The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Why is it that bad movies are released? Why do film reviewers bother if loads of people go to see a really dodgy movie, if they've already told them that it stinks?
Well, one reason could be that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and one person's bad movie could be another person's evening's entertainment. Take Pearl Harbour (no please, take it...) Every reviewer that wasn't getting a free lunch from the company or being paid for by the film company has been telling everyone that they should avoid this film at all costs. Still people went to see it, and to everyone's surprise there were even people that liked this excuse for a movie.
So obviously riding on the coat-tails of Titanic, Pearl Harbour was an excuse for America to shout about their involvement in the Second World War and remind us that it was their own self interest that was the only reason they actually got involved in the first place. The characters were 2 dimensional and the acting was more wooden that Bill and Ben the flowerpot men, but the movie was sold on the basis that it had a love story and lots of explosions (well, about 5 minutes of them at the end of the film to be precise) but it worked and loads of people went to see it. Now some of these people (ok, most) would have felt cheated out of their money, but some of them actually enjoyed the experience, as not everyone likes the same things. The money coming in from the punters that ignored film critic's warnings was enough to make the film a success. That was enough reason to release the thing, that and the film company would have been left with huge debts otherwise.
Tomb Raider was another good example of a movie with little plot or interest, but many people liked it and many more went to see it because they were fans of the games. The film company in this case knew that they would get their money back, whether the film was good or not, and I'm speculating that it will sell equally well on Video and DVD when it finally appears.
Another reason why film companies see fit to release 'bad' movies is that there is the hope that, even if the movie flops at the cinema, it may become a cult classic and make money back on video and DVD. These cult films are often so bad they make Chedder look less cheesy, but they are worshiped by a generation of cult film fanatics. Bad Taste is one of these films, it's not that well acted and is pretty grusome too, but it's a cult movie and has probably sold more videos on the strength of word of mouth than it could have ever hoped to do through advertising. There are hundreds of films like this out there, and they are all still in demand, so much so that they are often now appearing on budget DVD shelves everywhere.
The third reason for releasing a bad movie is simply the hope that it will sell, no matter how bad it is. Even with one big name star a movie can be watched by millions of people, desperate to see their favorite actor's next role. They will come away satisfied because they won't hear a bad thing about their favorite actor, or at least come away saying 'well, he/she'll be better in their next role...' and go to see the next film when it appears.
In short, there is always someone that will go to see your movie, whether at the cinema or on video and DVD. To not release a movie would be to give up when you've spent a lot of money (or some money, at least) on the movie itself and the advertising. You can always tell the people and the critics that it's the best thing since sliced bread and hope you get an audience before all the critics see the movie. This is why there are so many bad movies out there, and, hey, someone somewhere might like them!
Well, one reason could be that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and one person's bad movie could be another person's evening's entertainment. Take Pearl Harbour (no please, take it...) Every reviewer that wasn't getting a free lunch from the company or being paid for by the film company has been telling everyone that they should avoid this film at all costs. Still people went to see it, and to everyone's surprise there were even people that liked this excuse for a movie.
So obviously riding on the coat-tails of Titanic, Pearl Harbour was an excuse for America to shout about their involvement in the Second World War and remind us that it was their own self interest that was the only reason they actually got involved in the first place. The characters were 2 dimensional and the acting was more wooden that Bill and Ben the flowerpot men, but the movie was sold on the basis that it had a love story and lots of explosions (well, about 5 minutes of them at the end of the film to be precise) but it worked and loads of people went to see it. Now some of these people (ok, most) would have felt cheated out of their money, but some of them actually enjoyed the experience, as not everyone likes the same things. The money coming in from the punters that ignored film critic's warnings was enough to make the film a success. That was enough reason to release the thing, that and the film company would have been left with huge debts otherwise.
Tomb Raider was another good example of a movie with little plot or interest, but many people liked it and many more went to see it because they were fans of the games. The film company in this case knew that they would get their money back, whether the film was good or not, and I'm speculating that it will sell equally well on Video and DVD when it finally appears.
Another reason why film companies see fit to release 'bad' movies is that there is the hope that, even if the movie flops at the cinema, it may become a cult classic and make money back on video and DVD. These cult films are often so bad they make Chedder look less cheesy, but they are worshiped by a generation of cult film fanatics. Bad Taste is one of these films, it's not that well acted and is pretty grusome too, but it's a cult movie and has probably sold more videos on the strength of word of mouth than it could have ever hoped to do through advertising. There are hundreds of films like this out there, and they are all still in demand, so much so that they are often now appearing on budget DVD shelves everywhere.
The third reason for releasing a bad movie is simply the hope that it will sell, no matter how bad it is. Even with one big name star a movie can be watched by millions of people, desperate to see their favorite actor's next role. They will come away satisfied because they won't hear a bad thing about their favorite actor, or at least come away saying 'well, he/she'll be better in their next role...' and go to see the next film when it appears.
In short, there is always someone that will go to see your movie, whether at the cinema or on video and DVD. To not release a movie would be to give up when you've spent a lot of money (or some money, at least) on the movie itself and the advertising. You can always tell the people and the critics that it's the best thing since sliced bread and hope you get an audience before all the critics see the movie. This is why there are so many bad movies out there, and, hey, someone somewhere might like them!
I took my little sister to see Tomb Raider this morning. Please don't make the same mistake I did. If you have a younger relative and need an easy way to shut them up for a few hours try alcohol or something, not Tomb Raider.
Note: Dr Gonzo in no way endorces feeding kids alcohol.
Note: Dr Gonzo in no way endorces feeding kids alcohol.
Dude, I have been telling people over and over and over about Pearl Harbour and Tomb Raider, but they don't listen.
Which is fine, it leaves seats at the decent films for me and my kind to enjoy and keep to ourselves.
Which is fine, it leaves seats at the decent films for me and my kind to enjoy and keep to ourselves.
pb wrote:
> Oh yes, USA and WWII, don't get me started....
lol@PB :)
But yeah, you're
> right. Critics are only people and however much they slate or rate
> a film, it's only their opinion.
Hey... thats your opinion that I nicked! :)
> Oh yes, USA and WWII, don't get me started....
lol@PB :)
But yeah, you're
> right. Critics are only people and however much they slate or rate
> a film, it's only their opinion.
Hey... thats your opinion that I nicked! :)
Oh yes, USA and WWII, don't get me started....
But yeah, you're right. Critics are only people and however much they slate or rate a film, it's only their opinion.
But yeah, you're right. Critics are only people and however much they slate or rate a film, it's only their opinion.
To be honest, Ive never really taken the opinion of film reviewers too seriously...
I'll listen to what they have to say, and it may help me make a more informed choice about which movie I see that night...
But I'll never let it sway me in my mocie choice...
Especially since most of my movie faves (Big Lebowski, Withnail & I, etc....) were slammed by most critics...
Like you say, it is a matter of personal choice, and I do hold more stock in critics whos opions and tastes are similar to my own...
However I tend to treat their views alike computer games reviews... (take the info I need and leave the rest)
and no matter how many reviewers say the lastest Tomb Raider is excatly like the last, they'll still make a killing from it?...
>Pearl Harbour was an excuse for America to shout about
> their involvement in the Second World War
America were involved in WWII? ... I thought they WHERE WWII!?!? ... America Vs. Nazis and Japanese...
God Bless Their blanket propaganda and the lack of and decent British state educational system :)
I'll listen to what they have to say, and it may help me make a more informed choice about which movie I see that night...
But I'll never let it sway me in my mocie choice...
Especially since most of my movie faves (Big Lebowski, Withnail & I, etc....) were slammed by most critics...
Like you say, it is a matter of personal choice, and I do hold more stock in critics whos opions and tastes are similar to my own...
However I tend to treat their views alike computer games reviews... (take the info I need and leave the rest)
and no matter how many reviewers say the lastest Tomb Raider is excatly like the last, they'll still make a killing from it?...
>Pearl Harbour was an excuse for America to shout about
> their involvement in the Second World War
America were involved in WWII? ... I thought they WHERE WWII!?!? ... America Vs. Nazis and Japanese...
God Bless Their blanket propaganda and the lack of and decent British state educational system :)
Why is it that bad movies are released? Why do film reviewers bother if loads of people go to see a really dodgy movie, if they've already told them that it stinks?
Well, one reason could be that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and one person's bad movie could be another person's evening's entertainment. Take Pearl Harbour (no please, take it...) Every reviewer that wasn't getting a free lunch from the company or being paid for by the film company has been telling everyone that they should avoid this film at all costs. Still people went to see it, and to everyone's surprise there were even people that liked this excuse for a movie.
So obviously riding on the coat-tails of Titanic, Pearl Harbour was an excuse for America to shout about their involvement in the Second World War and remind us that it was their own self interest that was the only reason they actually got involved in the first place. The characters were 2 dimensional and the acting was more wooden that Bill and Ben the flowerpot men, but the movie was sold on the basis that it had a love story and lots of explosions (well, about 5 minutes of them at the end of the film to be precise) but it worked and loads of people went to see it. Now some of these people (ok, most) would have felt cheated out of their money, but some of them actually enjoyed the experience, as not everyone likes the same things. The money coming in from the punters that ignored film critic's warnings was enough to make the film a success. That was enough reason to release the thing, that and the film company would have been left with huge debts otherwise.
Tomb Raider was another good example of a movie with little plot or interest, but many people liked it and many more went to see it because they were fans of the games. The film company in this case knew that they would get their money back, whether the film was good or not, and I'm speculating that it will sell equally well on Video and DVD when it finally appears.
Another reason why film companies see fit to release 'bad' movies is that there is the hope that, even if the movie flops at the cinema, it may become a cult classic and make money back on video and DVD. These cult films are often so bad they make Chedder look less cheesy, but they are worshiped by a generation of cult film fanatics. Bad Taste is one of these films, it's not that well acted and is pretty grusome too, but it's a cult movie and has probably sold more videos on the strength of word of mouth than it could have ever hoped to do through advertising. There are hundreds of films like this out there, and they are all still in demand, so much so that they are often now appearing on budget DVD shelves everywhere.
The third reason for releasing a bad movie is simply the hope that it will sell, no matter how bad it is. Even with one big name star a movie can be watched by millions of people, desperate to see their favorite actor's next role. They will come away satisfied because they won't hear a bad thing about their favorite actor, or at least come away saying 'well, he/she'll be better in their next role...' and go to see the next film when it appears.
In short, there is always someone that will go to see your movie, whether at the cinema or on video and DVD. To not release a movie would be to give up when you've spent a lot of money (or some money, at least) on the movie itself and the advertising. You can always tell the people and the critics that it's the best thing since sliced bread and hope you get an audience before all the critics see the movie. This is why there are so many bad movies out there, and, hey, someone somewhere might like them!
Well, one reason could be that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and one person's bad movie could be another person's evening's entertainment. Take Pearl Harbour (no please, take it...) Every reviewer that wasn't getting a free lunch from the company or being paid for by the film company has been telling everyone that they should avoid this film at all costs. Still people went to see it, and to everyone's surprise there were even people that liked this excuse for a movie.
So obviously riding on the coat-tails of Titanic, Pearl Harbour was an excuse for America to shout about their involvement in the Second World War and remind us that it was their own self interest that was the only reason they actually got involved in the first place. The characters were 2 dimensional and the acting was more wooden that Bill and Ben the flowerpot men, but the movie was sold on the basis that it had a love story and lots of explosions (well, about 5 minutes of them at the end of the film to be precise) but it worked and loads of people went to see it. Now some of these people (ok, most) would have felt cheated out of their money, but some of them actually enjoyed the experience, as not everyone likes the same things. The money coming in from the punters that ignored film critic's warnings was enough to make the film a success. That was enough reason to release the thing, that and the film company would have been left with huge debts otherwise.
Tomb Raider was another good example of a movie with little plot or interest, but many people liked it and many more went to see it because they were fans of the games. The film company in this case knew that they would get their money back, whether the film was good or not, and I'm speculating that it will sell equally well on Video and DVD when it finally appears.
Another reason why film companies see fit to release 'bad' movies is that there is the hope that, even if the movie flops at the cinema, it may become a cult classic and make money back on video and DVD. These cult films are often so bad they make Chedder look less cheesy, but they are worshiped by a generation of cult film fanatics. Bad Taste is one of these films, it's not that well acted and is pretty grusome too, but it's a cult movie and has probably sold more videos on the strength of word of mouth than it could have ever hoped to do through advertising. There are hundreds of films like this out there, and they are all still in demand, so much so that they are often now appearing on budget DVD shelves everywhere.
The third reason for releasing a bad movie is simply the hope that it will sell, no matter how bad it is. Even with one big name star a movie can be watched by millions of people, desperate to see their favorite actor's next role. They will come away satisfied because they won't hear a bad thing about their favorite actor, or at least come away saying 'well, he/she'll be better in their next role...' and go to see the next film when it appears.
In short, there is always someone that will go to see your movie, whether at the cinema or on video and DVD. To not release a movie would be to give up when you've spent a lot of money (or some money, at least) on the movie itself and the advertising. You can always tell the people and the critics that it's the best thing since sliced bread and hope you get an audience before all the critics see the movie. This is why there are so many bad movies out there, and, hey, someone somewhere might like them!