Really bad Scifi on Sci-Fi

[redracer02]

Don't know if anyone watch the volcano movie about New York, I didn't. But I was watching Talk Soup on E yesterday and they showed a clip from it.<br /><br />A guy is outside watering his lawn or something and his dog is barking. He yells at the dog to shut-up. Dog doesn't stop barking until the guy gets over to the house. Suddenly dog is silent. Guy looks confused, opens door to house and with an odd delay a tidal wave of lava comes following out and engulfs him.<br /><br />I'm glad I neglected to watch that. I mean, the house would have erupted in flames long before.<br /><br /><br />And this brings me to the one about volcanoes that was on a few weeks ago. MAGMA. I did watch most of this one. And most of it was ok, I really liked the chick. But after a while it just got stupid. The reason the earth was erupting was because of humans and the earth was trying to cleanse its self. And then it got stupider at the end when the subs blew up the ocean vents to calm the earth and everyone is celebrating, even the people in YellowStone that had no idea what was going on outside the park. And how quickly the lava receded.<br /><br />I could go on and on. But the main question I need to ask is, why do they make these using such bad science and directing?

 

[tomnackid]

I think Sci-Fi's policy is to build a movie around every plug-in filter they have for their 3D software. That week someone must have bought the "lava animation" filter so they made a movie about lava.

 

[arrgh]

That's as plausible a theory as anything else I've heard. It was ALMOST bad enough to be good, but SciFi doesn't know how to make a movie bad enough for it to be good.

 

[yevaud]

Virtually no one in Hollywood knows how to make a good SF movie - as opposed to the cruddy "Sci-Fi," which they churn out. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[redracer02]

Maybe that is the problem. SG1, SG: Atlantis and BSG are taking all the budget for the channel and they are using the rest to make these really bad movies.<br /><br />The main thing is they need to use real science to explain some of these things, not make up science.

 

[arrgh]

I'll admit that farscape and BSG were/are two very good shows. They have yet to make a decent flick, though. I was thinking of features.

 

[spayss]

Redracer:<br /><br />That science is no worse than any other 'non-science' in so-called 'science' fiction. A bunch of 'gobblelygook' and flashing lights on the dashboard doesn't really let the Enterprise avoid the physical properties of the universe and zip around the galaxy. It would be just as scientific for the Captain of the enterprise to open a cereal box of Fruit Loops and find a coupon for 'one free trip across the galaxy'. <br /><br />The science is almost as you say 'stupid' even when dressed up not to look stupid.

 

[redracer02]

But at least there are scientific theories behind these things. Some of the things in these shows are so out there, they aren't even based on science.

 

[nova_explored]

"but SciFi doesn't know how to make a movie bad enough for it to be good."<br /><br />unless your bruce campbell... army of darkness.<br /><br />"groovy" <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nova_explored]

i don't know. a lot of that science from Star Trek TNG had writers who were once themselves physicists. One of the guys was a theoritical physicist under Richard Feynman. Its not that its implausible, but just not practical or within our means. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[commander_keen]

Star Trek got really goofy when they brought in those food replicators. Excuse me, but why not replicate an army of robots to stop the the Borg from destroying the ship? They were also far too lineant on human behavior. Yeah right - I'm really going to believe that the holodeck is used for shakesphere reinactments.

 

[hracctsold]

Now about the "Hammer" that gets "nailed" back in???<br />What are you going to use? A Nail???

 

[darth_elmo]

The standard explanation is that such robots (e.g., Data) have components that would be damaged by quantum fluctuations in the replication process. It has also been observed that any civilization that had the capacity to replicate a fleet of Galaxy-class starships certainly wouldn't need to.

 

[uncoolness71]

I was watching a few sci-fi channel things for a couple of months then had to stop. I can do bad sci-fi as long as it knows its bad. just as i can enjoy cheesy horror and such. some of this stuff though, i cannot believe they have budgets for. <br /><br />i would like to invite people to a new style of independent sci-fi. check out <br /><br />www.venusrises.tv<br /><br />independent. no budget. amateurs. <br />and from what i have seen on sci-fi and other stuff... going to hold its own. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><br /><img id="b912890e-8dfc-4018-8888-17314c171845" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/9/8/b912890e-8dfc-4018-8888-17314c171845.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" /><br />http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a382/R-GEN/venus rises/nathan_sig_joseph_negra.jpg</p> </div>

 

[spayss]

"I can do bad sci-fi as long as it knows its bad."<br /><br />Agreed. As soon as it puts on a phony mantle of sophistication it is too open to criticism.

 

[nag622]

Possibly the best bad sci fi movie ever made! <br /><br />"Shop smart. Shop S-Mart........you got that????"<br /><br />Classic<br />

 

[tomnackid]

I don't mind the bad SF movies nearly as much as I mind the "psychic reality" shows like John Edwards, those ghost hunting plumber and now this new "talks with dead people" chick they have. If I want to see a magic show I'll go see some honest magicians, not a bunch of con-artists!

 

[nag622]

So true! They make the most general statements and totally run when they find out that they may have struck a nerve with their victims. Unbelievable.

 

[kdavis007]

Speaking of John Edwards, South Park had an episode about John Edwards calling him the biggest Douche bag in the universe...

 

[tomnackid]

Yes. I loved how they totally exposed him. "Cold reading" has been a well known parlor trick since the 19th century, but start talking about people's dead loved ones and they lose all reason. Guys like Edward's know this and take advantage of it.

 

[kdavis007]

Guys like Edwards are going to burn in hell...

 

[thebigcat]

As I opened this thread I was hoping amid all the chatter over horrid scifi on Sci-Fi Channel that someone would also take them to task over their hokum paranormal programming. Yes, Edwards's parlor-trick has been known for ages. So has the "Something hit me, lift up the back of my shirt, look, there's a bruise" cinematography of our ghostbusting plumbers. (John Ratzenburger in <b>House</b> anyone? Or was that <b>House 2</b>? It's been a while.)<br /><br />What I really wonder is if Char Margolis, the "psychic intuitive", is any relation to Cindy Margolis, the wonman who attempted to make a living charging people to download pictures of her in bikinis in an age when there were prettier women offering free pictures of themselves wearing nothing. In other words, does scamming run in the family? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[specfiction]

The thing I wonder about is why, given the fact that they have money, someone at the SciFi channel doesn't propose doing something really good once in a while. For example, there are many great SF stories in print. Why not not just chose one--say Greg Bear's Eon, and make the movie?

 

[dragon04]

<font color="yellow">Possibly the best bad sci fi movie ever made!</font><br /><br />I'd have to nominate Killer Klowns From Outer Space.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[hracctsold]

To be negative for just a moment, maybe the exec. at SCI/FI are to busy being exec.s to even know what sci/fi really is. I think it would take someone who really knew or liked sci/fi to want to make a sci/fi show.<br /><br />Yes, I did see that guy look at that size 10 print under his shirt, and it did seem a little hokey. <br /><br />ADDITION: When I first was able to get Direct TV, I was excited that I could finally get it, and all the shows I would enjoy from it. Then I found there was garabage shows I wouldn't want to watch even if I was in extreme TV withdrawal. And some of those shows late at night I personally felt dirty for even thinking about turning the channel there. Example, my wife was up late one night, and turned to one of those shows, and I said that was why I didn't watch that channel that late.<br /><br />I know I am a prude to many of you for that point of view, but I don't try and rain on your parade much either at times.<br /><br />