Not Screened For Critics.
#26
Banned by request
Originally Posted by ScandalUMD
If you're a horror fan, you have to have seen enough movies to understand the difference between good horror movies and bad horror movies. If horror fans decided to stop rewarding the bad ones, the studios would probably figure out how to make more good ones.
This also doesn't take into account that some people genuinely like what we consider bad movies. I was talking to someone the other day who said, "That House of Wax movie sure did scare me! I saw it three times!" And no, they weren't talking about the original. I wouldn't see House of Wax if you paid me. But this guy voluntarily saw it three times. So there's no point in telling film buffs to not see bad movies, because movie buffs really only contribute a small portion of a particular film's revenue.
#27
DVD Talk Special Edition
There are some movies that have great entertainment value and low critical value. And if you are a studio that invested millions of dollars in a lowbrow movie, why screen it to snobby critics? Let the audience decide for themselves.
Besides, the critic will get to see (and bash) the movie anyway, at the movie theaters just like everybody else. And just like everybody else, they'll have to buy a ticket.
Besides, the critic will get to see (and bash) the movie anyway, at the movie theaters just like everybody else. And just like everybody else, they'll have to buy a ticket.
#28
DVD Talk Special Edition
Originally Posted by DonnachaOne
It's very simple. Find a critic with much the same tastes as yourself and you can him/her as a good measure of a film's quality. With films at $10 a ticket, I'd like to hear is the flick worth my time and money first.
Even a critic that you don't agree with can be helpful. Roger Ebert, for example; we don't see eye-to-eye as much as some people, but I like his reviews (the second half of them, anyway - he spends too much time summarizing). I can tell is it something that will interest me based on what he liked and didn't like.
Critcs are a help, not the authority. True, their opinions are worth no more than mine or yours, but since I value some of them and their opinions, they come in rather handy.
Even a critic that you don't agree with can be helpful. Roger Ebert, for example; we don't see eye-to-eye as much as some people, but I like his reviews (the second half of them, anyway - he spends too much time summarizing). I can tell is it something that will interest me based on what he liked and didn't like.
Critcs are a help, not the authority. True, their opinions are worth no more than mine or yours, but since I value some of them and their opinions, they come in rather handy.
#29
Banned
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Houston
Originally Posted by BrentLumkin
So, do you like Uwe Boll or not? 

#30
DVD Talk Legend
Alrighty, just checking. 
Wasn't a law recently passed in the country that he does business that's going to put an end to his little "scam" near the end of this year? I'm almost sure that I read that somewhere a few months back.

Wasn't a law recently passed in the country that he does business that's going to put an end to his little "scam" near the end of this year? I'm almost sure that I read that somewhere a few months back.
#31
Banned
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Houston
Originally Posted by BrentLumkin
Alrighty, just checking. 
Wasn't a law recently passed in the country that he does business that's going to put an end to his little "scam" near the end of this year? I'm almost sure that I read that somewhere a few months back.

Wasn't a law recently passed in the country that he does business that's going to put an end to his little "scam" near the end of this year? I'm almost sure that I read that somewhere a few months back.
#33
Banned
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Sand Point
Originally Posted by Suprmallet
What scam was he pulling? I didn't hear about this.
Boll is able to acquire funding thanks to German tax laws that reward investments in film. The law allows investors in German-owned films to write off 100% of their investment as a tax deduction; it also allows them to invest borrowed money and write off any fees associated with the loan. The investor is then only required to pay taxes on the profits made by the movie; if the movie loses money, the investor gets a tax writeoff.
#34
DVD Talk Special Edition
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Seattle,WA
Well screw the studios then. I won't even bother with a film unless I can read at least a half dozen reviews for it. Not that I'm a slavish follower of reviewers or anything. It's just that if I read a bunch of positive reviews, I'll go see it. If the reviews are mediocre, but it's a subject I like, I'll probably go anyway. But if I read a bunch of reviews that call it absolute garbage, then it's probably a good bet i'm gonna pass.
Common sense really.
Common sense really.
#35
Thread Starter
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 2,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: New York, NY
Originally Posted by joeydaninja
There are some movies that have great entertainment value and low critical value. And if you are a studio that invested millions of dollars in a lowbrow movie, why screen it to snobby critics? Let the audience decide for themselves.
Besides, the critic will get to see (and bash) the movie anyway, at the movie theaters just like everybody else. And just like everybody else, they'll have to buy a ticket.
Besides, the critic will get to see (and bash) the movie anyway, at the movie theaters just like everybody else. And just like everybody else, they'll have to buy a ticket.
That or it sucked.
#36
Thread Starter
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 2,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: New York, NY
Originally Posted by Suprmallet
Surely you jest. Bad movies will get made as long as movies are being made, period. Suppose we do what you say, and stay away from bad horror movies. Then the studios will, in general, stop making horror movies, period, until someone takes a chance on one five years from now and it's a big hit. Then you'll find hundreds of copycat films and remakes, with a few genuine good films in there. It's like there for most genres. They're in, then they're out. When they're in, a handful are good, and most are bad.
This audience is seen as nondiscriminating. Which is a shame, because if a film had to be good to get this audience to show up, it would create a strong incentive for studios to make better horror movies.
Studios still think their target audiences for comedies are 14 year old boys, which is why they think they can recycle the jokes (these kids haven't seen it before!). Maybe someday they'll figure out why "Wedding Crashers" and "Virgin" banked $100+ million and "Deuce Bigalow 2" barely broke even. Still with DVD sales factored in, Deuce will still make money.
#37
Banned
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Sand Point
Originally Posted by Panda Phil
Well screw the studios then. I won't even bother with a film unless I can read at least a half dozen reviews for it. Not that I'm a slavish follower of reviewers or anything. It's just that if I read a bunch of positive reviews, I'll go see it. If the reviews are mediocre, but it's a subject I like, I'll probably go anyway. But if I read a bunch of reviews that call it absolute garbage, then it's probably a good bet i'm gonna pass.
Common sense really.
Common sense really.
#38
Banned by request
Originally Posted by ScandalUMD
Maybe someday they'll figure out why "Wedding Crashers" and "Virgin" banked $100+ million and "Deuce Bigalow 2" barely broke even. Still with DVD sales factored in, Deuce will still make money.




