was one of the best rated movies on cable TV for that time slot. It beat out many major studio releases on other networks. So, the network is smart to produce their own "crap" which gets better ratings than higher cost studio fare.
And in terms of foreign sales and home video, movies like this absolutely crush the market. Again, this is all relative. You spend $2 million on a film and you make $3 million at the end of the day. That's a 130% return in less than a year. Sure, it's not blockbuster numbers, but its a solid business and percentage wise its a safer bet than a bigger budgeted show.
Also, there is no SAG provision requiring actors to appear in X number of films. Lower level actors have to make a certain amount per year to qualify for their insurance, but name actors make way more than the minimum with just one show. Actors just like to work.
"There is no peace without freedom, no freedom without a fight."
On the contrary I am sure our brother, Pequaboy and myself are pleased to hear from you. We are all friends here and I respect both of your opinions. In regards to our discussion here, a point I am trying to make is that I don't believe that making quality movies would cost remarkably more (if at all)than the crap that the SciFi Channel puts out.
Example the SciFi Channel has made probably close to a dozen giant lizard/snake and dinosaur movies over the last few years i.e.,Komodo, Cobra, Boa and their sequels. If the Scifi Channel had instead been making the Dragonriders of Pern series they would have gotten higher ratings and more video sales. I can't see the costs being much higher. Anne McCafferrty's cut wouldn't be that much higher than their usual screenwriters, what is she going to do? Turn it down? Something is better than nothing. And production costs wouldn't be much higher than than the usual SciFi Channel crap, if not lower. The Dragonriders films would require about the same amount of CGI/FX as the aforementioned SciFi films.
With some other authors, i.e., Lovecraft, Poe, production costs would definitely be low because FX requirements are minimal to nonexistent. Heck, you could film Shadow over Innsmouth by Lovecraft with a twenty person cast and an abandoned hotel. Take care Tom
They tried Lovecraft as well. They wound up with the movie "Dagon."
I think it was actually based on "Shadow Over Innsmouth." But they moved the location to a Spanish fishing village called Imboca (En boca = "in mouth." Ba-dum-bum, chhh!).
Some of us are always glad when you jump in and give your side of the story. Most of the time all we have to work with is the movie itself, word of mouth, and whatever info we can get from the Internet and fan magazines. So the nuts-and-bolts info from the people who actually had their hands on it, really gives it an extra dimension. I always like to know what went into making a movie, and who knows that better than the director himself? I myself have never worked in movies, but I've done a lot of live theater, both onstage and behind-the-scenes, so I know exactly what it's like to want to do something worthwhile, and still have to turn a profit for whoever's footing the bill.
-------------------------------------
"A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five."
''Ratings wise, Flu Bird Horror was one of the best rated movies on cable TV for that time slot.''
Yet, it is still as hated as all your films. I guess everything you touch turns to manure, Mr. Scott.
''We are all friends here and I respect both of your opinions.''
You seem to be unaware that you are talking to the infamous Leigh Scott; the man responsible for this turd and one of Syfy's major hacks. He is under the delusion that he makes good films so any answers he can give you will be distortions.
''Simply put, the Sci-Fi Channel execs have NO UNDERSTANDING of the Sci-Fi genre or Sci-Fi FANS.''
Hence changing the name to ''SyFy'', to try to appeal to non-Sci-fi fans which is a ridiculous, farcical thing to do.
---------------------
Haply I may remember,
And haply may forget.
Re: "Yet, it is still as hated as all your films. I guess everything you touch turns to manure, Mr. Scott."
Oh really? Then why do I rate it a solid B+ for what it is, a low-budget creature feature?
Re: "the man responsible for this turd"
A "turd" wouldn't have the depth "Flu Birds" has. What depth, you ask?
At it's core the movie addresses the conflict of self interest vs. group interest, as reviewer jgweiner so eloquently pointed out. The Feds are depicted as ruthless in their drive to extinguish the threat of the birds and the disease they spread. Anyone who gets in the way must simply be destroyed. And who can blame them since they are trying to save millions at the cost of a mere handful? The whole is greater than the one, as they say.
The teens, all delinquent loners from dysfunctional families, are just starting to learn the importance of sacrifice of the self or the few for the greater good of the many. In fact, the film starts out with them on retreat from juvenile jail to learn the importance of community and the team concept.
Johnson, the lead teen played by Jonathon Trent, is strongly reminiscent of James Remar's Ajax in "The Warriors". Although he initially comes off obnoxious and uncaring the viewer can't help but sense something good underneath the surface, not to mention his passion and courage to survive. He possesses a wild, dangerous air and this naturally attracts the blond hottie. It also attracts the allegiance of the other two main guys in the group, Derrick and Gordon (aka 'Hip Hop'), despite the fact that Johnson is extremely tough on both at times. The reason he's tough on them is because it's a life or death situation. And even though the other leader of the group, Eva (Sarah Butler), loathes his seemingly uncaring nature she's willing to work with him to survive. She also has an epiphany about Johnson at the end.
The teens face no less than three episodes that present the possibility of sacrifice -- in a tunnel, in a hunter's house in the woods and, lastly, in the tunnel again. In the initial episode the group votes on whether or not to sacrifice the disease-ridden Porky as a diversion for the birds so the rest can escape. Johnson argues that Porky is as good as dead already since he's clearly dying from the disease, but Porky objects. I guess Porky would rather suffer a slow, agonizing death in the lonely darkness of the cave than die a relatively quick death as a diversion so his fellow delinquents might have a chance at surviving. Regardless, notice how the members attitudes contrast Porky's in the two subsequent episodes. It's an interesting study and reveals the teens' positive growth in the crisis.
Yes, "Flu Birds" has a laughable title and a ridiculous premise, but don't 95% of these Grade-B creature features? Yes, the guy who plays Porky is a questionable actor and the film has a comic-booky vibe. Regardless, "Flu Birds" entertains and delivers in all the requisite areas as a nature-runs-amok flick, but it's greatness emerges in its study of human nature and self vs. group dynamics.
Don't listen to the dullards who were unable to see beneath the Grade-B trappings. "Flu Birds", like "Sasquatch Mountain", possesses depth even while it successfully entertains and is therefore worthy of your time and respect.
@ pequaboy:
This way of thought allows them to be in constant production and they'll always have something new to add to their library (which is rather large). If they produced something decent, that would cost more money and they'd have to cut the amount of movies they make, thus reducing the feed to their library. As much as I hate the movies they produce, at least there is somewhat of a variety, even tho 99% of them suck
The people running the Sci-Fi Channel think that Science Fiction Fans are all hopelessly inept teenage geeks who get off on the worst movies possible.
Simply put, the Sci-Fi Channel execs have NO UNDERSTANDING of the Sci-Fi genre or Sci-Fi FANS.
Pitiful.
----
"Is our children learning"? -Sep 12 2000
"Childrens do learn" -Sep 26 2007
- GW Bush
[deleted]
Amen Helen
shareOT, but there is some political reason I can't see Mystery Science Theater on either Sci Fi or the Comedy channel.
shareIt's kinda funny how almost all of the SciFi origional movies suck, but their mini-series are usually really well done and awesome. The only thing I liked about this movie was watching the lead chick run around in those tight jeans... Mmmmmmmmmm.... Plus hip-hop was good for a few laughs.
shareNot only that, but their original series are usually pretty good, too. Eureka, Warehouse 13, Battlestar Galactica, Sanctuary, to name the most obvious ones. They're not to everyone's tastes, but they all work well within their premises. To be fair, there have been some totally forgettable ones, too. I would mention their names, but I'm afraid I can't remember any of them. It's a mystery to me how their original series can be so good as compared to the wretchedness of their original movies.
-----------------------------------
Currently watching: Phineas and Ferb - One Good Scare Ought to Do It!
-----------------------------------
"A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five."
I'd love to see Peirs Anthony's Incarnation series made into a mini series or something.
-----
www.kittysafe.net
Online Mews, Reviews, Poetry, Music, and Ideas
SciFi's tried Ray Bradbury. "A Sound of Thunder."
And they should probably stay away from him in the future. If you've seen that movie and read the story it's based on, you'll agree with me.