If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(JoBlo)   Review: Upcoming indie flick Big Ass Spider shows Sharknado how it's done   (joblo.com) divider line 28
    More: Silly, spiders, Greg Grunberg, Larry Cohen, Downtown Los Angeles, Buffy, horror movies, B-Movie  
•       •       •

2424 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 26 Jul 2013 at 12:21 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



28 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-07-26 11:51:26 AM  
They aren't joking. That spider does have a huge ass.
 
2013-07-26 11:55:47 AM  
Are they purposely trying to exceed Plan 9 in terms of awfulness?

/watched Mr. Wood's clusterpiece on Hulu, and while the story was good, the editing and effects were atrocious
//can now safely say The Star Wars Holiday Special was far worse, though
 
2013-07-26 12:58:31 PM  
Ass-spiders?
 
2013-07-26 12:58:40 PM  
But is there anyone in Big Ass Spider who has been HITTIN' THE BOOZE, AGAIN?
 
2013-07-26 01:19:53 PM  
i1.ytimg.com
This movie, I should see it
 
2013-07-26 01:30:32 PM  
They gave me permethrin cream for those...
 
2013-07-26 01:33:12 PM  
I can't decide if the current vogue with makin exceedingly awful indie movies is commentary on how stupid America is or if it's just the highest level thought the indie industry is able to produce because of the lower average level of thought being cultivated. I suppose it's a big heapin helpin of both.
 
2013-07-26 01:35:43 PM  
Looked at the trailer, this looks much better than any SyFy movie showed in the last 5 years.
/Doesn't take it self serious
 
2013-07-26 01:43:09 PM  

tinyarena: [i1.ytimg.com image 320x180]
This movie, I should see it


Holy crap that's damn near perfect. They should've called it Big Ass Asses.
 
2013-07-26 02:27:18 PM  
I eagerly await the upcoming release of the blockbuster movie "Ass".
 
2013-07-26 02:49:31 PM  

DubtodaIll: I can't decide if the current vogue with makin exceedingly awful indie movies is commentary on how stupid America is or if it's just the highest level thought the indie industry is able to produce because of the lower average level of thought being cultivated. I suppose it's a big heapin helpin of both.


It's camp and there's a place for that. Sharknado was entertaining as fark. Mind you, I was a bit pie-eyed at the time.

;-)
 
2013-07-26 03:02:14 PM  
It might surprise filmmakers who make a film, but say they're using "deliberately fakey" effects is a terrible excuse for poor special effects.

Short History Lesson:  Many of the so-called "B-movies" were using the best special effects available at the time.  Take a movie like THEM - even if the studio doubled the budget, the giant ant animatronics wouldn't - couldn't - have been appreciably improved.  What other giant monster movie could you compare it to?

(Yes, there were cheap-ass B-movies too, but they were all imitations of other, better films: THEM begat BEGINNING OF THE END, where real locusts were filmed crawling on pictures of buildings).

Saying "deliberately fakey" only shows a complete ignorance to what was available before the King God CGI, and that films made decades ago had to make things up as they went along.  A modern-day low budget film should be trying to impress an audience with their limited means, instead of saying "You can't laugh at us because we're already saying everything looks cheesy."  That smacks of no confidence.
 
2013-07-26 03:32:42 PM  
Inching closer, two words away:  The #1 movie in America was called "Ass." And that's all it was for 90 minutes. It won eight Oscars that year, including best screenplay.
 
2013-07-26 03:46:38 PM  

Lodger: Many of the so-called "B-movies" were using the best special effects available at the time.


um, that is so not true. Lots of them used whatever sets and locations and costumes they could find. There was very little cutting-edge special effects in classics like "Robot Monster." If they were using the best special effects, they probably were not considered "B-movies."
 
2013-07-26 03:52:14 PM  

Lodger: A modern-day low budget film should be trying to impress an audience with their limited means, instead of saying "You can't laugh at us because we're already saying everything looks cheesy."  That smacks of no confidence.


And this is ridiculous too. We've already seen people make amazing SFX with little money, that's not impressive. Skyline was a terrible terrible movie, but it had great special effects.

Today's audiences recognize stilted SFX as a hallmark of old monster movies, so to properly evoke the movies of the time, you pretty much HAVE to make it a bit jerky and stuff. It's a look; It's an in-joke with the savvy audiences of 2013, which you seem not to be. And it's a horror-comedy, it would ruin everything if the giant spider looked REAL. Sheesh.  I believe the linked review sums up your point of view exactly:

Of course, some folks are too cynical to allow themselves to enjoy BIG ASS SPIDER.

I believe he is referring to you, sir.
 
2013-07-26 04:03:40 PM  

Confabulat: Lodger: Many of the so-called "B-movies" were using the best special effects available at the time.

um, that is so not true. Lots of them used whatever sets and locations and costumes they could find. There was very little cutting-edge special effects in classics like "Robot Monster." If they were using the best special effects, they probably were not considered "B-movies."


I know this is Fark and all, but I did say "Many" in my post to refer to certain films, just as you said "Lots" in your to refer to others.  Many films, based solely on their subject matter, were called "B-Movies" regardless of their actual production value.  The films of Roger Corman are leagues different than Ray Harryhausen.  Why even bring up the dregs of "Robot Monster?"  Are you trying to use one of the worst films of all time to defend "Big Ass Spider?"
 
2013-07-26 04:09:48 PM  

Confabulat: Lodger: A modern-day low budget film should be trying to impress an audience with their limited means, instead of saying "You can't laugh at us because we're already saying everything looks cheesy."  That smacks of no confidence.

And this is ridiculous too. We've already seen people make amazing SFX with little money, that's not impressive. Skyline was a terrible terrible movie, but it had great special effects.

Today's audiences recognize stilted SFX as a hallmark of old monster movies, so to properly evoke the movies of the time, you pretty much HAVE to make it a bit jerky and stuff. It's a look; It's an in-joke with the savvy audiences of 2013, which you seem not to be. And it's a horror-comedy, it would ruin everything if the giant spider looked REAL. Sheesh.  I believe the linked review sums up your point of view exactly:

Of course, some folks are too cynical to allow themselves to enjoy BIG ASS SPIDER.

I believe he is referring to you, sir.


First of all, I CANNOT WAIT to see Big Ass Spider. It looks like a lot of fun, and everything I've read about it indicates that it was made by people who care.

That caring makes a big difference. I've enjoyed many a B movie clearly made by people who loved and believed in what they were doing, even if it didn't look as good as a big-budget flick. Those movies are fun. But there's a real cynicism behind the SyFy/Asylum movies, and it shows: "We're going to slap together whatever stupid ideas we can come up with, cobble together a script using some old Mad Libs games we have lying around, our production values are going to make it obvious that we aren't even trying...and we're going to get away with it, because you think you're in on the joke when in fact you're the ones being laughed at." I just can't enjoy those movies.

/was there a Kickstarter campaign for Big Ass Spider?
//because I'd have thrown them some cash so they could buy a hyphen
 
2013-07-26 04:10:40 PM  

Confabulat: Lodger: A modern-day low budget film should be trying to impress an audience with their limited means, instead of saying "You can't laugh at us because we're already saying everything looks cheesy."  That smacks of no confidence.

And this is ridiculous too. We've already seen people make amazing SFX with little money, that's not impressive. Skyline was a terrible terrible movie, but it had great special effects.

Today's audiences recognize stilted SFX as a hallmark of old monster movies, so to properly evoke the movies of the time, you pretty much HAVE to make it a bit jerky and stuff. It's a look; It's an in-joke with the savvy audiences of 2013, which you seem not to be. And it's a horror-comedy, it would ruin everything if the giant spider looked REAL. Sheesh.  I believe the linked review sums up your point of view exactly:

Of course, some folks are too cynical to allow themselves to enjoy BIG ASS SPIDER.

I believe he is referring to you, sir.


A shame you're missing the point, and instead completely misunderstanding what I've written.

I'm not asking for "amazing" SFX in a film called "Big Ass Spider."  I'm saying don't excuse something bad under the pretense that the classic films had so-called "bad" effects because nobody gave a damn.  This is a complete insult to those specific films that were made with passion, with people making up new techniques in the years before ILM.  It seems almost anybody making a monster movie does so without confidence of their craft, and can use any pre-existing computer program bought off the shelf.

Cynical?  No, I just have no patience for people who don't truly understand or appreciate how older films were made.
 
2013-07-26 05:37:16 PM  

Lodger: It seems almost anybody making a monster movie does so without confidence of their craft, and can use any pre-existing computer program bought off the shelf.


Dude, they make monster movies all the time with great special effects. These are "B-movies" if you want to call them that, although they range from super cheap to super expensive. This movie is not that. It's not trying to be the 2013 version of THEM. This movie is trying to evoke a different era, and it's a comedy, not be a modern version of those movies. It's an homage, a spoof.

Why would anyone have to explain this to anyone? And Roger Corman has made some great movies, so whatever.
 
2013-07-26 05:38:17 PM  

Lodger: This is a complete insult to those specific films that were made with passion, with people making up new techniques in the years before ILM


And I bet you are far more insulted than any of them.
 
2013-07-26 05:39:26 PM  

Lodger: No, I just have no patience for people who don't truly understand or appreciate how older films were made.


And you're just being an annoying snob at this point. Stay away from this movie, because we don't want it to hurt your feelings.
 
2013-07-26 06:12:45 PM  
you all seem to enjoy watching garbage
conservatives4palin.com
carry on then, my dull-witted friends...
 
2013-07-26 06:20:31 PM  
So Beyonce is going to play Spider-Woman?
 
2013-07-26 06:23:15 PM  
"Sharknado" was an original, if stupid, idea. "OMG! Giant spider!" has been done to death.
 
2013-07-26 06:24:17 PM  

Bung_Howdy: you all seem to enjoy watching garbage
[conservatives4palin.com image 255x150]
carry on then, my dull-witted friends...


You are on Fark; you have no right to claim the high road.
 
2013-07-26 06:25:58 PM  
Also,

farm1.static.flickr.com
 
2013-07-26 07:36:06 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: "Sharknado" was an original, if stupid, idea. "OMG! Giant spider!" has been done to death.


WHOOO PACKERS!


/obligatory
 
2013-07-26 08:25:00 PM  

Galileo's Daughter: ArcadianRefugee: "Sharknado" was an original, if stupid, idea. "OMG! Giant spider!" has been done to death.

WHOOO PACKERS!


/obligatory


Any time the Packers win a Super Bowl, I watch that movie. WHOOOOO PACKERS!
 
Displayed 28 of 28 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report