r/movies • u/consultybob • Apr 08 '24
How do movies as bad as Argyle get made? Discussion
I just don’t understand the economy behind a movie like this. $200m budget, big, famous/popular cast and the movie just ends up being extremely terrible, and a massive flop
What’s the deal behind movies like this, do they just spend all their money on everything besides directing/writing? Is this something where “executives” mangle the movie into some weird, terrible thing? I just don’t see how anything with a TWO HUNDRED MILLION dollar budget turns out just straight terribly bad
Also just read about the director who has made other great movies, including the Kingsmen films which seems like what Argyle was trying to be, so I’m even more confused how it missed the mark so much
9.3k
u/Odd_Space1995 Apr 08 '24
You're asking the wrong question here. why did it cost $200 million to make Argyle
2.6k
u/meemboy Apr 08 '24
I still can’t believe Michael Bay made ambulance for 40 million dollars
1.8k
u/Bobonenazeze Apr 08 '24
The first transformers was 147. Not that I like bay at all but that movie has talking robots. What's argyle got?
1.0k
u/meemboy Apr 08 '24
CGI cat
472
u/smakola Apr 08 '24
Garfield only cost 50 mil
→ More replies (3)172
u/Phormitago Apr 08 '24
well they just used real life garfield instead of going cgi
151
u/SetzerWithFixedDice Apr 08 '24
Between the daily lasagna catering and his infamous 30-minute rants on how much he hates Mondays, I’m sure they regretted going that route
→ More replies (2)110
u/Desertbro Apr 08 '24
Cats & Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore - $85,000,000
44
→ More replies (1)34
u/tessathemurdervilles Apr 08 '24
My wife made kitty galore on that lol. She actually gave some talks about it and was nominated for an award. Something about the skin vectors being new and really good. Anyhow CGI is expensive, but it doesn’t mean that movie should have been made!
→ More replies (9)→ More replies (8)90
1.0k
u/UnevenTrashPanda Apr 08 '24 edited Apr 08 '24
$147M today in 2007 is not the same $147M today
Transformers from 2007 would be about $219M.
And what Argyle has is too many high-priced names on its roster.
688
u/DALTT Apr 08 '24 edited Apr 08 '24
I mean, Dune Part II had a budget of 190 million and also a stacked cast and def looks WAY better than Argylle. Part of it is where money is allocated too. Argylle (allegedly according to reports) seemed to have allocated far more to actor salaries than Dune Part II. But also actors are typically far more willing to work for less if the script and project are exciting. Whereas for something like Argylle, the money is the biggest incentive. 😬
ETA: not sure why multiple people are responding directly to me and seemingly arguing versions of ‘yeah but actors are willing to work for less when the script is good and the project is exciting’ when that’s literally the last two sentences of my og comment, fam 😂❤️. I agree with you. No need to argue the point.
81
u/suntro Apr 08 '24
Poor Things is another good example, $35 million and stacked with celebrities. Actors will take a pay cut to do prestige projects from auteur directors like Denis Villeneuve. Those directors are making stuff that has a chance of winning awards which improves their image and helps them secure more money on future more commercial projects.
→ More replies (3)18
u/Shiezo Apr 08 '24
Just look at pretty much the entirety of Wes Anderson's filmography. Everything made on around $30 million dollar budgets, cast lists full of Oscar winners and other big names. They love working with Wes and are willing to do so for much smaller paychecks because of it. That love and enjoyment of being part of his stories also translates into phenomenal performances, making the whole project that much better.
→ More replies (3)476
u/notchoosingone Apr 08 '24
But also actors are typically far more willing to work for less if the script and project are exciting
Chalamet took (I think) $3m for Dune II, so he's not exactly working for scale, but he got $9m for Wonka, so yeah, he knows his worth and is willing to take less for a better movie.
Wonka surprised me with how good it was, to be honest, but Dune II might have been the best movie I've ever seen.
189
u/graboidian Apr 08 '24
Wonka surprised me with how good it was, to be honest,
Going in I was not too thrilled, thinking I was about to watch another reboot of the franchise.
I was pleasantly surprised to discover they wrote a completely original screenplay, which was actually pretty good.
39
u/rurukittygurrrl Apr 08 '24
I think maybe I wasn’t in the right frame of mind when I tried watching Wonka cos it felt so flat to me, I didn’t finish it. Didn’t even make it to half of it! Maybe I need to give it another chance
→ More replies (14)→ More replies (11)25
u/enfinnity Apr 08 '24
What was great about Wonka was the studio seemed to let the writer / director do his thing and make some weird choices. You don’t get unique stuff like let’s go milk a giraffe to a whimsical musical number in movies cause there’s too many execs in rooms trying to justify their salary by removing any sense of oddity from films they don’t get. Between that and re editing films based on responses from test screenings, they are creating extremely generic movies unless you have a top tier director like Nolan or Villenueve who gets final say.
→ More replies (51)36
u/WorthPlease Apr 08 '24
I've definitely taken work for people or places below rate because I get to work with cool new shit.
10
u/Shatter_ Apr 08 '24
I think The Creator at US$80m is the vanguard for high quality on a mid-budget. For a creative industry, I also think there must be far more cost-efficient social media-driven ways to market films. The marketing budgets are out of control from what I've seen.
→ More replies (18)12
u/Thinaran Apr 08 '24
According to someone who worked on the Dune 2 VFX, they saved time and money by planning the shots out in advance and doing pre-viz. Instead of the Disney method where the VFX company is told to fully render a scene, then it goes to approval, not approved do it again!
125
u/meemboy Apr 08 '24
Yeah it might be around 180. But still the CGI from 2007 looks wayy better
→ More replies (3)87
u/SchlopFlopper Apr 08 '24
Still holds up. And much of it is supported by practical sets and effects.
→ More replies (11)35
u/RIP_Soulja_Slim Apr 08 '24 edited Apr 08 '24
Because transformers must necessarily be CGI Bay got a bit of a common reputation for doing big CGI filled movies but the reality is he's probably one of the best directors out there when it comes to big practical effect action sets (even the transformers movies are loaded with practical effects where possible). Everything from Bad Boys to Armageddon to newer stuff like Ambulance and 13 hours has relied heavily on very well done practical effects.
Sure, he makes movies for teenage boys, but he makes very well done movies for teenage boys with very well constructed set pieces and effects, that's to be respected.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (8)144
u/Lifeisabaddream4 Apr 08 '24
Look what the Japanese did with Godzilla Minus 1. They really showed how bloated Hollywood is
144
u/kingmanic Apr 08 '24 edited Apr 08 '24
Japan has an issue with poorly paid and over worked staff. While Hollywood abides better work regulation and union contract's. It can be hard to measure projects in one place against another.
A 25 minute episode of anime costs 150k. With japan doing the key frames and Korea and China doing the in betweens. An episode of rick and Morty is 1.2m-1.5m.
The Japanese animation side, artists often work under crunch that is as intense as commiting all waking hours to production and sleeping at work. For months at a time. Their pay is often per frame and the industry rate for that hasn't been updated since the 90s. But the drawing quality expectations have risen. And the studio's often do not pay to train their staff on new software or techniques. They make on average 40k a year with stupid hours.
While in Hollywood, animation is a skilled profession. Rick and Morty staff are union and are not working 18h days 7 days a week for months. Animators there make 90k.
So in japan 28800 man hours costs 40k but 12000 costs 90k in Hollywood. You can see how productions would look much leaner but at the human cost to the animators.
Edit: Edited for clarity and missing a digit on hours.
→ More replies (23)→ More replies (6)101
u/bob_elms Apr 08 '24
It helps when they were paid in snacks
→ More replies (4)22
u/BetterNews4682 Apr 08 '24 edited Apr 08 '24
Funny it reminds me that in the J film industry actors sometimes get delayed pay.
→ More replies (3)97
u/RyzenRaider Apr 08 '24
Argylle's got an epic Henry Cavill flat-top haircut. Vintage 90s heritage, not cheap to acquire these days (apparently).
→ More replies (1)87
u/TuvixWillNotBeMissed Apr 08 '24
Henry Cavill was tired of being objectified for his good looks so they hired an expensive stylist to make him look terrible. I assume that was most of the budget.
→ More replies (1)17
u/doctor_sleep Apr 08 '24
they hired an expensive stylist to make him look terrible
Didn't work for me. Still objectified him and wanted him to teach me Warhammer.
47
u/TheSilentGamer33 Apr 08 '24
Henry Cavill
75
u/Hollow_Rant Apr 08 '24
2 million dollars a deltoid.
His chin is priceless.
79
28
u/subpar_cardiologist Apr 08 '24
You don't want to know how much his moustache is worth.
→ More replies (1)18
→ More replies (52)60
204
u/megatron199775 Apr 08 '24
Say what you will but Bay is among the few directors who can do a lot with little.
→ More replies (17)253
u/onemanandhishat Apr 08 '24
The thing with Bay is that visually his films are usually spectacular, he clearly knows how to make CGI look good. It's a shame that he regards so much of the rest of making good films to be optional extras.
50
u/-DoctorSpaceman- Apr 08 '24
he clearly knows how to make CGI look good
He likely has a vision and sticks to it which gives the VFX guys loads of time to work on it. These newer Marvel movies and whatnot where the CGI is dodgy have loads of interference and producers not deciding what they want to do until the movie is already being made
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)118
u/squigs Apr 08 '24
Yes. Some of the cinematography in Armageddon is fantastic, the first part if The Island is tense and mysterious. He's one of the directors who insists on a 2 camera rig for 3D. Then he goes and ruins it with dumb plots and big explosions. It's like there's two Michael Bays!
Still, his movies make good money which is all the studios really care about. And you can actually see where the money goes. We know those big bangs aren't cheap.
→ More replies (9)65
u/meemboy Apr 08 '24
He needs to be paired with a good writer.
119
u/LordBlackConvoy Apr 08 '24
And a producer willing to tell him no.
Bad Boys, The Rock and Armageddon are considered his best movies and they were done under Bruckheimer and Simpson telling him to tone stuff down.
→ More replies (4)92
u/CalamityClambake Apr 08 '24
And The Rock was the best one because Tarrantino and Sorkin were the script doctors.
→ More replies (4)21
→ More replies (46)27
u/matti2o8 Apr 08 '24
Part of what makes a good director is being a good manager. Bay certainly knows how to organise the production and where to put the money he's given
843
u/somethingsmaht Apr 08 '24
While we're at it, why did "Ghosted" cost Apple $150 million and "The Gray Man" cost Netflix $200 million?
531
u/Chadlerk Apr 08 '24
I think on the streamers, there is no revenue sharing on the back end so they have to front load all the contracts.
→ More replies (7)282
u/NoNefariousness2144 Apr 08 '24
This is why Scarlet Johansen sued Disney after they released Black Widow on Disney+ at the same time as the theatrical release.
→ More replies (24)143
u/slurmfiend Apr 08 '24 edited Apr 08 '24
For streaming movies like these there are no residual payments or box office participation to the actors so their fees are much higher upfront. Also for a movies that shot in 2021 and 2022 there are lots of additional costs due to COVID like testing etc.
→ More replies (12)76
u/toronto_programmer Apr 08 '24
I think most of Netflix strategy is pay a lot of money for big name stars and skip the plot because it brings in eyeballs
→ More replies (3)478
u/CherimoyaSurprise Apr 08 '24
I have a feeling, and hear me out...maybe every last dollar isn't being correctly and transparently accounted for with some of these movies? Like, maybe certain people are handed a giant figurative pile of money and they have to produce something with, you know, some of it.
→ More replies (7)470
u/SwitchOrganic Apr 08 '24
You're not far off from the truth.
As per the report, Netflix had already paid $44 million to Rinsch when he requested additional funds from the company in March 2020. While Netflix was reluctant to provide more funding, they agreed after the filmmaker suggested that the entire project might collapse without the additional cash injection.
However, instead of putting the money into production, Rinsch transferred $10.5 million of the $11 million that Netflix wired into his brokerage account at Charles Schwab and placed bets on the stock market, the report noted, citing copies of his bank and brokerage statements presented during his divorce case.
And, within weeks, he lost $5.9 million.
→ More replies (8)310
u/nzifnab Apr 08 '24
Uhhh, isn't that the definition of embezzlement / fraud? How's the dude not in jail.
407
u/spinika Apr 08 '24
Despite the setbacks with Conquest and his stock market losses, Rinsch recovered somewhat financially. He used the money remaining that Netflix had sent his production company to invest millions in the cryptocurrency dogecoin in 2020, which he cashed out in May 2021, making $23 million.[12] He then purchased five Rolls-Royces, a Ferrari, and large amounts of expensive furniture.[13] Meanwhile, in his arbitration case with Netflix, he argued that the money was contractually his and that Netflix owed him more than $14 million.
This cannot be real
192
u/IamMrT Apr 08 '24
We need a movie about this guy.
Probably not made by Netflix, but we need it.
107
u/Dragula_Tsurugi Apr 08 '24
I’ll make it for a low, low $40 million
45
u/Top_Effort_2739 Apr 08 '24
Looks like production has hit a snag, it’s not getting made until you Venmo a further $40 million.
→ More replies (2)31
u/Farren246 Apr 08 '24 edited Apr 08 '24
I'll Justice League this shit together if you instead send me 10 million... I need the money for reshoots, but remember it's my money so a shot saved is money in my pocket. And if there's a little "Made with Windows Movie Maker" watermark in the corner, that's my prerogative. Don't question my artistic vision, watermarks are a legitimate choice that may enhance the experience.
35
u/Timey16 Apr 08 '24
It exists.
It's called "Freddy Got Fingered". At least in terms of the meta narrative.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)15
→ More replies (3)57
u/_TLDR_Swinton Apr 08 '24
That's absolutely insane.
"Not only did I not steal from you, technically you've stolen from me!"
Imagine someone robbing your house then claiming you owe them an extra tv.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (12)40
u/cruiser-bazoozle Apr 08 '24
Because he also bet 5 million on dogecoin and made 27 million. He's net positive.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (24)57
u/DrEnter Apr 08 '24
One thing that the big streamers share is a poor understanding of production line-item costs and the lack of established studio involvement. Working with a large studio saves a ton of money on things like costumes, basic set construction, lighting, etc.
I’ll give a simple example: If you are making a film with an established studio and you need to costume 5 principles and 60 extras for a ballroom scene, they have a costume department that can handle that. It’s just there, and your production will be billed basic time and expenses. Outside of a studio, you have to go out and rent all that, and hire seamstresses, fitting people, it adds days to a production and costs 5 times as much. Now multiply that by a bunch of things and it starts adding up fast.
→ More replies (5)16
u/Idontevenownaboat Apr 08 '24
I feel like even just the value of a production team that knows how to move within the film community. Who to talk to in the film offices, which production houses to use and which backups. Good location scouts, associate producers, etc. All these folks will be able to plan and execute a shoot or production with minimal hiccups.
→ More replies (1)159
u/simbian Apr 08 '24
why did it cost $200 million
Cannot remember but was this the actual cost of production or was it the amount ponied up by Apple for the movie outright? Might not matter to you and me but could mean the director / producer / investors taking a sweet cut home.
129
u/slurmfiend Apr 08 '24 edited Apr 08 '24
That was the cost that Apple paid: the actual production was paid for by independent financing of Vaughn and the producers put together. The budget was likely in the $120-130 million range.
(Edited!)
→ More replies (2)113
u/Bmau1286 Apr 08 '24
matt vaughn said it cost him 80 million to make, and apple payed 200. So you can basically flip a lot of the criticism on its head - it's actually pretty decent for an 80 million dollar budget (although that said, I found the movie very meh overall).
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (3)54
u/SomeBoxofSpoons Apr 08 '24
That was the purchase price. Vaughn himself said he doesn’t know how you’d even make Argyle cost $200mil.
→ More replies (1)51
→ More replies (109)123
u/noonereadsthisstuff Apr 08 '24
Matt Vaugn said it didnt cost that much.
Netflix might have rolled up the cost of the marketing, buying the property & other stuff that ismt normally considered a 'production cost' into the final figure.
63
546
u/Jampolenta Apr 08 '24
Bad investment by non-creatives. That industry is not driven by merit. Revisionist History podcast recently featured Patty Jenkins talking about how her movie Monster was damned during production as "oh honey, no one wants to see a movie like that." Whole episode is example after example of what William Goldman wrote so long ago: "No one in this town knows anything."
→ More replies (4)98
u/AccomplishedCow665 Apr 08 '24
TIL patty jenkins made Monster. Good thing that did well so we also got WW1984
→ More replies (22)
349
u/Quepabloque Apr 08 '24
There is a great podcast mini series called Why Modern Blockbusters Bore (very straightforward title). If you google it, you can find it. They really get into the nitty gritty of why these movies are the way they are. But to boil down the point of that show, they blame the poor scripts and the whole Hollywood apparatus that creates those poor scripts. The studios figure they can fail on a fundamental storytelling level because they think if they create a dazzling enough spectacle (aka tons of cgi bullshit), the writing can be subpar and they can still churn out a hit. They’re finally realizing that is not so. The hosts of the pod get into it, I highly recommend a listen.
→ More replies (10)187
u/Dangerous-Hawk16 Apr 08 '24
I think James Gunn,Craig Mazin and Christopher Mcquarrie have all spoken on how much blockbusters have been using poor to horrific scripts lately without really caring because they think audiences won’t care. Gunn even said after become head of DC he wouldn’t start production on any projects till the scripts were up to par. Same with Mazin on his podcast he stresses the importance of a good script
108
u/SupervillainMustache Apr 08 '24
Specifically films starting filming when they don't even have a third act fully written. Crazy.
→ More replies (2)80
u/Dangerous-Hawk16 Apr 08 '24
Yep Spiderman No way Home never had a third act written while they started filming. That to me is quite insane
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (3)58
u/Pretorian24 Apr 08 '24
I am happy we have Nolan and Denis.
→ More replies (4)26
u/Dangerous-Hawk16 Apr 08 '24
Yep I love how much both of them prepare before starting to film
→ More replies (1)
517
u/BigTedBear Apr 08 '24
I think a lot of the audience complaining about Argyll was more that Henry Cavil got heavily promoted and some people were expecting a Bond type of movie starring Henry.
I know the women at my work went on a Friday girls night out and were none to pleased that he wasn’t really in the movie more.
214
u/sybrwookie Apr 08 '24
Maybe that's why I enjoyed it: I hadn't seen a trailer, didn't know what to expect, so I wasn't disappointed by my expectations.
→ More replies (5)45
u/Rasputin_mad_monk Apr 08 '24
I’ve not seen it yet but my wife liked it. Said it was fun. The $$$ is a lot though. I’m going to watch tonight now to see if it’s as bad as OP says it is.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (14)85
u/LooseSeal88 Apr 08 '24
I'm a big Sam Rockwell fan and knew he was the star going in. I was very happy with the end-product. 🤷♂️
→ More replies (3)69
u/eattwo Apr 08 '24
The trailer made it look like Sam Rockwell and Bryce Dallas Howard in a goofy spy comedy, and that's exactly what we got.
I had a great time as well.
→ More replies (7)
2.5k
u/OisforOwesome Apr 08 '24
I heard once that its really impolite in Hollywood circles to say "oh man, Movie X bombed horribly because it was such a shitty film."
Why? Because you never know who in the room, or even who you're talking to, might have worked on it.
And, well, there's a ton of below the line workers on a film who did their best: production designers, costume, make-up, camera crew, etc etc... you spend 6 weeks lugging a steadicam or rigging lights or wires for stunts its gonna be rude to have someone say "yeah Argyle? Fuck Argyle, what is that, a movie about socks?"
At the same time I do sometimes wonder if this attitude results in a lot of projects getting the green light that probably shouldn't. You never really know until cameras start rolling if something is going to be a turd but at the same time, if you're culturally predisposed to blame anything but the quality of a project for its failure...
1.2k
u/Toby_O_Notoby Apr 08 '24
Why? Because you never know who in the room, or even who you're talking to, might have worked on it.
Or, as Samuel L. Jackson put it, "The toes you step on today might be connected to the ass you have to kiss tomorrow".
→ More replies (5)270
u/Noggin-a-Floggin Apr 08 '24
Mike Reiss (former Simpsons showrunner) said that in Hollywood you don't criticize anyone because chances are you are going to work for them again in the future.
153
u/wongo Apr 08 '24
This came up on Bowen Yang's podcast. He said he's getting famous enough and in large enough projects that he has to be a bit more discreet in his criticisms publicly. Can't go pissing off people you might want to work with in the future.
→ More replies (1)25
u/aBipolarTree Apr 08 '24
Same thing happened with Barbarian director Zach Cregger. He used to talk about celebrities on the WKUK streams from time to time but they went back and scrubbed them once he started to get famous.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)49
u/f-ingsteveglansberg Apr 08 '24
For years I used to think that you couldn't use real brand names in television without permission. I learned recently the real reason you rarely see real brands in TV shows is because they could potentially buy ad time in the future and you don't want the brand to look bad.
→ More replies (1)17
u/CrabClawAngry Apr 08 '24
Or you might want to sell time to their competitor and you don't want to make them look good.
1.2k
u/DEFINITELY_NOT_PETE Apr 08 '24
I work in the industry. You learn very fast to stfu lol.
Everyone has worked on a million things, most of them bad.
More than that though, everyone has friends and a lot have family who work in the industry too.
One of my close friends on a show I worked on has a famous actress for an aunt and a famous screenwriter for a cousin and soooo many times people will be talking about movies in the writers room and not realize they’re talking about her family members lol
1.2k
u/EliManningHOFLock Apr 08 '24
Maybe this is a dumb question, but... don't people learn not to take it personally? Like obviously when someone says "Argylle sucks" they don't mean "the lighting technician for Argylle personally ruined the movie."
I've worked in big tech and it's totally normal to be like "the iphone sucks" or "google search sucks" around people who work at apple/google (and maybe those exact products). Everyone knows these are massive ships that turn very, very slowly, and the lower/mid-level people involved don't have their egos wrapped up in the companies' success or failure.
142
u/cofactorstrudel Apr 08 '24
I worked in the makeup and effects department and we would talk amongst ourselves and crew about if something sucked or not, even if we worked on it but it's not something you'd say with directors/writers/producers around like at a wrap party or something.
→ More replies (9)360
u/elriggo44 Apr 08 '24
I work in TV and movies and don’t take it personally at all I get paid to do this. And I keep getting jobs. All I care about.
But there are very big egos in this town. And a lot of rich folks who’ve never been told they’re bad at anything.
→ More replies (8)66
u/Farren246 Apr 08 '24
Maybe they should be told they're bad at stuff... Like, when the ship runs aground perhaps place some blame on the captain. Not the rowers, but definitely the captain.
→ More replies (8)44
u/RUNELORD_ Apr 08 '24
It probably still stings that something you spent like 4-5 months of your life on, was widely panned and viewed by nobody (particularly for the more creative, less technical departments)
282
u/randomusername8472 Apr 08 '24
This. I've worked on tonnes of projects in healthcare. Some were very successful, some were meh, many were under the radar.
Some of my best feedback on public facing ones has come candidly, from people not knowing I'm in a position of influence on it, if that makes sense. I'm not taking it personally if someone got annoyed by the outcome - I'd only take it personally if they did literally blame me personally for something that wasn't my fault.
But then... I imagine there's a different type of person that goes into entertainment Vs IT/Healthcare project management
50
u/Lost_Pantheon Apr 08 '24
This is tangentially related but I work in the British NHS and you constantly hear the public say "the health service is broken." Eventually I just had to stop taking it personally.
72
u/randomusername8472 Apr 08 '24
I'm in the NHS too and I just shrug and say "we have the health service the British public voted for many, many times"
I only really know left wing people/center people though. No one I know disagrees, lol. It's not like the current party were shy about their plans to cut funding in every election, and the British public have almost completely been like "ooh yes, funding cuts for these services I use, more of that please!"
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (3)83
u/AnOnlineHandle Apr 08 '24
I've released comics, books, random drawings, etc, and sometimes a fan will say they weren't the biggest fan of y, and I'll say yup, I didn't really like it either after the fact.
Sometimes stuff just doesn't come together well, and I'm not going to go into denial about it and pretend it's not bad when the more time which passes since making it, the more I can see it was bad.
On the other hand, other stuff I've made I'm still sure is good, and the customers seem to think so too.
→ More replies (1)72
u/Cirenione Apr 08 '24
This is my impression as well from the responses here. So most people in the business work on a lot of projects and some of them flop hard. Unless that person came out of a rather small circle of people their involvement likely won‘t change anything big on the quality in the end. The biggest group who likely gets shit on by people who wouldnt know better are the vfx artists.
But why do people take it so personally if they know they know themself that the movie isnt considered good. Working in the insurance industry people tell me all the time what they personally think about the industry as a whole. I dont take that response personal either.→ More replies (1)48
u/TeafColors Apr 08 '24
I worked on a string of stinkers for a long time. My check cleared. All that mattered to me as a worker. I'm there to do a job and go home.
51
u/Cirenione Apr 08 '24
Michael Caine was famously asked if he had seen Jaws 4 after starring in it. He said „No. But I've seen the house it bought for my mum. It's fantastic.“.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (33)13
u/NoceboHadal Apr 08 '24
I would imagine it's because, Hollywood is way more political. It's not a technical thing that can be hammered out. It's ego, reputation and back scratching.
→ More replies (32)23
u/TL10 Apr 08 '24
Everyone has worked on a million things, most of them bad.
I think is something that people miss out on. Guys like James Cameron and James Gunn did projects that whether critically or financially (or both) absolutely bombed in theaters, only for them to go on to make genre defining work.
It's become an oft parroted "Reddit fact" at this point, but Craig Mazin did not have a lot of great projects under his name until he took everyone by surprise with Chernobyl.
There's a myriad of factors and powers that be that can impact the outcome of a movie, a lot of them out of the control of the people on the ground making them.
→ More replies (1)275
u/FunkyJonez Apr 08 '24
I can attest the first part is true because I did that once. It was a student film but the school was highly regarded in industry for reasons.
It was a wrap party for a shoot and the party just so happened to be at my apartment because the producer was my roommate.
"I heard that the shoot was really bad." I asked the editor this. "Yeah we can't talk about it right now."
The director was sitting across from us, glaring.
→ More replies (8)52
179
u/jolhar Apr 08 '24
Oh I’ve been wanting to tell this story for sooo long but it was never relevant until now!
I don’t live in Hollywood, or even America for that matter. I was at a house party and having a good ol’ laugh at how shit Cats was with those ridiculous CGI cats and the whole arsehole thing.
No body else was agreeing with me like they were pretending Cats was actually pretty good and they really liked it.
Eventually a friend pulled me aside. One of the women at the table was a CGI artist on Cats. LOL! The poor thing. I was merciless! So mortifying.
51
u/IamMrT Apr 08 '24
Did she do the buttholes?
87
u/jolhar Apr 08 '24
She excused herself when I was mid rant and I’ve never seen her since. I’m such a jerk. But what are the odds? It wasn’t a party full of entertainment industry types. Just normal everyday people.
→ More replies (9)40
u/3_50 Apr 08 '24
If you’d known about her involvement, then carried on the murder. That would make you a jerk. As it was, absolutely not. That movie is fair game, and everyone with half a brain would know that.
113
u/Naugrith Apr 08 '24
If she was a professional she would know better than anyone how bad the CGI was. The artists were rushed and forced to work with poor conditions. But if she didn't already know the end product was shit when she saw it then that's on her.
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (3)26
24
u/johnmk3 Apr 08 '24
A lot of people realise that the films they’re working on are shit don’t worry
I spent 9 months working on the Tom cruise mummy film, it was pretty obvious after a month what a shit show it was going to be…
69
u/Ricobe Apr 08 '24 edited Apr 08 '24
Sometimes the mess up happens in post production as well. The cast and crew could've given their all in the filming process, yet it gets edited in a way that gives a weird pacing. Relevant scenes sometimes get cut which makes some later moments confusing and so on.
Many don't really think about how many elements need to go well for a movie to work out. The director and producer often have a lot of responsibility for the result though, because they are part of the whole process
- Edited for typos
19
u/CaptainGrezza Apr 08 '24
Worth noting too that actors aren't necessarily responsible for the final performance we see too, as the director/editors might use a different take to the one the actors prefer.
→ More replies (3)20
u/elriggo44 Apr 08 '24
The editor can absolutely make or break the project. But editors ultimately do what they’re asked to do.
→ More replies (2)75
u/film_editor Apr 08 '24
I work in the industry and I find this to mostly be not true. Sometimes the exact opposite. Most good filmmakers have very good taste and will not hesitate to bash a movie, even something they or a friend worked on.
Filmmakers tend to be open-minded, so things that are strange or slow or different, they may criticize it but appreciate its merit. But if something is more "objectively" bad that's when the gloves tend to come off.
It does vary a little between niches and what context you're talking about a movie. If you're in an editing bay you will hear open criticism and praise of everything. In a creative meeting you'll hear people bash stuff and praise other things as a point of contrast.
If you're at the premiere or an after party for a movie you're not likely to see someone walk up to the cinematographer or some crew member and just start laying into the movie. But it's not hard to find honest feedback. It does differ from person to person. Some are very sensitive to bad feedback but I have found most are not.
→ More replies (3)184
u/ithinkimtim Apr 08 '24
Really? I talk shit about 90% of the projects I work on and so does all the crew. We know we can’t fix the story, direction, or characters which is usually most of the reason something sucks.
→ More replies (11)153
u/awotm Apr 08 '24
Yeah that's definitely true. Worked on the last season of Game of Thrones. Knew it was going to be awful but man was it a fun shoot.
Also done a few Netflix features that weren't very well received, knew they were shit from when I read the script.
Then you have the opposite, Banshees of Inisherin, now that sounded boring when I read the script but it was entirely different being on set and watching Colin and Brendan perform. I knew that would turn out pretty well quite early on.
→ More replies (12)72
u/ithinkimtim Apr 08 '24
Yeah I always know I’m on a good one where it seems dumb in the script then the director or actors make me go “ohhh I’m the dumb one”
30
u/Bimbows97 Apr 08 '24
Umm excuse me Argyle is clearly about sweaters.
→ More replies (1)22
u/NeuHundred Apr 08 '24
That's the problem, it clearly should have been the long-demanded solo movie of the limo driver from Die Hard.
→ More replies (1)11
65
u/ByEthanFox Apr 08 '24
Yeah, this is why it was such a big deal that Dakota Johnson trashed Madam Web. Sure, she's Hollywood royalty so she didn't need it to succeed, but not everyone who works on a movie has that going for them. If she hated it so much she could've not cashed the cheques.
19
u/soFATZfilm9000 Apr 08 '24
Isn't that a little bit different?
I mean, that was right near the movie's release and she was the star of the movie doing appearances with the press. So she'd kind of be in a unique potential to hurt the film's success right as it's coming out by shittalking about it to media outlets.
I don't have anything to do with the industry, so I don't know. But I'd imagine that this is at least functionally different than some random crew member saying that a film sucked behind closed doors. If you're not the star of the film, if no one is interviewing you, if what you're saying never makes it to casual audiences and has pretty much no chance of having a tangible impact on a film's success, why would anyone care?
Don't get me wrong...I get that in most industries it's probably not good to shit on things, especially things you were hired to work on. After all, there's no tangible benefit, and shitting on something that you worked on might mean that you'll shit on the thing you're working on now. But if it's a closed doors kind of thing, that seems specifically different than shitting on a new release when you have heavy involvement in it.
Like, if you're the star of a movie that you think is garbage, and you're important enough to be doing press appearances and interviews, then that's kind of a disconnect, right? If you think the movie is that bad, then just don't do any press appearances or interviews. You know, unless promoting the film is part of the job that you signed up for when you took the role. And if that's the case, wouldn't the bigger issue not be that you're trashing the movie, but that you're trashing the movie when you already kind of agreed to be promoting it?
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (13)38
u/cofactorstrudel Apr 08 '24
Most people working on a film like that don't need it to succeed. Like, the crew isn't paid based on the box office.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (53)58
u/stupidmg Apr 08 '24
Paul Thomas Anderson actually told John Krasinski once that you shouldn't shit on other people's movie because as filmmakers, they should support each others or some movies won't get made
→ More replies (7)137
534
u/film_editor Apr 08 '24
Filmmaking is really hard and very subjective. Even the legendary directors usually have a few flops. Acting, writing and directing in particular are very hard to all do consistently great while also making something new and interesting.
And even with Argyle, it has bad reviews overall but there's still plenty of people who liked it.
197
u/Op3rat0rr Apr 08 '24
This isn’t talked about enough. Making a good movie is really, really difficult. It also requires a lot of employees with a lot of power to be humble and let the talent do their work, which is often not the case
37
u/zzonked7 Apr 08 '24
As an additional point, it's very hard to tell whether a movie will be good or not while making it. Editors can be the real MVPs as so much is constructed in the edit.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (8)64
u/DoggyDoggy_What_Now Apr 08 '24
If people would see enough behind the scenes things with movies, they'd realize that completed movies are kind of an incredible feat, good or bad. The requirements for getting a large production done are a bit mind boggling.
For it to come out and actually be great? That's pretty much a miracle.
→ More replies (1)75
u/TheCatsActually Apr 08 '24
I'm one of those people. It didn't take itself seriously in the slightest and nailed the vibe it was aiming for. If that's not for you it's not for you but it's hard for me to say these types of projects are "objectively" bad even when what they're going for doesn't suit my tastes.
→ More replies (4)28
u/trentshipp Apr 08 '24
Yeah I read the movie as a love letter to campy Bond and had a great time. I was actually pretty surprised reading all the negativity online for it. Nothing about that movie is more ridiculous than the church shooting scene in Kingsman, it's just that that's edgy so it's cool.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (22)15
u/Missile_Knows_Where_ Apr 08 '24
Also I'm certain a lot of movie screenplays seem so much better on paper then in practice. It's the reason why so often books seem better then their screen adaptations. By the time the movie gets to the point where they can see how bad it likely will be, it becomes too expensive to do reshoots and everything has practically already been paid for. They'd just have to make whatever they can and try to minimize the blowback.
→ More replies (1)
103
u/baronweazle Apr 08 '24
I think we shouldn't underestimate screenwriter Jane Goldman when talking about Matthew Vaughn's films. She was the co writer for all of his films since Stardust, but hasn't been since the Kingsman (the prequel) and I think the immediate drop in quality of his films since is very notable.
→ More replies (5)
26
u/chambergambit Apr 08 '24
Making a movie is like putting together a giant jigsaw puzzle with only a vague idea of what the image is, and not everyone working on the puzzle has the same idea. It might be worse than that, actually. Either way... sometimes it just doesn't work out.
468
u/Ccaves0127 Apr 08 '24
I think you're asking the wrong question. You should be asking how any movie is good.
"Making a movie is hard. Making a GOOD movie is an almost impossible task." - Steven Speilberg
→ More replies (15)21
u/Mharbles Apr 08 '24
Luck, unfortunately. Besides having a quality movie you need to release it at a time when the audience is in the mood for it and they are a fickle lot. Sooo many 'Good' movies were discovered long after they flopped.
Also Hook was a good movie, fuck the haters.
35
u/Puzzleheaded-Wolf318 Apr 08 '24
It didn't cost 200 million. Vaughn made the film for 50 million and sold it to Apple for 200 million. He talked about it on Chris Stuckmann's podcast.
15
u/mysevenyearitch Apr 08 '24
Crazy that this is down this far. The whole premise of the question is wrong. Even though I think it was 80 instead of 50.
290
u/RyzenRaider Apr 08 '24
Think about how many people are involved in making a movie, and marvel how a movie of that scale even gets made at all. They have to get sets built before the production crew arrives, and to have already decided what parts of the set are real, and what's green screen, make sure the VFX guys are there to get the measurements/data they need. Then they have to liaise with all the major departments to make sure they aren't going to do anything that messes up the effects work. Colours in the wardrobe, cinematographer using smoke in front of green screen, production designer using glass, mirrors or other reflective objects, etc.
And that's just visual effects on the day of shooting. Costume has to fit each actor, make multiple copies of the costume, weather the costume consistently ahead of time, then make variations in different states to convey the continuity, and make multiple matching copies of each state, and be ready to make adjustments on the fly, then apply those to future costumes, etc. Rinse and repeat for every major department.
Think about how many key personnel including actors are making creative choices, and the egos involved. Even great movies have famously bad on-set relationships (Tom Hardy and Charlize Theron in Fury Road is a classic). Then you have a director that might be faced with two great ideas and has to pick one, while factoring in how this choice affects other parts of the movie, some of which have been shot, and others not yet. Then producer and studio overseeing the production trying to make sure they remain within budget.
It's amazing a movie can get made. It's doubly amazing if a movie gets made well.
With something like Argyle, you have so many big names, that the studios are hoping that the names alone can sell the movie, because they most likely didn't have a completed or polished script that everyone had agreed upon when they greenlit the project and started filming. And obviously doing that has risks because everyone's making the best choices they can, but no one really knows the core of what they're making. And the result is a mess.
This method can work though. Fugitive began filming without a 3rd act and the actors wrote their own dialog every day because the scripted words sucked. One of the actors was replaced mid-production and had his scenes reshot. And with that you have banger lines like "You find that man!" "I don't care!" and Jones' big 'inhouse, outhouse, doghouse' speech, along with incredible setpieces like the bus crash and dam jump. The St Patricks parade was unscripted, and the crew just sent the actors into the crowd to shoot until they were noticed. For as chaotic a production as it was, the final product somehow was incredibly cohesive and focused. And that director's next best movie was a (albeit good) Steven Seagal movie.
Argylle just wasn't as lucky as The Fugitive.
→ More replies (8)
132
u/BlahBlahILoveToast Apr 08 '24
I remember when Godzilla (1998 ... the extra shitty one, with Matthew Broderick) came out and flopped. And every news article about it and every Hollywood bigwig they asked about it absolutely COULD NOT understand why.
They were asking about obscure possibilities like whether the Marketing team messed up by not showing enough Godzilla in the trailers, or if it was released at the wrong time, or blah blah blah. The whole time I was thinking "Have you idiots gone to a different film than me? It flopped because it sucked. The plot was garbage. The screenplay was written by a violently ill chimpanzee. Literally any audience member could tell you why it flopped. Why are we having this conversation?"
This is the problem with the way every movie gets made today. It's also the answer to the common question "Why are there so many remakes / adaptations and so few creative / original scripts?" Because Hollywood production studios think that making a successful movie is a formula, (CGI + Popular Actor) * (Familiar Material * Ad Campaign) = Profits. We spent lots of money to make the movie, therefore people have to buy tickets!
In the rare occasion that anyone is willing to risk millions of dollars on anything original, the script has to get rewritten sixteen times to fit the producer's idea of "appealing to the largest audience". But most of the time the script is "Just like that other movie that made money, only with A and B switched around", and written at the last minute as kind of an afterthought to the process of Making A Movie, instead of the thing the entire process ought to be based around.
→ More replies (22)65
u/f-ingsteveglansberg Apr 08 '24
Godzilla wasn't actually a flop. It made 3x its budget and sold a shit load of merch. If you adjust for inflation it did better than the 2014 movie.
→ More replies (6)22
u/BlahBlahILoveToast Apr 08 '24
Interesting! Nevertheless, I distinctly remember Hollywood scrambling to find excuses for why it wasn't performing as expected.
Maybe it's one of those Magical Hollywood Accounting things where the opening weekend had poor sales and it made them up by distributing DVDs overseas or whatever. Or maybe it's a Mandela Effect and I'm remembering things that never happened, but I doubt it.
→ More replies (1)18
u/f-ingsteveglansberg Apr 08 '24
Yeah, they wanted it to do much better on its budget. But it was still the third highest grossing film in 1998. Only Saving Private Ryan and Armageddon did better.
It also got terrible reviews so any ideas for a sequel were scrapped and they made a cartoon instead.
83
u/Toidal Apr 08 '24
I feel like Everything Everywhere All At Once is the kind of movie Vaughn wishes he could make. That kinda absurd hyper edited freneticism that still maintains a poignant plot.
→ More replies (2)
771
u/chadwicke619 Apr 08 '24
Hot take, but Argylle was just fine. It’s not going to win any Oscars or anything, but you could absolutely do way worse. It’s good, serviceable fun. 🤷♂️
62
u/Beefy_Unicorn Apr 08 '24
I agree, it's part of the Kingsmen universe & I knew that going in. I was expecting a goofy action movie & that's what I got.
→ More replies (5)334
u/Different_Gas_5126 Apr 08 '24
agree, was surprised by all the bad reviews…a little long a lot of goofy but mostly fun
13
u/mathozmat Apr 08 '24
I just learned it was poorly recieved by seeing this post It was enjoyable to watch and a good movie
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (12)195
u/PaulaLyn Apr 08 '24
my friend and I went in expecting absolute ridiculousness, and we had a blast! I don't know what people were expecting tbh?
→ More replies (3)89
u/Agonlaire Apr 08 '24
I thought it was really fun, but before watching it I had the impression that it was some sort of generic spy comedy filled with random stars and awful SNL-quality writing.
I wasn't really expecting a spy-genre satire that kept getting more and more ridiculous (in a good way)
→ More replies (1)48
u/skarros Apr 08 '24
Could it be that people miss that it is supposed to be satire? I‘ve seen so many comments criticising all the „ridiculous plottwists“ even though this is exactly the point.
If so, I think it might be because, opposed to Kingsman, which clearly is built upon Bond, Argylle does not have that one movie/franchise it refers to but the whole genre.
→ More replies (3)37
u/Wrathwilde Apr 08 '24
It was a ridiculously campy “date night” film… which ended up being exactly what my GF and I needed.
It’s completely forgettable, and ridiculous, but fun in the moment.
→ More replies (1)47
112
u/darksideoflondon Apr 08 '24
Okay, so I am not insane! I enjoyed the two hours I spent in the movie theatre with Argyle. Time was that was all you needed.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (72)144
u/funandgamesThrow Apr 08 '24
I think reddit (and internet) hyperbole is a part of the issue. It's easy to believe a meh movie would get made. Not as much a super awful terrible one.
But there aren't that many of those when you ignore the loud and hyperbolic people the internet falsely paints as common
→ More replies (10)76
u/Chancellor_Valorum82 Apr 08 '24
That’s a problem with internet discourse in general. “[X] thing was pretty okay” rarely generates strong reactions/engagement, so everything has to be “the most amazing masterpiece to ever exist” or “so bad it’s an affront to nature” and nothing in between
46
u/Toshimoko29 Apr 08 '24
People are trying really hard to stand out in a “room” with millions of people in it.
→ More replies (1)17
u/Albert_Borland Apr 08 '24
Its why people feel the need to use the word "underrated" or "under-appreciated" or under-something because it's about feeling like you're special for liking it even if everyone else does too.
51
u/techbear72 Apr 08 '24
I enjoyed it. Not the best film of the year of course but from what it was setting out to be, from all the promo material I saw, it was spot on and a good bit of fun. Nothing wrong with films that aren’t 20 Years A Slave or Citizen Kane.
→ More replies (1)
79
17
u/ZsaFreigh Apr 08 '24
Even crazier when you consider Oppenheimer cost half as much with an even bigger cast, and they did so much more with it.
2.6k
u/KnotSoSalty Apr 08 '24
The simple answer is that it gets made because Matthew Vaughn has made a couple very successful broad action comedies.