My take on Snakes on a Plane has long been that the biggest problem for New Line would be showing the movie, regardless of how good or bad the film is. No movie is without critics and with so much internet buzz already built up, it can
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
Does that mean that a total critic screening ban would piss the critics off? Would inconvenient times do the same trick?
DP, a couple of questions.
Can you define 4 quadrant audiences?
Did you see that The Descent is gong to get aobut 50 sneaks a week or so ahead of its opening? What is your view of sneaks? Is there anything that should generally be read into them? Or is it a movie bymovie thing?
Thanks.
And $7.9 million for Pirates on Monday. Pretty darn good. A record no doubt though you can claim so many obscure records.
I’m not sure of the context of your question.
One of the things that assures bad reviews for movies that don’t screen is that some critics for newspapers HAVE to go to a paid screening, as their editors demand it.
My contention is that the pain could be eased a bit by offering free, screening room screenings of the film that have the same effect of muffling presumed opening day attacks, but offer critics the chance to do their jobs more easily. It doesn’t turn the ship. People who are going to hate snakes killing people in funny, stupid ways on a plane are still going to pan the film. But it could ease some of the venom, just on the basis of not making a workday more aggravating.
Of course, critics who hate the idea of movies not screening on principle would still be pissed… maybe more pissed. But really, I think it would be a more honest set-up.
The “why should I pay for you to piss on my movie” routine is a load of shite. A page in the Sunday Times cost more than every screening in America.
I would just like to see this new wrinkle of not screening, which is not going away, serve all parties better.
Speaking as an outsider here, but I don’t see why studios would be obligated to screen a movie for people that are guaranteed to hate it anyways. Critics are not entitled to screenings any more than studios are entitled to good reviews.
The studio can certainly hold a screening if they want the good favor of the critics, but that dynamic undermines the critic’s entire reason for being.
4-quadrants has become shorthand for EVERYONE. It is a simplification of market analysis, which breaks it down a lot more than this, but for the sake of this conversation, 1) men under 25, 2) women under 25, 3) men over 25, 4) women over 25.
Movies sneak to create word of mouth that they can’t afford to buy. I can’t say that I am a fan of The Descent. But clearly, Lionsgate is comfortable that their core for this film will love it and tell their friends.
$7.9 Monday is (get this) the highest non-holiday summer second Monday ever!
I don’t disagree, Eric. I am not angered by studios not screening.
On the other hand, I think it would be great if they acknowledged that there are people on their beat who HAVE to go and offered one or two chances to see the film after it opens. It’s not a requirement. But we are all, essentially, in a giant office together, and if you can achieve your goals and not piss off your cublicle mates, why not try that?
You’re right, and I suppose we’re looking at the difference between consideration and obligation. We can agree that studios are better off to offer free screenings more often than not. It keeps things friendly. But I also don’t think critics have any right to complain when the studio does not.
I think this gets us back to a conversation that’s been happening on this blog for months: The dynamic of power is changing. The studios are starting to notice that they are not dependent on critics, and that gives them more leverage.
More leverage to do what exactly? Bad reviews of “Little Man” aren’t going to stop people who absolutely love that kind of garbage from going to see it. It opened at #2 despite completely devastating reviews. It’s not like some suburban couple with a babysitter hired and the newspaper open on a Friday night are going “Ooh, Little Man got a bad review, I guess we should go see something else”.
I really think the “critics-are-killing-movies/are-out-of-touch” argument is a tad ridiculous. I will agree that movies like Little Man aren’t worth screening for critics. What’s the point really? As DP mentioned, it’s not a surprise that SOAP is not screening for critics. It’s audience is built in (just like horror movies, tween comedies and Rob Schneider movies) and critical ink isn’t going to change that either way. The studio saves a few bucks and critics don’t waste hours watching and writing about a movie they aren’t going to like. Everyone wins.
If anything is changing is that the media is finally reconsidering what it means to be a film critic. So much of what passes for film criticism these days is complete crap or gets confused with celebrity gossip/”journalism”. I think the amount of film critics will actually dwindle and cater to a more sophisticated moviegoer on more sophisticated old and new media formats while traditional TV/Entertainment Tonight/Entertainment Weekly will continue to spout faux news fed to them by the studios. It will revert back to how film criticism actually was in it’s burgeoning Pauline Kael/Stanley Kaufmann days and that’s not entirely a bad thing.
I’ve always envied critics in the US for getting to see movies for a living, but after giving this some thought, I can see that it sometimes isn’t such a good thing to see movies, eventhough its free. Does it still feel fun when it’s your job? I go to movies for entertainment, but you guys have to go there to work. That would kill the experience for me, to have to sit there, constantly aware that its work. Having work-lunch is probably the closest experience I have to this.
Gosh, to think you will have to pay to do your work!!! And for a movie you wouldn’t want to see anyway! It’d be like me having to pay for my lunch/dinner with boring customers/bosses. Studios should make it free out of consideration.
Montrealkid, that’s exactly what I was saying. That studios know that reviews are irrelevant to a a large portion of the audience, and thus they are less beholden to the critics. That’s what I meant by “leverage.” Fewer free screenings, abbreviated junkets, etc.
Ployp, don’t cry for the critics. Newspapers will reimburse employees (in this case critics) for their movie tickets.
Besides, seeing this movie with a real audience might actually enhance the experience for the critic.
Although I do attend press screenings in Philadelphia, I certainly do NOT get reimbursed when I have to pay for a movie ticket. I’m not complaining about that.
See, here’s where the problem arises. I’ve been assigned the Snakes review on Cinematical, which is great cuz it’s a movie I’m really looking for. I’m a big fan of monster movies, and I think Sam Jackson is freaking hilarious.
But without a Tuesday or Wednesday night screening, I simply can’t get my review up until (at least) Friday afternoon. And that’s not good. When stuff like The Fog and Silent Hill didn’t screen for press, I headed on out for an opening Friday matinee. The 8 dollars I had to spend isn’t what annoyed me; it’s that I couldn’t have my review posted on Friday morning.
It’s not about me feeling special or entitled; it’s just about me getting my job done.
Why does it matter if your review posts on Friday morning or afternoon? Does iit affect your site traffic?
I can see both sides. Critics who always get screenings will be upset or even just a little less comfortable with a different screening environment.
But I would argue that to get critics into public screenings of some of these movies would be a good idea. The reason is that they are often watching the same movies in the same rooms with the same people. That makes the filmgoing experience much more uniform and therefore the reviews as well.
Anyways, I’d like to hear what a real critic has to say about that.
In a normal situation I’ll see a movie a few days early, write most of my review right away, give it another polish a few hours later, and then it’s finished, waiting only for Friday morning so I can publish it.
If I have to go see a movie on Friday afternoon (provided I have the afternoon even available), then I have to really rush to get the review done before 6 or 7pm Friday. With the screening, I have more than enough time to write something and then give it a second look. Without the screening, I’m slapping something together in a hurry.
But to answer your question: I think it’s very important to get your review posted as early as “legally” possible. The most traffic for reviews is on opening morning, and I just don’t like to be a latecomer. So yes, it is kind of “about” site traffic (although I certainly don’t get a bonus based on Cinematical site stats), but more about getting my own review counted among the opening day concensus. I just want my own 2 cents included in the mix.
What bugs me about the “no screening” procedure is this: The studios seem to be propogating the assumption that film critics don’t like “genre” films. This is so ridiculously untrue that it almost makes me angry. I know several movie critics who liked Silent Hill. Are the studios actually trying to imply that a professional film critic is unable to judge Snakes on a Plane for what it is? That professional film critics would be unwilling to call Grandma’s Boy “FUNNY” if they actually thought it WAS funny? If you think about it that way, it’s kind of a slap in the face.
8.5 times out of 10, a movie is not being screened because the studio folks (who are paid a whole lot of money to produce profitable movies and therefore know a lot more about the process than we like to give them credit for) know that the movie is a dung-pile. And lots of dung-piles happen to be horrors, actions, and comedies.
And to palmtree (who probably doesn’t consider me a “real” critic), I can offer this opinion: Whether I’m in a half-empty press screening or a mega-packed multiplex, my surroundings have no real effect on my reaction to the film. I saw Meet the Fockers in a sold-out house full of non-stop laughter, and it sure didn’t raise my opinion of that flick. I saw POTC2 in a half-empty theater and the movie gave me a buzz like I was 12 years old. Maybe it’s different for some critics, but not me.
I see. But if there are no critic screenings at all until opening day, then wouldn’t you still be getting your own review counted among the opening day concensus? Everyone else will be late so you’ll still be “in the mix” or am I missing something?
Why read negatively into my post? I just meant “real” critics as opposed to myself, a blogger who has to buy most movie tickets.
btw, I used to be a critic for a print publication, so I am giving my perception of the screening environment from experience.
Wreck — I’ll make you a gentleman’s bet that there WILL be several SOAP reviews at RT come before August 18th.
Palm — My apologies. I did misunderstand your comment. Thanks.
OK, here
But Joe… when a movie doesn’t screen, wouldn’t you say that papers feel the need to rush because they want to dig the knives in or fill the void of what can’t be had? Is anyone really buying a paper to read a review of The Benchwarmers?
I agree that the whole thing poisons the well, but I am always amazed how studios really don’t care much after opening day… unless they have cranky talent to deal with or have a persecution complex.
All I can say is this: The opening of a movie is like any other news event: You want coverage of it in your paper as quickly as possible. (At least, that’s been my experience.) I can remember when “The Terminator” didn’t press screen in Houston, so I had to do a quick turnaround to make sure there was a review as quickly as possible, in the next day’s paper. And I can assure you: I didn’t stick in any knives.
If you know the right people, it’s not hard to get into the inevitable promo/preview screening on Thursday night and often, it’s more fun than sitting in a screening room full of critics… plus it’s better than the just as inevitable 10 AM “courtesy screening”… no one should have to get up early to sit through “See No Evil” or “When A Stranger Calls”… and yet I did.
BTW, most of the directors I’ve spoken to this year about the “no press screening” issue have backed the studio on the decision for the same reason… their movies are for genre/horror/video game fans, not for critics who will invariably go in expecting a dog. But again, having to go to see a movie at 10AM to be able to do a review doesn’t put anyone in a good mood to sit through a questionable movie. (I’ll definitely be asking Ellis about this when I talk to him on Friday.)
“I’ll make you a gentleman’s bet that there WILL be several SOAP reviews at RT come before August 18th.”
I wouldn’t make that bet… they’re not even screening it before the junket (which is at Comic-Con this weekend)… they don’t need to do any preview/promo screenings before Thursday night cause they know demand is high. Will be interesting to see tracking for SOAP in a couple weeks.
Hey EDouglas, where do you go to see tracking? I assume it’s something you have to pay to subscribe to?
jeffmcm: Yes… mostly.
Now that you guys have pointed out that reviews have to be out as soon as possible (I totally forgot about that) so people like me can read it, studios should give critics early screenings to show their considerations and kindness.