Sharknado 5...Earth 0

SyFy Channel has officially greenlit the fifth entry of the Sharknado series, which brings back director Anthony Ferrante and lead stars Ian Ziering and Tara Reid as Fin and April. This time around, after Sharknado: The 4th Awakens, the Sharknado is revealed to have gone global and it is up to Fin and April to find a way to stop the massive global threat.

Yes that name is actually the title of the film right now. Sharknado 5...Earth 0. My favorite in terms of titles is still Sharknado 3: Oh Hell No!

http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/shar...ng-1201976519/

__________________
It's All About the Movies
http://www.worldfilmgeek.com

If they don't call one of them Jumping the Sharknado, it's a missed opportunity.

I stopped after the first one. I guess it was tolerable for the concept alone, but the whole "tee hee, look how intentionally bad we're making this, which makes it smart because we know what we're doing" approach gets on my last nerves. It's not cute. Especially after four very successful movies.

Could've gone with Shark Five, Sharknado 6, and Nado 7.

Anyway, I kind of enjoyed the first but the second wasn't much chop and reports indicate the third and fourth were more of the same. I don't have too much patience for stuff that tries to be deliberately so-bad-it's-good these days and this really does feel like a joke that's been run into the ground.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

I feel the same way. It just angers me that they're not using their efforts, budget, and platform to make an attempt at doing something decent. Or, they're just hiding behind the fact that they aren't very capable. Even the Ed Woods, and Derek Savages of the world at least get a pass for their effort.

Yeah, my theory is that the reason the unintentionally so-bad-it's-good stuff works better than the intentional stuff is that the makers of the former actually commit to their work and make it feel authentic (if not necessarily good) while the makers of the latter can't help but feel like they're coasting on surface-level novelty value and thus don't make for genuinely enjoyable movies.

Haven't watched any of them and never had the slightest inclination towards them. I really don't get it.

I don't even think they grasp the concept of how the real so bad it's good movies are so appealing. They all think it lies in the idea of the film alone rather than the filmmaking. "LOL sharks in a tornado, how bad, and stupid is that?!" Look at The Room. On paper, you would never think something like that could be that poorly made. It's just a traditional drama. It was funny because just about everything in that movie was a misstep, production wise. From what I can remember, the filmmaking in Sharknado was sound. Of course, obviously not spectacular, but gave off the impression that at least they knew how to make a movie. It was just stupid, in the most bland sense.

We really enjoyed how bad the first one was. Got drunk, made some popcorn, kicked back and laughed ourselves stupid. Then the novelty wore off.

First was ok. Second was better. From then on they're a template for whatever theme they want to make. I'll happily be watching the next, but these aren't 'so bad they're good' films. They're made to be exactly what they are.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

Well, maybe not in the way it's made, but in terms of concept that's exactly what they're going for. I suppose it's also the attitude in terms of the way they're presented, from what I've heard. I feel like they could make a mistake, and they'd just be like "well, it's sharks in a damn tornado, so what?" It's an invincible series that way, in a critical sense, which in a way I kind of respect, but then again it irks me just a tad bit.

A film being "so bad it's good" tends to be about more than just the technical quality of the filmmaking. The way I see it, a lot of the worth of such movies actually comes from them being so out of step with conventional filmmaking that they circle around to being distinctive works in their own right. Like you said, on paper The Room seems like it could have been just like any other melodrama, but it was all coming from such a strange place (no doubt thanks to the sheer eccentricity of writer-director-producer-plus-actor Tommy Wiseau) that it very much became a curiosity all its own. You can say the same about outwardly simple monster movies like Troll 2 or Birdemic, especially considering how they are rooted in the creators' genuine (if silly) artistic concerns such as criticising militant vegetarians and addressing climate change respectively. I feel like anyone creating deliberately "so-bad-it's-good" entertainment runs the risk of coasting on the audience's willingness to enjoy anything as long as it easy to mock, though that's not too different from the blockbuster filmmakers who expect that fast-moving action and flashy effects will compensate for a lack of substance in the audience's eyes. It knows it's a joke, but as with any comedy that doesn't mean that sequels are necessarily going to make the same joke funnier.

I have to admit, while the 4th Awakens was a so-bad its good take that took elements of the Star Wars saga, my favorite scene from this last installment was when Fin and crew are in Texas and go to a chainsaw store run by Stretch and her brothers Chop-Top and Gunnar, obvious references to Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Caroline Williams played Stretch (based on her role in TCM2), Duane "Dog" Chapman played Chop-Top (named after Bill Moseley's break out character in TCM2) and the last one to play Leatherface, Texas Chainsaw's Dan Yeager played Gunnar (named after the late great original Leatherface, Gunnar Hansen). Chop-Top even yells when seeing the Sharknado, "It's a good day for a Chainsaw Massacre!" LOL

I'd love to see how they will top that! LOL

I can understand a market for a so bad its good movie and I could understand a interest in watching a movie with such a ludicrous plot once but i have no idea why people would have such an interest in watching sequels. That being said I have only ever watched parts of Sharknado so maybe I am miss judging the movie

Yeah, sequels tend to be inferior more often than not anyway. In the case of so-bad-it's-good movies, there's an extra problem in that the creators may end up realising how much of their original film's success is due to it being unintentionally amusing and end up trying to deliberately play up the humourous nature. Of course, the appeal of the original is that it was a happy accident so seeing them try to force lightning to strike twice with a purposefully funny sequel is more likely to fail than succeed.

Wow.. I don't follow Syfy that much anymore, I had no idea they were past Sharknado 2...

that's kind of scary...

Actually, the new official title is...Sharknado 5: Global Swarming

LMAO!!! I'm so there. Just for the title.

Full trailer!

Hilariously terrible. I have to see this.