Why does Hollywood still make bad movies? + 10 worst of all time.

Richard J. Johnson

Richard J. Johnson

Joystick Member
How, with all of the talented writers, directors, SFX wizards, etc. etc. does an awful movie still make into theaters? when I watch a movie with a poorly written script and it gets bashed for having a poorly written script, how could someone involved with the making of the movie not know that it was poorly written script? You get my drift.

There are bad movies that go into production, don't make any money, some costing $100 million or more. I can see making a 3 million dollar investment, putting the film out there in hopes of bringing in $10 million. For instance, take a movie like Speed Racer that cost $120 million to make and made back like 30 something. That was not a good movie, period. And someone (IMO) at the studio had to have seen this happening even in the Pre-Viz stages.

Maybe I am looking at it wrong. maybe I am not. But I have seen Micro budget films, many by users on this site that are much better than "who's your caddy?" or "soul plane" or many other wide release films that hit the theaters.

I know I am strecthing to think that Hollywood can churn out nothing but great movies, But some movies Are so bad, on so many levels I just don't see how they get the green light.

ANd now my top 10 worst movies of all time: (and I have seen everyone)
10. Howard The Duck
9. Pluto Nash
8. Christmas with the Kranks
7. Half Past Dead
6. House of the Dead
5. Alone in the dark
4. Soul Plane
3. Biker boyz
2. Torque
1. Beverly Hills cop 3 (this one really pisses me off!)

Honorable mention: Fast and Furious Tokyo Drift.
 
hmmm. 2 off of the top of my head.

- species
- the avengers (1998 version with uma)

and i'd throw star wars I, II and III on there just for the sheer letdown factor.
 
Hollywood makes "bad" movies because people are willing to pay to see them.

It really isn't any more complicated than that.
 
David Jimerson said:
Hollywood makes "bad" movies because people are willing to pay to see them.

It really isn't any more complicated than that.
Click to expand...
Yes, but in some cases the movie doesn't pull in enough to cover the cost of making it.

That's a true bomb and a waste of money. They wouldn't do that on purpose but it still happens on occasion. Although it is fairly rare.
 
David Jimerson said:
Hollywood makes "bad" movies because people are willing to pay to see them.

It really isn't any more complicated than that.
Click to expand...


I'm afraid he's right.

Vox Populi...

It appears that 95 % of what Hollywood does is just business-profit-oriented.

They create a product only to sell it.

Art or aesthetic values have no real meaning in this situation.

Sad Max had some interesting thoughts on that, but which one was the thread? :Drogar-Mad(DBG):
 
Hollywood is a business. They make things with the intent to make money. There's no mystery there.

But then, so do all of us.
 
It's really unfortunate though. The industry shouldn't be run by businessmen. Period.

But alas, it will never change. Those who have money, have power, and businessmen have money...

As long as you have something that can be put into a good trailer, you get a recognizable cast, and MAYBE a somewhat interesting idea (even if not original), and you sell it enough, you have a chance of making profit. Who cares if the story is good? It's not like you decide if you'll pay them afterwards if it was any good.

The only reason why we see some good films out there is because they also take into account the fact that people came back in bigger numbers the following weeks if the movie was good. This has happened for movies like The Matrix, or Gladiator (I think, which is why it was still in theaters even after it was released on DVD).
 
What are you talking about. Good movies make much more money than bad movies. Bad movies lose money because they have bad word of mouth. Remember, the fact that you don't like a popular film doesn't make it a bad one.
 
Hollywood's made some stinkers, but when they get it right it's great. If you want to see how the other half lives start netflixing indie films. I've seen some really bad indies that were painful to watch. There's crap on both sides of the fence.
 
Well, no one sets out to make a bad movie - so the question is kind of unfair to being with.

Jon Starr said:
The industry shouldn't be run by businessmen. Period.

But alas, it will never change. Those who have money, have power, and businessmen have money...
Click to expand...

As soon as anyone other than the hypothetical 'businessmen' ran the film industry what would they be called?
Put someone in charge of a business and they are a businessman.

Besides, anyone putting hundreds of millions of dollars into a single project in hopes of garnering a worldwide audience and making back three times more that what they put in had better be a businessman (or businesswoman). I doubt many investors would line up to throw money at someone for a film that didn't have a business mentality from the onset.

'The Man' is not keeping anyone down, and no one is singularly responsible for bad films.
It takes a village to make a bad movie (like 'The Village' for example).
:)
 
Isaac_Brody said:
Hollywood's made some stinkers, but when they get it right it's great. If you want to see how the other half lives start netflixing indie films. I've seen some really bad indies that were painful to watch. There's crap on both sides of the fence.
Click to expand...

Absolutely true.
And keep in mind, those are the few that found distribution.
 
Did anyone mention Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull!!!! Why? If you where set on making a bad movie, why don't just make a good bad movie. Biggest disappointment in quite some time.
 
Luis Caffesse said:
Well, no one sets out to make a bad movie - so the question is kind of unfair to being with.



As soon as anyone other than the hypothetical 'businessmen' ran the film industry what would they be called?
Put someone in charge of a business and they are a businessman.

Besides, anyone putting hundreds of millions of dollars into a single project in hopes of garnering a worldwide audience and making back three times more that what they put in had better be a businessman (or businesswoman). I doubt many investors would line up to throw money at someone for a film that didn't have a business mentality from the onset.

'The Man' is not keeping anyone down, and no one is singularly responsible for bad films.
It takes a village to make a bad movie (like 'The Village' for example).
:)
Click to expand...
nice ending Lao tsu
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top