# Why did the movie Showgirls do so badly? **URL:** \ **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:** 6
**Author:** ![Jim\_s\_Son](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19adc/32.png) [@Jim\_s\_Son](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jim_s_Son)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2014, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-movie-showgirls-do-so-badly/704393/101 "2014-11-15T04:05:12Z")
> [@erysichthon](#): > > I’m not surprised to see the Verhoeven pile-on here, given that this is the SDMB, where people think _The Princess Bride_ is the greatest movie ever made. Personally, I consider Verhoeven a very talented director; although he is prone to occasional excesses, he stages action setpieces with amazing energy and gets intense performances from his actors. > > _Basic Instinct_ and _Total Recall_ are on my all-time favorite list. I also like _Robocop_, which has one of the tightest screenplays ever written; there’s not a single wasted word in there. I’m more meh about _Starship Troopers_, although I like how Verhoeven simultaneously glorified and ridiculed Heinlein’s fascist ideas. You do not know the difference between fascism and a meritocracy if you think Heinlein’s book is the former ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2014, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-movie-showgirls-do-so-badly/704393/102 "2014-11-15T04:25:13Z")
> [@Jim\_s\_Son](#): > > You do not know the difference between fascism and a meritocracy if you think Heinlein’s book is the former I’m not sure it’s fair to describe his fictional society as the latter, either. For two years’ service, one gets the vote… and I think that was it. No additional special privileges, certainly not in proportion to one’s personal merits. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2014, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-movie-showgirls-do-so-badly/704393/103 "2014-11-15T05:35:00Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I’m not sure it’s fair to describe his fictional society as the latter, either. For two years’ service, one gets the vote… and I think that was it. No additional special privileges, certainly not in proportion to one’s personal merits. Pretty much. Rico’s father looks down on the military. He is not a full citizen. But he is a wealthy and successful man. The society in ST is about as far from fascism as you can get on several levels. ---
**Author:** ![MichaelEmouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/michaelemouse/32/101_2.png) [@MichaelEmouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelEmouse)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2014, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-movie-showgirls-do-so-badly/704393/104 "2014-11-15T06:05:58Z")
It’s reminiscent of the bits of Antiquity in Greece in various places and Rome at various times. Or a kind of broadened feudalism where military service is exchanged for a vote over the whole nation instead of land rights. It also reminds me of some hunter-gatherer societies where a boy becomes a man and where being a man means both participating in warfare and also being allowed in the big hut when collective decisions are being made. I’m not sure it would be stable in a information-heavy capitalist Gesellschaft like there is in ST. But it’s neither fascist nor meritocratic. It’s been a long time since I watched it. What was bado about the nudity and sex scenes? There is the dolphin episode in the pool, yes. There is the rape. There is plenty of non-rapey, non-dolphin-like nudity though. How did boobs fail to function? ---
**Author:** ![Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slow_moving_vehicle/32/291_2.png) [@Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slow_Moving_Vehicle)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2014, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-movie-showgirls-do-so-badly/704393/105 "2014-11-15T06:23:43Z")
“Everybody got AIDS an’ shit!” “It must be weird not having people come on you.” Joe Eszterhas has to bear some of the responsibility for this crapfest. The script was wooden and clunky. ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2014, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-movie-showgirls-do-so-badly/704393/106 "2014-11-17T21:34:38Z")
_ **Showgirls** _ also suffered from bad timing. By 1995, internet porn and the video market had largely killed off porn theaters, since men could see plenty of nekkid girls at home without the embarrassment of going to a theater and asking for a ticket from a box office clerk who could see their faces. Why would a guy pay top dollar at a multiplex to watch what he could see at home for free? ---
**Author:** ![Justin\_Bailey](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/justin_bailey/32/8792_2.png) [@Justin\_Bailey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Justin_Bailey)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2014, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-movie-showgirls-do-so-badly/704393/107 "2014-11-17T21:48:00Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > _ **Showgirls** _ also suffered from bad timing. By 1995, internet porn and the video market had largely killed off porn theaters, since men could see plenty of nekkid girls at home without the embarrassment of going to a theater and asking for a ticket from a box office clerk who could see their faces. > > Why would a guy pay top dollar at a multiplex to watch what he could see at home for free? What? By 1995, home Internet access was barely a blip on the radar. And if you had it, you were surfing at 14K speeds. Though you’re right, that probably is why Showgirls was a much bigger hit on video than in the theaters. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2014, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-movie-showgirls-do-so-badly/704393/108 "2014-11-17T22:04:22Z")
> [@Justin\_Bailey](#): > > What? By 1995, home Internet access was barely a blip on the radar. AOL had over 2¼ million subscribers and you’re forgetting BBSs. ---
**Author:** ![Justin\_Bailey](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/justin_bailey/32/8792_2.png) [@Justin\_Bailey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Justin_Bailey)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2014, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-movie-showgirls-do-so-badly/704393/109 "2014-11-17T22:51:18Z")
> [@Skywatcher](#): > > AOL had over 2¼ million subscribers and you’re forgetting BBSs. Even as an abysmal bomb, Showgirls sold almost 5 million tickets. If you add in every AOL user who presumably didn’t buy a ticket because they had 14K porn, you’re still looking at a movie that was less popular than Mighty Morphin’ Power Rangers, Judge Dredd, and Free Willy 2. ---
**Author:** ![TBG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c89c15/32.png) [@TBG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TBG)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-movie-showgirls-do-so-badly/704393/110 "2014-11-18T03:47:53Z")
It was rated NC-17 and those movies rarely do well. Add to that, according to a news report I saw at the time, a lot of theaters decided to more strictly enforce the rating for this movie than usual and card everyone, making it harder for the underage “LOL lets look at Jesse from saved by the bell’s titties” crowd to get in, making ticket sales even lower. Finally, it was a pretty awful movie. If it had been good, word of mouth could have helped counter the first two problems, but a movie that shitty wasn’t going to do well no matter how it was rated. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2014, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-movie-showgirls-do-so-badly/704393/111 "2014-12-18T18:47:56Z")
_ **Showgirls** _ is a masterpiece of subversive satire. Its main difficulties are twofold: First, it takes as its target the audience itself; it invites the audience to hate itself for its own moral corruption. Not an audience-friendly approach. Second, it pulls a bait and switch. As a device to lure the audience to its own shellacking, Verhoeven begins the movie as a classic _ **42nd Street** _-style “I want to be a STAR!” Hollywood fable. Then it switches to a campy bitchfest _à la_ _ **All About Eve** _. It’s no longer about the starry-eyed dream of stardom; it’s about the moral corruption. Then it switches once again–and this is the film’s real intention–to a hyperviolent rape-revenge movie akin to _ **I Spit on Your Grave** _ or _ **Thriller: A Cruel Picture** _. It’s kind of a Hansel and Gretel setup: the outside of the cabin is an inviting vision of candy and sexytime. But once you’re inside you discover it’s a chamber of horrors. Of course audiences would, like Hansel and Gretel, want to run for the exits. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2014, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-movie-showgirls-do-so-badly/704393/112 "2014-12-19T01:21:03Z")
If your intention is for your audience to hate your work of art, and you succeed in that intention, it does not imply that your work of art was anything but terrible. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2014, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-movie-showgirls-do-so-badly/704393/113 "2014-12-19T01:33:17Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > _ **Showgirls** _ is a masterpiece of subversive satire. Its main difficulties are twofold: First, it takes as its target the audience itself; it invites the audience to hate itself for its own moral corruption. Not an audience-friendly approach. Second, it pulls a bait and switch. As a device to lure the audience to its own shellacking, Verhoeven begins the movie as a classic _ **42nd Street** _-style “I want to be a STAR!” Hollywood fable. Then it switches to a campy bitchfest _à la_ _ **All About Eve** _. It’s no longer about the starry-eyed dream of stardom; it’s about the moral corruption. Then it switches once again–and this is the film’s real intention–to a hyperviolent rape-revenge movie akin to _ **I Spit on Your Grave** _ or _ **Thriller: A Cruel Picture** _. It’s kind of a Hansel and Gretel setup: the outside of the cabin is an inviting vision of candy and sexytime. But once you’re inside you discover it’s a chamber of horrors. Of course audiences would, like Hansel and Gretel, want to run for the exits. Or it isn’t. All the evidence is that _Showgirls_ isn’t a satire of bad movies. It is instead an example of bad movies. I feel you’re giving Verhoeven too much credit. I’ve watched most of his movies, including his early European ones. He doesn’t have the kind of depth you’re attributing to him. Even when he makes a good movie, it’s pretty straight-forward. And when he tries for satire, which he did at points in _Robocop_ and _Starship Troopers_, it’s not subtle. There’s nothing to suggest he would care to or be capable of the kind of meta-satire you’re suggesting. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2014, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-movie-showgirls-do-so-badly/704393/114 "2014-12-19T01:50:58Z")
It was Verhoeven and it was crap. No amount of revisionist claptrap will ever counter that fact. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2014, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-movie-showgirls-do-so-badly/704393/115 "2014-12-19T01:59:49Z")
Perhaps if the lead didn’t have the face of a lizard and/or looked better naked… ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2014, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-movie-showgirls-do-so-badly/704393/116 "2014-12-19T05:50:54Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Or it isn’t. > > All the evidence is that _Showgirls_ isn’t a satire of bad movies. It is instead an example of bad movies. > > I feel you’re giving Verhoeven too much credit. I’ve watched most of his movies, including his early European ones. He doesn’t have the kind of depth you’re attributing to him. Even when he makes a good movie, it’s pretty straight-forward. And when he tries for satire, which he did at points in _Robocop_ and _Starship Troopers_, it’s not subtle. There’s nothing to suggest he would care to or be capable of the kind of meta-satire you’re suggesting. On the contrary: the brilliance of the satire in _ **Robocop** _ and _ **Starship Troopers** _ offers plenty of evidence that Verhoeven is more than capable of such skilled satire. But that’s not even the point. That’s like saying that Lumet’s skill at taut courtroom drama is “proof” that Murder on the Orient Express couldn’t possibly be a big fluffy Old-Hollywood entertainment. Verhoeven did some brillian satires (as already noted) and some powerful non-satires (_ **Keetje Tippel, Spetters, Soldier of Orange, Black Book** _). Each movie stands on its own. Frankly I didn’t “get” _ **Showgirls** _ the first time I saw it. I thought it was horrid dreck. But then I saw it again 5 years later and for some reason it gelled on second viewing. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2014, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-movie-showgirls-do-so-badly/704393/117 "2014-12-19T05:53:26Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > If your intention is for your audience to hate your work of art, and you succeed in that intention, it does not imply that your work of art was anything but terrible. Von Trier’s _ **Dancer in the Dark** _ had similar intentions, and even employed similar devices; it’s possibly even more audience-unfriendly than _ **Showgirls** _. Does that make it a terrible movie? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2014, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-movie-showgirls-do-so-badly/704393/118 "2014-12-19T05:57:21Z")
Meh, “satire” is an easy label to affix, since it could apply to anything the claimant wants. For what it’s worth, _Showgirls_ didn’t make me hate myself or analyze myself or look inside myself or even touch myself much. Aside from being a little surprised to see Alan Rachins in a non-_L.A. Law_ role, I was kind of unaffected. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2014, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-movie-showgirls-do-so-badly/704393/119 "2014-12-19T05:57:40Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > Von Trier’s _ **Dancer in the Dark** _ had similar intentions, and even employed similar devices; it’s possibly even more audience-unfriendly than _ **Showgirls** _. Does that make it a terrible movie? No, the fact that it’s a terrible movie makes it a terrible movie. ---
**Author:** ![Mehak50](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/858c86/32.png) [@Mehak50](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mehak50)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2014, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-movie-showgirls-do-so-badly/704393/120 "2014-12-19T07:04:40Z")
The guy seen her as a groupie and him and his friends raped her… yes she was willing to have sex with HIM but not the others… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-movie-showgirls-do-so-badly/704393.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-movie-showgirls-do-so-badly/704393.md?page=7)