|
|
Post by Maidpool w/ Cleaning Action on Oct 18, 2008 14:20:26 GMT -5
no he filled in for Matthew Vaughn. He was the third director of a movie that was purposely rushed to beat Superman Returns to theaters. what he CAN be blamed for is all the deleted scenes that had you know, character moments, instead of HOLY MOLEY! ANOTHER FIGHT. However, that too, is questionable since Fox might have decided to butcher it in editing, and not him. Who was filling in for Singer when Singer dropped out.  It all goes back around to Singer. Damn you Singer you shouldn't have dropped out of X3! As an aside, rather anyone in this thread likes X1 or X2 or not it WAS well recieved with general auidences. |
|
Brother Coyote
Samurai Cop
Has Clarity of Vision Is an engine of will
Posts: 2,124
|
Post by Brother Coyote on Oct 18, 2008 14:27:38 GMT -5
look Michael Bay is a great director I love that the people in your sig look appalled you wrote that. |
|
|
|
Post by Bobafett on Oct 18, 2008 14:28:09 GMT -5
the worst thing about WS Anderson doingAVP was..for a guy ho said he was trying to get away from doing movies on computer games..but he SHOULD have based AVP on the AVP games, in the future with Colonial Marines..btw AVP2 was much better and made the best of a crap first movie
|
|
|
|
Post by The Divan Kopile on Oct 18, 2008 14:32:48 GMT -5
no he filled in for Matthew Vaughn. He was the third director of a movie that was purposely rushed to beat Superman Returns to theaters. what he CAN be blamed for is all the deleted scenes that had you know, character moments, instead of HOLY MOLEY! ANOTHER FIGHT. However, that too, is questionable since Fox might have decided to butcher it in editing, and not him. Who was filling in for Singer when Singer dropped out. It all goes back around to Singer. Damn you Singer you shouldn't have dropped out of X3! As an aside, rather anyone in this thread likes X1 or X2 or not it WAS well recieved with general auidences. the thing is, if Vaughn hadn't have dropped out, they wouldn't have been as rushed, if at all. He'd been on it for months. They had to start from scratch all over again with him gone. and damnit Michael Bay is not a bad director. |
|
|
|
Post by THE Dinobot on Oct 18, 2008 14:32:56 GMT -5
As an aside, rather anyone in this thread likes X1 or X2 or not it WAS well recieved with general auidences. I...I don't understand. Because those movies were received grandly by audiences that makes them almost good? Seriously (without seeming rude-like), maybe it's my tired brain and lack of what's going on, but explain what that means. |
|
Strotha
Hank Scorpio
In heaven, everything is fine
Posts: 6,384
|
Post by Strotha on Oct 18, 2008 14:35:11 GMT -5
I think Uwe Boll sucks in general, but he really ruined Postal.The movie had everything, violence, Nazis, terrorists, a Dave Foley nude scene, a redheaded main character, he just really f***ed it up.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Wraith on Oct 18, 2008 14:39:38 GMT -5
I...I don't understand. Because those movies were received grandly by audiences that makes them almost good? Seriously (without seeming rude-like), maybe it's my tired brain and lack of what's going on, but explain what that means. No. What I'm saying is that something really isn't "ruined" when most of the movie going public enjoys it and it makes tons of money. It it good or not? That's opinion. However, the question at hand it which movies were "ruined" and X1 and X2 does not fit that bill as they were liked for the most part and made tons of money. Well, we all know that if you think a movie is ruined, it's ruined no matter how much money it made. The TRULY good movies don't make as much money because we simply don't get it. |
|
|
|
Post by The Divan Kopile on Oct 18, 2008 14:40:37 GMT -5
the only way to judge a movie is by its second weekend box office.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maidpool w/ Cleaning Action on Oct 18, 2008 14:47:30 GMT -5
the only way to judge a movie is by its second weekend box office. Ughh... there are a lot more ways to judge a movie then by it's second weekend box office. Quality wise the box office has nothing to do with it. Monatary wise the total is what's important, including overseas for the World Wide Total. Legs wise, the drops are what's important not just the second weekend. |
|
|
|
Post by THE Dinobot on Oct 18, 2008 14:52:06 GMT -5
No. What I'm saying is that something really isn't "ruined" when most of the movie going public enjoys it and it makes tons of money. It it good or not? That's opinion. However, the question at hand it which movies were "ruined" and X1 and X2 does not fit that bill as they were liked for the most part and made tons of money. Gotcha. Making tons of moneys = the good. |
|
|
|
Post by Maidpool w/ Cleaning Action on Oct 18, 2008 14:57:44 GMT -5
No. What I'm saying is that something really isn't "ruined" when most of the movie going public enjoys it and it makes tons of money. It it good or not? That's opinion. However, the question at hand it which movies were "ruined" and X1 and X2 does not fit that bill as they were liked for the most part and made tons of money. Gotcha. Making tons of moneys = the good. That's not what I said Dino. I said that being very well received by the majority of the movie going public and making lots of money = not ruined. Being bad or good is something different entirely as that's all opinion. I HATE Titanic. By no means do I think it was ruined. An example of a movie I LOVE but was ruined (all be it by the studio and not the director) is Nightbreed. |
|
|
|
Post by mysterydriver on Oct 18, 2008 15:04:40 GMT -5
Elaine May....Ishtar.
It was supposed to be along the lines of a modern day "Road to..." movie. May wrote the script and got Warren Beatty to agree to it (and he helped convince Dustin Hoffman to join) but was a perfectionist. She demanded to have realistic settings, wanting sand dunes for the actors to wander in. Later, she changed her mind and decided the desert should be flat...so they had people BULLDOZE the dunes.
Besides that and she wore down the actors and crew by doing takes over and over and over and over and over again. 30-40 takes per scene.
Then they did reshoots.
It began filming in October 1985. It finished in March 1986. Reshoots where in June. May's obsessiveness led her to working with the editing (Where there was over 107 HOURS worth of film) and spent months upon months editing it to her perfectionist ideal (into a 104 minute movie). It pushed back the release date, finally coming out in May 1987.
Her actions led the movie to go way over budget.
Why is that such a big deal? Because the budget was used to critically attack the movie. Beatty himself said, "There was almost no review that didn't in the first paragraph deal with the cost of the movie. That was an eye-opener — about the business, and the relationship of the entertainment press to business."
So a potentiall good, successful movie was ruined by an obsessive director causing the budget to skyrocket, leading to critics attacking it, and leading to it being considered the worst bomb of all time.
That said, I don't think it's that bad a movie. It even has a bit of a cult following from what I've read. Although, I think it fits the topic, even if I did "stretch" the meaning a bit.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Divan Kopile on Oct 18, 2008 15:38:51 GMT -5
the only way to judge a movie is by its second weekend box office. Ughh... there are a lot more ways to judge a movie then by it's second weekend box office. you're right you can also judge it by how much it cost to make |
|
|
|
Post by The Divan Kopile on Oct 18, 2008 15:40:09 GMT -5
dangit, I can't come up with a third stupid thing to judge a movie for
|
|
|
|
Post by Maidpool w/ Cleaning Action on Oct 18, 2008 15:48:44 GMT -5
Ughh... there are a lot more ways to judge a movie then by it's second weekend box office. you're right you can also judge it by how much it cost to make Cost-to-gross ratio is a good way to judge if a movie will get a sequel and how profitiable it was (even though in today's world with DVD, licensing, etc it's the end all be all of that either), but it's not a good way to judge how much of a "hit" it was. If a movie costs $300m to make, and makes $300m it's not profitable in that means even though it would have been a hit with auidences. |
|
MCMGM
Vegeta
WC's Official Jeff Buckley Stalkeress.
Red Sonic My Ass
Posts: 9,184
|
Post by MCMGM on Oct 18, 2008 16:31:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Maidpool w/ Cleaning Action on Oct 18, 2008 17:01:08 GMT -5
If we eat him we break the law! |
|
|
|
Post by Virt McGirt on Oct 18, 2008 17:48:15 GMT -5
Gerorge Lucas- "The Phantom Menace" Steven Spielberg- "Indiana Jones and Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls" In a way though, these are actually morally better than some of the others, in that they started their respective franchises, so it was there's to ruin. (I happen to think Indy 4 was much better than Star Wars 4 IMO, but, whatever) |
|
|
|
Post by LARIATOOO! on Oct 18, 2008 17:50:07 GMT -5
I can't believe the comment about Oliver Stone in the first post. He made that film, if Tarrantino followed through with it would have much less meaning. Oliver STone created a classic with NBK.
|
|
|
|
Post by texaswhopper on Oct 18, 2008 17:55:30 GMT -5
Waterworld was judged in such a way. At the time it was one of the most expensive films to make. 175 million to make and maybe only grossing like 88 million at the US box office. Oh but luck struck because it still had to go overseas where it could get some extra money to meet its budget. Thank goodness for Czech Republic movie theaters to give that last 267,575 dollars to make ends meet.
|
|
