Google reminded me, A Clockwork Orange.
I can’t remember if I sat through the entire thing. I found it extremely disturbing.
Looking back, I wonder who Green Lighted a movie that extols and glorifies such sick violence? Why would any studio want to be associated with that material?
This might be a movie that was more discussed than seen. My vague recollection is that I read about it in Playboy.
That one wasn’t really a musical, and it came out quite a bit earlier, so I didn’t think of it.
That one is where Ken Russell saw his own film (Tommy) and said “Hold my beer!”.
Ken Russel was basically David Lynch without the talent.
I saw that movie as a kid and for years I convinced myself that it was just some weird dream I had. I was surprised to learn it was real - and even now I’m not 100% sure.
I still haven’t seen it, but this write up intrigues me…
"This is Ken Russell unfiltered—straight-up and unafraid to go wherever his mind leads him. I remember watching it in 2005 when we were lining up titles for the Asheville Film Festival and deciding, “No, it’s still ahead of its time.”
Not the right time.
Not the right amount of brain damage.
Not the right universe.
Oh, it’s real, and it’s definitely been seen. I’ve now watched Lisztomania three times (once originally when I found it on tape, once to review it when I was thinking of screening it for an audience at a film society, and once more when–after I had decided against showing it–someone coincidentally screened it for the same film society).
Ask Bruce Campbell about it. The story comes from him. It has a 24% RottenTomatoes score and 29% audience score. I think it still counts.
I’ve seen it too, as an adult - and I’m still not entirely sure I didn’t hallucinate it.
I agree with you.
It’s actually a pretty great Stanley Kubrick movie. He produced it himself, so he greenlit it. Not only is it artistically respectable, it made $114 million on a $1.3 million budget. He knew exactly what movie he wanted to make, and made it on his own dime.
All that said, it is a very harsh and violent story for all the characters involved. It’s not a light popcorn flick.
I don’t really understand your non sequitur or what story you’re talking about. Bruce Campbell didn’t greenlight it, Kathleen Kennedy did. And he had a cameo. And the only quote I could find from him is “it was fun to have a small part in a big movie.”
It was an excellent movie to greenlight.
It is considered a bad film, or in the parlance of this thread. a cinematic shitshow. I’ve found a video, but I’ve also heard him tell this anecdote in person.
I really should have opened the thread with this clip. Thank you! 
Heck, it got an original-generation X rating on first release (later amended by a 30-second cut). The book it was made from was also very intense.
But, yeah, disturbing content does not make it a bad decision to produce.
But the question was who would greenlight, and the answer is “someone happy to make a fuckton of money.” There are decades of discussion here of shit movies already.
I don’t recall anything in the OP that required the films mentioned to completely bomb.
As discussed multiple times upthread, the sole criteria of whether a movie should be greenlit is financial success.
Right, but of course if it made a fucktonne of money, then it was not a bad idea- even if a bad film.
Now I suggest Battlefield Earth, which was a bad film critics hated it, and 3% on Rotten Tomatoes. It also lost money, altho it had a decent opening weekend, due to Travolta, and then- crickets. As to who greenlit it? Guess. So we have a trifecta- bad film, hated by critics, and lost $$.
I see your point, but money does have to be a factor- a film that won awards and the critics loved that didnt quite break even is not a “cinematic shitshow”, whereas a bad film that the critics hated and turned a small profit on paper? That can be a shitshow.