Interesting piece by Dave Germain of the AP about the rising number of films that studios are not screening for critics. But he missed the real issue by investigating whether studios are actually helping themselves by skipping these screenings. The bigger
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
Those critics are out of touch!
(sorry, someone had to say it)
I doubt movies like “Ultraviolet” and co would’ve done any better with reviews, so…
Although, I must say though that while they say people are smart enough to tell whether a movie is good or not (with or without reviews) they should also not that kids are smart enough to see the movies if they are reviews and their parents object to it or something. It’s silly.
One could also argue the converse: the positive reviews for SLITHER kept away fans who would rather see a trashy horror film than a good one (also likely for LAND OF THE DEAD and SHAUN OF THE DEAD, both of which underperformed). Gene Siskel once opined that the schism between critics and the public is defined largely by the fact that critics want something new and different, while the public wants the same old crap over and over again (hey there, FRIDAY THE 13th). With the studios ever more catering to the lowest common denominator, the increasing number of not-screened films is really no surprise at all.
Whether or not the box office is lead by movies with good reviews is irrelevant. First of all, the top grossers, at least the first week-end, are the movies that generated the most hype, the most excitement. Since the reviews arrive at the release date, most moviegoers have already made their minds before critics had their say. Secondly, critics always assume that moviegoers disagree with them when actually, most people don’t bother reading them at all and are unaware that a film has had bad reviews.
Instead of aiming for the top and complain when a film they hated outgrossed the ones they liked, critics should be happy that small budget movie like Crash and Brokeback Mountain became financial success because of them.
It’s not supposed to be a competition. Not from our side anyway.
That was a good point about the reviews coming too late i.e. on the date of release. Perhaps if the reviews came out earlier like they do in the blogosphere, then the papers might have greater impact. After all, who invented the rule that you can only review something coming out that day?
Also I find that most negative reviews sound the same. They wonder how this trash could be greenlit. They do a stupid pun regarding the title (Star Wars…more like Star Bores, etc.). They make vague comments about how awful something is without really giving any compelling reason. I think people are not affected by a review they’ve read before written by a critic who they rarely agree with in the first place.
Unfortunately, this is the one area (ok, maybe not the only one) but the main one where the studios have control over the critics. With their embargoes, the studios instruct the local publicists to make sure they are enforced.
If you break an embargo – chances are you will be removed from their lists. I once posted a negative review of The Real Cancun online at 7:30 pm the night before it opened. (Because I was leaving for a trip that night.) On Friday, I was informed by the local publicist that I was being taken off of New Line’s list. (Turned out to be a 6-month suspension basically) The funny thing is that the Chicago Tribune’s Metromix website had their negative review up at 2:30 pm the very same day and AICN had theirs up two days earlier.
The studios keep a leash on the legit critics, but allow junket whores like Earl Dittman, Shawn Edwards, Paul Fischer, etc… early access to get their hyperbolic white gravy all over the ads the week before or earlier.
Great reading about the “quote whore” phenomenon here:
http://www.efilmcritic.com/feature.php?feature=712 (Even has a quote from David P. while he was at a previous outlet/column?)
What’s strange is that at one point, they had a great interview with someone who cuts commercials and they explained the whole process for putting quotes in commercials…and that interview is mysteriously gone.
I’m kind of surprised that David never gives quotes, actually… not saying that negatively, but he does seem to see movies early which would make me think that studios respect his opinion.
That interview was temporarily taken down (and will be back soon) because our whistle blower (after a year of the article being up) was exposed and then fired by his company for spilling the secrets – not about the quote whores – but about giving away the trade secrets of how a trailer is edited. (Yeah, right!)
We took it down briefly out of respect so he could get back on track and make sure his family didn’t starve. We wish him the best of luck and will continue to put a foot in the ass of those utilizing such practices as making up quotes and using Earl Dittman on their ads.
Since Dittman was the biggest “star” of this article – his quote total is quite down this year with only 4, including this week’s Lucky Number Slevin “the best thriller of the year.”
We just had some mysterious idiot on our list make up a yahoo account just so they could e-mail us and blast our entire quote whore venture. So we must be doing something right.
David Germain should probably have done a little more research – as he would have discovered that there have already been 11 not screened this year. The Benchwarmers and Phat Girlz make 13. Silent Hill will make 14. And we’re not even mentioning the kind of half-assed Hostel screenings where select people got invited in December and then it was never screened again in some markets.
Now, if there was such a strategy to get the radio/internet (fan boys) on board – consider that they may be even harsher than the print critics. Again, the Tomatometer reflects a majority of online critics who got their reviews up on the films not screened for press.
Larry the Cable Guy: Health Inspector (4%) – $11,828,128
Doogal (5%) – $7,410,149
Stay Alive (6%) – $17,798,532
Big Momma’s House 2 (6%) – $69,264,175
Bloodrayne (7%) – $2,405,420
Date Movie (8%) – $47,903,617
Ultraviolet (9%) – $18,500,966
When a Stranger Calls (10%) – $47,860,214
Underworld Evolution (16%) – $62,318,875
Grandma’s Boy (17%) – $6,090,172
Madea’s Family Reunion (29%) – $62,861,357
Now, how bad is it when the friggin’ Tyler Perry is the BEST reviewed out of the previous 11 and even THAT didn’t crack the 30% barrier – which is half to RT’s standard “fresh” recommended territory? 5 of those films went on to be reasonable moneymakers for their studios. THREE of those were sequels to hits. A fourth was a remake with a tag line everyone knows. The fifth was a parody of various hits. The other six didn’t manage to hit $20 million.
These are all facts to our advantage that the sky is not necessarily falling. The studios are just making some incredibly shitty movies – and more often than usual.
Do you know that Silent Hill won’t be screened or is that just a conjecture? It looks much less schlocky than several recent horror movies.
I live in Milwaukee jeff, and my boss at the daily paper here told me on Tuesday that Silent Hill will not be screening for critics here.
The system is definitely not fool proof. I’m thinking about the poor moviegoer who just feels like seeing sci-fi action and who’s standing in front of Ultraviolet trying to remember if the reviews were positive or negative, not knowing that he never read any. Earl Dittman can become the greatest critic in the world if no one else reviews the movies…
Same thing here. The only screening we know here of Silent Hill is going to be the evening before it opens. Can you remember the last time a two-hour plus movie was NOT screened for critics?
And it seemed like Silent Hill had a higher pedigree for the genre. Roger Avery and Christopher Gans may not be the most brilliant filmmakers working today, but I think they have both done interesting work in the past and I have been expecting SH to be a good flick.
Silent Hill you say?
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7669/1922/400/SilentBirthHill-1.jpg
The Gilded Moose is gold.
Sheesh. Someone saw Dante’s segment of Twilight Zone: The Movie.
Um, isn’t that poster a Katie Holmes joke?
I am genuinely surprised that “Silent Hill” won’t be screened for critics. Seriously. Just a few weeks ago, Roger Avary was doing advance interviews for the film. (I talked with him for MovieMaker Magazine.) I had assumed they weren’t screening the movie for me only because it wasn’t finished yet.
Underworld: Evolution made 62 million dollars? Hopefully 3 lives up to the pedigree of 1 and not 2. That aside, Screen Gems really gains nothing from screening Silent Hill to critics. Be it stated sentiment or widely conjectured sentiment, a large portion of critics remain the audience least likely to appreciate a film such as Silent Hill. When you are a company, that can honestly assume that a screening or a junket would really not help the film. Of course, you are going to want to, limit such situations from occuring. Even if, in this business, it’s better to show a film, then hide a film..
There’s a problem like this where I live and it has to do with upmarket/arthouse fare.
The (Newark) Star-Ledger runs ALL movie reviews when the picture open in New York — mainstream, upmarket, arthouse, whatever. If an arty picture plays in New Jersey it isn’t usually until 2-3 weeks after the New York release. For this the Star-Ledger should hold the review until the picture opens in New Jersey. By running the review day-and-date with the New York release, the paper may actually hurt New Jersey box office on arty fare.
FWIW “Silent Hill” is a TriStar release per the trailer.
Yes Bob, that poster is a Katie Holmes joke – why would i post a link to a poster that everyone’s seen?