I am beginning to wonder if I have been subliminally programmed through the TV.


Whenever I see the text "SCI-FI Channel Original Movie" flash on the screen, I have a compulsive need to change the channel.

I am beginning to wonder if I have been subliminally programmed through the TV.


Whenever I see the text "SCI-FI Channel Original Movie" flash on the screen, I have a compulsive need to change the channel.

I get an almost uncontrollable urge to laugh. Their "original" movies are really rank. Poor stories, no-name actors, lame-dark settings and lots and lots of screaming.

What?? How can you not enjoy a SCIFI original??? They are by far the funniest movies ever made, I mean come on where else can you and the movies actor's laugh (though i guess there trying to cry, but it sounds like there laughing) when someone else gets eaten by whatever is on screen? I mean, so what if there so bad you can smell crap when you watch them, the laugh value alone is worth it.

. . . Poor stories, no-name actors, lame-dark settings and lots and lots of screaming.Not to mention atrociously bad, fake-looking, cheap CGI effects. Especially in the creature and monster department. I'd rather look at jerky stop-motion or guys in rubber suits.

I give them credit for coming up with the title "Mansquito". Ranks right up there with "Killdozer" as a title that pretty much tells you everything you need to know about the movie without even seeing it.

OOOOh yeah, thanks!
"Splinter" is on tonight!:thumbsup:
-Jim

I am beginning to wonder if I have been subliminally programmed through the TV.


Whenever I see the text "SCI-FI Channel Original Movie" flash on the screen, I have a compulsive need to change the channel.

that's not subliminal, that's a conditioned response like how we've learned to keep away from coiled snakes over the centuries. Just sci fi original movies are so much worse than what a snake can deliver, we've become conditioned much quicker.

that's not subliminal, that's a conditioned response like how we've learned to keep away from coiled snakes over the centuries. Just sci fi original movies are so much worse than what a snake can deliver, we've become conditioned much quicker.It's too bad that when faced with a venomous snake, we can't flip a switch and change it to a fuzzy bunny.

Qapla'

SSB

[IMG-LEFT]http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/11/03/fashion/thursdaystyles/playboy.2.184.jpg[/IMG-LEFT]

It's too bad that when faced with a venomous snake, we can't flip a switch and change it to a fuzzy bunny.

Hear, hear!

I would sooner sit through a Britney Spears CD before I would try and get through a Sci-Fi Original movie.
The things they could do if they used that money on something good.

It's too bad that when faced with a venomous snake, we can't flip a switch and change it to a fuzzy bunny.

Qapla'

SSB

http://barfblog.foodsafety.ksu.edu/monty.python.holy.grail.bunny.rabbit.jpg

Run away! Run away!

I took a trek to Sci-Fi channel's web site. The list among their top shows "Ghost Hunters" and "Ghost Hunters International". Are there people who actually sit through that crap?

They have three good shows listed -- Stargate SG-1; Stargate Atlantis; and BSG. All of which have been canceled.

Hey, c'mon now...I did a shot for one of those films called 'Ghouls', but I'm still honing my CG skills. And don't be fooled, It's not that easy to do 'good' CG. Problem is with these films, they have a contract to make X amount of films for X amount of dollars and X amount of time and are seriously short on all fronts. So as a result, the productions suffer. It would make more sense if they went for quality rather than quantity.

Instead of these low ball productions, I'd much rather see programming that included past shows like UFO, The Prisoner, VTTBOTS, Lost in Space, Space 1999 and others. If they just want to fill time slots with the genre, there's so much they can draw from if they could secure the rights. Then they could pump more resources into their 'Sci Fi Originals' and have better films for it.

Hey, c'mon now...I did a shot for one of those films called 'Ghouls', but I'm still honing my CG skills. And don't be fooled, It's not that easy to do 'good' CG. Problem is with these films, they have a contract to make X amount of films for X amount of dollars and X amount of time and are seriously short on all fronts. So as a result, the productions suffer. It would make more sense if they went for quality rather than quantity.

I understand that, and really have no problem with the CG - I accept that a low budget film is not going to have million dollar effects. My problem is with the writing, the basic story, and the amount of "suspension of disbelief" we are supposed to have! Just for fun, I once counted the number of shots a guy took at a huge gila monster (or whatever it was supposed to be) with his gun... mind you, a standard semi-automatic hand gun... you know, the ones that hold 15 shots at most in a clip. After he fired (I am NOT kidding!) 57 shots without reloading, I changed the channel!

Oh, trust me...I'm not defending these films. It begins with the writing. That aside, if you have $20, it's easier to make a convincing dog food commercial than it is to make Jurassic Park. They tend to get overly ambitious for the amount of resources they have.

I took a trek to Sci-Fi channel's web site. The list among their top shows "Ghost Hunters" and "Ghost Hunters International". Are there people who actually sit through that crap?

They have three good shows listed -- Stargate SG-1; Stargate Atlantis; and BSG. All of which have been canceled.

There is one more show that I'm waiting for them to start showing again. Eureka has been pretty good so far.

LOST isn't bad but they aren't showing it very often and the episodes are out of order.

I took a trek to Sci-Fi channel's web site. The list among their top shows "Ghost Hunters" and "Ghost Hunters International". Are there people who actually sit through that crap?

I did.....once. A couple of years ago, Skiffy was having a small marathon of episodes of Ghost Hunters on a Sunday. There wasn't much else on and the weather was cold and wet outside, so we watched a handful of episodes. To sum things up, we felt like we'd been suckered or swindled because not one of the shows we saw, was there any credible evidence of the spirits the team sought out. It was easy to make the decision not to bother watching any more eps if this was the best payoff each episode could offer.

When I found out that there was a spinoff "international" show, I was really surprised. Looking at it from a TV production aspect, they don't have to write scripts, make special effects, pay actors big salaries, so the shows are very cheap to make. If they have any regular audience at all (apparently there is one), then they'll just keep making them.

When it comes to the "original Sci Fi Channel" films....they're just as bad. I remember when Skiffy did an original film once or twice a year when they first started doing them. Back then, those movies were considered an "event" for the channel, but they also put some money (not a lot) into the writing and production, so they were easier to watch.

These days, those original films are cranked out all year long and there is no production value that I can see. As someone already pointed out, the films actually repel viewers more than attract them. There's a brief moment when I might tune into one because the concept intrigues me (very rare), but then once I investigate further, I'm usually sorry for the effort. The good news is that I've only lost about 30 minutes of my day versus investing 2 full hours as an act of faith.

Bryan

I give them credit for coming up with the title "Mansquito". Ranks right up there with "Killdozer" as a title that pretty much tells you everything you need to know about the movie without even seeing it.

It's too bad that when faced with a venomous snake, we can't flip a switch and change it to a fuzzy bunny.

Next on Sci Fi: When a mad scientist plays God with his remote control, only horrible things can happen... and a small Kansas town pays the price. Can anyone withstand the attack of Venomouzzy Busnakeys?!

Oh, trust me...I'm not defending these films. It begins with the writing. That aside, if you have $20, it's easier to make a convincing dog food commercial than it is to make Jurassic Park. They tend to get overly ambitious for the amount of resources they have.

Did anyone see "Abominable"? That one was actually _good_! Kind of a "Rear Window" meets monster.

It had a bit of halfway decent acting in it, the monster was a hoot, and (my personal favorite) all those cute lil' stupid college girls (you know the type -- they are in ALL the monster / horror movies these days) who get killed in it! One gets bent in HALF (backwards!) and pulled through a window, and another gets thrown to the ground and STOMPED like a damn bug! I was DYIN' watching this! It was a lot of fun. Even Lance Henricksen made an appearance in it.

Well worth watching if you've never seen it -- not great, but often in the spirit of monster movies from the old days. I was TOTALLY surprised to watch something I enjoyed on the most disappointing channel there has ever been.

Remember the days when they said The Sci-Fi channel was coming? We all thought it was going to be decent sci-fi / horror stuff. Hell, there is 9 years worth of the X-FILES out there -- they show it at 3:00 in the morning or sometimes a days worth of them. Why not just give it a regular slot and let it play? It would at least be _something_ to watch!

They lied. Or, at the very least, they seriously (criminally???) mis-led.

At this point, I'd settle for repeats of The Bionic Woman and My Favorite Martian...

--Henry

LOL!

But wasn't the 'Chameleon' and 'The Cube' series'es sci-fi originals? They weren't that bad. WEre they? I haven't seen them in a while now.

As for cheap vfx and such, consider Dr. Who and all things BBC-sci-fi. You've got to look beyond that stuff and dig the essence. Otherwise, it's all quite silly.

That's part of the magic of seeing stuff as a kid, you inherently put aside the poor effects and groove to the substance.

Then they could pump more resources into their 'Sci Fi Originals' and have better films for it.


I saw their Wizard of OZ reworking (or as much of it as I could stand). Not saving up and making fewer would end up better.

I saw their Wizard of OZ reworking (or as much of it as I could stand). Not saving up and making fewer would end up better.


Hey!
I liked Tin Man.
And have watched it at least half a dozen times now.

Low budget doesn't explain everything. Doctor Who, Red Dwarf, The Lexx (At first), Outer Limits, Twilight Zone, and others, were low budget. Good ideas and working with what you have will give good results. Some internet fan films are very good, with no budget.

I guess even low buck productions have CGI Fever.

Even Lance Henricksen made an appearance in it.
--Henry

Yeah, you can tell what exactly how far an actor or actress' career is in the toilet by the frequency of their appearences in Skiffy movies.

Guys and gals like Lance, Lou Diamond Philips,Steven Bauer, Steve Railsback, Eric Roberts, Vanessa Angel, and especially Corbin Bernson are apparently going thru tough times these days.

I watched Splinter. I actually thought it was pretty good for Sci-Fi.

Yeah, you can tell what exactly how far an actor or actress' career is in the toilet by the frequency of their appearences in Skiffy movies.You could say that Sci-Fi Channel original movies are the Love Boat and Fantasy Island of the 2000s.

I was little in the 60's but Rod Serling did alot with little, I really think it the courage of the producer?...There are still good writers out there...I hope?

Most watchers have little attention span..maybe that's why the stuff is so rotten?...Hey let's do a live action josie and the pussycats.....wait, that might not be to bad as eye candy...lol

And you know, they will be doing more MSTs' they have to get the trash movies somewhere....