What exactly makes studios think, "Oh boy, let me just release this subpar movie"?
money laundering
>>87086117
Define "subpar"
>>87087231
Poorly made
The hundreds of thousands they put into market research that tells them it will be profitable anyway because the pleb majority will eat it up, and they're right 90+% of the time
It's like commercials that don't seem to market to anyone, you watch it thinking there's no way this will generate revenue but it cost so much to put on there's not a snowballs chance they would go to all that trouble without a guarantee it would make returns
>>87087235
define poorly made
Because they've already spent the money on production and the only way to make that money back is by releasing it in theatres. What a stupid fucking question.
>>87087231
>supar
>
>overpar
>
>par
>
>below par
>
>subpar
>>87086117
That is not a question for studios, the only question is : will it make money ?
>>87086117
>Will I get money out of this?
>How much money have we wasted so far?
>>87087288
YOU are stupid.
The question is why do they make them in the first place?
>>87087464
fuck off , doggo
>>87087487
>>87087550
but why a shit film??
>>87086117
Everything has its demographic, even Adam Sandler comedies
>>87087264
Not well made
>>87087665
it does not matter if its trash as long as it make money, studios are not artist and dont give a shit about quality.
They make money off it. Tax loopholes 'n all that jazz
Probably the fact that a lot of money has already been spent to make it so they might as well release it in an attempt to make some of that money back.
>>87087910
>t. socialist
Guess what? The studio heads need to have taste. They're artists, too. They don't just balance the books or manage people. A person who only knows how to make films couldn't run a company worth shit.
>>87088019
The question is, why greenlight a shitty thing in the first place?
>>87088036
t.capitalist you mean
>>87086117
Opportunity cost.
The time and money it costs to make a better movie is time and money they want elsewhere. Namely churning our other sub par movies
>>87088036
Why are you denying the answer you're looking for? Shit is released because either
>its a cashgrab
>they presume its good but theyre wrong
What do you want?
>>87088036
Sometimes they don't know it'll be shitty. Maybe a lot of shitty movies sounded good on paper, but ended up being executed poorly.
I'm asking why they make shitty decisions
>>87088102
nope
>>87088320
>they presume its good but theyre wrong
this
>>87086117
"may as well try to earn back some of the money so it's not a complete loss."
>>87090501
why the fuck did they make it in the first place
>>87086117
What exactly makes OP think, "Oh boy, let me just hand in this subpar paper"?
>>87086117
What were you thinking when you made this subpar thread?
>>87091223
blind optimism, yesmen underlings who think every idea is spectacular, political/social agenda (eg Miss Sloane, Ghostbusters) with rich backers ramming it through, test audiences who are pants on head retarded and/or also support a particular agenda, etc
take your pick or choose all
would you want to be in the credits of a movie regardless of if it was bad?
>>87091299
>>87091267
this is a subpar meme
>>87091464
>bad
subpar
>>87087235
But most of the films released by big studios nowadays are well made.
They're just shitty films.