Hammond On Cannes: Suspense Builds To Sunday’s Palme … 
Record-Breaking Memorial Weekend 2013! ‘Fast & … 
Cannes: Un Certain Regard Winners Include ‘The … 
SAG-AFTRA Sued For Witholding Foreign Residuals And … 
Harvey Weinstein Closes Prolific Cannes With Deals For … 
Cannes: Competition Movies Divide Critics; How Much Do … 
Zach Braff Ends $3+M Kickstarter Campaign 
Fox Unscripted TV Czar Mike Darnell To Exit 
NBC Sets Oklahoma Tornado Benefit Concert For May 29 
Cannes: Directors’ Fortnight Honors ‘Les … 
SHOCKER: Tom Cruise Exits ‘Man From … 
A+E Rebuild: BBC’s Jana Bennett To Run Bio And LMN … 
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘Hannibal’ Hits Low, … 
‘Katie’ Shakeup: Rachel Miskowiec Replaces … 
Hammond On Cannes: French Hero Jerry Lewis On His Return To … 
Cannes: Another Jewelry Heist? $2.6M Necklace Missing After … 
Hammond On Cannes: Leo DiCaprio’s Moon Trip Tops … 
Specialty B.O. Preview: ‘Before Midnight’, … 
2012-2013 Season Network Rankings: CBS Sweeps In Final … 
Full 2012-2013 TV Season Series Rankings 
TOLDJA! Paramount Pocketing $190M From Disney For Marvel … 
Syfy Ventures and Universal Pictures have teamed to create Syfy Films, a film company that will generate theatrical films that will be branded by the Syfy label and will be distributed by Universal. The hope is to leverage Syfy’s genre experience in science fiction, fantasy, supernatural, and horror. The plan is to begin generating two movies per year by 2012.
The venture will be announced today by Dave Howe, president of Syfy and Chiller, Mark Stern, the exec veep of original programming and co-head of content for Universal Cable Productions, and Universal Pictures chairman Adam Fogelson and co-chairman Donna Langley.
“We know there is an incredible consumer appetite for genre content as proven by the top grossing box office films,” Howe and Stern said in a statement. “Partnering our brand with the theatrical talent of Universal Pictures, a premier motion picture company, will allow us to exploit our combined expertise and resources to create commercially successful quality films that have the potential to become great franchises for the whole company.”
Stern and Langley will jointly oversee the new venture, and they are looking to hire a production executive who’ll be based on the Universal lot. The exec will find project and leverage Syfy’s creative relationships developed through the NBC Universal network that launched in 1992 as the Sci Fi Channel. and has broadened into a website and Syfy Ventures.
“Syfy has been incredibly successful in finding ways to produce compelling entertainment for a specific audience,” Fogelson and Langley said in a statement. “Joining together to find moderately budgeted projects that we can develop using their expertise and their brand is a great opportunity for both of our companies.”
Loading ...
hopefully more stuff like Skyline! right, right? maybe something unique could come from somewhere in there, but maybe getting in bed with a made-for-tv studio isn’t the best way to stop your studio’s movies from bombing at the box office. rebranding needed
Skyline has grossed around $60 million worldwide and counting on a $10 million budget. So yeah, that’s probably a good business to be in.
you got it. this is exactly the attitude that makes Hollywood kind of poisonous.
You got it Right!
Good money, films that are total batshit! Hey Clarence – you LIKE being in the garbage business??
“The hope is to leverage Syfy’s genre expertise in science fiction, fantasy, supernatural and horror.”
Was this taken from a SyFy press release? Expertise? Seriously? Anyone who knows anything about Science Fiction (or yes, Sci-Fi) will tell you that *that* channel knows nothing about real Science Fiction, as proven repeatedly by their horrible taste in cheesy movies and an endless parade of non-genre reality shows.
yes ; the definition of science fiction is that it is possible. science fantasy is not, i.e., dragons,warlocks,(fantasy).
AGREE WITH YOU.
not to mention that all the so-called sci-fi on the channel is soft-core, and tinged with too much humor… I like Warehouse 13 and Eureka and Haven was okay, but sci-fi must have some bite to it and ask some potent what-if questions. Outside of season 3 of BSG, that channel is so tame. And the most memorable and impacting sci-fi is somewhat cruel and ruthless (The Matrix, Blade Runner, Terminator, Inception)… and SyFy isn’t a brand that needs to be leveraged to the cinema screen.
bad move…
@Veteran Assistant:
DING! DING! DING!
Extremely well said!
If “genre” pictures are leading the box office then why not stop calling them “genre”…thought that name was reserved for limited audience fare?
Well, they call it genre simply because it’s comprised of more than one genre.When you say genre, you’re including science fiction, fantasy, supernatural, horror and sometimes action.It’s a blanket title.It doesn’t denote a limited audience or niche projects.
We’ve actually gotten to a point in time where not only are genre projects the biggest box office draw, but they’re also some of the biggest shows on TV.
The top 13 spots in the highest grossing films of the year are all genre films.
The Walking Dead is the biggest scripted series on basic cable.True Blood is the biggest show on premium cable.Spartacus is big on Startz1The Vampire Diaries is the highest rated show o The CW.Lost was te biest show on ABC.Dr.Who is the biggest show in the U.K.
Thanks for the insight tazmaniak, no sarcasm, I actually appreciate the detailed input. My only gripe with the “genre” label is that it encompasses too much. If something covers most everything in film and TV outside of comedy, drama and procedurals then shouldn’t comedy and drama be called “genre”. It seems to me an outdated label that studio execs keep using to brand the smaller labels under their larger studios. For example, Sony’s “genre” division is “Screen Gems” which also puts our comedies in addition to horror and suspense and more. Well to me Screen Gems is just the sub $30MM budget section of Sony for films that are not considered Oscar fare (that’s reserved for “Sony Picture Classics”.
In time people will look back on announcement this as the beginning of the end for Universal Studios.
When cable channels such as Bravo, SyFy, USA etc are the most valued assets of the NBC-U /Comcast merger leaving Universal Studios a relatively inexpensive media ‘curio’ the writing is on the wall.
Considering that the only films that SyFy are known for are awful, no budget, Roger Corman produced efforts on a Saturday night it just goes to show that Universal Studios either has no place in this new media set up or is about to face nothing but apathy from it’s new corporate overlords.
But then again, if Universal are going to follow the ‘awful, cheesy, creatively bankrupt sci-fi film’ formula that SyFy have been doing for years the first film released by this label should be Peter Berg’s BATTLESHIP!
Ba-zinga.
Only a huge idiot would destroy a brand like Scifi and change it to Syfy. Oh well no one ever mistook Ben Silverman for a genius.
I know Syfy is the name of the rip off company that couldn’t afford Scifi unless your a HUGE idiot and own it anyway and just don’t use it. I t reminds me of how some old singers seem like a cover band of themselves.
LA is a dying town.
I’m sorry, who is the idiot? Maybe the person that doesn’t know the difference between you’re and your. Moron.
Only Ben Silverman could rename a company named SciFi (cornering the market)
with something mind numbingly dumb like Syfy. They had a brand, now they have a spatula also.
ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Stop it. What a funny story. Syfy “has been incredibly successful in finding ways to produce compelling entertainment for a specific audience?” Sure I’ll watch those really bad made-for-tv Syfy movies, but that’s because they’re FREE, there’s nothing else on, and I can drink alcohol while watching to make them even funnier. Pay $10 to go see Sharktopus? ROTFL, I’m laughing so hard I can’t breathe!
Okay, maybe a Battlestar Galactica movie or a real Stargate spin-off flick, but, really, does anyone in Hollywood understand why those movies get such high ratings?
Really, Universal? Have you ever watched an original Syfy movie? Are we now in store for a big-screen “Mega Beavers Versus Terror Aardvarks”?
This sounds like a great idea, as long as they up the bar, which I’m sure they are capable of doing. If they think I’m going to leave the house and pay to see Mansquito, Skarktopus, Riverworld, or Abomidable, then they are mistaken. Irony is not a substitute for production values and a good script. But I imagine they’re pretty smart, and that they know that.
I sure hope SyFy films produces better film content than the original, cheesy special effect films they show on the cable channel.
Past: Farscape, Battlestar G., Stargate. Present: Eureka, Warehouse 13, Sanctuary. Future feature experiment: Failure.
I’d be interested if Universal and SyFy Films were doing big-screen spinoffs of “Stargate Atlantis”, “Sanctuary”, “Farscape” or even “Eureka.”
But since it’s more of these awful zero-budgeted pics with monsters, killer snakes, et al then count me out. While “Skyline” had a SyFy-grade script, it had a decent visual effects budget.
Genre expertise? It’s all wrestling on that channel now. Meh.
There’s a place for Syfy’s specialty of nature run amok films in theatres as anyone will tell you that theatrical releases like Lake Placid are much better than its made for cable sequels.
SyFy has produced some of the best watchable series like Eureka, Warehouse 13, Battlestar Galatica, Caprica, Stargate, Stargate Atlantica, Stargate Universe, Farscape,Sanctuary, etc. etc. What has Comcast produced Crap.
It’s time to clean house at Syfy…
WOW, ICE SPIDERS to the big screen? hmm what about SHARKOCTOPUS? Joel on the SOUP’s gonna have a field day with there movies. Universial might want to stick with Harry Potter, maybe do some Harry Potter in his 90′s, that might be better then a SYFY film. UGH
“Syfy has been incredibly successful in finding ways to produce compelling entertainment for a specific audience.”
Like SHARKTOPUS.
And MANSQUITO.
Umm… wasn’t this pretty much what Rogue Pictures was for before they sold it to Relativity?
EXACTLY! Maybe that was a short sighted sale. Well then again Rogue hasn’t exactly had huge success the last year, modest hits like The Unborn (might have been a moneymaker when budget, tax incentives and presales are taken into account.) Looks like Universal gets to double dip though since according to the press release from last year when the sale occurred the Rogue sale allowed Universal to profit from the continued distribution of Rogue’s movies without the cost of investing in their production and development.
It’s just a matter of time before Mark Stern shoots this venture in the foot like he did with all the GREAT series that have been cancelled on SciFi (I can’t bring myself to even type that newer name)…
I wish that network had executives that actually LIKED science fiction and science fantasy….. number crunchers be damned…
Attention all you industry “insiders” who comment on here. It’s not the Syfy Original movie department (the folks who greenlit Sharktopus or Mansquito) who are in charge of this new venture. It’s the guys who make the shows like Battlestar and Stargate. Their track record isn’t bad and they are probably pretty capable of creating some engaging, science fiction features.
If anything, this spells doom for the very films that everyone is mocking here.
Oh, so you mean the brilliant folks behind the unwatchable GALACTICA spin-off CAPRICA that crashed and burned with a .3 rating, and STARGATE UNIVERSE that’s on life support in critical condition with a glorious .4-.5?
Is that what’s meant by “incredibly successful”?
Actually you’re wrong. The Stargate and Battlestar guys have nothing to do with this new venture. They may be asked to pitch films but those films will go through the same filter of exec notes from Stern et al. that has turned SciFi to SyFy. A network that believes it’s audience can’t handle anything more intelligent than Sanctuary or Wrestling. It’s basically putting the same people in charge that are honestly proud of the monster of the week, horrible VFX, worse storyline movies that you see clogging up the network. I wouldn’t be looking to them for the next progressive Science Fiction franchise because they probably wouldn’t understand it if they read it.
Mansquito kicked ass. I mean, it was no Raptor Island, but it was better than DinoCroc.
I have written and directed two films for SyFy (yes, creature and disaster films) and they are extremely difficult to make. The studio (SyFy) notes are specific, if not downright bizarre, and are the product of massive market research. Inspired, organic storytelling this is not.
They start with a TITLE, then develop the hook/creature/disaster, then the story is beat out last. They have 100 specific rules you must adhere to: crazy old man; creature attack every 8 minutes; a lead in his 40s so they can cast a male actor that can sell foreign; nothing in caves; avoid dark places for too long b/c audience will tune out; must be “global” attack of some kind; etc… These are made on micro-budgets and are incredibly difficult to make, usually having less than 14 days to shoot with over 100 VFX shots to incorporate. And in the end you have a movie that no one could possibly take seriously!
But they’re supposed to be fun and silly and that works well for TV because it’s FREE. I wouldn’t pay to see my OWN movies in a theater. I might check out Gossip Girl but would never go see that in a theater. I think they’re right, genre films do very well at the box office, but they better be prepared to hire better scribes, seasoned directors, producers with a vision and finally spend some cash on P&A (which the network does ZERO on for it’s own movies).
Totally agree. Have done numerous pitches for their “creative” team and have never seen another company pick as many bad ideas to do and come up with as many bad executions of those ideas as Syfy.
Their cookie-cutter rules only serve as a way for them to pretend they understand and have a handle on how “storytelling” should be done. Doing this on the small screen produces films that are laughably bad enough to exist on cable with a “Mystery Science Theater 3000″ level of interest/contempt from the audience to get a few eyeballs — on the big screen this will spell contempt to the point where people not only won’t spend their dollars to watch one Syfy film ever again if they pay to see on ehte first time.
I would pray that they hire someone to oversee their development who actually has story sense and knows to step outside of their little list of rules — rather than the team that uses marketing (and am occasional trip to a museum exhibit on Greek gods) to try to make story decisions.
Firefly movie PLEASE!! Or direct-to-video. Or a radio drama.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! Behold! MANSQUITO… THE MOVIE!! SYFY has turned into the worst channel on the planet, since Bonnie Hammer came from the LIFETIME CHANNEL and ran the channel into the ground with soap opera fare, reality tv programming, WWE Wrestling, cheap big monster movie (that no one watches) and trashy rip off shows like Moore’s reworking of Glen Larson’s BSG source material, CRAPICA and SG-POO. Two of the last three shows have been canceled due to ratings that nosedived and SG-POO is tinkering on cancelation due to piss poor ratings. SYFY SUCKS and so do their original programming outside of SANCTURY and WAREHOUSE 13. Most science fiction/fantasy fans HATE what has become of the channel. THEY HAVE ZERO RESPECT FOR THE PRE-EXISTING FANBASES AND THE AUTHORS.