Original Desmond

I realise that most people associated with a movie (actors, crew, even the director) don't get to see how the movie they are making turns out until very late in the piece, post production usually.

But as they are making the movie, filming, tweaking the script, watching the dailies, do you think there is a point where they realise they are making a stinker ? But are too committed and far through to do anything about it without huge money injection ?

ytrez

I'm guessing that the cast of Sharknado know their working on trash but the folks in Ishtar thought they were making a solid film.

RichC2

Indeed. You can normally tell when they're striving for something and fail miserably (the recent Are You Here from Matthew Wiener) and those that are striving for crap and get it (Machete 2). I think most people set out to make a good movie, even The Room was intended to be a "good movie", in terms that it's either entertaining or makes a point.

And then there's Fantastic Four (1994). Also, Morgan Freeman was very aware that The Bonfire of the Vanities was turning out to be a giant misfire as they were filming it.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/sH1u4oNT2Ro" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

auto

The answer to your question, of course, is sometimes.

inri222

Sometimes yes and sometimes no. There are some filmmakers that are so full of themselves or obssessed with making a buck that they are blinded.

hanshotfirst1138

So many people are involved in the making of a film that I would guess its difficult to say. Does the cinematographer know? I've seen some films that are terrible but look good. Do the actors know? I've seen good performances in bad films. Does the director know? I think that part of the appeal of Ed Wood is that however bad his films are, he meant them quite genuinely. But sometimes, I watch MST3K, and I just have to wonder who thought it was good idea to do what they were doing.

Coral

Not always, but definitely sometimes.

They know at different times... sometimes before they start filming because the people have accepted whatever came along because it's all they could get... or if it's supposed to be a bad film... or when they look over and notice Michael Bay is directing.

Sometimes while they're filming they discover it's just not working out. Always thought it was funny that Burt Reynolds thought Boogie Nights was going to be a disaster. This is coming from someone who's career wasn't exactly on fire (even though he had a TV show that did decently enough a few years earlier). He also wanted to play his character with a Scottish accent. Goes to show that no matter what you know - you don't really know for sure until it's finished.

Groucho

I'm pretty sure that everybody involved with Apocalypse Now during filming thought they were involved in the greatest fiasco of all time.

Pizza

From what I read, the stars of MASH tried to take the film away from the director because they were so sure it was rubbish. Tootsie was an unfun set so I'd imagine no one thought it would be a comedy classic. You can think what you want but you never really know until the film is spliced together.

Original Desmond

also nowadays so many big budget films rely on post production CGI so no one knows what is gonna come out the other end (e..g RIPD and John Carter)

But surely from the script, people knew the Lone Ranger was a stinker

dugan

David Fincher knew how awful Alien 3 was going to be long before he finished it. Or at least, that's my impression of the second-hand information I heard.

bluetoast

Gore Verbinski probably thought he had another Pirates of the Caribbean on his hands. Himself, Depp and Hammer complained about the media's role in the movie tanking.

hanshotfirst1138

What bothers me about that is that guys like Bruckheimer and Bay say "Fuck critics, they don't know shit! Look how much money this movie made! They're obviously out of step with popular opinion! We don't need their snobby pretentious opinions!"

They're entitled to say that. They take pride in the films they've made, and feel that there designed as entertainment and they've succeeded in giving the audience what they wanted. I respect that.

Then a film tanks and they blame the press and "the critics." I thought the critics and those of us who said the previous films were bad were pretentious idiots? Which is it? Pick one.

RichC2

Actually those run hand-in-hand. They blame the critics in both instances, in the case of their successes, the critics were simply wrong. In the case of their failures, it's the critic's fault more people didn't give it a chance.

GoldenJCJ

It's always been the financiers that I've wondered about. How can anyone possibly read the script or sit through a pitch meeting for something like Jack and Jill and say "Hell yes, here's a check for 100 million dollars!"

Even if the budget for the movie is a fraction of that, say $30 million. That's still THIRTY MILLION DOLLARS!

Rypro 525

Adam Sandler in drag (looks at his box office success) here's 30 mil!

inri222

Actually the budget on Jack & Jill was ~ $80m (Sandler's salary alone is ~$15m per film).

robin2099

Depends. There is plenty of stories out their in which someone thinks a movie is going to be garbage, and is right, and other movies where someone thinks they are going to be garbage and turn out great. Here's some examples.

Thought it would be bad but were wrong:

Star Wars: Carrie Fisher took her brother to it because she was afraid she would be embarrassed by it's shoddy B-Movie special effects.

Halloween: John Carpenter thought the movie would be a failure when reviews for it were initially bad.

First Blood: Stallone thought the movie was so bad that he tried to buy the rights to the movie and burn the negatives.

Tremors: Caused Kevin Bacon to nearly have a break down due to starring in a movie about giant worms.

Thought it would be bad and were right:

Bloodrayne: Michael Madsen spent the entire film drunk because he knew it would be a turkey

The Room: The entire cast thought it was a joke and so did the crew.

Original Desmond

thanks for the insights Robin

I do think there is a difference between a low budget movie being thought of as a stinker and maybe surprising. E.g. Tremors wouldn't have cost much to make at all, it basically had one set

But something like After Earth, Battlefield Earth, Waterworld etc with huge budgets, man someone really had to take responsibility for them turning out stinkers

PhantomStranger

Adam Sandler was one of the most bankable properties in Hollywood for several years. Movies would get green-lit based on his involvement alone, before a real script had ever been hammered out. The top stars get to pick between competing offers, so attaching a star to a project almost always guarantees it will get made somewhere.

mhg83

Producer: Watch this. A.W.E.S.O.M-O, given the current trends of the movie going public, can you come up with an idea for a movie that will break $100 million box office?
Cartman: [as A.W.E.S.O.M.-O] Um... Okay, how about this: Adam Sandler is like in love with some girl. But it turns out that the girl is actuallya golden retreiever or something.
Mitch: Oh! Perfect!
Executive: We'll call it "Puppy Love".
Mitch: Give us another movie idea, A.W.E.S.O.M.-O.
Cartman: Um... How about this: Adam Sandler inherits like, a billion dollars, but first he has to become a boxer or something.
Mitch: "Punch Drunk Billionaire".

Rockmjd23

A Rubbish Movie? Is that like Men at Work? I think some people intend to make trashy movies, too.

Rockmjd23

I would love to have been a fly on the wall during that production. At some point they had to know that it just couldn't possibly work out for the studio.

Abob Teff

I thought pornos are rubbish movies ... (rub, rub, rub)

hanshotfirst1138

In spite of its reputation, didn't Waterworld actually make money?