Inco said:
Basically just this-
It has my vote by a long shot after the first paragraph, oh and contains spoilers.
Well, the
concept of Moonwalker is entire sane. "Michael Jackson is popular. We want to make a lot of money just having him in a film, any film". However, I will entirely agree that the plot is entirely off the rails.
Kpt._Rob said:
Halloween III: Season of the Witch. Remember, Michael Myers, the killer in all the Halloween movies? Well he isn't in Halloween III. Why?
The plot to Season of the Witch is terrible, I agree. The choice to not use Myers, however, is the only thing that really makes sense is here; John Carpenter decided early on that Michael Myers was to be the bad guy of Halloween, and no more movies. The idea apparently was to have a new bad guy for each of the movies. After the smashing success of Halloween, Carpenter probably realized he -had- to bring Myers back for an encore. By the time Halloween III was made, the original concept of new bad guys was attempted. Needless to say, it turned into one of the worst dogs of horror cinema history. Or, at least, that's what I've heard.
Fraught said:
Only that the movie's budget was 20,000,000$, and the gross revenue it garnered was 34,816,824$. That seems like a success for the infamous duo Friedberg & Seltzer (though a lot smaller than their previous movies, yeah).
Well, while I wouldn't call that bombing, and while I realize this sounds absurd, an income shy of fifteen million dollars is very modest for Hollywood standards. For comparison, the other movies in the same "series" regularly draws in $50-60 million dollars, when the budget has been subtracted. Keep in mind that it's not about breaking even, or making a bit of money. It's about making more money than the movie they passed on to do
Disaster Movie. Compared to what it should've been, the movie did perform unsuccessfully. Movie revenues are very much relative. Of course, it's not
Gigli (It -lost- 47 million), but then again, what is?