|
In all seriousness, would you be willing to see a PG-13 movie if you heard rave reviews on it from other people who's opinions you respect ? Most likely.
To me it sounds as if Roth is trying to mix apple and oranges here. "If people don't support my movie, then there will be less rated 'R' movies" seems to be the sentiment when it should be "I made the movie I wanted to and people don't care for it". Don't blame the system you joined. I (and a lot of filmmakers I know) would love to have a $10 million dollar budget to work with. I know guys who have made better movies with much less who would sell their firstborn to have the money and opportunities that Roth has gotten.
It's unfortunate that video piracy has become an issue as he pointed out, however word still gets around on a movie (even an unfinished one). If the buzz on it is bad to begin with, no fx are gonna bring in an audience. Fans of it will still see it and more than likely buy the DVD. Yes, filmmaking is a business and if you want those dollars, I guess you should make a better product.
When Tarantino was asked about the feature length version of 'Deathproof' being restored, all he mentioned was adding the missing lapdance scene. WTF ? How does adding something that insignifigant going to make the rest of the movie better all around ? (For those of you who would say "at least then there'd be something watchable in it", yeah, yeah, yeah. Very funny :rolleyes: ). Another indie movie infamously spammed everywhere claimed it's release was not well received because the studio insisted on cutting out so much of the gore that will appear in a later, uncut version (not that any of the supposedly cut scenes added a story, depth or better acting mind you). There's always porn and the 'Guinea Pig' series for my money. If I step into a theater, I would expect more of a plot, not excuses afterwards. Especially when a rating has nothing to do with it.
|