tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34993991.post8748778063343059274..comments2023-10-05T07:46:44.392-04:00Comments on And Now the Screaming Starts: Movies: "B" average.CRwMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07896615209770501945noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34993991.post-40740319934607203302010-05-09T21:15:50.620-04:002010-05-09T21:15:50.620-04:00Minor note, I think you meant to write 21st centur...Minor note, I think you meant to write 21st century in the third last paragraph?<br /><br />Great post and I am still mulling on it. I think you're right that the people who bother to watch old films are more forgiving of their flaws as period tropes. But how will a film without fans now - even a core of ten cult fans keeping the flame alive - obtain them in twenty years?Conflatedhttp://conflatedautomatons.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34993991.post-75676725467203494822010-05-04T19:58:20.790-04:002010-05-04T19:58:20.790-04:00Cattle and Gene,
All good points. I didn't st...Cattle and Gene,<br /><br />All good points. I didn't stress enough that this tendency to lose distinctions over time is hardly the only reason B-films are beloved.<br /><br />The talent pool issue is a great example. Corman benefited from this fresh crop of film students, the first generation of film students in America and the a time when there was a weird surplus of talent that meant skill could be had for pennies. Whereas Syfy seems to prefer working with folks who had their chance and ended up a journeymen television types. Instead of a evolutionary petri dish, Syfy is a game preserve for talents that had their shot and were selected against.<br /><br />(That said, Nicholson's turn in Little Shop of Horror's is mostly beloved as a curio. Even few Scorsese fans watch Boxcar Bertha as anything other than a time capsule. We often have interest in these early productions only because we know where the talent in them went, not because that talent is notably on display in them.)CRwMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07896615209770501945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34993991.post-7490692795176301122010-05-04T15:47:25.695-04:002010-05-04T15:47:25.695-04:00This is a topic I've probably given too much t...This is a topic I've probably given too much thought to as well. <br /><br />I'm definitely with you and Cattleworks in saying that the majority of SYFY offerings have been forgettable junk, but I've often wondered, "Is it just nostalgia that makes me think Corman's drive-in flicks were 'memorable junk?'"<br /><br />I've seen the spawn of 50's SF cinema cross-analyzed in just about every way conceivable. Sometimes I think the analyses work; sometimes they seem like special pleading. But even without analytical support, I tend to like the 50s' stuff-- even works that I never saw as a kid-- simply because it seems a little less assembly-line.<br /><br />I'm sure Corman had no greater motive than the SYFY filmmakers; both wanted to make money in the most expedient way possible. With Corman this could even lead to egregious cheats, like THE BEAST WITH A MILLION EYES, a phony-baloney title if there ever was one. But Corman would also find weirdo talents who would come up with brainfried aliens like the ones from IT CONQUERED THE WORLD or THE SHE CREATURE. Sometimes an oddball work like SHE CREATURE would have some valid if exploitative vibe.<br /><br />I've seen dozens of Syfy movies and there's maybe one "monster moment" I remember well": the Mega Shark jumping up and eating the plane. Everything else-- boring.<br /><br />Thanks for your usual thought-provoking post, CWRM.Gene Phillipshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11495562795211277146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34993991.post-3580996081764517552010-05-03T10:13:13.851-04:002010-05-03T10:13:13.851-04:00An interesting food for thought post.
I have very ...An interesting food for thought post.<br />I have very mixed feelings about SyFy orginal films. Generaly, they're negative. But as to the reasons they're negative is kind of a mixed bag and also contradictory, I think, depending on the movie. Meaning, my reasons are highly subjective and for that reason, also very inconsistent.<br />For the most part, I find the idea of the SyFy channel as the current venue for genre film making for up and coming directors appealing, similar to Roger Corman offering opportunities to new film talents to make low-budget films 30-40 years ago.<br />I think one difference with the passage of time is that cheesy films may be much more of an appreciated quality, so sometimes I see trailers for films that look like "intentional cheese," which usually is a disastrous filmmaking strategy.<br />I prefer to see what the filmmakers can do with a low budget, to test their creativity and ingenuity.<br />So, idealistically speaking that's what I like to consider SyFy Original films-- a testing ground and opportunity for new talent.<br />But, as an emotional reflex, I actually expect the worst, or at least, have a very low expectation, because these films are generally mediocre efforts.<br />But I suppose that's another positive consequence with the passage of time. We remember the better low-budget films that Corman produced, with their yet-to-be star directors (like Scorses, Coppola, Bogdanovich, etc.) and actors (Bruce Dern, Jack Nicholson). But, what was it like back then to actually sift through ALL the drive-in films being produced weekly?<br />But, regarding the cheese thing, titles like MEGA PIRANHA seem to be an example of filmmaking where most of the creative work being done is creation of the title, and occasionally I'll bite at the bait (no pun intended), but experience has left me less enthusiastic for the "most dangerous night of television", if SyFy is still using that slogan.<br /><br />Huh.<br />I kind of went off the topic you were actually talking about... sorry.<br />Although, using your example of using dynamite to start a nuclear reaction... we actually know that doesn't work today.<br />So, I'm wondering if the filmmakers were being intentionally bad for the "cheeseball" effect, rather than just laziness?<br />Sort of like the improbability of a shark large enough to jump out of the water and bite an airplane, a concept so ludicrous the filmmaker says "that's awesome!", which it may be, but it definitely affects the tone of your film.<br />I think the film was GIANT OCTOPUS VS. MEGA SHARK, or some variation on that theme?<br /><br />But having said that, the film criticism in hindsight dynamic is interesting and a little unsettling (in that some awful films from today may be seen in a more forgiving light decades into the future), but it makes a lot of sense.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com