MovieChat Forums > Crap Shoot: The Documentary (2007) Discussion > Good research, bad movie

Good research, bad movie

posted 16 years ago by Whiffle
14 replies | jump to latest

Okay, so half way through I turned this movie off because it was pissing me off so much. I don't know if it got better, but I had a feeling it didn't. The first twenty minutes seemed to just be an ego boost for Ken Close. Seriously, after the film established that this guy has accomplished more than you, the audience, ever will, they start interviews with people about how awesome this quintology is that the guy wrote. I'm not sure if these people were supposed to be serious interviews, but it seemed like they were reciting lines that they were given.
Anyways, despite that and the attempt at comedy, I think the research that was done is very important. I just wish they would put it into a better movie. Possibly a real documentary, instead of this half-and-half mocku/documentary. How does everyone else feel.

The straightest line between a short distance is two points.

[–] kenneth-r-close-1 16 years ago

I’ve never seen a filmmaker's response to a comment, so this might be setting an IMDb precedent. But I feel your remarks are worthy of a reply and since nobody else is offering one, here goes.

“Crap Shoot - The Documentary” asks the question. . .if a brainy research scientist created a way to measure hormonal changes in people reading stories and used that methodology to craft scripts for can’t-miss movies, how would that change the film industry? In other words, what if science can be used to remove most of the gamble from filmmaking?

The answer, as shown in the documentary, is that it would have no effect on the industry because without contacts the scientist wouldn’t be able to get anyone to read his scripts. That is the sad reality of Hollywood today, and a contributing reason as to why we are seeing so many terrible movies being produced.

Thus the first part of the documentary was spent establishing my credentials. I apologize if this seemed like an ego trip to you, but the word “genius” is commonly used in Hollywood to describe anyone who writes a halfway decent script - even if that person goes on to write a dozen crappy scripts afterwards. My intent was to demonstrate how Hollywood treats true, certified genius.

The documentary’s production quality is the best I could manage on a micro-budget with limited time and crew. Most of the comic vignettes are based on actual experiences Jim and I have had visiting L.A. All of the interviews are real, but the “unknown reader” segment was actually conducted via email because the reader was afraid to appear in the documentary. So I used an actor named Jason Childress to stage the interview, satirizing the reader’s irrational fear.

If you love movies as I do, I encourage you to watch the entire documentary. And feel free to email me at [email protected] if you have comments or questions.

[–] captnemo 16 years ago

I was not entertained by this film. I could have gotten all the points it made in a magazine article, and in fact I have. It was not very informative. Any entertainment to be found was incidental at best. This is a subject that could have used a serious, objective and informative treatment. Look elsewhere if you are looking for reasons why Hollywood has been making such crap for 40 years. You will not find the answers here. You won't even find the question addressed here. Just 2 guys farting around Hollywood and talking gibberish. Maybe that's the point of this film: Looking for reasons as to why Hollywood makes such junk results in a "documentary" that is also a piece of junk. A friend of mine recommended this to me, and he's going to pay dearly for it.
My Rating: 4 out of 10 stars. An Average film with nothing to recommend it.

P.S.- The ignorant remarks about President Bush did not go over very well either. Get your facts straight before you open your trap.

I reject your reality and substitute one of my own.

[–] kenneth-r-close-1 16 years ago

All charts, graphs and facts cited in the "Economics 101" scene are accurate and taken from official government statistics. I knew years ago that we'd be in the economic mess we're in today, after Republicans changed the tax code and deregulated the financial services industry in the late 1990's. So I wrote to President Bush shortly after he was elected, warning him of the impending economic disaster. I received no response to my letter. Instead, President Bush pushed more bad tax changes through the Republican Congress, exacerbating the situation.

Now my predictions have come true and we face the biggest economic collapse since the Great Depression - largely due to the arrogant stupidity of just one man. Since those who ignore history will usually repeat it, I included the "Economics 101" scene in my documentary to educate as many viewers as possible. I also put it on Youtube, and emailed members of Congress with the link.

[–] captnemo 16 years ago

Forget about all that crap. That's the subject on another forum. How about addressing the real issue here? Your film sucked, and it's a subject that I am very interested in, namely how come there are so many bad films being made and released?
Audiences are down about 43% since the birth of the ratings system. Before that, films could be edgy without being smug and pretentious. The ratings come along, and all Art goes down the crapper. Films, and Music, have been "created" by accountants and drug interests since 1968, the year of the first ratings.
Today fims are made for certain slots, be they "G", "PG-13" or whatever. They are edited to get a rating and pick up more of an audience. Writing has become a lost art, as most scripts are written based upon what worked last year. That point you got correct, and you get credit for it. Even books adapted from books are twisted out of recognition. Just look at Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. Complete Crap, and unrecognizable from the book. Even if you didn't read the book, the film is still an incoherent mess. Compare "Phoenix" with the first Harry Potter film, and it will make you cry. I loathe to see what they will do with the last 3 films, even though there are only 2 more books to film.
A film about why films get made is a great idea. This one isn't it, however. It could have been, but missed the target by miles. A shame. Better luck next time.

I reject your reality and substitute one of my own.

[–] kenneth-r-close-1 16 years ago

I agree with pretty much everything you said, captnemo, except of course for my doc sucking. Besides being the only documentary to accurately predict and warn of our current economic crisis, “Crap Shoot” also told you that. . .

1. Movies are very expensive to produce and distribute, which is why we have the limited studio system. This system impedes free market efficiencies.

2. Few people have access to the studio system’s decision-makers because they surround themselves with gatekeepers. So the movies being made are taken from a small subset of all projects available, and great works can easily be excluded from that subset.

3. Because the decision-makers are afraid of losing money, they chose projects that have some link to a past success. This link can be through story (books, old TV shows, remakes, sequels), personality (director, actor, writer, producer), or concept.

4. Hollywood’s decision-makers do not understand that the science of bio-psychology can be used to eliminate most of the risk in movie making and produce films people actually want to see. I used this science to craft scripts for movies which will raise progesterone levels in women, testosterone levels in men, and the level of beta-endorphin in both - but I have yet to get anyone in Hollywood to read them!

I share your frustration with bad movies, and hope this helps you understand why Hollywood makes so many of them.

[–] Whiffle 16 years ago

Films still had to deal with censorship before the MPAA started the ratings system. The Hays Production Code started that up way back in 1930, if memory serves me, so I'll have to disagree with your claim that "all the art goes down the crapper" after '68. I do agree that most films today are put into a ratings class before a screenplay is even written, though.

The straightest line between a short distance is two points.

[–] geobucks 15 years ago

Kenneth Close made a very bad doc, but has a very good internet connection...posting to every thread, expressing his political opinions that "one man" (President Bush) is the source of all evil, etc.
The concept was good, the documentary sucks, and I now know Mr. Close does as well.

[–] kenneth-r-close-1 15 years ago

"Great anger in this one I sense" - Yoda

[–] Greeny_24 15 years ago

I havent seen the movie, but came across it and checked the forums.

"The concept was good, the documentary sucks, and I now know Mr. Close does as well." Thats just *beep* stupid, you attacked him personally for what reason?

[–] bigdaddy-41 15 years ago

I watched this movie online on Netflix and I'm enough of a pro capitalist to hope you get a cut.
Your anti Bush rant: completely out of place.

Your questions: simple. If you're as intelligent as your resume presents you could have come up with something a little deeper. Could you not engage these people in a discussion?

Your acting: Horrific. I wish I had a better vocabulary to describe how bad it was. You have absolutely no charisma or timing. You're a bright man. Realize that you you have no business being in front of the camera. But at least you weren't as bad as your 7 foot sidekick. I hope I never see him again but hear him often. His voice is remarkable.

[–] kenneth-r-close-1 15 years ago

Your anti Bush rant: completely out of place.

Several people have asked me why I included the "Economics 101" scene in a documentary about Hollywood's creative decision-making process (or lack thereof). That scene was included for three reasons:

1. Much of the footage shown between interviews is a recreation of experiences Jim and I had during trips out West, and I actually did put him to sleep discussing economics during one night drive from Las Vegas to L.A. Ironically, when we arrived at Santa Monica Beach (yes, that happened too) and used the john under the pier we found over fifty homeless men living there! When we returned this time with the camera I wanted to include a shot of them for the scene's big payoff, but the john was locked up.

2. "Crap Shoot" satirizes the Moore/Spurlock style documentaries which use the genre to promote political agendas. Thus I felt obligated to include a scene about President Bush. Since this is satire, some people felt I should somehow make him look good. But I thought including the most accurate, unbiased assessment of how Bush Economics destroyed the American dream would be more facetious (a light-hearted doc featuring a grim economic warning).

3. Nothing good can come from cutting taxes for the wealthy while deregulating banking and financial services industries. Back in 2005 I anticipated the current financial disaster and used my doc to warn as many people as I could. I doubt if the dozens of letters and emails I wrote to the President and Congress over the past eight years were even read.

In conclusion, I realized I'd anger about 25% of America by including the Bush rant, but felt it was worth it to have the only documentary which predicted the Second Great Depression.

[–] kenneth-r-close-1 15 years ago

Your questions: simple.

I was prepared to ask John Travolta how he felt after reading scripts for "Pulp Fiction" and "Battlefield Earth" - if he sensed how diametrically opposed the critical acclaim for these two projects would be. I wanted to ask New Line Cinema what project econometrics convinced them to greenlight "Son Of The Mask" starring Jamie Kennedy. I wanted to ask George Lucas how Hollywood has changed since the 1970's, when studio after studio passed on "Star Wars." I wanted to discuss with Warner Bros. which subtle script changes could have saved "Catwoman."

I had scores of insightful questions that challenge the currently inefficient way Hollywood does business. Unfortunately, I didn't have access to the people who could (should) answer them. But this is to be expected - the premise of my doc is that a movie's success is a function of bio-psychology, thus there is no excuse for selecting bad scripts. Perpetrating the myth that filmmaking is a "Crap Shoot" is in Hollywood's best interest since it gives scores of studio executives, producers, directors, and writers an excuse to fail and still keep their jobs.

Ironically, the lack of access which has kept my "Innamorato" scripts from becoming blockbuster movies is also what kept "Crap Shoot - The Documentary" from becoming the ultimate discourse on filmmaking!

[–] kenneth-r-close-1 15 years ago

Your acting: Horrific.

Sorry, I couldn't afford to hire Brad Pitt to play me (although my wife thought we should at least take out a second mortgage to try!). Actually, throughout the doc I was doing my best impersonation of Michael Moore. I even gained lots of weight for the role. And I refuse to take it off until I'm 100% sure there won't be a "Crap Shoot - The Sequel." So maybe I'm a great actor and Michael Moore has no charisma or timing?

My sidekick Jim has relocated to Toledo, where he can be heard on four FM radio stations (oldies, country, classic rock and contemporary) each week. I'll tell him he has a new fan.

[–] theunopeneddoor-697-442391 8 years ago

Dude I know this is an old post, but being defensive is the worst thing you can be about your film. Just move on and accept some people won't like it, some people will.

And no you couldn't get Brad Pitt to play you, btu their are brilliant unknown actors.

Never Drumpf! Never Hillary!