PacMan2006

I've been thinking about this for a while, and with the disappointing opening weekend for Terminator 4, I have to ask--why doesn't Hollywood take the time to craft a quality script/film?

I'm not saying take seven years to pump out the third Batman flick, but...it seems to me that at some point, Hollywood gets immensely greedy (moreso than usual), and will pump out a awful or very disappointing film. X-Men 3 is a good example of a lot of things going wrong.

With that said, if X-Men 3 was on par with X-Men 2, wouldn't fans be salivating for a fourth X-Men? Wouldn't Wolverine have better legs at the box office--especially if they took the time to hammer out a better story for that prequel?

I'm not suggesting that putting out a 120+ page quality script is easy--I know it's not. And I listen to Creative Screenwriting Magazine's podcast, and what the screenwriters have to go through is no doubt draining.

But I think back to Spider-Man 2, and everyone loved it. Spider-Man 3 came out, and it was a disappointment--a massive one in many fans' eyes. To my knowledge, that third film had most of the same people involved as the first two films (correct me if I'm wrong, however). Sure, the studios made their money, but wouldn't they have made more if they took the time to make sure the script, casting, etc was top notch? Aren't they only hurting themselves when they rush out these mediocre sequels? They are working on Spider-Man 4, I believe, but is anyone all that interested?

Men in Black came out and people loved it. MIB II came out, and people thought it was awful. Even if the studio wanted to make a third--or some spin-off--and the principals agreed to come back, hasn't the studio effectively killed the interest in the franchise because of how awful the sequel was? Why would they want to do that--especially when the movie industry is all about making money off of established franchises? I'm hearing they want to make a Deapool spinoff based on his character in the Wolverine prequel--he was barely even in the movie, and many think the film was a mixed bag. How does this help the studio long-term? Seems like they are willingly cutting their left leg off before they even begin the race.

Similarly, wouldn't Terminator 4's box office been significantly better if T3 was a much better film (I realize Arnold not being in the film hurts the gross, too)?

naitram

Hollywood doesn't make quality films, talented filmmakers make quality films. Hollywood is a business trying to make a return on their product, period.

Frankly, with as many people it takes to make a bigger-budget film that Hollywood studios finance and the immense bureaucracy behind the production process, I think it's a small miracle that as many of them work as well as they do.

RichC2

I think Terminator 4 was its own worst enemy (lowest rated of the series). What this all comes down to is deadlines. Hollywood = companies, companies have investors, and investors want impressive quarterlies.

mdc3000

Time is money. You can only spend so long on a project before it starts to become a money pit. People usually flock to franchise pics regardless of how bad the last one was, in the hope the new one will be better... sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't...but the studios still get paid and the machine keeps on chugging. If they wait too long, the public looses interest... and a lot of the time they THINK THEY ARE MAKING A GREAT MOVIE. Film is so subjective that sometimes you can't see the forest for the trees and they think they've got something special and it ends up being Spider-Man 3.

PacMan2006

I guess my point is...if a studio invests 150 mil+ in movie, 40 mil+ to market it, it would be in their best interest--both long-term and short-term--to have it be of the best quality possible. Now, "best quality" is certainly subjective--not just in its content but in terms of who is viewing it. I recognize a 16 yr old will like something that a 46 yr old would be disinterested in. With that said, you can make a quality film that teenagers and people pushing 50 can both throughly enjoy. It's not necessarily an either/or proposition.

High quality doesn't automatically equal success either--many top-notch film and TV shows fall to the wayside every year--but it would certainly benefit a film moreso than it would hurt it.

chris_sc77

I dont think time is the problem. I think they are trying to make as much money as possible and are sacrificing the artistic integrity or the best possible story in a film.
Making films that should have been rated R into PG-13 movies.
ALso sacrificing telling the best story by making films obscenely short (see Fox).
Also unimaginative, unnecessary, and boring computerized special effects are ruining many films. Special Effects are not indicative of a good film. Every time I see these effects and they are used in such a way that they are obvious, it takes me out of the movie. I dont watch cartoons and dont want to see them in live-action films.

Groucho

Furthermore, very few talented filmmakers are talented enough to make quality films when given complete creative control over a big-budget franchise. Steven Spielberg and James Cameron are exceptions to this.

Giles

given the number of Hollywood films that get test audience screenings/revisions, I'm surprised as well - what is this? filmmaking by committee decisions??

al_bundy

the general rule in any entertainment or art product is that most results will be average to bad. very few will be quality that people will remember in decades to come. applies to music, books and video games as well

a few movies like Star Wars were accidental hits. it was supposed to be just another sci-fi flick, but it struck a nerve with a lot of people.

Sessa17

People go to see crap, it's that simple, so why should Hollywood or any creator bother making quality films any more. Just read though the posts of this forum, with the endless mind-numbing blockbuster movies that come out, that I couldn't sit through if I was paid to, & people posting things like "well, it was a mindless popcorn flick, that's all I was expecting so I enjoyed it." Excpectations are lowered, or people are entertained more easily, so the studios recognize this & crank out the sequels & paint-by-the-number scripts as fast as they can.

Draven

Plus, these films are subjective. I saw Terminator Salvation this weekend. It wasn't the best movie I'd ever seen, but it certainly wasn't the worst. I may go check out Wolverine this week just because I think I'll have the same reaction.

The simple fact is that not every movie will be great and not every movie will suck. Kind of a bell curve I guess. A lot falls in the middle (Terminator for example) and then you get extremes on either end.

The one thing I will say is that some movies with massive budgets could really use some tough decisions when it comes to the script. I still maintain that if you had given me $100,000 and a red pen I could have turned the first Transformers movie into something that wasn't an embarassment to watch for fans of the original series. Just cutting out the "Bumblebee pisses on John Tuturro" scene would have helped tremendously and cost NOTHING at the box office.

al_bundy

i remember Waterworld. i think it cost $300 million back in the 1990's and it was so so. never explained how kevin costner got his gills, how long the world was under water, how people survived eating dirty raw fish, etc. i don't think it ever broke even.

and some actors make artsy projects they care about after making their name. some good movies there for a tiny fraction of the budget. My favorite Will Smith movie is still Six Degrees of Separation.

wendersfan

You might as well wonder why McDonald's doesn't take the time to make higher quality hamburgers. It's because the make crappy ones they already sell.

<---- Has not had a hamburger from McDonald's or anywhere else for 24 years.

RichC2

The movie grossed $88m in the US on a $175m budget (huge for 1995, still huge today), but the movie made $264m total worldwide and made a lot on rentals (back in the rental phasing days). Not great, but it likely broke even in the long run.

Mr. Cinema

Because there's enough people out there to make Tyler Perry and Paul Blart successful. They'll go watch anything. The general audience has horrible taste in movies, so that's what the studios cater to. They shovel out the crap and people pay to see it.

JohnSlider

For Hollywood it's quantity over quality, and by quantity I mean money. So that's why. And the sad, but honest truth, is a lot of people think the garbage Hollywood wheels out is high-quality.

Goat3001

Film is an interesting medium because it can be either art or entertainment. To many of us, art = entertainment. However, the general audience doesn't care about art. They want fun. They want to look at attractive people blowing shit up. They don't want to learn anything. They don't want to feel any great emotion. It's just a matter of taste and I understand it completely. 99% of people don't find interest in the art of film... just the entertainment of film.

So why does Hollywood just churn out less than stellar sequals? Because they know that 99% of the people will enjoy it while the 1% will bitch about it. Hollywood is a business and business wants money. So they tell us to fuck off and cater to the everyday crowd. I can't blame them for that. I work in the oh so fulfilling world of finance/business and, given the opporitunity, I would do the same thing. They know that these sequals will make less money if it's not as good but it will also make a lot of money if they find a way to get the product out as fast as possible.

IMO, it makes no sense to be upset about this. If it weren't for these by the numbers cash cows, the truely great movies that don't make too much money at the BO wouldn't get the necessary financing to be made.

Drexl

Perhaps, but I don't think it's really that big of a franchise. The second one did well, but that was a long time ago, and James Cameron was at the helm. 67 million for 5 days for the new one (again, without Schwarzenegger) doesn't seem that low to me.

DRG

I agree with the OP's point. While churning out a subpar sequel may pay off in the short run, it hurts the franchise in the long run. A bad sequel may not matter much when it comes to opening weekend, but it has to hurt box office legs and eventual DVD sales.

I think a lot of it is just laziness and a fear of taking chances. Studios will hire unexceptional but consistently average directors like McG and Brett Ratner because it's safe. The resulting film won't be great, but it will be acceptable enough not to be a complete train wreck -- except to fanboys and the internet crowd (I'm as guilty as anyone) who cry about it online.

Oddly enough, taking a chance on an accomplished indie director with no blockbuster experience actually pays off quite often, so I'm confused why the studios don't do it more often. Peter Jackson, Doug Liman, Paul Greengrass, Alfonso Cuaron, Bryan Singer are just a few names that come to mind that were able to translate their indie artistry into big budget movies that made boatloads of cash AND won critical acclaim.

mcnabb

The problem with movies today is that it is dominated by teenagers seeing them. Every studio wants to make money, they want a sure thing, and they know a teenager is most likely to see that movie multiple times where an older person MAY come out to see it in the movies, or wait to rent it.

That is why I rarely go to the movies in the summer anymore, because they are essentially not made for me. Most summer movies are what I call 'dummy' movies, movies that are high on action and CGI and don't have any character development or interesting story. Movies in the winter are more geared to the latter as they are light on action and more focused on the story & characters, but what movies make the most money at the end of the year? Summer movies, so as long as that is still happening, don't expect alot of quality films year round.

I know I am in the minority and have learned to accept that most movies that come out during the year I won't like, cause they are essentially not geared towards me.

PopcornTreeCt

It's not like there's a switch they can turn on. I'm quite sure during production even post-production those involved don't know for sure if they're making a good film or not.

Dr Mabuse

"If only we could put aside all accepted methods according to which films are made, or books are written, what wonder the things we could then create. We have completely lost the ability to see. It has been replaced by stereotyped routine" - Andrei Tarkovsky

I think it's this.

Stereotyped routine. And a hell of a lot of that is in the editing professional's hands.

Except in the rare case of a director chopping his own film, he hands it off to others to see what he gets back.

This is why I like the work of people like Tony Scott with 'Domino', pushing things into a different and very effective type of film directing and editing.

And you know what? Most people sat there like slack-jawed yokels and thought 'this isn't what I'm used to seeing, it's different' and didn't like it. Though Ebert and Roeper tried to champion the film, even most 'film critics' sat there jaws agape and thought 'this isn't what I'm used to seeing, it's different' and didn't like it. Though they tried to sound 'technical' in expressing that simple fact.

Stereotyped routine by a bunch of mundane intellects who are too afraid to move things into an original area. Borderline retards in the audience who expect stereotyped routine and lots of 'cool explosions' and crap.

Supermallet

I love it when filmmakers do new and exciting things, but Domino isn't the example I would use.

DthRdrX

A few years back I read an article that stated most movies are written and aimed at a ninth-grade level. It's all about making money.

Travis McClain

Most of my thoughts on this subject have already been covered, but I would reiterate that by and large, the people making movies really do believe they have a winner on their hands. And remember that, especially with large productions, there is quite a lot of time that passes from proposal and green-lighting to actual release. Public sentiment and zeitgeists can swing in that interim. Perhaps if Star Trek: Nemesis had been released in 2001 instead of 2002, it might have gone over better.

By the time it opened in the tail end of '02, audiences had already seen Spider-Man, Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones, Die Another Day and were about to see The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. I believe there was also a Harry Potter in there, too. Those others offered both successes that substantially raised the bar...and some disappointments that I think made audiences testy toward anything that didn't compare strongly with the rest of the '02 hits.

Comparing Nemesis to its predecessor (Star Trek: Insurrection), I think, shows that they really did try to craft a more action-packed and involving story. On paper, there's enough that I think justified the expectation that it would win over the same audience that loved Star Trek: First Contact. Who could have expected that those other franchises would cast such a strong shadow over it?

This is just one example, of course, but I think it does illustrate why a movie--especially one in a franchise, since I felt that was the real focus of the initial post--can go into production with a sense that it will be profitable and surprise all involved when it tanks.