wondering how really terrible movies even get made

C

chimerical

New member
I'm wondering how really terrible movies even get made or make it to DVD.
I recently watched a movie that was so terrible, that it was hard to believe
anything could be that crappy.
The IMDB rate was 2 1/2 stars. Most people gave it one.
Everything about it was awful. It wasn't a B movie, but an F.
And I've seen others in the past too that were 'nearly' this bad.
 
A 'bad movie' isn't bad until an audience makes that judgement, until then they get made one step at a time like everything else.
 
ok, chim, now you have to tell us what movie it was that was so bad. chances are we will agree, but im really curious now to see what it took to make you start this thread.
 
Studio contracts.

Force Mr. Actor to act in 3 crummy films, as a compensation for them to be able to get the 1 film made they actually want to make. The studios then get to advertise crummy films A, B, and C as starring Mr. Actor; and along comes a distributor who picks up the film and sends it to your local theater (or, typically in these cases, your local Blockbuster).

Also, former success accounts for a lot of crappy films... whether it's actors, writers, directors, or even producers.
 
I don't think any studio wants to make a bad film, there are just a complicated series of abstract steps that are easy to get wrong in addition to a lot of fingers in the pie.
 
Also some films are so bad, they're good. There is a market for those types of films.

Oh and the too many hands in the cookie jar thingy... or fingers in pie (what?) Basically they get a script, and it may be brilliant, but along comes a producer who fires the writer, hires his own writers to take it apart and put it together like a frankenstein monster, then along comes his buddy who's a director (who also re-writes the script), then they have a fight and the producer either directs, or tells the director exactly what to do thinking he knows what "audiences want," then voila, you have a crapfest... starts with a great script and just goes downhill...

But I could be wrong...
 
Filmmaking is so complicated, the chances of making a bad film are MUCH bigger than making a good one, because in order to make a good film there are just so many things that need to work out in conjunction.

As for studios... Let's face it, the failure rate of independent films are AT LEAST as high as on studio films.

Then there's also personal taste and marketing to take into account. Make a great movie but market it the wrong way and people will think it's bad.
 
Zombie Driftwood

The reviews are hilarious. I especially agree with this one:
"This film might have been more impressive had it been directed by an 8 year old- though I'd still make sure someone kept him away from cameras in the future. I'd also recommend he be given a thorough examination by a child developmental specialist." LOL
 
Well, let's face it. Every once in a while a good or even great movie is made, but most movies suck. It is the law of averages. A lot of professions or industries have similar problems.

Lots of restaurants suck, or the food is okay, but nothing special. Very few have great food that isn't overpriced.

Same with films. Sometimes opinions can be different due to crazy factors out of the filmmaker's control. Maybe depending on how much money a person spends to see a film. If they spend $20 to see a film in the theater, their expectations are possibly through the roof. If they rent the same film from Redbox for a buck, they might not be as harsh in judging it.

Also, there is the famous quote from William Goldman in reference to Hollywood, "nobody knows anything." If the execs that green light which movies get made, and which ones don't, knew exactly how to make a hit movie, they'd never make the stinkers that sometimes slip through the cracks and end up on thousands of silver screens around the world.
 
Really though, I don't think the makers of Zombie Driftwood were attempting to make cinematic art, so the quality of the finished film isn't a big shocker. I am more shocked while millions and millions are spent on something that is so clearly a bad idea. You know, like this--
36041567036_The_Adventures_Of_Pluto_Nash_DVDRip_XviD_DVL.jpg
 
Last edited:
I like that they felt the need to underline "Man" in the tag line. What does that even mean? Like he's the man in the slang sense, like he's a cool dude, or something? I'm not going to watch that movie to find out.
 
Nektonic said:
Also, there is the famous quote from William Goldman in reference to Hollywood, "nobody knows anything." If the execs that green light which movies get made, and which ones don't, knew exactly how to make a hit movie, they'd never make the stinkers that sometimes slip through the cracks and end up on thousands of silver screens around the world.
Click to expand...
There's probably a lot of truth to this, but also there's a question of money.

Take Fantastic Four for example.

When the film was first green lit and announced YEARS ago, the producers said it would be such an effects heavy film (I wish I could find the source for this, but I remember it probably being Superherohype or AICN back around 2003 or so) that they would go with an unknown cast and director so they could put the money in the effects. That's what they actually said to the press. I remember it being reported and thinking what a bad idea that sounded like.

My guess is that it's like the recall equation from Fight Club. If the seats you can most likely sell times the price for each ticket > the production and advertising costs, you green light the film.

I bet there's a model for this, I bet there's even a name for that model and an abreviation for the name. I bet there's even a nickname for the abreviation.

Films are not, and shouldn't be, made based on what might be "good". That's how films are funded in Sweden and we've had a huge problem with that system for 50 years.
 
Jawa Ex Machina said:
My guess is that it's like the recall equation from Fight Club. If the seats you can most likely sell times the price for each ticket > the production and advertising costs, you green light the film.

I bet there's a model for this, I bet there's even a name for that model and an abreviation for the name. I bet there's even a nickname for the abreviation.
Click to expand...

I believe the abbreviation is S.H.I.T.E.
 
I think there is also the factor that once the ball gets rolling and the first shot is in the can, too much money has already been invested so no one can pull the plug. Just ride along as the ball of poo gets bigger and bigger and hope for the best.
 
Batutta said:
I believe the abbreviation is S.H.I.T.E.
Click to expand...
What's the abbreviation for the model where hundreds of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars are decided by the personal film taste of the people who sits on the money rather than market strategies and business calculations?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top