Writer/director Eric Red is none too pleased that his new movie, 100 Feet, will premiere on the Sci-Fi Channel. He believes it deserves a theatrical release and goes out of his way to express his displeasure while not completely denigrating the Sci-Fi Channel.
It is easy to sympathize with Red. Sci-Fi has a dubious reputation. People instantly snicker when they hear titles like Yeti or Ogre or Warbirds. At one point or another they may have even stumbled upon the network while channel surfing, exposing themselves to CGI that is admittedly silly.
While they are an easy target, horror fans should not be so quick to lambaste these movies. Many of them are better than they think, and a few even manage to surpass mainstream theatrical horror.
For starters, when viewing a Sci-Fi Channel movie, expectations need to be realistic. Keep in mind that the budget was low, probably no more than $2 million. Resources were limited. Shooting time was short. Production values are not exactly theatrical quality.
Intent is also vital here. These movies are not aiming for Oscars. That is the same defense we always hear whenever critics blast a movie like Transformers.
The same applies with Sci-Fi flicks. They have modest goals. They cater to fans of horror and/or science fiction and follow a formula specific to those genres. If you loathe the idea of a computer-generated creature stalking and slaughtering dumb young people, move along.
There is, however, an audience for these movies. Hence the reason Sci-Fi has a new one premiering nearly every Saturday night this year and Blockbuster's shelves are lined with them.
Also, some of these movies are actually pretty good. Boogeyman 2 is a decent slasher pic that is vastly superior to the lame original, which opened number one at the box office in February 2005. Abominable is a fun monster flick light years better than Underworld and its sequel.
It is also worth remembering that Red is biased. We have no idea how good 100 Feet is. Last year some horror fans cried foul when it was announced that Pathology would only get a limited theatrical release before heading to DVD.
An outrage, they cried. The premise is great, it promises buckets of blood, and it is from the writers of Crank. The studio is crazy to treat a worthy genre effort like that.
Problem was, none of the defenders had seen the movie. It turns out that Pathology is an awful waste of a horror movie. It is pretentious, insultingly stupid, and worst of all, boring. Studios are not always the bad guys. Sometimes the movie is not worthy of a wide theatrical release.
Cable may seem like a tragic fate to the filmmakers, but their movie is going to be seen by a large audience of genre fans. It will give their work good exposure before it hits DVD. 1-2 million people watch Sci-Fi Channel shows. If one of their Saturday night movies draws a similar audience, that would translate into a solid opening weekend for a horror film.
As the excellent Scott Foy said, sometimes the only difference between a Sci-Fi Channel movie and something like Underworld is the budget. Keep that in mind the next time you come across Snakehead Terror or Frankenfish.
