poor guy

[MisterSadistro]

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.

[Demonique]

I did my part. I hate theatres and haven't been to one in three years, yet I went to H2 last week. I enjoyed it. I thought it was funny and laughed through most of it. That likely makes me a sick little puppy but whatever. I went because I wanted to - not because Mr. Roth whined me into going.

[The Holy Ghost]

i'm also in the minority when it comes to likin Cabin Fever :D

[alkytrio666]

Originally Posted by MisterSadistro

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.

Couldn't agree more.

Is it really better to have a lousy 'R' rated horror movie over a decent 'PG-13' one? No; I'm not going to go see a movie because the filmmaker threatens the existance of good horror movies due to his sequel.

[jenna26]

Originally Posted by MisterSadistro

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.

Of course I would see a PG-!3 rated movie if I heard good things, I often see them when I don't, same goes with R rated films. But there was obviously interest in the film. If people satisfied their curiousity about the film without paying for it, that's wrong. Meaning if took any money away from what the movie may have made that's wrong. In my opinion.

And I don't necessarily believe that someone that liked the movie, and would have been satisfied with the film had they been a paying movie goer, would have paid 7 more dollars to see it the theaters. For example, I saw Pirates of the Caribbean 3 in the local theater. I really enjoyed, liked it better than the second one. May one day even own it, maybe not. But if I had seen a copy, even a rougher copy before it hit the theaters, I wouldn't have been likely to pay that money to see it again. I would have paid to see something else.

Movies ARE being watered down to get a larger audience. The latest Die Hard being a prime example; the other films are rated R, yet, now I hear they are releasing another sequel that is PG-13. Why would they do that? The only thing I can figure is that they didn't think an R rated film would have brought in nearly as much money, well reviewed or not. Every single time I make my way to the theaters, it seems like most of the people there are under 15, or they are parents with their kids that are all under 15. It seems like most people of a certain age in many areas just don't go to movies anymore......its too expensive for someone that has bills to pay, or they are just fed up with rude people and other annoyances, they are more comfortable at home, or they have a better entertainment system at home. Hostel 2 aside, people aren't getting out as much and supporting more sophisticated or more "adult" fare, at least not in the areas I have lived, so maybe I am wrong. But ratings do have something to do with it when they are deliberately aiming to make films, particularly horror films, that have violent, or adult themes "kid-friendly". The quality of the film then suffers.

And having a "better" product doesn't guarantee that people will see your film, not matter what the rating is. There are many, many quality films that completely bomb at the box office. Just because people aren't seeing a film, that doesn't necessarily tell me that the movie is bad. I have heard bad things about Hostel 2, and I have heard good things. And I will see it, I will rent it when it hits DVD. I might have even gone to see it in the theater......but its not playing in the area......two PG rated films are. I might even drive to the next theater that is playing more films.....it wasn't playing there either, never opened there or here. What a shock.

So yes, I do think the man has a point. There are less and less hard hitting horror films being released these days. Hostel 2 very well may have bombed without piracy, but hey, it deserved the chance.....like I said, it obviously generated interest. Or people wouldn't have bothered to seek it out. But no I don't pity him, and it is a business.....you win some, you lose some. And he's learning that.