GI Joe does not like the critics very much.
________________________________________
This movie wasn’t screened for critics…
The statement above is something we hear more and more lately from big movie studios. Peter Sciretta wrote a good post about this over at his site Slash Film. (Make sure to click on the link to read it.)
There was a time when studios didn’t care if critics ripped a shitty movie apart. The movie was going to live or die on the word of mouth of the moviegoers. Truth be told, studios have always lived or died by the Average Joe movie watcher, and not by so-called stuffy movie critics. Positive reviews could help a movie out, perhaps giving it a positive boost, but negative reviews just don’t factor into the larger movie-going public.
Case in point is the Transformers II: Revenge of the Fallen. Michael Bay films will never receive positive feedback from critics. It will never happen, but for the most part his audience doesn’t care. Michael Bay doesn’t care. The same goes with Twilight. Critics don’t factor into their movie watching choices.
So, why would studios not screen certain movies for critics?
Deep down, these studio people know they’re shoveling piles of crap to the moviegoers, but they want that little boost before the negative word of mouth from the Average Joes leaks out. And, more people need to know it.
When studios don’t view movies for critics, you can almost pretty surmise that the movie isn’t going to be very good. And now by shielding the horrible flick from critics, it is used as a marketing tool.
The Hollywood Reporter talks about this here.
From the Hollywood Reporter,
(("After the chasm we experienced with 'Transformers 2' between the response of audiences and critics, we chose to forgo opening-day print and broadcast reviews as a strategy to promote 'G.I. Joe,' " Par vice chairman Rob Moore told the Associated Press. "We want audiences to define this film."))
Yep, the studio pretty much spelled it out for us. I’m all for audiences ‘defining’ films, but keep in mind what kind of films they’ve defined in the past.
And, keep in mind the people that have seen GI Joe gave it positive reviews for a popcorn flick. I just don’t understand the fear they have from critics when the movie is critic proof. But, also keep in mind that they choose which critics saw the film.
This brings up a bigger issue. Are critics’ opinions that powerful?
Make sure to read through the reviews, and watch as the scoring goes down when more critics see it. (Or go up)
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/gi_joe/
Yo, Joe!
Posts
3 comments:
I think the way they are selling the no-critics thing also plays into my Red State contention.
I'll explain it like a Fox News douche:
Critics are elitists, so why would the studios play into their game? It is a movie for the people, so why should the studios allow some movie critic from a liberal newspaper in New York, Los Angeles or Chicago tell the people that they will or will not like a movie based on some ivory tower intellectual basis. The only question the people need to know is if it kicks ass and is patriotic. Other than that, why analyze it?
Oh God... that was totally Stephen Colbert there.
Lol, don't let that get to you. Colbert is the man.
But, you're right about the elitist thing. It seems more and more ad folks are taking advantage of that divide.
People should be bringing up the so-called everyday people to be more judgement about product instead of taking it down to 'their' level. So to speak...
I'm sounding a bit too elitist here, I've been called that before
Post a Comment