Are we responsible for shit movies?

[Reigh Kaufman]

My new DVDs today arrived today - 'Into the Wild, 'Eyes Without a Face' (La Yeux Sans Visage') and 'Fur'.

I love these films...

...but it is late and BBC1 are showing 'The Money Train'.

I'm watching 'The Money Train'.

It made me think: Can this be right? Am I responsible for propagating the shit that people watch?

Films cater to the same dictum as any industry - supply/demand.

So...who is guilty? The people that demand shit movies or the people who supply them?



"Who are you, handing out stories in parts? Johnny Segment?"

[D.B. Cooper]

How ironic you thought of this while watching The Money Train. Because thats all alot of the studios care about, the money train arriving. Once it keeps arriving they'll keep churning shit out.

[bigred760]

I think it's more execution than anything.

Different people want different things so not everyone's to blame. I'm sure some people enjoyed Money Train (I didn't think it was that bad) and so it just depends on how a movie's made more than the people that want to see a certain movie.

[The Postmaster General]

I don't know why Woody and Wesley didn't do more films together, but I digress.

I'm of the opinion it all comes down to rights and money issues, what they show on TV and what-not. It's kind of like getting a pair of irregular slacks at clear out, or maybe some cases the movie is immensely popular, but most of the time it seems more convenient than anything.

[cuddleworthy]

Yes, we are. Movie companies are just supplying the demand, just like any other business. I really don't mind the number of retarded movies that are released, but I do believe there should be an equal or close amount of good ones which follow. Nowadays, it's more like a 6 to 1 ratio.

[auge_28]

Nowadays, it's more like a 6 to 1 ratio.

What was it before it became nowadays?
It is easy to say that, but show some proof of your assertion.
Was there a time were all films were great, was there a time when most films were great?
I doubt it, I think always most films were poor or at least not great.

Go back in ten-year increments and find the total number of films and see if the ratio is any different?

[Indydan13]

I'm pretty sure if no one saw "Step Up" then "Step Up 2" would not have been made.

I call it the "Kevin Bacon Paddle Syndrome". When shit movies come out, we all just flock to see it. We hate it, we bash it. When the sequel comes out, we do it again. We're wincing in pain, but giving a "Thank You Sir, May I Have Another?" all the way....

[CyclicNightmare]

Welcome back, Reigh.

[TeeRay]

It's supply/demand. If a movie makes a ton of money for a certain reason, than sure enough studios are going to attempt something similar to get some coin on the latest hot commodity. It's business.

Take, for example, Judd Apatow. In the past few years he's been hot shit in Hollywood, particurally last year. Knocked Up and Superbad, with his name attached to it, have made great box office. So, now we have several movies with his name attached to it, some working (Forgetting Sarah Marshall) and some not (Drillbit Taylor). This is how the whole "Hollywood isn't original" thing goes around. Sure, your movie can be original, but originality doesn't always make money (see: Grindhouse). That's why Hollywood goes with similar formulas. Their safe.

Another example is with Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer (or however you spell it). They get to keep making movies because they make money on their movies. You can shit on Meet the Spartans, Epic and Date Movie all day, but it's hard to deny that those films were profitable. How did those movies make money? Simple curiosity. "Man, look at this movie. It makes fun of 300. Lets go see it." Or, the horseshit argument that I always use to watch a terrible film, "Let's see it to see how bad it is!"

That's what movie studios want. They want you to get curious and go see the movie their pushing, good or bad.

So yes, in a way, people get a say in the quality of a film. If people want shit, than studios will make shit.

[Benj]

It's all your fault, Reigh.

[The Postmaster General]

Oh my bad, I thought you meant how they show bad films on TV most the time.

No, Reigh - We are responsible for the movies we like coming out. There's just fewer or us.

[Freddy Krueger]

The first thing that I thought of when I read this thread title was, Meet the Spartans was #1 in the box office on it's opening weekend. Thanks America, now they're going to continue making these stupid, asinine, unfunny fucking spoof movies.

[Tony_Montana]

I liked Money Train...

[eljefe15]

Of course it's about money. Studios would make whatever would sell. The best films around usually don't do well at the box office until after they win the Oscar or something and they replay it in the theaters.

The question is why do people keep supporting stupid, pointless, poorly made movies and completely ignore good movies. I asked several people this recently and I kept getting the same response. Most people view a movie as simply entertainment. They want an escape from their lives for a few hours. They don't want to be challenged or be deeply moved by a movie. Like my uncle said, "if I wanted to think I'd read a book."

[Buck Turgidson]

You could pick a worse movie as your example (while I'm under no illusions as to Money Train's greatness, it's an enjoyable run of the mill Hollywood film), but the short answer to your question is "Yes."

[MightyCelestial]

I blame the parents.

And global warming.











G%dd@mn that global warming.

I hate it with a passion that is grotesque.

[TheJadedGamer]

I checked out about twenty-five people in a span of two hours last night at work, all who brought up Meet the Spartans, saying how hilarious it looked.

So yeah, I think we are responsible for shit movies.

[mel1ssa]

I blame the parents.

And global warming.











G%dd@mn that global warming.

I hate it with a passion that is grotesque.

lol. won't anyone think of the children...?!

[AndrewDB]

lol. won't anyone think of the children...?!

Sure.

I blame the children. :p

--

I think it's a lack of creativity flowing around Hollywood right now.. if you write what appears to be a script, they'll green light it, and approve it.

Easy Script + Lots of Money + An urge to please people because you can produce a movie.. = movie.

[mel1ssa]

Sure.

I blame the children. :p

--

I think it's a lack of creativity flowing around Hollywood right now.. if you write what appears to be a script, they'll green light it, and approve it.

Easy Script + Lots of Money + An urge to please people because you can produce a movie.. = movie.

lol. yes! damn them for 'the wild', 'barney', and 'speed racer'!

hmmm... why do shit movies exist? because in all forms of art and creativity there must be originality and genius, and there must be other crap that we place beside those things to show others what originality and genius really look like. everyone can't get it right all the time. if they did, we wouldn't know what right and wrong was.

it's ok to like bad movies. it's ok to have guilty pleasures. and this is one tendency that is not particularly destructive, just wasteful. :)