I'm new to this message board but I have visited this site many times. I thought I would ask a question to the B-movie experts.
When producers and Directors set out to make a movie, do they intend for it to be bad?
I mean when "Battlefield Earth" was being filmed, or even just proposed, did the producers say, "OK, we are now going to make a Bad movie." What were they thinking?
I can remember the hype about Alien 3, Godzilla (Americanized) and Mortal Kombat: Annihilation. Weaver said that she thought Alien 3 was better than Aliens. It was bad. Americanized Godzilla, though I enjoyed it, was not able to stand up to the hype about it. Mortal Kombat: Annihilation is the reason you do NOT make sequels.
Other times directors can set out to make a bad movie. "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" is an example of how someone can set out to make a "bad movie." However, when they were filming "The Horror of Spider Island" or "The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai" (My personal favorite) were they planning for it to fall into the category of B-Movies?
In the case of Alien 3 my theory is that they worked in a whole bunch of visual setups from the 1928 silent film Passion of Joan of Arc. Both films have one female surrounded by rough male characters, lots of facial close-ups of said female character, a head shaving scene, and death by fire. I've seen both movies andf the overlap is way more than coincidental. It is likely that someone would try to ripoff the Joan of Arc film, because it was considered a tragically lost film, until in the late 80's somebody found a copy in a barn covered in bird droppings, but still well preserved given the usual flamability of film stock. (I hope the bit about the barn is right. I couldn't find a source, but I read it somewhere a while back.)
If they were trying to reference the Passion of Joan of Arc film, then that would mean that Alien 3 was meant to be pretentious and artsy - not bad in the fun sense of the word.
Pretentious and artsy - one look at the director's other movies (Se7en, The Game, and Fight Club) confirms it.
Well no one sets out to intentionally make a bad movie, ever. Certainly there are those that are 'intentionally bad' (i.e. Killer Tomatoes) for the sake a parody (or just plain bad 'KOMEDY!') and some that are intended as dumb fun (i.e. Maximum Overdrive, which a stunned Stephen King found himself readying for many a crow dinner when he saw the first rough cut of what he had actually made) where the dumb=fun ratio is wildly skewed in the wrong direction.
I have always felt that it is passion for the project or subject that truly raises a movie up, most real failures are so because they lack that passion. In an interesting comparison, film critic/graphic artist Chas. Balun talked about how the fact that The Texas Chainssaw Massacre was made by a bunch of kids scrabbling to survive while most of Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 (which he admits to liking) was made by clock punchers that would just move on to the next movie after this, so a certain desperate magic is missing from the mix.
Also, as in the King comparison, filmmakers create on an instinctual level, combining an original vision with tried (or tired) and true film techniques. Only when the film is put together does anyone really know if it has worked or not. Even then it is uncertain for only the viewing audience can decide whether or not it is truly successful. Star Wars was deemed a complete and utter failure by the then studio heads of 20th Century Fox. Reportedly they even fell asleep on it when previewed the release print. The movie was dumped into a paltry 200 or so theaters, but the audience was there and, despite studio apathy, the movie went on to be the top grossing film of all time for several years.
Other factors - ego, weather, money, time, quality of film stock, poor choice of composer, etc. etc. etc. Can also jettison a movie's effect. Some peole giggle that the serial killer snowman movie Jack Frost features no snow. The reason was it hadn't snowed in the usually snow heavy region the first picture was filmed in. Being a low budget movie the filmmakers had no joice other than film a snow movie without any snow. They could not do what the producers of the Bond film For Your Eyes Only did when they were faced with no snow in a usually snow heavy area, that is truck the snow in from elsewhere. In a humorous note, Jack Frost 2 was supposed to be set in the sunny tropics, but it rained during most of the filming. As Stomp Tokyo said...God hates Michael Cooney.
So the short answer is no. No one really sets out to make a bad movie, they try to make an entertaining movie, or sometimes an 'important' movie, and outside factors do the rest.
Make sense?
So, when they were filming "Battlefield Earth" they thought it was going to be "the greatst movie of all time." There was never a point when the director or producer realized they were beating a dead horse?
Actually, the people filming BATTLEFIELD EARTH did think they were shooting "the greatest movie of all time". Well, maybe not that exaggerated, but pretty close. See if you can find a copy of Cinescape Magazine with BATTLEFIELD EARTH on the cover. In the article all the actors and production people go on and on about the director's "vision", and how this was going to revolutionize movies. It's all kind of sad, really. But one man's pain is another man's derisive laughter.
I think if a director realizes that his movies isn't going to be "great", then he'll probably manuever it to be at least entertaining. And a lot of movies just shoot to be entertaining, not great. However, if a movie is looking like it's not even going to be entertaining, the producers usually step in and make the changes they think will at least make them their money back. Of course these changes often make a film much worse, and then you end up with cinematic dreck or, as they call it, box office poison.
Then you've got schlock films, which I think are much like pornography. You've got a whisper of a plot to drape around the "action". In pornography, the action is sex. In shlock movies, violence. In sleazy schlock movies, sex AND violence. More of a vessel than an actual movie. A lot of Troma films are like this.
And at the very bottom you've got people who intentionally cast Carrot Top and Pauly Shore as lead actors. Words fail me. I'm not the Dante to descend into this bad movie Inferno any deeper. From here on in, you're on your own.
I am sure that the filmmakers had every intention of bringing an important and entertaining visionary science-fiction epic (in someone's opine, not mine) to visual life. I am also sure that even today some of them still feel that they have succeeded and that the movie still hasn't been 'discovered' yet by its legions of fans (where ever they may be, perhaps they're all over in Afghanistan?). Still others, when looking at the rough cut, undoubtedly covered their eyes and whispered "Of f*** it doesn't work." To use a quote from a biology teacher (he was referring to the possibility of eating/drinking contaminated food products in a restaurant or from the grovery store in a lecture back in 1991) "You pay money and you take your chance." The producers invested in a project, the talent was assembled, they all tried their best, and it didn't work. Some admit it and some deny it, the movie (which I have not seen) speaks for itself. So the answer is both yes and no, depending on the person involved. Remember John Travolta wants to make a sequel and has every intention of doing so, or so I have heard rumored.
A thought (perhaps correct, perhaps not) on Weaver's perception of Alien3:
If you look at the movie, you see that it's got an awful lot of character moments for Ripley. Remember, in the original, there were enough characters who all got enough face time that you honestly didn't know who, if anyone, would survive. In Aliens, Ripley gets some character development, but then they spend most of the movie playing Rambo. The third movie, though, spends more time than either of the other with Ripley truly reacting to the horror of her situation. So from where Weaver was sitting -- behind Ripley's eyes, seeing the movie almost exclusively in terms of its "meat" for Ripley -- it could very well have looked like the best of the series.
Nathan
Never thought of it that way. She probably did feel that way. Thanks Nathan
Do producers and directors set out to make Bad Movies? Yes, they do!!! The producer's name is Jerry Bruckheimer who makes nothing but crap. And the directors' names are Renny Harlin and Joel Schumacher who also make nothing but crap.... :-)
Ok, Alien 3 made me want to reach for a pillow, but Battlefield Earth was COOL!!! AW s**t!! STOP THROWING THINGS!!!!
Hey yesfan, you're insane! Jerry Bruckheimer is a great producer. You want to pull this stupid s**t, head over to AICN. They have a s**t basket waiting for you.