There are some. What were the producers, directors, and actors thinking. To start the ball rolling (no, you can't post GFIII):

Ishtar
Gigli
Rhinestone

Johnny Slade's greatest hits
Waiting to exhale
Tale of two pizzas

Blues Brothers 2000

Windtalkers

The story about people who talk out of their a$$.

PATHFINDER

Death Becomes Her

The Fish That Saved Pittsburgh

The first that springs to mind is actually The Simpsons. Whether it's good or not is besides the point: what does it do that they couldn't have done on the show?

True. The same could be said for the last 2 PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN films. Sure they might have "added" more story, but were they really necessary? I think universally agreed, they come nowhere close to being as good as the first.

BTW, have you seen THE SIMPSONS MOVIE yet Capo? At least with the SOUTH PARK movie they were free to curse more. I'm glad THE SIMPSONS MOVIE didn't take this route and stayed as close as possible to the show.

Such a statement is sacrelige to me. That was a good movie and it should have had a sequel.

Al Franken's Stuart Smalley . I think that was the name of it.

And also Police Academy IV...or,no, VI...may have been II or III. On second thought maybe they all should not have been made.

How about every film in the Rocky series?

Or 90% of Steven Spielberg's catalogue.

One movie that instantly comes to mind is Titanic.

Blasphemy

I hope TIS does not attack you for this.

Those are pretty strong statements.

The original "Rocky" was a great movie. Spielberg's list is better than most anyone else's.

Spielberg makes generic/popcorn/crowd pleaser flicks, something I've never had much interest in. I wouldn't say "mainstream" because I enjoy plenty of mainstream cinema, and I don't want to look like the pompous jackass who goes out of his way to just watch independent flicks. But Spielberg needs to take a few risks before I can respect him and his generic summer blockbusters... Spielberg movies are to cinema as one night stands are to sex; a few leave a lasting impression, but for the most part they're quick fixes that fail to maintain any relevancy to you or your life. They're exciting, but they sort of fail to establish any real connections with their audience. You know?

As for Rocky... I hate the standard happy-ending sports flick. You know, like the hero is going to come out on top and learn some sort of lesson whilst the audience feels inspired, or something. I loved Raging Bull, but Raging Bull was far from your standard boxing film. It was as depressing as watching a child with downs syndrome being squashed by the revolving tires of a bus, the protagonist learns a lesson, but is the most self-destructive, self-loathing human being on the face of the earth (so much to the point that the audience must question whether or not they even like him), and the audience feels something far from inspiration. Rocky is about as sappy and happy-go-lucky as they come. It's a real head-trip, for me at least.

If you think I'm being tough on Rocky, you should hear my thoughts on the painfully mediocre Million Dollar Baby.

Umm... Schindler's List... that was a generic/popcorn/crowd pleaser flick??

Oh, for the record, I don't think any film should be denied its way to production; I'm just utilizing hyperbole, as I've done plenty a time over the course of my exisitence on this site. Every expression is important to some extent and art--much like history--will repeat itself through the conception of inspiration. Beyond simple reincarnation, one idea brings light to another idea. Without a standard and mediocre film, we may never have a clever and cinematically profound film. Without subpar action films and B-grade horror, kung fu and crime epics, we may never have the work of Quentin Tarantino, or at least as we know it. There are plenty of other scenerio's and careers that I could say the same of, but Tarantino's seems to be the most obvious and easy to spot early influence.

And don't be knockin' Rocky or Million Dollar Baby, either - both were brilliant! Just because you don't like them doesn't make them any less entertaining.

Go back and read what I said. Note that I mention "a few have a lasting impression."

But honestly, is there anything less risky than making a holocaust film?

Can I please take a hit of that?

Sorry, I made the mistake of assuming this thread was some how based on opinion.

Well, yeah... the topic is "Movies That Should Never Have Been Made" -- that's as subjective as it gets. But what's the point in that? That doesn't reveal good/bad movies, that just reveals good/bad opinions.

ur opin0nz sux b1g t1m3 lawl

Ocean's 12

Well, LLC, I detect that you believe that movies are supposed to have a predetermined effect upon people. There are plenty of true fight stories out there that do have a positive ending and are an inspiration for many. George Foreman comes to mind. Since when is inspiration sappy. On the other hand, what is sappy about MDB. It ends with the death of a quite a boxing talent and the struggle of one human being to perpetrate and accept the responsibility for a death.

I suppose I could say any movie I didn't like shouldn't have been made right? I so disagree about the Rocky movies though...especially not the first one.
Also I disagree with Titantic. I loved that movie.

I know many won't agree with me, but you know what opinions are like right?

Anyway, among my list, but I know there are many more:

Pulp Fiction (I know it's very popular and at first I was looking for reasons to like it but concluded that I simply didn't like it. Was boring)
American Beauty
Boogie Nights

All boring and uninteresting and unfunny to me. I simply didn't like them.

TIS

I dislike a lot of films, but I don't think there's all that many (in relation to the amount I've actually seen) that I could say, "That should never have been made". I'm not sure what comprises such damnation.

Like I said, The Simpsons was the first one that sprung to mind, but only because it's out right now.

Spielberg's movies? Come on. They're far from conventional. Their narrative structure, visual superiority, technical prowess and aesthetic discipline have been and always will be forever imitated, but rarely are they matched in the realms of mainstream Hollywood Cinema. His worst (that I've seen) is Munich, and despite all the crass pretentiousness of that film, there were some lovely, visually satisfying moments in it. At worst, he's the victim of his own originality, his own self-promotion - I could easily dislike him for the same reasons I dislike Tarantino: over-familiarity, over-popular, over-influential.

Instead of "Movies That Should Never Have Been Made," I'd prefer to make a list of "Movies that make you say, 'What were they thinking?'" Not to hijack the thread or anything, but I see a lot of fantastic films being listed here simply because somebody didn't like them. The one film I listed may well be one I turn out to like... though whether or not it should be made is another matter.

Well put Capo. Not liking a film (or even hating it)doesn't necessarily mean someone didn't have a right or shouldn't have made it. I like your suggested title, "...What were you thinking."

In the end though, it still comes down to opinion, some will like and some won't.


TIS

The Sicilian. I think it should have been made, just with a different cast, script, director and producer.