facebook_pixel Press "Enter" to skip to content

Looking to start your TV writing journey?

Posts published in March 2009

Syfy is a serious condition, please consult your doctor immediately.

By now, you most likely have heard about the Sci Fi channel name rebranding.

I like how there’s a massive backlash going on around regarding the change, and for good reasons.

Says Tim Brooks:

We spent a lot of time in the ’90s trying to distance the network from science fiction, which is largely why it’s called Sci Fi. […] But even the name Sci Fi is limiting.

Seriously?

Let me get this straight.
You want to change everything from your logo to your slogan, and from the brand to your core audience (you know, the one that made you what you are now). And do all that for absolutely no reason at all (given the channel’s top-10 network status)?

Distancing yourself from the SF pseudo-“geeks” just by changing the name and the logo is not going to get you very far, and it’s downright disrespectful.

Tim Brooks adds:

The name Sci Fi has been associated with geeks and dysfunctional, antisocial boys in their basements with video games and stuff like that, as opposed to the general public and the female audience in particular.

I think you lost me there somewhere.

You can’t both loose your core audience (by literally insulting them) and at the exact same time try to make them stay to watch the very thing you lost them on.

That’s like saying you make quality science-fiction products and then you put Battlestar Galactica next to something called Spring Break Shark Attack.
Oh, wait.

Jason Ramboz said it best:

You continue to perpetuate the very stereotypes from which you wish to distance yourselves. Instead of acknowledging what the literary and academic worlds have known for at least two decades, that SF is more than just “space, aliens[,] and the future,” you’d rather continue to sucker audiences in with lowest-common-denominator drivel and derivatives of ideas that intelligent audiences were calling inane ten years ago.

Exactly.

Many will tune out after the Battlestar Galactica finale.
I personally will continue to watch some of the “Syfy” original series (most likely not on the actual network though).
The channel has some great new shows coming up.
Namely Warehouse 13.

As for the other series, it’s funny how Sci Fi (or is it Syfy now?) tries to detatch and distance itself from what has come before the change.
And by that I mean they’re making spin-offs.

You want to rebrand yourself by trying to cash in on the same stuff you revile?
Way to go!

Sci Fi Channel’s attempt at rebranding is utterly ridiculous, especially when there is going to be massive rating drops starting next week.
Add that to spin-offs no one will watch because the audience is being dissed, and you get a total disaster.

Implosion in 3, 2, 1…

The Cabin in the Woods (Script) – Review

The Cabin in the Woods (Script) – Review

I just finished reading Joss Whedon/Drew Goddard’s Cabin in the Woods, described by Wheddon himself as “the horror movie to end all horror movies”.

I don’t know to what extent I agree with that statement and basically to what extent I enjoyed the script/movie.

I wasn’t under-whelmed, but I wasn’t over-whelmed either.

The characters are definitely well-written, well introduced (so is the story for that matter), and the dialogue is sharp and witty.

I loved the white-collar characters of Richard Sitterson and Steve Hadley played respectively by Richard Jenkins and Bradley Whitford.
Definitely great casting choices.

I highly doubt that IMDb has the correct names associated with the actors. Fran Kranz is most likely not going to play Curt, unless he becomes your stereotypical football player overnight (could still happen though).

It should be noted there are no “twist” to the movie, at least not the way one might think.
This is not The Sixth Sense where at the end you have some epic revelation that changes the scope of the movie and makes you re-evaluate every scene prior.

The only twist here is the genre-twist, and it is pretty straight-forward.
You kind of get what is going on behind the scenes in the first 30 or so pages.

It is therefore not really a spoiler when describing Cabin as The Evil Dead/The Hills Have Eyes meets The Truman Show.

There’s a superior level to that whole “Truman Show” part though which I won’t spoil.

I was actually expecting more regarding said twist/superior level, like a final reveal that changes my whole perception of the story, but that unfortunately didn’t happen.
It looked more like that Neo/Architect scene at the end of The Matrix Reloaded than anything for that matter (without the plot twists).

I don’t really know how to take the end, if I like it or not.
It certainly is reminiscent of other Goddard endings though, so I won’t comment further.

There are also a few open questions and some inconsistencies regarding the rules set-out by the movie/story itself, so that was weird.
Overall, suspension of disbelief is required but no more than for your average Buffy or Angel episode.

Suffice it to say that the movie will definitely be R-Rated as some of the deaths are grueling at best.

Brendon Connelly over at Slash Films says the end is a range of horror movie clichés, but I disagree here as I didn’t see much reference, if at all.
Having a zombie in a movie doesn’t mean it’s a reference to any of those movies. So the same goes for the end of Cabin.
The cabin deaths on the other hand, I can see how they could be considered references (for some at least).

I also disagree with him on how he compares Cabin to Scream, saying that the former tries to be like the latter: pioneer a new line of horror films.
I didn’t get at all that feeling.
If anything, it’s a movie that doesn’t take itself too seriously.

The final product will most likely be a fun 90-minute ride, like Cloverfield was, but there certainly isn’t a revolution of genre here.