maybe a silly question, but serious....

[preyer]

who do bad movies get made? seriously, how do scripts for 'daredevil' and 'elektra' make it into production without someone throwing up a thousand red flags and run screaming through the offices, 'this sucks! this sucks! this sucks!'? especially for characters that have been around for a few decades or so. is movie quality so subjective that it's all just a total crapshoot?

now, i can see where a movie doesn't have the money to make a movie all that it could be with script doctors and $80m budgets, top shelf actors and inspired directors, but for those that have that, what goes wrong? with all things i place, how is it possible to turn it into such a dismal mess?

obviously it's the script. my thing is how do bad scripts get made? sure, i can see how a movie may take a turn for the worse in editing, which is an artform in itself, though i doubt that's typically the case, for example, spielberg never intended 'indiana jones and the temple of doom' to be quite so dark, that's just the way it came out in editing.

i realize they make a movie to appeal to a certain audience. STILL, that's no excuse for a bad script.

is it just me or does the more money plunked into a horror or comedy movie tend to make it worse?

[scfirenice]

You could say the same about some novels. I've picked up several that I haven't even been able to finish, and that says alot for me. There is great stuff out there but there are way too many that just plain suck. How do they get printed and some more noteable ones go by the wayside? I don't know. Maybe the market is leaning towards unintelligent, cookie cutter, crap. What does that say about us as a society? As far as movies go...I guess it's all who you know.
S

[zagoraz]

It's kinda like that game you played when you were a kid. You whispered a word into the ear of the kid next to you, and he in turn took his interpretation of what you said and whispered it to the next kid. And so on and so forth. And at the end of the line the word 'Ambulance' has turned it 'Andy's Pants'.

The fact is the original script for many of those movies may have been very good specs (I don't know the specifics on Daredevil or Elektra), but by the time the director, the hired script doctors, the actors, the producers, the freakin assistant director, the flippin production assistants and the damn editor all get their little take on it, it's something completely different. And by the time they realize, 'hey, this is turning out pretty bad,' it's way too late. Then it's in the hands of the marketing department to do what they can to bring the bucks in on a mediocre at best product.

That's why I stay away from big budget flicks.

[GonnaBeFamous]

I hate gone with the wind :)

[preyer]

that could be how it happens. :) i can understand novels more, though. theoretically, only the writer and editor need ever see a novel before it goes to print. more do, of course (agents, interns, proofreaders, beta readers, etc.), but at the same time there's not the high-stakes involved.

tonight i watched 'xxx: state of the union' and 'stone cold' with tom selleck. guess which one was better. clearly they're trying to force a 'xxx' franchise, but even as popcorn fare it sucked, only entertaining in its level of awfulness.

it makes me wonder how so many professionals (*PROFESSIONALS*!!) let's something like this snowball into such nonsensical garbage (for the record, i love action flicks in general given they don't play into every single cliche possible-- the sequel made the first 'xxx' look like shakespeare in comparison). more mind-boggling, even insulting, is the fact that the studio expects to crank out this stuff and expect audiences to keep seeing it.

i don't mind big-budget movies, but they sure are more disappointing more often than not. just when you get psyched up for a really great version of the arthur legend do you witness 'king arthur' (from a few years ago) and it was just sooo painful to watch (then again, i believe it was a jerry bruckhiemer flick, so that should have been a big tip-off right there, eh? just on the heels of 'pirates of the caribbean' i held out some hope).

bad novels i can grasp. those don't go nearly through the same filters only to be adjusted by focus groups. consequently, thousands of books are published a year as opposed to how many movies reasonably available? three to five hundred, if you count nearly everything? just a guess. and i'm not referring to movies that just don't fit personal tastes, i mean movies that have virtually zero going for it. i personally despised 'the phantom menace,' but i can see where some people would be onboard for it.

how many people see a script before it starts production? probably at least a dozen, if not more.

[Joe Calabrese]

This is tough to explain, so I'll make a list of things to consider.

Producers don't set out to make a bad film. But stuff happens and the releasing studio and/or producer must release a film (even if terrible) if it can make most or all of thieir money back. It would be foolish to not to.

A bad script most likely will become a bad film, but a great script can be a bad film too.

Bad acting, directing, cinematography, set and art direction can all make an otherwise good film a bad one.

A film must be made on a tight schedule, if they go behind schedule, things get cut, rushed, or otherwise compromised.

A studio, legal dept, rating board, unions, and many other non producing people may have things to say about the script or film dailies and may force the producer and director to make changes that would please them but maybe not the audience. (case in point. Bob and Harvy forced Wes Craven to change the mask in Scream because they thought it wasnt scary. It took Wes shutting down production (costs money every day) and threaten to quit to get Bob and Harvy to back off. Wes was right in the end, the mask worked)

A script that may need 50 million to be made, may only get 30 mil and as such a studio will cut the script up. They will still make the film because they alreay spent millions in preproduction and acuiring the rights and/or script.

A studio will test screen a film and will refilm, reedit or change a film that screened slightly poorly. If it screened really bad, it will go to DVD or a few theatres to minimise distriution expenses and create a presense before going to DVD. Or they will change the distribution marketing plan to minimise the profit loss or fool the audience into seeing it more in the opening week.

Releasing a bad film will make some or maybe all of their money back. Shelving it will not.

Even a bad film, if advertised properly and released in over 2000 screens, will make a huge profit.

If a film makes 30 million on opening weekend, it will make over 100 million US.

More money is to be made oversees than in the US markets.

Even what looks good on paper may not work when filmed. If it doesn't work on film, they will cut it which may remove important info the story needed or they leave it in for the sake of the story making sense.

Bottom line. There are so many little and big things that can make a film bad. Even a great script can turn into crap, even from seasoned professionals.

But in a business world, profit is more important than art.

So to sum up, producers don't want to make bad films and scripts are bought and made which show promise of being good, but so many things beside the script can make a film turn bad, including the money people involvement, but you have to make your money back, so... Release it anyway and hope for the best, or put more money in it to try and fix it.

[maestrowork]

Studio heads and producers who are not filmmakers -- they're bean counters, who think "Wow, a superhero movie starring Ben Affleck? We're going to be rich!" Then they hire people who are "yes" men and not very good filmmakers, and they skimp on the script and pump the money in special effects instead...

[Joe Calabrese]

I beleive that in the case of Daredevil, the biggest problem was not the script, but poor casting choices (casted based on box office appeal rather then the right actor for the role) Ben, Duncan and Colin were just wrong choices but insured the film would make serius cash.

Also, for whatever the reasons, they went with a writer/director who did 99% character comedies, not action or heavy FX films. I think it was because he had a contract at Sony.

The script was looked over by Kevin Smith, who just came off from writing a Daredevil Graphic Novel. He had some issues which were changed for the better but most ended up on the cutting room floor in favor of more FX.

Also, production schedule was trimmed because of Ben's schedule and Jennifer's TV gig.

Also, the film's original budget was only 50 million, but raised to 80 mil during production because of Spiderman's success. The extra 30 mil went to FX.

The rights bounced around from studio to studio for almost a decade.

Everything done in the film was last minute or an afterthought because of Spiderman.

Rushing and second guessing was its downfall.

[preyer]

good reply, JC, i appreciate the thought invested and expressed. i know this isn't the norm, but since we're on the subject of 'DD,' it had a killer weekend and FAST hit the skids, afair. in the end, i don't think the american b.o. matched production costs, though, like you said, i'm sure it made money in the long run with overseas sales and DVDs. they actually pumped an additional 30 mill into it? hard to see where-- the f/x were terrible, lol. you're right, too, in regards to the casting. who was smoking what? then again, i thought affleck as jack ryan was a terrible choice. okay, i admit it, affleck in anything is a bad choice for the most part, which is funny because i otherwise like affleck. well, before he went big-time, that is, and took on a bunch of films with a lot of action in it.

on the other hand, i have to think MW is onto something. from what i've gathered over the years, rick mccallum had both hands buried deep into the morass that developed into the star wars prequel mess. when george lucas needed a swift kick in the arse back into reality, he got a yes-man only too willing to fellate lucas at the drop of a clonetrooper helmet, imo. i can see situations like that arising a lot. only in washington and hollywood would i expect to find raging egos in search of validation by over-eager bandwagoners and coattail-riders. for what it's worth, i think my career in hollywood could by timed with a stopwatch because i'm a 35 year old dude no longer trying to impress people with what i think they want to hear, lol. (okay, i'm busted-- i never did that anyway... except where women and alcohol and a dark room were involved.) i imagine there's a game to be played there. no, i'm convinced of it.

one thing i thought about last night and touched upon in another forum, tweaked here for context, is that i think *some* movies are almost intentionally bad. by 'bad' i mean not meant to be art in any way, shape or form, rather just to appeal to a certain market who likes their horror simple and gory and the comedy sleazy and raunchy. horror, for instance, has a certain population who likes the low-budget stuff. i know i do, don't know why. so why is low-budget horror made? certainly not because the makers think they're making something good by any stretch, nor because there's not already a huge library already in existance. no, it's because, i think, those who want cheap horror don't want to watch cheap horror from the 80's, they want cheap horror from the 00's. just like mainstream likes to update older movies, a lot of remakes aren't necessarily meant to improve on the original or there's a terribly derth of ideas they could have gone with instead, they just want to remake the movies for a new generation *knowing* it'll make money. i mean, i'd certainly take my kids (if i had any) to see a benji remake because i loved 'em when i was six years old. it's really cheap manipulation, but it works so well. :)

[Joe Calabrese]

in the end, i don't think the american b.o. matched production costs, though, like you said, i'm sure it made money in the long run with overseas sales and DVDs.

Worldwide Theatrical 120 million
Worldwide DVD/Video Sales/rentals 68 million
Worldwide Cable/TV 28 million
Ancillary and licenced Products (Books, Tshirts, Music, etc) 18 million

Total to date: 234 million
Minus Budget and Advertising

128 million profit

Imagine if it was good.

[Jamesaritchie]

who do bad movies get made? seriously, how do scripts for 'daredevil' and 'elektra' make it into production without someone throwing up a thousand red flags and run screaming through the offices, 'this sucks! this sucks! this sucks!'? especially for characters that have been around for a few decades or so. is movie quality so subjective that it's all just a total crapshoot?

now, i can see where a movie doesn't have the money to make a movie all that it could be with script doctors and $80m budgets, top shelf actors and inspired directors, but for those that have that, what goes wrong? with all things i place, how is it possible to turn it into such a dismal mess?

obviously it's the script. my thing is how do bad scripts get made? sure, i can see how a movie may take a turn for the worse in editing, which is an artform in itself, though i doubt that's typically the case, for example, spielberg never intended 'indiana jones and the temple of doom' to be quite so dark, that's just the way it came out in editing.

i realize they make a movie to appeal to a certain audience. STILL, that's no excuse for a bad script.

is it just me or does the more money plunked into a horror or comedy movie tend to make it worse?

Wonderful scripts can be made into absolutely horrible, unwatchable movies. It happens all the time. The power of a director is almost absolute, and what a director can do for, or to, a script is an amazing thing to watch. Even with a shooting script in hand, a movie can turn into something that has no resemblance at all to what's on the page.

And even a wondeful script can be turned into junk when the director himself starts working on it.

Sometimes the vision in a director's head works, and sometimes it fails miserably, and it often has nothing to do with the quality of the script.

A scene can work perfectly on paper, but turn to crap if it's shot wrong, directed wrong, or acted wrong. Likewise, a scene that's pretty bad on paper can turn into a wonderful scene if it's shot right, directed right, and acted right.

Movies are a lot more complicated than the quality of the screenplay. Poor screenplays can make wonderful movies, and wonderful screenplays can make horrible movies.

[Ivonia]

As I read this thread topic and the responses, I immediately thought back to a website tip of the day by Bill Martel that more or less describes why bad movies are made. The tip is a little old (well, like 3 years or so, so not that old), but it's message is still as good today as it was back then:

http://www.scriptsecrets.net/tips/tip215.htm

Not that anything said here already is bad or wrong, but I thought this website tip was another good thing to add to this topic.

[maestrowork]

Worldwide Theatrical 120 million
Worldwide DVD/Video Sales/rentals 68 million
Worldwide Cable/TV 28 million
Ancillary and licenced Products (Books, Tshirts, Music, etc) 18 million

Total to date: 234 million
Minus Budget and Advertising

128 million profit

Imagine if it was good.

That's the point. Studio heads are bean counters. Show them 128 million profit they all have boners. It doesn't matter if it's a good movie or not.

Meanwhile, who cares to make another Cinderella Man (which I think is a nice movie) if it makes only $50 mil -- barely covering the fees of making it and hiring Russell Crowe, Renee Z. and Ron Howard... Oscar? Who cares? Bring me cash!

Pair a bean counter producer with the pimple-faced teenage boys or gushy teenage girls who are the #1 movie goers... there you go: Daredevil!

[Joe Calabrese]

Cinderella Man up to 59 milllion to date US only.

Budget 88 million

But Worldwide and other markets will tap up to 120 million.

32 million dollar profit aint to bad either.

And an Oscar means a lot to studios. An Oscar means redistribution in hteatres and higher DVD sales which will bring in another 20-30 million.

[zagoraz]

Hey Maestro, the first 13 pages of your book are really good. Let me know when I can get a copy.

[maestrowork]

why thanks. :o it'll be out in november... drop me a line then if you want a signed copy. ;)

[Optimus]

Will that increase or decrease the value?

;)