FORUMS: list search recent posts

And now for your consideration: Sharknado

COW Forums : TV & Movie Appreciation

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Mark Suszko
And now for your consideration: Sharknado
on Jul 11, 2013 at 3:46:45 pm







Return to posts index

Mike Cohen
Re: And now for your consideration: Sharknado
on Jul 11, 2013 at 9:32:06 pm

That looks awesome.

"We're gonna need a bigger chopper!" - nice homage poorly delivered.

I don't know why Matt Damon chose Elysium over Sharknado.


Return to posts index

Scott Roberts
Sharknado: A Quick Review
on Jul 12, 2013 at 3:51:44 am

I have nothing better to do tonight, so I thought I'd check out Sharknado. I'll just write down my thoughts as they come.


I was a little disappointed that the Sharknado doesn't form in the first 30 seconds of the movie. We have to wait an excruciating 4 minutes. If I were to have made this movie I would have done a slow motion, almost Lars von Trier-ish forming of the Sharknado set to opera music. I would have been instantly sold on this being the best movie ever made if that happened.

The second scene is a two minute montage of skateboarding, surfing, and bikini babes. Followed by some character development of people I don't want to get to know because I fear they will taste the bitter sting of the Sharknado in due time. I don't want to feel emotions while I watch Sharknado.

This movie has the worst soundtrack I've ever heard.

I'm a little confused why the first beach attack scene was just a bunch of sharks killing people in regular ways (in about 2 inches of water somehow), and they weren't really in tornado formation? I came here for the storm of sharks. If I wanted to see regular shark attacks, I'd watch Jersey Shore Shark Attack, also available on SyFy channel.

The reason they didn't eat the Australian guy: "Sharks don't like Vegemite". Kind of a funny line, even if it's stupid.

Whoa, Tara Reid is not a good actress... Not that that was a huge surprise. I guess i just haven't seen her in anything since American Pie 2.

Lots of gratuitous cleavage shots in this movie.

A great weapon against sharks? Bar stools... Who'd have thunk?

This movie would be 100x better if I were 100% drunker.

I hope the Sharknado doesn't end up being a man-made creation in a twist, that would disappoint me. THIS NEEDS TO BE AN ALLEGORY FOR CONTEMPORARY RELIGION. IT HAS TO BE.

I think one shot of blood running into a drain was just a shot of clear water but they used a color filter in post production. If there's one good thing about making a movie like this, it's that no one will blame you if you do stuff as tacky and horrible looking as that. Because this is SHARKNADO, not Citizen Kane.

So was this movie filmed in 5 days, or like 9 days?

I don't think the middle of a Sharknado is the best time to be having an argument about child support with your ex-wife? But that's just me.

This has easily the most shots angled through a car windshield in the history of shark movies. Half of this movie takes place in a car.

Wait, this whole time the main characters name is Finn?! I hope that it's like Finn Hammertooth or something. And here's his partner Gill Makojaw.

They should have gotten Phillip Seymour Hoffman to play the bus driver. He probably had a scheduling conflict, though.

I'm going to be honest with you, I'm an hour in, and I'm not really sure what the point of this movie is.

Still has better special effects design than Jack the Giant Slayer.

Do lots of Hummers have nitrous buttons that you press that make them go 120 MPH instantly? Is that a standard feature?

"We can't just sit here and wait for sharks to rain down on us...!" I bet Jane Austen wishes she could have written that line in one of her novels.

Nova's shark scar story is easily this generation's U.S.S. Indianapolis. Quint has been put to shame. The final lines of that opus: "Sharks killed my grandfather. That's why I hate sharks." Poetry.

Sometimes I wonder what it would be like if Martin Scorsese directed a SyFy channel movie? Like he was given the script for Sharknado, and was told he could do whatever he wanted with it. DiCaprio would have nailed the complex role of Finn. "You want them to chop me up and feed me to the sharks?!"

Killing sharks with chainsaws is oddly pleasing.

Two hours after the Sharknado first formed, there are still people swimming in swimming pools? Go inside, old people...

Awesome screenwriting 101: THROWING BOMBS INTO TORNADOES KILLS TORNADOES. TORNADOES GO BOOM.

Ending with "fin" was kind of a hilarious touch.

BUT WHAT DID IT ALL MEAN???



Final Thoughts: Funny movie title, ridiculous concept, but in the end it's still just an awful SyFy Channel movie. No better or worse than Sharktopus, Swamp Shark, Dinoshark, or Megashark. In other words, don't bother. It's not THAT fun.

4 out of 10


Return to posts index


Mark Suszko
Re: Sharknado: A Quick Review
on Jul 12, 2013 at 4:00:27 am

As for everything bad about the sci-fi channel, blame Bonnie Hammer. And NBC.

Gotta get some sleep so I'm fresh to enjoy "Pacific Rim" tomorrow.


Return to posts index

Stephen Smith
Re: Sharknado: A Quick Review
on Jul 12, 2013 at 3:23:22 pm

Scott, I know you have been enjoying those checks for saving people money by telling them what is not worth watching...but I think we all new this one wasn't going to be that good :-) Stephen writes as a shark falls from the sky, breaks through ceiling and eats him in one bite. Scott then says,"if only he ate Vegemite and had a chainsaw in his edit bay."

Stephen Smith - Follow me on Behance

Utah Video Productions

Check out my Motion Training DVD

Check out my Vimeo page


Return to posts index

Mike Cohen
Re: Sharknado: A Quick Review
on Jul 12, 2013 at 9:13:55 pm

Apparently Sharknado is a social media frenzy - my local NBC station even did a story about it

This can only mean one thing - more crappy movies from SyFy!
Hey it keeps washed up actors working and of course provides work to lots of crew.

The director looks to have a host of low budget movies under his belt including a Star Wars fan film.

Mike COhen


Return to posts index


Stephen Smith
Re: Sharknado: A Quick Review
on Jul 15, 2013 at 2:58:56 pm

Sharknado was so yesterday. Blast Vegas, that is where it is at: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x11h5zd_syfy-original-movies-blast-vegas-s...
I love the line in the casino, "shh, did you hear that?" Have you ever been in a casino? They are so darn loud it would be really hard to hear anything going on outside. As Stephen writes this an ancient Egyptian curse dust monster attacks his edit-bay while flinging nearby pedestrians up into the air. Luckily Stephen got into an old refrigerator and was able to fly for miles and land safely unharmed.

Stephen Smith - Follow me on Behance

Utah Video Productions

Check out my Motion Training DVD

Check out my Vimeo page


Return to posts index

Mark Suszko
Re: Sharknado: A Quick Review
on Jul 18, 2013 at 2:28:41 pm

You can make up a Sciffy movie concept using this easy madlibs type generator. Two words from the first column and one apiece from the next two:

Column one:

shark
croc
gator
boa
[ython
anaconda
gecko
piranha
ghost
nazi
wrestler
robot
alien
vampire
werewolf
crab
dragon
mom
brains
'squito
mutant
UFO

Column 2:
storm
tornado
blizzard
hurricane
flood
tide
drought
rain


Column 3:

battle
fight
conflict
terror
showdown



Enjoy your high-concept creations!


Return to posts index

Stephen Smith
Re: Sharknado: A Quick Review
on Jul 18, 2013 at 2:42:50 pm

Sharknado 2 got the green light.

Stephen Smith - Follow me on Behance

Utah Video Productions

Check out my Motion Training DVD

Check out my Vimeo page


Return to posts index


Scott Roberts
Re: Sharknado: A Quick Review
on Jul 18, 2013 at 9:16:41 pm

While I admit that Sharknado is (perhaps) the best title ever for a SyFy Channel movie, I'm kind of shocked how much buzz the movie is getting all over the internet. It leads me to ask a few questions (and I'm not directing this specifically at the people in the forum, but at humankind in general):

1. Did anyone else actually watch this movie? Because it wasn't very good. Or very funny. Or very engaging. It was actually pretty boring at parts. YET, it was bad, unfunny, unengaging, and boring on the SAME level as every other SyFy original movie. I'm a big fan of watching unintentionally bad movies, they're very fun to watch actually. But SyFy Channel movies are intentionally bad, making them in on their own joke, which makes it kind of annoying to want to enjoy them. Plus, again, they're usually kind of bland and boring. Which leads to my next question...

2. Has no one ever watched a SyFy Channel original movie before? They are all exactly the same level of crap. I'm surprised that Sharktopus didn't get this much buzz. I watched it in the background before, and it was the exact same awful quality as Sharknado. Ghost Shark will also be the same awful quality.

3. If you DID watch Sharknado, did you actually enjoy it? I laughed at a few moments, but it was, for the most part, just plain stupid. And not in a crazy stupid way, like Black Dynamite or Hobo With a Shotgun, but just in a "why am I watching this kind of way." I only really found Sharknado fun on a "it's fun to say the word 'Sharknado'" level.

Now film websites are covering upcoming SyFy Channel movies as if stupid SyFy Channel movies haven't been around for years. Sharknado was the greatest PR move the channel has ever had.

Sorry to possibly suck the fun out of the experience, but I actually sat through the entire duration of Sharknado, and it doesn't deserve the media coverage it's getting. And now people are going to hype up Ghost Shark like it's actually something different than Swamp Shark.

I guess I'm saying that SyFy Channel can step up their game with these movies if they tried, and not lose their intended dumb spirit. Maybe one day they'll work their way to Troma Entertainment levels of bad quality fun (man, that's kind of a sad statement now that I've written it).


Return to posts index

Mike Cohen
Re: Sharknado: A Quick Review
on Jul 18, 2013 at 9:35:12 pm

The somewhat shocking part of this all is that Battlestar Galactica was a well made television show produced for SyFy, whilst these other C-grade movies are also produced for SyFy and they have such low quality.

Yet people seem to watch these movies because they keep making them.

SyFy's target audience seems to be 18-24 yo males, whereas AMC's target is 21-50 yo with a higher appreciation for art?

Maybe Uncle Tim can clarify for us.

Mike Cohen

PS - I heard that Spielberg is considering taking on Sharknado II


Return to posts index

Stephen Smith
Re: Sharknado: A Quick Review
on Jul 18, 2013 at 9:49:41 pm

[Mike]
PS - I heard that Spielberg is considering taking on Sharknado II

But it's going to be a Prequel right? :-)

Stephen Smith - Follow me on Behance

Utah Video Productions

Check out my Motion Training DVD

Check out my Vimeo page


Return to posts index


Mike Cohen
Re: Sharknado: A Quick Review
on Jul 18, 2013 at 9:55:02 pm

[Stephen Smith] "But it's going to be a Prequel right? :-)"

Oh yes, of course. Sharknado II: The Beginning is actually a prequel to JAWS. The Sharknado that appears in the recent movie was obviously caused by the spawn of JAWS V.

We know that Spielberg reads Creative COW, so hopefully he will chime in here with definitive plans. I believe Tom Hanks is also involved, since the two of them usually collaborate on tv projects.


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Sharknado: A Quick Review
on Jul 19, 2013 at 12:34:16 am

Sharknado II will be set in New York City!!! SyFy is running a Twitter contest to give it a proper name.

The SyFy demographic has a median household income of $66,552, 51% own their own homes, and 60% are 25-54.

The AMC demographic is more affluent and older: $66.9 median income, 63% own their own homes, and only 53% are 25-54. So perhaps not as overwhelmingly stark as you might think.

There are some obvious differences between GaFRAKtica and the Saturday movies, starting with the budget - about the same for an entire movie as for an episode of the series, both around $1 million.

SyFy didn't DO GaFRAKtica -- they COMMISSIONED it from Universal, and had Sky (UK) as a partner. They also cast Oscar nominee Eddie Olmos and Oscar winner Mary McDonnell in key roles, along with respected UK actor Jamie Bamber, who graduated with the highest honors his university bestowed...a little place called Cambridge.

In other words, they were aiming high, and spending the money to get it done...and not done by themselves. Indeed, the partnership with Sky meant that the show premiered in the UK three months before the US.

Even the best of Syfy's other shows were often outside productions, eg, Farscape by Henson, certainly the outstanding The 4400 which Spielberg DID do.

(Speaking of Spielberg, if you haven't been watching Falling Skies on TNT, you've been missing some of Spielberg's best-ever sci-fi work, in any medium.)

You gotta think of these Syfy Saturday movies as more like, I dunno, Warehouse 13 or something. Actually, more like the progeny of Mystery Science Theater 3000. The show's ratings were dandy, but it went off the air because they ran out of movies worth making fun of, as opposed to just plain BAD. (I think they should have gone after GOOD movies. A different show, but I'd still have watched.)

So I feel like maybe Syfy thought, okay, let's do tongue-in-cheek intentionally kitschy, wink-wink, B movies. Studios used to make this stuff all the time, but now, science fiction filmmaking is massive, humorless and frankly, mostly boring. Where's the popcorn FUN?

That said, I agree with your criticisms. I haven't gotten around to Sharknado yet, for one reason above all others: I've never made it through ANY Syfy movie. I've always found this a mite distressing. My love of schlock is well documented. I've watched a bunch of Syfy shows that are far, far beneath the consideration of anyone here and LIKED them. These have set a low enough bar for themselves that they ought to be KILLING them.

The great example of this is a TV picture made by a 24 year old whose only previous experience had been directing a couple of episodes of TV, and another made for TV movie. The other movie was the first episode of Columbo, and one of the episodes was for Rod Serling, but this freaking CHILD made a movie with essentially one talking role, and it was so good that they added some cussing (which you couldn't do on TV in 1971, and were EXPECTED to do in the movies), and released in theaters around the world. You know the punchline, talking about Duel, by Steven Spielberg. Even HE considers it the precursor to Jaws.

Now, a 24 year old like Spielberg comes along once in a lifetime. (Previous lifetime: 24 year old Welles. Even wunderkinds Tarantino and Lee were 29 for Reservoir Dogs and She's Gotta Have it.) But ABC's Movie of the Week and NBC Mystery Movie were able to turn out literally hundreds of quality productions in the 60s and 70s. Why can't Syfy turn out just one?

The fact is that these movies don't have to be GOOD. They have to draw a crowd, and be just good enough to draw another crowd down the line. If they do a Sharknado story once a year, they'll have more than funded the development of a bunch of lesser movies that ought to be good enough to have people check in regularly to see if they're missing something as "good" as Sharknado.

This brings up a much larger question about branding and engagement. How many AMC series do you watch? My guess is two for almost all of you, three, tops: Mad Men, Breaking Bad, maybe Walking Dead. When those aren't on, do you watch that network? Do you even know what else is on? But hot DAWG, when those things are on, you're on too. Now that they've established they can do it twice, and with The Walking Dead have a show that's quite a bit bigger than MM and BB COMBINED...it's now worth their while to try to do it again...and if they fail, to try it again.

The lesson that Syfy's audience was teaching them can be seen by their #2 most popular show when GaFRAKtica was on. Wrestling. WRESTLING. Why spend a gazillion dollars to build a network that you DON'T have, when you have a passionate audience who's telling you EXACTLY what they want from you? And you can create that kind of show all damn day, for pennies on the dollar. It would be stupid NOT to keep making crappy Saturday movies, and maybe have one of them a year slip into the zeitgeist. More than enough to keep the lights on the rest of the year.

It's worth exploring this idea some more, but off the top of my head...with a quick Google detour to check demographics....that's how I'm thinking about it.

I just want some of those crappy movies to be crappy in a GOOD way. I can't help but believe that it can be done.


Return to posts index

Mike Cohen
Re: Sharknado: A Quick Review
on Jul 19, 2013 at 11:43:41 am

Timmy - thanks for the extra information.

Thinking back to other movies played on SyFy, or the old SciFi Channel, I would imagine few were actually produced BY the network. Take for example all of those Hallmark-style movies (not necessarily shown on SyFy but similar genre (higher cost, heavily promoted as the second coming, but still slightly cheesy))- Neverland (SyFy / Sky), Tin Man(RHI Entertainment and SyFy), Dinotopia (Hallmark) - high production values and some bigger name actors than the Sharknado level ones, but they all seemed to be missing "something" - you can't quite put your finger on it but they all played as high quality schlock.

By the way, here is a list of all SyFy original movies - I must see Independence DayStruction!
http://www.syfy.com/movies/all

Ok, off to work!

Mike Cohen


Return to posts index


Mark Suszko
Re: Sharknado: A Quick Review
on Jul 18, 2013 at 10:43:59 pm

"Step up their game"??????

Do you not understand their business model?

(Watched half of the flick while working on a craft project, got bored, walked away from it.)


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]