From what I hear a SCARY MOVIE 3 is on the way. Am I excited? Well, since I thought the first and second film were nothing but garbage, I am not excited. But I guess this is the type of "Cult Hollywood" film that everybody wants to see again. And again and again.
It's amazing that SCARY MOVIE has some of the crappiest, gross-out humor ever seen on film and yet after the horrid FREDDY GOT FINGERED the question "Do we really need another film of this type?" to be made. The answer could be yes or no.
not true the answer can only be no
I thought Scary Movies could have been better if they left out the cursing. I got tired of hearing "####" and "#####" every five minutes.
The idea of the show was cute.
Can the movies producers come out with clean cut movies?
SCARY MOVIE EPISODE 3: THE LORD OF THE BROOMS
I'm not lying. I've read that's the title they are considering. You can stop laughing now.
www.nowff.com
Sweet merciful heavens. The Wayans family and all of their ilk (David Allan Grier, Jamie Foxx, etc.) are horribly unfunny, yet Hollywood seems to be ignorant of this fact, continuing to give them unfunny movies no one sees, unfunny TV shows no one watches and makes them corporate pitchmen in unfunny and annoying commercials. Gross-out humor can and has been good, but only when it's pulled off well, and the people doing it now are incapable of that.
p.s.- Freddy Got Fingered, while very, very bad, was NOT as disgusting as it's made out to be. Anyone disgusted by it has a very weak constitution.
No, please say it's not true. Unfortunatley it'll probably make millions at the box office just like the other two. Sometimes I get tired of living in a country filled to the brim with stupids. Scary Movie is utter cockgarbage.
There's a rental version DVD of 'Freddy Got Fingered' on Blackstar.co.uk for £80!
That almost $115! Who would ever buy that? Is the film actually enjoyable? It's almost unheard of over here as far as I know.
Well, if you've never seen the Tom Green show, he's basically a jackass that goes around annoying people for fun. Why he gets his own tv show when my friends and I do that all the time for no reason is beyond me. In this movie he does pretty much the same thing, only it's scripted, so any fun seeing real people annoyed gives you is gone. Anyway, the movie is basically a bunch of lame "gross-out" gags that fail to gross-out strung together by the most puerile and simplistic dialogue in the history of the world.
DAD: Do you have a job, son?
GORD: Yes, daddy. I have a job.
DAD: I'm proud of you, son. You have a job.
GORD: Yes, daddy. I have a job so that you will be proud of me.
DAD: I am proud that you have a job.
GORD: I'm your son and I have a job.
DAD: I'm your dad and I'm proud that you have a job.
Repeat ad nauseam and you have the film's script.
American movies are not different and unique no more. Now all the american movies are based on video games, comic books, T.V. shows, remakes and even novels. Or yeah even worst copying off of international movies but giving it a different title as they on. Like for example La femme Nikta the original french version. Now the stupid american version will be called Point of no return.
I disagree. Some american movies have been unique, or at least somewhat original.
And how could you not find a skinny Canadian guy jerking off an elephant at least a little sick?
How to NOT make a profit? Scary Movie 1 and 2 (neither of which I have actually bothered to see - I dislike horror parodies) both turned a semi-tidy profit for the studio, hence there will be a third to make more money. Simple business smarts, hell even independent producers exploit franchise (or 'tent pole') titles (New Line Cinema became a major independent studio for a brief time thanks to its lucrative Nightmare on Elm Street films). As long as these movie make money for the producers/investors/studios (which is precisely what they are designed to do) sequels will continued to be made, irregardless of actual quality. Only when they STOP making money will the sequels end, only to be replaced with sequels to OTHER movies. Vote with your wallet, do not pay to see movies you don't want made.
Read Ken's review of "Superman IV" to see this in action
...do we really need another sequel. And as I said, the answer to certain audiences would be "Yes" and "No". What Hollywood needs to LEARN is to start making effective entertaining films rather than making a poorly handled item that they can sell-off and make money. Yes, it's simple business smarts. But then, their are two types of products that can be made:
1.) A product that is carefully made
2.) A product that is poorly made
And yet, BOTH can either make money or not make money depending on it's audience status. Looking at SCARY MOVIE's uncanny success, it's a poorly made product. But did it make money? Yes it did. And that is what makes me say "When will Hollywood ever learn". When will Hollywood make a product (i.e. feature film) that is carefully constructed? Well, Hollywood has made some good features, but then their are some that are not so good. And sometimes the bad ones make more money.
But I think the main reason why I say this is that SCARY MOVIE, at least in my opinion, has come to a close and needs to stop while it's ahead. Critics loved the first one, but some hated the second adaptation.
As for not paying to see features that I don't want to see, it's not that easy. I mean, when you look at the advertisements and so fourth it LOOKS like the film is going to be good. But when you plunk down the cash and see the results, that's when you realize you did not get more bang for your buck. I remember seeing trailers for DUDE, WHERE'S MY CAR? and FREDDY GOT FINGERED and thought "Damn, now that's got to be a funny movie", but when I saw the final result I turned out to be wrong. And usually it's the other way around for when I saw the trailer for THE OTHERS I felt "Another haunted house flick, it will be dull". Just recently I rented THE OTHERS on DVD and it blew me away! So it really depends on your judgement when it comes to paying/not paying for features I want/don't want to see.
So why another? Like what Chadzilla said, it made money. How true.
Well, I certainly see your point of view Chris K., but I agree with Chadzilla.
But really, I don't think you should worry yourself about the SCARY MOVIE franchise. The movies are clearly from the "movies as mere entertainment" camp. No attempt artistry, just trying to amuse the audiences enough to make them spend their money on the film. A money-making machine. So any further attempts to cash in on that don't seem too out of line. They will make as many sequels as economically feasible. (Although, really, any more than three gets fairly ridiculous.)
It's when a movie that is much loved by audiences both for its entertainment and artistic value is brought down by it's sequels that we really have to worry. I'll bring up again the much read (by me, anyway) Ken Begg SUPERMAN IV article. The original Superman movie, and to a lesser extent its sequel, was a cinematic triumph. But the money-making machine that is Hollywood insisted on making two more movies, to much diminishing returns. That is a cinematic tragedy brought about by Hollywood.
The pimping of the SCARY MOVIE franchise on the American public is just the studio's desire to make bundles of money. SCARY MOVIE never wanted to be "art", just a fun way to pass the time. Of course, I don't think it's fun, in fact, those movies are brutal to watch. But many, many people do seem to like them. The mass movie-going public is historically uncritical. You and I may pass on the two dollar hooker with no teeth, but to the American public, a blowjob is a blowjob. (I'm sorry. I really have no idea where that metaphor came from.)
So really, it just comes down to ignoring your revulsion to mass marketed pablum. Teen Pop is apparently making oodles of money right now, but I've never bothered to listen to it. I consistently seek out quality entertainment and artistry, no matter the medium, no matter the expense and time I have to expend doing it. I am part of another demographic, and I know there are enough people like me to make the artistic endeavors I enjoy economically viable. True, the mainstream portion of society does have, and always will have, particularly poor taste. The only solution is to ignore them, and let your own head think for itself.
Of course, it is always fun to complain about and bash the things people love. I forgot the point of my post while I was writing it, so I'll leave it at that.
Good point's there Mofo Rising and I as well agree with Chadzilla. And that "a blowjob is a blowjob" is really a strange metaphor to use. But it works.
Of course, these "complaints" on the upcoming SCARY MOVIE are just thoughts. True, their are some out there who like it and that is their own choice. But I have to say that I am not going to be in line for the sequel.
But both Chadzilla and Mofo Rising's comments are true. Very true.
...what is good and what is bad is subjective, I guess. What works for you may not work for me and far too often mass market movies simply play to the lowest common denominator for the highest cross market appeal. As far as the whole 'mainstream America's taste sucks' argument goes, well that is highly subjective (not to mention more than a bit holier than thou), most people, I have found in my working as a video store clerk, give not real thought behind the movies they rent. They rent the latest blockbusters, and either like them or think they suck. Having any kind of conversation about the merits and minuses of any filmmaker/star/production company is an invitation to pain. Chris K. you said it best when you mention that Spiderman was from the director of Evil Dead and you got blank looks in response. Most people simply do not care beyond a simple desire to be entertained, the depths of a fan's attention to detail and a given individuals career just seems weird. I am sure tha behind those looks were vague thoughts of "That guy needs A LIFE or a GIRLFRIEND" or "Maybe I should move a few seats away from this dead movie freak, he's weird...and I hope this movie isn't GORY or anything, if I knew an icky horror movie director made this I wouldn't have come." Yes Chris K., mainstreamers think that way, bless their hearts. Some can be mighty condescending about it to. One guy was livid that Clint Eastwood's wonderful Oscar winning western didn't have enough killing in it. Clint's only good for blowing people away.
And very few filmmakers set out to make a 'bad' movie intentionally (there are exceptions to that rule of course, Attack of the Killer Tomatoes and the title movie within the movie Amazon Women on the Moon, which are usually what are called Camp Comedies - a sub-genre I'm not particularly fond of because I just don't find it very funny when played in a overly broad "Gee look how stooo-pid I am!" Moron Movie way, I like my Mororn Movies played with relative straightness). I think it is a weird mix of various different root causes, some of which are
1. People who do not understand the appeal of the material they are handling.
2. People who think the material they have been handed is 'beneath' their talents.
3. Those handed said material don't care one way or the other about its actual quality, just as along as it makes money ASAP (yes, they are THAT short sighted - that's how misfires like Batman and Robin happen).
4. Those who want to change the material to make it more marketable to a broader auidence or (see Ken's Superman IV review about 'camping' superhero movies up and making them vanity pictures) communicate a 'personal' or significant message.
5. Bad marketing based decisions.
6. Ego.
7. Lack of money.
8. Lack of time.
9. Lack of resources.
10. Lack of internal support.
And so much more can go wrong and slaughter a movie before it's even made. I don't know the point of some of these ramblings and my train of thought as derailed, so I'll just stop now.
Though personally I DON'T try to say 'mainstream America's taste sucks'. Everybody has their own "taste", good or bad. I will be honest, MY TASTE is always highly criticized by people I know (And the comments that my associates make are negative ones if you remember the story I told about loaning a copy of BRAINDEAD to them and it ended with their disliking as well as telling me "I am a bad critic"). They didn't get it, they never will, and that is just fine with me.
I do remember watching BRAVEHEART in my Religion class and I kept looking at my watch alot as well as commenting on the battle scenes being too "comic book" (it's a Mel Gibson film, isn't it) as well as being too boring. And like you said, "Having any kind of conversation about the merits and minuses of any filmmaker/star/production company is an invitation to pain" is quite true. But they have their own ideals of entertainement, and I have mine.
Hey, mainstream has it's moments. And then mainstream does not have it's moments. And along with the independents, it's really a mixed bag.
I tend to avoid mainstream movies for a simple reason. The prices are way too expensive to go to the theater and by the time they come around to the videostore as a cheap rental, I've either fogotten or lost interest