Is it thought in the movie community that Verhoevan deliberately made bad movies? If so why does he get hired again?
He does?
Like I said, he made *Starship Troopers * in 1997, and *Hollow Man * in 2000, and hasn’t made a Hollywood movie since. I think the suits finally got wise to him.
So what was Hollow Man a satire of?
Chocolate Easter bunnies.
Verhoeven certainly was paid good money for awhile to make movies, in large part because he made movies that made big time buckolas:
Verhoeven had a lot mof success in Europe, and his first Hollywood folm, “Flesh+Blood,” was a critical and sleeper success. Then he made “Robocop,” which made eleventy bazillion dollars and was also pretty good. Then he made “Total Recall,” which made even more money, and was okay for an Arnold flick (I think it sucks, actually, but I’m conceding to popular opinion.) And then he made “Basic Instinct” and that made a grajillion dollars, too, and it was pretty good as misogynist, cruel movies go.
So by 1995, Paul Verhoeven sure looked like money in the bank if you were a Hollywood producer. The guy had a long list of good movies during his European career and had made four Hollywood films, each one even more successful than the last.
Then followed “Showgirls” and “Starship Troopers,” which most people think are awful but the latter, at least, did make money. Then he made “Hollow Man,” which was a terrible movie and wasn’t a big hit.
So he did keep getting work in Hollywood as long as he hauled in the bux. Once he stopped doing that, well, he went back to Holland.
Verhoeven’s over-the-top satire of violence and exploitation works better, I think, in “Robocop” than it does in “Starship Troopers” and “Showgirls,” but you can definitely see the common thread than runs through those films.
Of course! It’s so obvious now!
No, that’s Uwe Boll. 
Lemur866, I just wanted to say that Roger Corman almost certainly still likes naked titties, as he is not dead yet. As a matter of fact, his next movie is a remake of Death Race, where I confidently predict there will be at least 57 naked titties.
You’re all missing the big picture. From now on, it’s acceptable to say anything you want, and when asked to back it up, you say, “If only you knew me in real life, you’d understand.”
You’ve just won the internet!
Yeah, but… that movie sucked. Hard. I don’t think I want to go through the contortions necessary to perceive cinematic bowel movements like Showgirls and Starship Troopers as “good.” I’m pretty sure my brain is working properly when it tells me they suck, and for me to think otherwise would require my brain to be damaged, at least slightly.
My gut tells me cow shit is disgusting, and something I wouldn’t enjoy eating. Now if I lived in a dystopian world where the only thing there was to eat was Soylent Cowpoop, it would probably be advantageous to develop an appreciation for cow shit. Expand your palate, you might say. I’d probably even volunteer for the experimental brain surgery that caused cow shit to seem like delicious chocolate. If you have to eat it, might as well like it, right?
But we don’t have to eat it. And thankfully Verhoeven isn’t the only director out there, so I’m perfectly happy with my brain the way it is: it tells me, quite adamantly, that I enjoy neither eating shit nor watching it in the theater.
I didn’t get much out of that, I’m sad to say. The only thing he offers up as a show of Verhoeven’s brilliance is the mouse/dog thing, which is what - thirty seconds of screentime?
Yeah, but cow shit is objectively unsuited for human consumption.
A better analogy might be, say, fancy, stinky cheese. God, some of that stuff smells disgusting, and it’s certainly not to everyone’s taste. But people eat it, and people cultivate a taste for it, and enjoy it, and can talk about nuances of flavor.
That’s not to say anyone – say, you – is obligated to cultivate a love of stinky cheese. You’re not obligated to try it, you’re not obligated to love it. But I think it’d be nice if people could acknowledge that other people do eat it, do enjoy it, and aren’t crazy for doing so.
Sorry. I just really wanted to work cow shit into my analogy somehow.
And I still think Showgirls is more akin to meadow muffin than to Limburger.
While this is an admirable, and reasonable, sentiment, it’s a little off base if you intend it as an analogy for lissener’s behavior. The analogy would need to be changed to the person who has cultivated a love for stinky cheese saying that others need to recognize the superiority of stinky cheese, and that they’re barbarians if they don’t. The OP gave evidence of this type of behavior. It’s a shame because, when he’s speaking for himself and his experiences, instead of pronouncing “the way it is”, he can be a very valuable part of a conversation. c.f. the “Ordering a well-done steak: Unsophisticated?” thread.
Enjoy,
Steven
Yeah – I had to run before I finished up. Obviously, Limburger fans shouldn’t tell Velveeta fans that what they’re eating is crap. Respect works both ways – snobbery isn’t acceptable in forwards or reverse.
So is there any truth to the rumor that he’ll be directing Harry Potter VII?
:eek:
(Ducks and runs, laughing)
I’m still on the fence about seeing this movie. Was Elizabeth naked when she pushed Gina down some stairs? And as a follow-up, was Gina naked?
I’m pretty sure they were topless. I hope that helps.