How do really bad movies get made?

A friend of mine & I have a tradition of occasionally taking a day off and having a “moron-athon.” We go to the local video store, rent the worst movies we can get our hands on, sit around all day eating, drinking & making fun of the movies. You know, Amazon Roller Blading Vampires from the Planet Xyxrx.

I was talking with a friend recently who claims to be from a “Hollywood” family and asked him how these really bad movies get made. He said movie producers who make a lot of money off a quality successful film need big tax right offs & will purposely finance bad films knowing they’ll tank, so they can right it off.

Is this true? If not, how do these really bad films get made/financed? There are lots of reputable quality directors out there who seem to always have a hard time getting a movie made. Yet these really cheap and obviously bad ones that will never see the inside of a theater always seem to get made.

What up?

Bad movies eh, you need to rent Blood Diner and Redneck Zombies. Masterpieces :slight_smile:

Good producers don’t need to produce bad movies to get tax write offs. Tax write offs are easy to come by, while producing even modestly good movies. Now, it may be the case that a producer who knows he is going to have a really good production next year will use that same production team, and a few “B list” actors and screenwriters on a skank procuction this year. They aren’t doing that to deliberately loose money. They are doing it to keep their production crew on the payroll, so they don’t go elsewhere looking for work.

And of course the same thing applies to producers who normally don’t get any better than “B list” talent on a good day. They must settle for “C list” talent, and won’t bother to buy anything expensive for them to work on. So, they make “Bikini Warrior Girls from Outer Space” this year, and hope for a chance to bid on a Grisham novel next year. Burt Reynolds did a lot of this, trying to keep his stunt pals working, in the first heyday of digital special effects. He was always working on something, and he managed to stunt whatever it was up enough to keep a lot of stuntmen in rent and groceries for a fairly long time. Of course the movies sucked.

And, by the way, a lot of those stinker movies actually do drag in a fairly impressive amount of income. They don’t show a profit, but they pay a lot of salaries. And in the entertainment business, profit is a rather ambiguous term. The Corporate Producer might never show a profit, and at the same time, the entire workforce of that same corporation are paid salaries, get health insurance, and use company cars to attend business functions all over the world.

Mamalia Heartthrob doesn’t get points, when she makes “Bikini Dune Buggy Girls IV”. But it still pays royalties to the copyright owner years later on MST3K, or its spiritual descendants.

Oh, and there is one other thing to keep in mind. The guys who made “Ishtar” thought it was going to be good. Now that sucker was a tax write off. I think the actors got to claim depreciation allowances on their talent for appearing in it.

Tris

Your friend does not know what he is talking about at all. I think the only “Hollywood” in him is that he’s seen far too many movies.

In general, business owners do not deliberately lose money to get a “tax write-off”. They may fudge finances, push expenses into different fiscal years, juggle books a bit, but in general you simply do not save money by losing money.

Think about it this way - the top rate in the US is - what, 39% now? Do you really want to lose $100 on purpose so you can get back $39?

I think overall Triskadecamus has the correct answer.

I seem to remember hearing something about B movies being made specifically for double features - they’d have one movie people really wanted to see, and another one that the theater paid less for that they could put on the same ticket and charge extra for the double feature. The profit for B-movies was pretty close to fixed, so there wasn’t much incentive to make outstanding ones or spend a lot on special effects. However, most of that was before my time - I don’t ever remember personally seeing a theater advertising a double feature.

Some bad movies have stories of their own, though - particularly the more recent ones. Battlefield Earth, for example, seems to have a lot to do with John Travolta’s following Scientology. It seemed like he wanted to make that movie as a tribute to L. Ron Hubbard, who had allegedly lost his marbles by the time he wrote Battlefield Earth.

I’d just like to add that you should never underestimate the Magic of Hollywood. How many of the foks on this board would love to be involved in making a movie? I’ll bet a lot. Spread that over the population of the whole US (or even further) and there’s a whole lot of folks willing to take part. Some of these folks think they can act, some of these folks have a bit of cash. Some maybe able to hold a camera steady.

There’s your film right there.

This sort of film (think Troma) costs maybe $2-3 million to make (just making numbers up at this point). If you’re one of the lucky ones, you make Evil Dead and go on to earn a bajillion bucks, become fomous and appear on Xena, if not let’s get back to the OP:-

you went to the video store and paid money to watch Surf Nazis vs Cannibal Catholics or whatever. Even though you laughed at its badness, you’re shelling out $ to see it.

I would think the short answer this question is simple economics.

Blockbuster movies cost millions to make and advertise.

Crappy movies cost a lot less and have a smaller production cost to overcome before a profit is made. Some people don’t want to make blockbusters, they just want to make money. If they can do that on a ‘b’ movie, shot in a week or two, so much the better.

Of course I have no basis whatsoever to prove this… but how can it not be true?

E3

Creative financing.

Look back at the Cannon Group pictures from the late 70s - early 80s. I saw a segment on Golan & Globus on 60 Minutes in which they solicited money from backers ($10,000 here, $25,000 there) to make movies they didn’t even have scripts for, just titles.

Cheap exploitation movies are, well, cheap. They don’t cost much to make. You don’t pay for big-name actors, you don’t pay for special effects, your big climax may involve the expenses of buying a junker car off the lot, pouring gasoline all over it, and setting it on fire. You make 90%+ of your money on video rentals.

Really bad movies are made simply because no one involved thinks they’re bad. Look at “Battlefield Earth” (it’s record, not the movie – I wouldn’t wish that on anyone). John Travolta and Roger Christian both firmly believe they made a first-class entertainment. Ed Wood thought all his films were good.

People are not often good judges about their own creative work.

Now if you mean the cheapo quickies – as others have said, they’re cheap and you can make money without needing a big popular success.

How do really bad movies get made? Ask Freeman Williams, proprietor of the magnificent website The Bad Movie Report! Freeman, aka the Villainous Dr. Freex, wrote the screenplay for the horror film Forever Evil, which he freely admits is one of the worst movies ever made. He has written a blow by blow account of making what he lovingly calls “my own little thalidomide baby.” Read it, it’s hilarious and sometimes even touching.

http://www.stomptokyo.com/badmoviereport/making.html

To add to the concensus in this thread, let me throw in the arguably extreme case. Despite being the basis for Tim Burton’s Ed Wood, which takes the somewhat different line, Rudolph Grey’s Mightmare of Ectstasy (Ferel Press, 1994; Faber and Faber, 1995) actually argues that even Ed Wood’s career may have made economic sense in the circumstances. He was making low budget crap, but, hell, it was low budget crap and even that could find an audience. Though perhaps not a discerning one.

First they get Jerry Bruckheimer.

Then they call it Kangaroo Jack.

…and if Jerry is busy, they call Joel Schumacher and they call it Batman and Robin.

Elch, the theatre I’m working at is getting Kangaroo Jack. That looks like utter tripe… Ah well, the slower it is, the less I have to work! :smiley:

The video market in the 80’s resulted in a plethora of bad films. Pre-Blockbuster era video stores were often so hungry for product, they’d put just about anything on the shelves, which led to a lot of films being made (and a lot of horrible grade-Z productions from earlier decades being dug out of the vaults) purely to satisfy the consumer demand for viewing options.

Troma’s Lloyd Kaufman illustrated this in his book: low-budget producers would pre-sell an upcoming film to the video market before it was even made, and adjust their budget accordingly, so that they were in profit before the script was even written. And if the resulting film wound up moving a lot of videocassettes and generating profit-percentage income for the producers, then that was just the icing on the cake.

This is all interesting.

First I want to make something clear, though.

I’m only talking about the really bad-on-purpose low budget B movies. I know some movies were made in all seriousness for the big screen with the genuine hope they would do well. Movies like Ishtar & Battlefield Earth. I’m also not talking about really old movies that we look at now & laugh. When they originally came out, I’m sure they weren’t intended to be that bad. Nor am I talking about the relatively big budget cultish spoof movies made that way on purpose, like Eight Legged Freaks, etc.

I just can’t believe that the really bad movies were ever really taken seriously by either the director, actors or producers. Yet they get financed and made anyway, straight to VHS and the bottom shelf at Blockbuster.

But it makes more sense to me now thanks to Triskadecamus and others. These directors want to make movies, get their name out there & keep their crews with food on the table. And many of you say even the cheapo bad movies make a profit.

If so, can I grab a camera, some friends, go out in the desert & film Randy Bimbo Mutant Zombie Catholic School Girls and make a profit? There has to be much more to it than that.

I just want to add, I really injoyed the book Battlefield Earth and will probably rent the movie on Dollar night some time.

And Basically it isn’t that simple, you need to market your* Randy Bimbo Mutant Zombie Catholic School Girls*, etc. But that is the gist of it.

Anyone ever seen Teenage Space Vampires?

That was pretty awful.

I can’t understand why Amazon would sell the video for $50! Considering it’s one of their lowest-selling items, wouldn’t they want to give it a cheap price so as to get rid of it as quickly as possible.

( http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00000ILD1/qid%3D1041481479/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr_11_1/002-1222234-3233612#product-details )

$50 is what they want video rental places to pay for it. I guess there’s no home video price because they assume no one would want to own it.