When Movies Fail....

Now me, I'm a bit more cruel. This probably has to do with the fact that I've always liked bad movies no matter the scale, small or large (limiting bad movie love strictly to non-budget efforts is yawnsome), precisely as a demonstration of folly run amuck. It's a bit like a religious cult with a particularly teleological bent, since there has to be an 'end point' that results in salvation, and when the cult in particular is on incredibly shaky ground, look out. You do your work as well as you can, and you have to cast aside as much doubt as possible, and you find yourself doing things part of you is screaming "ARE YOU NUTS? YOU'RE BEING FUCKED OVER!" at, all for the hope that the end result saves you ie gets you the next job you've been looking for or whatever.

Meanwhile, you have the bastard skeptics like myself laughing Nelson-laughs on the side, still getting smiles, say, over the fact that Cimino's career died a spectacular death back in 1980 and he's only been a journeyman revenant since -- but then again, someone like me who is NOT involved directly in such activity may be patting ourselves on the back for avoiding the stupidity, but that's also because we never ourselves took the risk. We're happy to have avoided Battlefield Earth in any way, shape or form but we're not onstage scooping up awards for Return of the King either.

Plus, here's something John Landis said in the Onion A.V. Club that keeps me from groaning if a film I like doesn't set the box office on fire:

Marketing does have a lot to do with the success of a film. But even more so, and especially since home video, I've learned that a movie has a life of its own. A movie goes out there, and it exists, and it continues. I'm always fascinated by what movie people bring up when they approach me. Animal House is interesting, in the U.S., because of how many people—including President Bush and Senator Kerry—say it's their favorite movie. You know that George W. Bush thinks he's a Delta. You know that they think they're the good guys. It's just fascinating to me. That picture really spoke to people, and it continues to speak to people. I also get Blues Brothers a lot, especially in Asia and Europe. I get ¡Three Amigos!, I get Trading Places, I get "Thriller" a lot around the world. But you never know what's going to touch somebody. I was in the Czech Republic, and this major Czech critic came up to me and said, "Oh, Mr. Landis, I've always wanted to meet you. You made my favorite film." And it turned out to be Spies Like Us, which is this completely silly Cold War comedy that I made. It turns out that during the Soviet occupation of the Czech Republic, it was pretty severe. They were crushed, and there were very strict rules. This critic, his father had built a satellite dish, and he stole the movie from Rupert Murdoch's Sky Channel, and basically had a bootleg tape of Spies Like Us. He told me that people used to come and sit in the garage and watch Spies Like Us, like these secretive meetings. I said, "What about Spies was so enthralling?" And he said, "You were making fun of the Russians and the Americans." They just found it so liberating and exciting, that it was mocking what was oppressing them. It had never occurred to me that Spies Like Us would be inspiring to people. So, you know, you make a movie, and it goes out there and has a life of its own.

oh, without question. I read a book about the incident and almost cried reading about the gross negligence involved. Kevin Smith (a guy I don't like to quote) in Spike, Mike, Slackers And Dykes talked about seeing Landis at some convention and how he was about to walk over and make some cruel joke about Vic Morrow. Then he remembered that Landis was the director of Kentucky Fried Movie and Animal House, and decided it really wasn't worth it. My personal opinion of Landis is that he's not particularly skilled at thinking up great things, but when he gets something great in front of him, he won't stand in its away auteur-style. In the AV Club interview he talks about some documentaries he's working on, and I think his knack for acknowledging talent would shine there.

Because a film that flops at the box office might still make enough/loads money in rental and DVD sales. It's not always about *artistic* choices, more about: will it rake in loads of money. Apparently with DVDs now (sales and rental) some cinema will still make a looooot of money eventually.

Oh yeah, I dispise Jude Law. He's very purty but still a loathesome man. Blergh. May he rot in B-Hell.

I remember reading something about this in relation to "Waterworld" - which is now not only in profit, but has made the production costs more than twice over apparently - that for Hollywood movies now it's not if they make money but when. There's currently, I believe, no film from any of the big studios that has not recouped production costs.

But doesn't big-budget Hollywood act in accordance with the findings of focus groups and Q ratings and other intelligence? The Animaniacs bit with the poll-takers asking people in a mall if they wanted to see George Wendt eating beans in a movie was presented as a joke, but supposedly it's not that much of an exaggeration.

If you can't tell, I really fucking hate that this movie exists.

Focus groups, Q ratings, all sorts of targeting savvy can't salvage any film if it's received poor word-of-mouth, sharp criticism, or is perceived as too much of a soulless marketing-play. There's something to the snowball theory of criticism: the first reviewer determines the bent of the second reviewer, the net effect of their criticism determines the third and fourth reviewers, who determine the super-audience internet critic personalities (read, in this case, aintitcoolnews / filmthreat), who in turn influence film nerds, who try to tell everybody else what to think.

If, for any number of reasons, one of the personalities at a high-enough level on the chain has a very strong opinion re. a project, their pleasure/pain will either infect the subsequent reviewers and add to their enthusiasm, or it will act as, proverbially, an antibody, turning the next group against the initial opinion. This works both ways for a film -- an intially strong, positive review by, f'rinstance, Kenneth Turan, may seem a gauntlet thrown to Anthony Lane. And if Lane dismisses the film, it's equally likely that subsequent reviewers will respond more to his review than to the film, either to support or deny it. This relay of anxious-influence has a cumulative effect; a film everybody at a studio (or in a focus group) agrees is 'pretty good' can swing in the public opinion to 'very bad' three days before opening by sheer dint of critical (dis)favor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jH_HBgoOE08&feature=related