Gigli, Glitter, et al. have made me wonder again. About a year ago, I posted this same question. We all seemed to agree that when a production studio pours money into a film and they discover it to be BAD, they will try to at least salvage it for some entertainment purpose. But with these films, and the lack of original movie plots and stories, it seems more and more that movie studios are producing movies based on marketing research and hitting certain marks that will sell the movie according to that research.
When do movie producers realize the movie they have just made is BAD? There has to be some tell tale signs. We now see many of these movies just released "Direct to Video" instead of waiving the garbage in front of a paying audience on the big screen.
When they were filming Gigli, were they thinking this will be the best movie ever or "let's make a film were people will only go see it only because they might get a sex scene between Ben and Jen and they will ask if they are really doing it."
When will it end!
Who is John Galt?
People always make bad decisions. Hell, how come Pokemon gets 4 movies, but the Blades are done after 3???
Leonard, part six. Nuff said, though it had plenty of amusing moments that only we B's like.
"When do movie producers realise the movie they have made is BAD?"
Good question! Sometimes it happens early in the film's history and they might fire a director, change the star, get a script re-write, and generally try to alter things for the better.
Or they may only realise that they have a 24-carat cow t**d on their hands after filming finishes, in which case they may go for re-shoots (last resort I'd imagine since that's expensive), re-editing, lots of post-production SFX, and a whole lot of consultation with the advertising guys about how to promote "Waco - the Musical", to give an example of rampant bad taste. This is the DTV phenomenon at work.
Third option, they may genuinely believe their giant celluloid turkey is the Citizen Kane of and are utterly dumbfounded when it dies on it's bum.
Producers don't intentionally make bad movies. But, by and large, producers don't intentionally make GOOD movies either.
Their goal, first and foremost, is to make PROFITABLE movies. And in this they rarely fail. Kangaroo Jack? Profitable. Battlefield:Earth? Profitable, believe it or not.
Gigli? Well, a little early to tell -- after all, it cost $54 million, and it only made $3 million -- but by the time it comes to video, you know there are going to be millions of people who don't remember WHAT they heard about it, just that they heard of it, and look! There's Ben Affleck and J-Lo! Must be good, huh, honey? OK, I'll rent that. When you factor in pre-sales to cable and broadcast TV (usually signed before theatrical release), it'll probably end up making somebody some money.
And foreign sales....I read someplace that due to his popularity overseas, all of David Lynch's films have wound up making money, even DUNE [though it took a while.]
I think some of the problem is when big stars get involved in a vanity project, which really sounds like what GIGLI is.
I think a lot of it has to do with the mentality that one particular element can make a film successful. For Glitter and Gigli, they were hoping that the stars alone would be enough to make them popular. For the various bad SF movies, they figure that since it's set in space, all the Star Wars/Star Trek fans will like it. They overlook the fact that they need an interesting plot, good supporting actors, good effects etc.
I dunno...the recent Star Wars movies had none of those and they seemed to do pretty well.
SOmetimes they set out to make bad movies. There's no other way to explain Jason I thru X, the upcoming Jason vs. Freddy, most of the Halloween series, and may others. THere's no way they didn't know. I just can't accept that anyone involved in thos productions thought they were doing quality filmaking
In the case of Gigli, I think it was just a case of "Hey, if we put Hollywood's hottest couple in a movie, we'll sell a million!!"
I think that a lot of times - especially with the horror and sci-fi genres and especially when there's not as much budget to work with, producers intend a film to be fun - not necessarily "bad." I think they know perfectly well that while the movie isn't necessarily a comedy, it'll be taken as one. And I think there's a huge audience for that - this web site is one testament and the considerable selection of "bad" movies in even the mainstream chain video stores is another (there would be no supply without demand).
In terms of mainstream movies, whoever said producers want to make profitable films was dead on target. They've got a formula for success and it involved stars, marketing blitz, and pre-sold ideas (what was it? SIXTEEN sequels this summer and the rest were based on old TV shows or comic books?). Do producers CARE if a movie is any good? Probably sometimes with the obvious Oscar bait they do... and sometimes they fall flat there too (witness: I Am Sam).
I don't think the producers thought much about whether Gigli or Glitter would be any good - they just figured the star power would cover the costs and then some. Now, I DO think Mariah Carey, JLo and BenLo thought they were going to be good movies which should give you some insight into the mental capacity of celebrities.
I once heard that to BREAK EVEN a movie had to bring in two times what it cost to produce. In Gigli's case, that would be $108 million. Just another $105 million to go.
Simple enough: There is no such thing as a bad movie. They just prefer to be recognized as low-budget masterpieces, and not "ripp-offs", just "tradition."
Picture a group of friends with a chicken scratch script, a video camera, and a afternoon to waste. Now only picture them a bit older and with some money. You do the math.