|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Worst movie ever?
|
Joe Redifer
unregistered
|
posted 05-30-1999 02:03 AM
What is the worst movie that you have ever had the pleasure to exhibit to an
audience? I think that perhaps mine was the recent "Godzilla". What a
disappointment, to say the very least. The movie was laughable and the sound,
well, it sucked too. I'm sure there are many other bad movies that I have shown,
but this one pops into memory first.
|
|
Brad Miller
unregistered
|
posted 05-30-1999 02:05 AM
Well, I'll have to agree with you on the Godzilla...but then anything put out by
Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin is a waste of film. Anyone ever see a 1969 film titled "I Drink Your Blood"? This is a 69 minute
p.o.s.! I'd have to say that was the WORST film I've ever ran anywhere. But on
the flip side, it was so bad it was hysterical with a large audience. As to the worst "business" film..."Another You" with Richard Pryor and Gene
Wilder gets top honors. The theater I was working at the time was an incredibly
busy 12 screen. We ran this movie for 3 people the entire 2 week run! After
Friday's turnout of two people for the 7:00 show (they walked out) we just left it
threaded, with instructions at the box office to call the booth should it sell a ticket.
On that last Thursday night, we actually had to run the film through again just so
we could break it down. Talk about bad bookings.
|
|
Greg Mueller
unregistered
|
posted 05-30-1999 02:05 AM
I'm not a exhibitor, but I love to watch the 50's type movies that were often so
bad, they were good. Probably the worst I can remember is "Fire Maidens From
Outer Space" far worse/better than Plan 9.
|
|
Brett Rankin
unregistered
|
posted 05-30-1999 02:06 AM
I do not (yet) work in the theater business and have limited knowledge of
distribution and printing. I just collect the films and watch them. How often (and
how many) 16mm reduction prints are made from today's movies? Why do they o
that, as 16mm is used so little as an exhibition medium? I saw a recent screening
of Jurassic Park at the local park (the screen was small, the picture dim, and the
sound nearly inaudible) and that had been the first I had seen of 16mm reductions.
Why bother?
|
|
Scott Norwood
unregistered
|
posted 05-30-1999 02:06 AM
It is true that most of the previous markets for 16mm (television, airlines, etc.) no
longer use that format. Still, the "non-theatrical" market is fairly constant and is
almost entirely dependent on 16mm (except for a few colleges/universities that
have 35mm equipment). I'd guess that fewer than 100 reduction prints are made
of any given title, but most titles with theatrical distribution of more than, say, 250
prints are available in 16mm. The quality of recent reductions is all over the place
though, and generally not up to the standards of the work done in the 1960s and
1970s. Just tonight, I ran "Shakespeare in Love" in 16mm...the print was beautiful
and they did a nice pan-and-scan job (the original was flat/1.85...I ran it many
times in 35mm) for that title. Unfortunately, though, the timing didn't match
between reels.
|
|
Brad Miller
unregistered
|
posted 05-30-1999 02:07 AM
OOOPS! Don't you mean 2.35 scope? What I want to know is why doesn't DTS step in and create 16mm digital? 16mm
wouldn't be so bad if they printed anamorphic with DTS digital. Just tonight, I ran "Shakespeare in Love" in 1
: 6mm...the print was beautiful and they did a nice pan-and-
: scan job (the original was flat/1.85...I ran it many times
: in 35mm) for that title. Unfortunately, though, the timi
: ng didn't match between reels.
|
|
Scott Norwood
unregistered
|
posted 05-30-1999 02:07 AM
: OOOPS! Don't you mean 2.35 scope? Yep...I was thinking of a different film.
Seriously, though, it didn't look half bad at 1.33. 16mm scope with DTS would be
great!
|
|
Joe Redifer
unregistered
|
posted 05-30-1999 02:07 AM
I have heard that DTS has a 16mm reader used for special venues. I have not
heard much else about it. This was at a time when they were bragging to be the
only provider of 70mm digital sound and the press release also mentioned
something about 16mm...I will post more if I find out more.
|
|
Chris Trainor
unregistered
|
posted 05-30-1999 02:08 AM
Most 16mm reductions are not meant for US distribution. They are mainly used in
smaller overseas venue's where shipping 35mm films is just really unpractacle.
|
|
|
|
Jim
unregistered
|
posted 05-30-1999 02:09 AM
Orgazmo takes the modern cake for a terrible film I had heard about and not
seen. I heard it was a knockout with kids doing the midnight tour in Salt Lake and
booked it on the blind. Watta Dog!! Poor production values, stupid story,
marginal acting and the whole thing more than semi-sucked. With a title like Orgazmo, what did I expect? Duh!
|
|
Brad Miller
unregistered
|
posted 05-30-1999 02:10 AM
I gotta disagree with you there. I can't remember the last time I laughed so hard at
a movie as Orgazmo. In recommending it to more than a dozen people, only one
came back with a negative report. It was "supposed" to be bad. That's half the
joke. If you went into it seriously, no wonder you hated it. Look who made
it...Trey Parker and Matt Stone, the Southpark guys. That's the biggest tipoff right
there.
So if your theater played it, did you get trailers???
|
|
Dave Pynchon
unregistered
|
posted 05-30-1999 02:10 AM
I believe that one of the worst movies was
called "50/50". It was distributed by Cannon Films. At the time I was working for
Cinemark. They were given no info on the film and no as slicks for advertising.
We called Cannon for Info and all that we spoke with there had no info and some
had no knowledge of the films existance. Exhibitionwize, I believe only a few
came for the week that it was there and they all left long before it was over. The
other film series that drove me bats wasfrom the 70's, the original Pippi
Longstockings series.
|
|
Brad Miller
unregistered
|
posted 05-30-1999 02:11 AM
"The other film series that drove me bats wasfrom the 70's,
the original Pippi Longstockings series." Yes, those were pretty bad. The ones I saw were shot silent and voices dubbed
over in the studio. They do get better if you misthread your lower loop. Make 'em
REALLY out of sync and it becomes just plain funny. That's great for those Hong
Kong films too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Plus, both prints we had at our theatre read
Printer-friendly view of this topic