Firstly, I want to discuss DBS2 and my theory to what could of possibly happened here. DBS2 was a movie that was never asked for and we got it. The production company behind DBS2 was indeed SyFy (with Warner) which explains the mess it was. SyFy has a long history of making a mess of once monster blockbuster movies (Lake Placid, Anaconda etc.). I'm not sure what the intentions were around SyFy taking over DBS from Warner, however the possibly that they could make a cheap movie that had a fan base and not do very much and make money is what comes to mind.
Researching the production background of DBS 3, SyFy had no involvement with this movie and it clearly shows in the finished product. However, my theory is that DBS2 made a lot of money ($1,656,55) in DVD sales) and had the hype for Warner to want to the take back the rights or Warner were genuinely disappointed with the results of DBS2 and did not want them to continue making a bad name for DBS (with high number sales). This reflects on all the recent SyFy movies DVD sales, where majority of their movies struggle to hit 100k in sales which is the possible factor to Warner taking the rights back for DBS3 and making a better movie.
Now to the movie itself, I'm not going to sit here and tell you this is the best movie this year and it was amazing, but there was a HUGE improvement in every department and 100x better then DBS2. The movie was actually entertaining and the story floated away from the previous movie setting and introduced to a more realistic setting. The acting was better, however in parts were badly presented (however, I went into this movie knowing it was no Meg with leading name actors staring)
The CGI could be considered awful, and yes it was for current technology, but again they're not going to throw a £30m+ budget into a movie that was never going to make it near and reviewers and viewers need to consider this when watching. Some scenes that were really a HUGE improvement were the likes of a boat sinking, death scenes and the explosions (DBS2 would never), however the Shark CGI is the one issue that ruins aspects of the movie... you get a good scene with a badly CGI shark, my suggestion would of been to create a animated real shark (this would of been cheaper then CGI) for scenes from behind or for example a scene where a shark had been captured and held would of suited better with a realistic image (again, this takes time and a on-going amount of money) - This would of definitely helped with the end scene where the main character (Emma) is being attacked underwater inside a structure/machine and you see various shots of the shark from above and the tail waving around.
The story was interesting, I liked the aspect that they moved away from the research facility, however it still linked (as those sharks have escaped and a science team had came to capture them) - the plot centres around a environmental team vs science team which equals to a battle for cruelty and research. (Which and who is right?!) and it links the previous movies although as much as we want to forget DBS2, how the movie was set up previously we had to have some background aspect of the previous movie for the franchise to continue.
However, if you go into movie not watching DBS2, you can just imagine the same scenario from the first movie (with small elements not from the first movie, however they explain them in this for the viewer to understand and they are easy to pick up) and this is the conclusion of the movie.
Overall, DBS3 is actually a really fun entertaining movie and doesn't deserve some of the harsh reviews it is getting from viewers. Do not go into this movie expecting a Meg styled movie with a huge budget with amazing scenes and stars leading. It's definitely one of those movies you watch when there is nothing else to watch, however if you were browsing through the TV and you saw it on you would probably watch again to be entertained and to get rid of boredom. I am giving this movie 6/10 based on the fact that certain scenes were badly paced and acted and they could of used real elements for the sharks (as this is a shark movie and not a action movie) and if Warner were taking over the project because of how negative DBS2 was perceived, I would like to think they would of thought about this more... which makes me believe that this movie was made to make more money... this is from Warner, a company worth $5.12 billion (they have the contacts and partnerships to make a cheap movie look better).
Researching the production background of DBS 3, SyFy had no involvement with this movie and it clearly shows in the finished product. However, my theory is that DBS2 made a lot of money ($1,656,55) in DVD sales) and had the hype for Warner to want to the take back the rights or Warner were genuinely disappointed with the results of DBS2 and did not want them to continue making a bad name for DBS (with high number sales). This reflects on all the recent SyFy movies DVD sales, where majority of their movies struggle to hit 100k in sales which is the possible factor to Warner taking the rights back for DBS3 and making a better movie.
Now to the movie itself, I'm not going to sit here and tell you this is the best movie this year and it was amazing, but there was a HUGE improvement in every department and 100x better then DBS2. The movie was actually entertaining and the story floated away from the previous movie setting and introduced to a more realistic setting. The acting was better, however in parts were badly presented (however, I went into this movie knowing it was no Meg with leading name actors staring)
The CGI could be considered awful, and yes it was for current technology, but again they're not going to throw a £30m+ budget into a movie that was never going to make it near and reviewers and viewers need to consider this when watching. Some scenes that were really a HUGE improvement were the likes of a boat sinking, death scenes and the explosions (DBS2 would never), however the Shark CGI is the one issue that ruins aspects of the movie... you get a good scene with a badly CGI shark, my suggestion would of been to create a animated real shark (this would of been cheaper then CGI) for scenes from behind or for example a scene where a shark had been captured and held would of suited better with a realistic image (again, this takes time and a on-going amount of money) - This would of definitely helped with the end scene where the main character (Emma) is being attacked underwater inside a structure/machine and you see various shots of the shark from above and the tail waving around.
The story was interesting, I liked the aspect that they moved away from the research facility, however it still linked (as those sharks have escaped and a science team had came to capture them) - the plot centres around a environmental team vs science team which equals to a battle for cruelty and research. (Which and who is right?!) and it links the previous movies although as much as we want to forget DBS2, how the movie was set up previously we had to have some background aspect of the previous movie for the franchise to continue.
However, if you go into movie not watching DBS2, you can just imagine the same scenario from the first movie (with small elements not from the first movie, however they explain them in this for the viewer to understand and they are easy to pick up) and this is the conclusion of the movie.
Overall, DBS3 is actually a really fun entertaining movie and doesn't deserve some of the harsh reviews it is getting from viewers. Do not go into this movie expecting a Meg styled movie with a huge budget with amazing scenes and stars leading. It's definitely one of those movies you watch when there is nothing else to watch, however if you were browsing through the TV and you saw it on you would probably watch again to be entertained and to get rid of boredom. I am giving this movie 6/10 based on the fact that certain scenes were badly paced and acted and they could of used real elements for the sharks (as this is a shark movie and not a action movie) and if Warner were taking over the project because of how negative DBS2 was perceived, I would like to think they would of thought about this more... which makes me believe that this movie was made to make more money... this is from Warner, a company worth $5.12 billion (they have the contacts and partnerships to make a cheap movie look better).