# Why did the movie Showgirls do so badly?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-movie-showgirls-do-so-badly/704393
**Category:** Cafe Society
**Created:** [November 12, 2014, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-movie-showgirls-do-so-badly/704393 "2014-11-12T00:37:32Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@Jophiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jophiel)
#### Post date: [November 12, 2014, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-movie-showgirls-do-so-badly/704393/21 "2014-11-12T04:28:24Z")
> [@Daddypants](#):
>
> Because except for the T&A it’s a terrible movie.
That explains Starship Troopers, but what did you think about Showgirls? 😉
---
### Author:  [@DinoR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DinoR)
#### Post date: [November 12, 2014, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-movie-showgirls-do-so-badly/704393/22 "2014-11-12T04:31:24Z")
> [@Justin\_Bailey](#):
>
> I’m assuming you’re referring to RoboCop, but Starship Troopers was dripping with satire and was pretty great to boot.
Dripping like a fire hose. Satire executed with all the subtlety of an axe murder in an isolated teen camp. I also read and loved the book so he’d probably lost me before I ever saw it. I can’t say I remember seeing the satire in Showgirls but I remember enough that I am not going back just to see what I missed.
I’m just waiting for the rumored reboot.
“I always get the shakes before a drop.”
---
### Author:  [@Justin\_Bailey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Justin_Bailey)
#### Post date: [November 12, 2014, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-movie-showgirls-do-so-badly/704393/23 "2014-11-12T05:08:35Z")
> [@DinoR](#):
>
> Dripping like a fire hose. Satire executed with all the subtlety of an axe murder in an isolated teen camp. I also read and loved the book so he’d probably lost me before I ever saw it. I can’t say I remember seeing the satire in Showgirls but I remember enough that I am not going back just to see what I missed.
It wasn’t supposed to be subtle. That’s what made it hilarious. He put Doogie Howser in a Nazi uniform and played it so straight that you can practically see NPH about to start laughing. He makes fun of his vacuous eye candy while the real hero of the movie, Michael FUCKING Ironside, acts rings around them.
---
### Author:  [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)
#### Post date: [November 12, 2014, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-movie-showgirls-do-so-badly/704393/24 "2014-11-12T05:51:55Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#):
>
> Verhoeven has a very peculiar idea of what comprises satire. It looks a lot like shitty writing, acting and story development.
>
> I think\*\* BE\*\* hit the main reason, though. Elizabeth Berkley was a shallow, vapid little bitch who alternated between stomping her foot in opposition and flouncing off stage left, then knuckling under to whoever was manipulating her. Lather, rinse, repeat for two hours plus. Nothing likeable or appealing or even intriguing about her.
>
> The film already had limited audience potential by going hard-hard R, dancing on the edge of NC17 or X. And then having rounded up that audience and paid off with nonstop bare tits, they made them watch a bitchy little teen emote. But it was all satire, you see.
I walked out after about a half-hour. I thought EB really nailed her character, which was an all around loathsome human being, petulant, angry, stupid and self-defeating. I hated her character and wasn’t going to invest any more of my time. It was just really unpleasant. I think that was the point.
---
### Author:  [@Ranger\_Jeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranger_Jeff)
#### Post date: [November 12, 2014, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-movie-showgirls-do-so-badly/704393/25 "2014-11-12T05:57:04Z")
> [@Gerald\_II](#):
>
> Also, the girl from Saved By The Bell wasn’t a big enough draw.
I think this is the major thing… any movie that featured that girl’s bare tits and didn’t make big box office must have had SERIOUS flaws. For one thing, it probably wasn’t much of a “date movie” for fans of Saved By The Bell.
---
### Author:  [@woodstockbirdybird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/woodstockbirdybird)
#### Post date: [November 12, 2014, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-movie-showgirls-do-so-badly/704393/26 "2014-11-12T06:01:33Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#):
>
> I walked out after about a half-hour. I thought EB really nailed her character, which was an all around loathsome human being, petulant, angry, stupid and self-defeating. I hated her character and wasn’t going to invest any more of my time. It was just really unpleasant. I think that was the point.
Same here. I paid to see it in the theater on opening day and I walked out. I will agree it takes some skill to make a guy in his 20s find all that nudity completely unerotic, but other than that there was nothing worth talking about. The only real answer to the OP’s question is it did so badly because it was a massive pile of shit.
---
### Author:  [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)
#### Post date: [November 12, 2014, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-movie-showgirls-do-so-badly/704393/27 "2014-11-12T06:28:08Z")
Because it sucked.
---
### Author:  [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)
#### Post date: [November 12, 2014, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-movie-showgirls-do-so-badly/704393/28 "2014-11-12T06:59:09Z")
It wasn’t Elizabeth Berkeley’s fault anymore than Godfather III was Sofia Coppola’s fault, and less so. EB conveyed the character very well, it is just that the character was given the role of providing the audience point of view and the character was loathsome. Nobody would identify with her except snotty young women sociopaths. I didn’t even stick around for the nudity, which was really odd for me back in my early 30s.
---
### Author:  [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)
#### Post date: [November 12, 2014, 8:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-movie-showgirls-do-so-badly/704393/29 "2014-11-12T08:03:45Z")
> [@Chronos](#):
>
> “Up there” with Starship Troopers?
>
> Given the available evidence, I think the far simpler explanation is that Verhoeven is a terrible director.
Aye, this is my perception as well.
---
### Author:  [@Cubsfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cubsfan)
#### Post date: [November 12, 2014, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-movie-showgirls-do-so-badly/704393/30 "2014-11-12T13:49:40Z")
Demi was much more attractive in ST than EB was in SG. Though EB was pretty good looking she couldn’t compete with Demi’s augmentations.
---
### Author:  [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)
#### Post date: [November 12, 2014, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-movie-showgirls-do-so-badly/704393/31 "2014-11-12T14:02:56Z")
> [@Cubsfan](#):
>
> Demi was much more attractive in ST than EB was in SG. Though EB was pretty good looking she couldn’t compete with Demi’s augmentations.
I disagree. But EB is much more my type. Other than that, yeah Showgirls is an awful movie. Not even in the so bad it’s good category. Just bad.
When this has come up before I never got the argument that “He used a bad script, bad actors, bad plot and cheesy direction on purpose therefor it’s art.” It just makes it a bad movie. Even his movies that I liked at the time have not aged well. I caught Flesh + Blood on cable a little while ago. Rutger Hauer is still compelling in it. But the bad directing is apparent and glaring.
---
### Author:  [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)
#### Post date: [November 12, 2014, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-movie-showgirls-do-so-badly/704393/32 "2014-11-12T15:39:59Z")
Wasn’t it also like 3 hours long, or am I just remembering that it _seemed_ like it was extraordinarily long by the standards of 1995? That, and it’s one of the few movies I’ve seen that had scads of un-sexy nudity in it, and I was 23 when I saw it.
I subscribe to the Verhoeven sucks explanation though; he botched this movie, and a few years later, he botched Starship Troopers as well. Not to derail the thread, but in that case, it’s like he didn’t read the book (or was too dumb to actually understand it) and based his “satire” on the Cliff’s Notes. I wouldn’t at all be surprised to find out that he did a similar job with the source material for “Showgirls”.
---
### Author:  [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)
#### Post date: [November 12, 2014, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-movie-showgirls-do-so-badly/704393/33 "2014-11-12T15:41:25Z")
> [@Cubsfan](#):
>
> Demi was much more attractive in ST than EB was in SG. Though EB was pretty good looking she couldn’t compete with Demi’s augmentations.
Plus, Gina Gershon was better looking than Elizabeth Berkley was in **Showgirls** , and I think that may have had something to do with it.
And \*\*Striptease \*\*had Burt Reynolds in it…
---
### Author:  [@Justin\_Bailey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Justin_Bailey)
#### Post date: [November 12, 2014, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-movie-showgirls-do-so-badly/704393/34 "2014-11-12T16:18:03Z")
> [@bump](#):
>
> I subscribe to the Verhoeven sucks explanation though; he botched this movie, and a few years later, he botched Starship Troopers as well. Not to derail the thread, but in that case, it’s like he didn’t read the book (or was too dumb to actually understand it) and based his “satire” on the Cliff’s Notes. I wouldn’t at all be surprised to find out that he did a similar job with the source material for “Showgirls”.
1. There was no source material for Showgirls
2. It was known before it was released that Starship Troopers was actually an original script that was retro-fitted to fit the book because it was originally written as a parody/satire that was a bit too close to the original (But far enough away that once it did get the name, fans rioted).
---
### Author:  [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)
#### Post date: [November 12, 2014, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-movie-showgirls-do-so-badly/704393/35 "2014-11-12T16:31:03Z")
I’ve never seen _ **Showgirls** _. I did see _ **Striptease** _ on videotape (yes, it was a long time ago). _ **Striptease** _ was a terrible movie, but it was (I’m pretty sure) a terrible movie in a very different way from _ **Showgirls** _.
_ **Striptease** _ was based on a satitrical and highly political novel by Florida humorist and journalist Carl Hiaasen. All in all, there WASN’T a greeat deal of nudity in the movie. The movie actually had a plot, a rather boring and convoluted plot, about a corrupt Southern politician (Burt Reynolds) and a desperate single Mom (Demi Moore) who took a job at a strip club to make money to support her kid.
I found the movie a snooze, but it was NOT an exploitation movie. Anyone who rented it to see a lot of nekkid women doing naughty things would be extremely disappointed. By contrast, _ **Showgirls** _ seems to have been ALL about nudity and exploitation.
Neither movie was a hit (to put it mildly), but _ **Striptease** _ WAS quite bad for Demi Moore’s career. Quick, name some big movies she’s starred in since that one. Heck, a SMALL role in\*\*\* Charlie’s Angels 2 \*\*\*was seen as a big comeback for her!
Neither movie ever found an audience at the theaters. _ **Striptease** _ never found an audience at all. _ **Showgirls** _, at least, seems to have found an appreciative, mostly gay cult audience.
---
### Author:  [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)
#### Post date: [November 12, 2014, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-movie-showgirls-do-so-badly/704393/36 "2014-11-12T17:03:23Z")
> [@](#):
>
> Quoth **bump** :
>
> Not to derail the thread, but in that case, it’s like he didn’t read the book (or was too dumb to actually understand it) and based his “satire” on the Cliff’s Notes.
You probably already know this, but for the benefit of anyone who doesn’t: It’s _exactly_ like that. He deliberately avoided reading the book, because he didn’t want it to distort his vision. Which factually and incontrovertibly puts paid to the notion that he makes “satires which are archetypal examples of what they satirize”, since he actually goes out of his way to not know what he’s allegedly satirizing.
---
### Author:  [@Cubsfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cubsfan)
#### Post date: [November 12, 2014, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-movie-showgirls-do-so-badly/704393/37 "2014-11-12T17:23:33Z")
> [@Justin\_Bailey](#):
>
> 1. There was no source material for Showgirls
>
> 2. It was known before it was released that Starship Troopers was actually an original script that was retro-fitted to fit the book because it was originally written as a parody/satire that was a bit too close to the original (But far enough away that once it did get the name, fans rioted).
I don’t remember Starship Troopers being THAT bad taken on it’s own rights. It was nothing like the book though. Once they realized they weren’t going to be able to afford the bugs AND power suits and would have to choose one or the other they should have walked away or called it something else IMHO.
---
### Author:  [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)
#### Post date: [November 12, 2014, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-movie-showgirls-do-so-badly/704393/38 "2014-11-12T18:07:13Z")
> [@Chronos](#):
>
> You probably already know this, but for the benefit of anyone who doesn’t: It’s _exactly_ like that. He deliberately avoided reading the book, because he didn’t want it to distort his vision. Which factually and incontrovertibly puts paid to the notion that he makes “satires which are archetypal examples of what they satirize”, since he actually goes out of his way to not know what he’s allegedly satirizing.
That would just mean he wasn’t satirizing _Starship Troopers_, the book. Satirizing war films, or government propaganda, or whatever he was trying to do doesn’t require reading _Starship Troopers._
---
### Author:  [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)
#### Post date: [November 12, 2014, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-movie-showgirls-do-so-badly/704393/39 "2014-11-12T21:21:12Z")
> [@astorian](#):
>
> _ **Striptease** _ WAS quite bad for Demi Moore’s career. Quick, name some big movies she’s starred in since that one. Heck, a SMALL role in\*\*\* Charlie’s Angels 2 \*\*\*was seen as a big comeback for her!
G.I. Jane, plus one of a bazillion small roles in a Woody Allen film. (Seriously, the imdb page for it lists half of Hollywood.)
Charlie’s Angels wasn’t seen as a comeback for her because of Striptease. It was seen as a comeback because she was over 40.
---
### Author:  [@mbh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mbh)
#### Post date: [November 12, 2014, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-movie-showgirls-do-so-badly/704393/40 "2014-11-12T21:40:18Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#):
>
> I walked out after about a half-hour. I thought EB really nailed her character, which was an all around loathsome human being, petulant, angry, stupid and self-defeating. I hated her character and wasn’t going to invest any more of my time. It was just really unpleasant. I think that was the point.
After seeing _Flesh+Blood_, _Robocop_, _Total Recal_l, and _Basic Instinct_, I came to the conclusion that Paul Verhoeven has a very grim view of humanity. There are no heroes in his movies. Some villains are more charming than others.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-movie-showgirls-do-so-badly/704393.md?page=1)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-movie-showgirls-do-so-badly/704393.md?page=3)