Killer Mermaid

[Merman Dan]

Killer Mermaid (https://itunes.apple.com/us/movie/killer-mermaid/id909606050), available on iTunes September 9th.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhClk8DkF4I

[Mermaid Lorelei]

Hmm... not sure it's worth watching (in my opinion) but it's nice to see something other than a mermaid coming on land to fall in love with a man.

[Anahita]

Seems a whole lot better than the other mermaid horror flick I've been seeing floating around.

[MerShasha]

It's not that good...

[Talia]

So let's see if I got everything right:
Some random (and necessarily hot) girls and dudes go on vacation and decide they want to visit the place that even locals won't visit. Some other random (and necessarily mysterious) dude tells them to not to or they will never come back alive. They go anyway, and discover the mysterious dude feeding someone/something that is locked somewhere. What would that be? They will obviously set the killer mermaid free after she has enchanted one (or more) with her sexual appealing and eat him/them.

Btw, have you ever tried to drag yourself through the floor only with your arms? I have. I am not able to do so more than 5 yards. And it hurts. And if it is stone floor, it hurts quite a lot more.

The mysterious dude appears and helps the random tourists to hunt and kill the mermaid. One wonders two things. One, why was she locked up in the first place? And two, why has she been allowed to live all this time? Oh, yes; if not, we would not have the film.

It looks awful (IMHO). I think I will be watching it only for the curiosity about special FX, and the mermaid tail/abilities of the person interpreting it.

[Mermaid Jaffa]

I like her fluke. About watching the movie, probably will, just to see the tail in action.

[Mermaid Momo]

Looks good to me. Like one of the sci-fi original movies. I legit really wanna see this.

[Mermaid Kassandra]

Really like it and definitely going to watch it!
But it was only me or this seems to be a modern version with some changes of the film "She Creature"? (that is my favorite <3 )

[SeaMansa]

I actually saw this DVD in F.Y.E a few days ago (well it was called killer mermaid so I assume its the same). I may give it a try. The mermaid looks interesting.

[Mermaid Adriel]

It doesn't seem bad. I'll take a look!

[Echidna]

But it was only me or this seems to be a modern version with some changes of the film "She Creature"? (that is my favorite <3 )

It's also my favourite, but this flick looks nothing like it.
It's hard to tell from the short clip, but the "tail action" does not look like a genuine tail on a person, rather like totally cgi'd.
This seems to be a trend lately, even with photographs; hire a model, put her as she is in the water, and shop everything else in.
The result leaves much to be desired imo, I find "real" tails much better looking.

Since the nymph was only seen for one second here, I may be mistaken, but she looked...derpy to me.
Like they indeed just hired a model (pout, totally overdone smokey eyes, vacant "sexy" look on the face) instead of an actress.
Carla Gugino was outstanding, even though she practically doesn't say a word.

This movie here just looks cheap.
Overall, I think Talia has pretty much nailed everything what I think.

[Mermaid Kassandra]

Yes it could definitely be like you say.
I guess we have to see the film to have a complete idea of the plot and the CGI.

P.S. Bad makeup for the mermaid I agree, I mean not natural= not a real mermaid, I guess mermaid don't go for that heavy makeup

[Echidna]

yep, can only wait and see.

Have to say though, that the trailer comes off as (involuntarily?) hilarious with the scarcely-clad chicks and the partying.
Kinda like it's a spoof trailer. Shark Pool comes to mind.

[Sherielle]

Or sharknado

[Mermaid Kassandra]

Yes definitely!

[Miyu]

SHARK POOL oh goodness yes... I love that so much I have it saved because I find it really hilarious...

As for this movie, I think maybe after the success of Sharknado (which I love), people are making horror/action movies that are a little (or a lot) campy, because suddenly there's a larger audience for B-movies again :P

[Mermaid Jaffa]

I watched it last night on youtube. It was so so, not entirely exciting, the tail when she is swimming, is cgi generated, not a real tail like silicone one. The only scene where it is a physical tail and not a computer generated one, is where she is dragging it on the ground.

[Mermaid Kassandra]

Oh that's really disappointing...

[Echidna]

ye, like I thought.

I don't get why moviemakers and photographers, etc, are so keen on CGI when real tails can look so nice?
It never looks as realistic, in fact, the CGI tails all have that, hm, well, CGI look to them (which you can like or not :p ).

At any rate, it's disappointing.
It's like, "oh, let's not hire a real mermaid, let's take some derpface model and shop everything onto her instead".

[deepblue]

I was just pondering the same. I imagine it's money. Costume budget, insurance. One silicone tail costs a few thousand dollars. Generally, any film shoot would require more than one tail, just like they do with wardrobe of any kind, you need backups in case of problems. But CGI... they can pay one or two people, who are also doing other work, and are probably on salary so there's no overtime. And yeah, I know they didn't do that with Splash, but Splash was a Disney owned production with a budget far above what most movies have, and made in the 80s when the one tail took a lot more effort to make (and Mr. Shouse still uses the technique! It's a lot of work!). Which then makes me think, "Once's Ariel should have had a silicone tail..." but that show is CGI-obssessed.

I haven't seen the film- I'm not a fan of horror for the sake of horror- but I imagine the one actual tail used was just not swimmable, or made for it. Eh, I'm speculating, but it makes sense.

But it's not what mer fans want, that much is clear.

[Echidna]

I could understand monetary reasons, but seeing the detailed process of a single CGI tail effect (for a photograph still, at that) makes me doubt CGI is less cost intensive.
After all, they could invest in just one silicone tail, and the rest is up to the actress.

For CGI, every single moment and angle has to be re-done.
It's cheaper now than it used to be, but cheaper than a single prostethic?...

It's more likely those dudes are just enamored of computery effects, and think they're supercool and trendy if using effects instead of "medieval" prostethics, or something along these lines :p

[MermanOliver]

^ That for one, and secondly, there are far more people who at least believe they can do CGI (the results often prove otherwise :( ) than there are who can do real underwater shots. For doing the real stuff there goes the old Yoda saying: "Do or do not. There is no trying."

I hope the film business gets down to earth with all those CGI hype. The most convincing effects don't come out of a computer (at least not completely ;) ), they are done for real.

Sorry for the small rant ;)
Sent from my phonebrick using Tapatalk

[Echidna]

^^it's true.

Many people prefer the old way things were done.
Sure, some looked atrocious, but in most cases, the old (puppets, make-up, etc) effects looked better than modern CGI.

Examples:
Jason and the Argonauts. The old, 1960 or so version is STILL famous for their stop-and-go motion effects.
No one is talking about the modern remake.

Clash of the Titans.
There is that completely awesome older version I still have on videotape.
Every single moment is fraught with suspense.
From the remake, I only watched the Medusa scene, and that alone was enough to know seeing the whole thing would be a boring CG-fest waste of time.

Orcs from LotR vs Orcs from the Hobbit.
real actors vs nothing.

StarWars from the 70s vs the newer episodes.
What exactly needed newer effects? The first episodes were perfect.

I could do a loong list with creature movies (older dragon movies, where the dragon is still a hand-animated model, often look better than modern stuff), but I think you see what I'm getting at ;)

And the worst part is; modern moviemakers think effects can replace a good story.

[Mermaid Kassandra]

I agree with you in everything!

But you know CGI sometimes can help,I saw Narnia and even if they used CGI there was first of all an amazing story behind it but they combined real actors with CGI and the result was amazing in my opinion, so CGI doesn't need to be banned from films but they should understand that it's a tool to help reality.

If you want to see it you can look for the behind the scenes of the first film where they show the actors that play a certain role (like the centaur ) and how they brought to life the fairytale creature with the help of CGI.



What they're doing wrong is that they are using CGI for everything

[Mermaid Kelda]

I don't think anyone's saying it should be banned, just that often props or puppets or what have you are more convincing. CGI has the tendency to slip into uncanny valley.

[Mermaid Kassandra]

Oh I was just saying that even if props or puppets are more convincing CGI can help them to add a more realistic effect.

[MermanOliver]

Kassandra, you are perfectly right there. The best effects start out real-for-real and get slightly enhanced later. So they stay believable, especially when it gets to organic motion like the movements of characters. I didn't want to condemn CGI completely, in no way. Just the look-what-i-can-do-in-cgi-type ;).

I've read in a manual for computer graphics once that if effects stick out, they are over-the-top, and that the best CGI goes nearly unnoticed. After all, the computer is just a tool, and you shouldn't be able to spot the tool marks in a finished product ;).
Sent from my phonebrick using Tapatalk

[Mermaid Kelda]

Absolutely! Reminds me of how they did Treebeard in LotR - mostly puppetry with the facial expressions added in after. Makes it much more convincing than pure CGI!

[deepblue]

I could understand monetary reasons, but seeing the detailed process of a single CGI tail effect (for a photograph still, at that) makes me doubt CGI is less cost intensive.
After all, they could invest in just one silicone tail, and the rest is up to the actress.

Insurance is a big part of this. Companies who insure film sets, actors, etc., charge a lot more for various situations, including underwater, prosthetics, etc., and some just won't insure certain things. Just how it goes.

[MermanOliver]

And to get a little back on topic, after having watched, or better put endured, that movie, no wonder they didn't get an underwater film crew. I guess no one would have liked to be put in that connection, even if there would've been an insurance company willing to insure it.

Oh boy, that movie was so bad. The script was stupid, even by horror flick measures, most school theater groups got better actors, and the effects weren't better either.

Sometimes bad movies are so utterly bad that they become good again, but this one is just bad, at least in my opinion.

"She creature" was much more worth watching, at least if one likes horror movies. :)
Sent from my phonebrick using Tapatalk

[malinghi]

I totally agree that practical effects look so much better than CGI. I think someone I once spoke to said that CGI is very expensive and often doesn't save money over practical effects, but in many cases its a matter of laziness. Practical effects can be really complicated.

[MermanOliver]

Yes, and you need a crew that can plan the effects in advance for shooting. With CGI there is a certain amount of trial and error possible, as it is mostly done in post production.
Sent from my phonebrick using Tapatalk