Are directors aware when they make bad movies?

veggz

Banned
Jan 3, 2005
843
0
0
Do you guys think it is possible for a director not to realize he has made a poor film before the reviews come out? I was just thinking, if a casual movie watcher on ATOT is able to recognize a poorly made film, how could a movie director, with infinitely more experience watching/producing films, not be able to view his own work and realize, "damn, this is simply not a good movie."

Perhaps Miami Vice isn't exactly the best example, though it is widely acknowledged as being a mediocre film. But why wouldn't Mann (whose talent we have previously seen demonstrated) be able to make amends to this film with such amazing potential to make it a good film? A more extreme example would be with movies like Spice World and Gigli, ubiquitously seen as among the worst films made of all time. I just have trouble seeing the directors of these movies telling themselves that people would enjoy watching these films.

What do you guys think?
 

pulse8

Lifer
May 3, 2000
20,860
1
81
First of all, I think you mean Miami Vice. Second, I'm sure guys like Michael Mann are totally aware that they've missed the mark if they have actually done so, although they will rarely admit it since if they did, they'd probably never work again. Last, I don't think most people realize how hard it is to direct a really good movie. Let alone many in succession.
 

michaels

Banned
Nov 30, 2005
4,329
0
0
Of course they know but don't care because of the legions of retards who will go and see the crap.
 

veggz

Banned
Jan 3, 2005
843
0
0
Originally posted by: dartworth
Vice City...?

:eek:

Originally posted by: pulse8
First of all, I think you mean Miami Vice. Second, I'm sure guys like Michael Mann are totally aware that they've missed the mark if they have actually done so, although they will rarely admit it since if they did, they'd probably never work again. Last, I don't think most people realize how hard it is to direct a really good movie. Let alone many in succession.

Good directors obviously know what it takes to make a good movie, so why would they allow a poor movie to be stamped with their name and distributed? I agree that it is difficult to make a truly great movie, but how hard is it to make a run of the mill action flick?
 

pulse8

Lifer
May 3, 2000
20,860
1
81
Originally posted by: veggz
Originally posted by: dartworth
Vice City...?

:eek:

Originally posted by: pulse8
First of all, I think you mean Miami Vice. Second, I'm sure guys like Michael Mann are totally aware that they've missed the mark if they have actually done so, although they will rarely admit it since if they did, they'd probably never work again. Last, I don't think most people realize how hard it is to direct a really good movie. Let alone many in succession.

Good directors obviously know what it takes to make a good movie, so why would they allow a poor movie to be stamped with their name and distributed? I agree that it is difficult to make a truly great movie, but how hard is it to make a run of the mill action flick?

It's still harder than you think it is. Also, they only have so much money. They also have contracual obligations to the studio. They can't just keep shooting until they get it right and they can't just scrap the project if it isn't gonig 100% as planned.
 

ballmode

Lifer
Aug 17, 2005
10,246
2
0
maybe its because the actors want too much money for the film and you dont have much money to work with
 

wfbberzerker

Lifer
Apr 12, 2001
10,423
0
0
i'm sure they realize it, but its not like they have the power to say "gee, i don't like this movie. i'm not going to release it."
 

SludgeFactory

Platinum Member
Sep 14, 2001
2,969
2
81
Everybody involved knows, and they go on every show that will book them and all lie to your face!

wika wika wild wild west
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,081
136
Originally posted by: michaels
Of course they know but don't care because of the legions of retards who will go and see the crap.
Thats pretty much what I was thinking.

Movies nowadays are put out to make money.
If the studio doesnt think there is an excellent chance for profit, the movie does not get made. Period.

Now sometimes they screw up, and make bad guesses. I know that movies do get put out that fail to profit. But its a big business and they have to take chances. I also now that a lot of the movies people talk bad about still make a profit.
Probably because with 300 million of us theres going to be plenty of retards who go to movies that obviously suck.
And Hollywood knows this.
Thats why we get more and more crap movies every year.

Seriously, if you know you can make a product that blows and still get money, why try?
 

whistleclient

Platinum Member
Apr 22, 2001
2,700
1
71
Originally posted by: shortylickens
Originally posted by: michaels
Of course they know but don't care because of the legions of retards who will go and see the crap.
Thats pretty much what I was thinking.

Movies nowadays are put out to make money.
If the studio doesnt think there is an excellent chance for profit, the movie does not get made. Period.

Now sometimes they screw up, and make bad guesses. I know that movies do get put out that fail to profit. But its a big business and they have to take chances. I also now that a lot of the movies people talk bad about still make a profit.
Probably because with 300 million of us theres going to be plenty of retards who go to movies that obviously suck.
And Hollywood knows this.
Thats why we get more and more crap movies every year.

Seriously, if you know you can make a product that blows and still get money, why try?



You are quite wrong. I don't think any one in Hollywood sets out to make a bad movie. Everyone wants to make a great movie that everyone loves and makes lots of money and wins critical acclaim. No one in Hollywood figures "why try". Many people here genuinely love movies.

However... there are a lot of things that derail good movies: bad casting, idiotic studio executives, bad scripts that just get worse, movie stars making insane demands (example: i want my character to this instead), tight shooting schedules, not enough money, rushing to beat competing movies, etc, etc.

What it really boils down to is this: making a great movie is hard.

Hell, making a great anything is hard. I believe 90% of everything is crap. 90% of the books published, 90% of the music made, 90% of the art painted, etc.

That's goal of life, isn't it? To reach for that 10% of greatness in everything.




 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,081
136
Originally posted by: tangent1138
Originally posted by: shortylickens
Originally posted by: michaels
Of course they know but don't care because of the legions of retards who will go and see the crap.
Thats pretty much what I was thinking.

Movies nowadays are put out to make money.
If the studio doesnt think there is an excellent chance for profit, the movie does not get made. Period.

Now sometimes they screw up, and make bad guesses. I know that movies do get put out that fail to profit. But its a big business and they have to take chances. I also now that a lot of the movies people talk bad about still make a profit.
Probably because with 300 million of us theres going to be plenty of retards who go to movies that obviously suck.
And Hollywood knows this.
Thats why we get more and more crap movies every year.

Seriously, if you know you can make a product that blows and still get money, why try?
You are quite wrong. I don't think any one in Hollywood sets out to make a bad movie. Everyone wants to make a great movie that everyone loves and makes lots of money and wins critical acclaim. No one in Hollywood figures "why try". Many people here genuinely love movies.
However... there are a lot of things that derail good movies: bad casting, idiotic studio executives, bad scripts that just get worse, movie stars making insane demands (example: i want my character to this instead), tight shooting schedules, not enough money, rushing to beat competing movies, etc, etc.
What it really boils down to is this: making a great movie is hard.
Hell, making a great anything is hard. I believe 90% of everything is crap. 90% of the books published, 90% of the music made, 90% of the art painted, etc.
That's goal of life, isn't it? To reach for that 10% of greatness in everything.
Well if I had said "any one in Hollywood sets out to make a bad movie" then I would be wrong.
But I didnt say that.
I said they get made for money, and if they can make money regardless, why try?
I acknowledge that many people who are working the project are doing it for reasons other than money. But the only reason it actually gets off the ground (in Hollywood) is because some suit thinks it can make money. And they dont usually give a rats butt if they like it or not. They care about whether audiances will like it enough to fill the seats.
Along the way sometimes people focus on that and lose sight of the art behind it.
If too many people lose focus then the movie stinks. Like you said a million things can derail a good flick. But it still hits theaters if the studio sees a possibility for big bucks, good or not.

And I think this goes back to the issue the OP had. Do they know it stinks?
Sometimes. But it still goes out the door. They dont try to make it bad, no. But that is a very possible result.

Again, Terminator 3 is a prime example.
 

dr150

Diamond Member
Sep 18, 2003
6,570
24
81
Originally posted by: EvilYoda
Uwe Boll.

Don't hate on him. Hate on the DUMB MOTHERFVCKERS that give him the money to shhot his SHYTE.
 

dr150

Diamond Member
Sep 18, 2003
6,570
24
81
UWE Challanges ALL Critics (including Tarantino) To Fight him in the Ring

LINK 2



Similar negative reactions from the press and on the internet are now being directed at Uwe Boll's most recent film, BloodRayne, which recently arrived on DVD. And from the sound of things, Dr. Boll has had it! "I am fed up," he says. "I'm fed up with people slamming my films on the Internet without see them. Many journalists make value judgments on my films based on the opinions of one or two thousand Internet voices. Half of those opinions come from people who've never watched my films. I have been told that BloodRayne has a very bad IMDb rating but how many of those votes of zero were made before the movie appeared in theatres."
 

torpid

Lifer
Sep 14, 2003
11,631
11
76
I think a better director to use as an example would be m night shyamalan. That guy totally misses the mark sometimes. Miami Vice was still prototypical Mann work and better than most movies in theaters right now.

Still, I do wonder about m night shyamalan.

 

veggz

Banned
Jan 3, 2005
843
0
0
Originally posted by: dr150
UWE Challanges ALL Critics (including Tarantino) To Fight him in the Ring

LINK 2



Similar negative reactions from the press and on the internet are now being directed at Uwe Boll's most recent film, BloodRayne, which recently arrived on DVD. And from the sound of things, Dr. Boll has had it! "I am fed up," he says. "I'm fed up with people slamming my films on the Internet without see them. Many journalists make value judgments on my films based on the opinions of one or two thousand Internet voices. Half of those opinions come from people who've never watched my films. I have been told that BloodRayne has a very bad IMDb rating but how many of those votes of zero were made before the movie appeared in theatres."

I would totally fight him..
 

Gatecrasher3

Senior member
Oct 15, 2004
417
0
76
i saw lady in the water this weekend and i was crushed...
i loved every movie m night shyamalan has ever made (ie; six sense, unbreakable) and lady in the water was not only his worse movie, it was one of the worse movies i have seen in a long time

no matter how crap a movie is, the director is going to get paid big cash.

greed is all it comes down too.......plain and simple