If it's crap... We'll tell you
Is Hollywood trying to kill off critics?
I don't do many discussions, but I feel this is an important one.
Recently, the Spill Crew did a video review of a film...that had no screenings. Basing their opinions on past works and previews, they hope to give us a REAL review Friday...after the film is released to the general public. Recently there was a blog where the director from G.I.Joe slams critics as being irrevelant. A local paper critic noted that offers for critics screenings and even just preview screenings for films have dried up quite a bit. Some years back, Siskel and Ebert stated that some film companies will fly certain critics to special screenings, wine and dine them...and 'suggest' they give a favorable review....and they do.
It does seem to me that the industry has been doing their very best to silent, ignore and cajole any criticism of their films prior to release. It could be to post those all-important opening day and weekend totals, and '#1 film in America' titles. It could be that if they promote the hell outta a film to make you believbe its good just long enough to get you to buy a ticket, their advertising department is doing it's job. It could also be people are idiots. And maybe I'm just paranoid.
But films are something we cannot get our money back if we are dissatified with the product. Once you buy the ticket, it doesn't matter how much or little you like it. You paid the studio and they are done with you. By the time word of mouth gets out, the movie has usually been out at least a week. It would be nice if while watching a movie, you could decide to just leave halfway through, tell the manager you hate the film, and get your money back. But you can't.
I feel this is the reason for so much internet piracy of film, and the upsurge of services like Netfilks. People get burned and stop wanting to spend money on movies...stop wanting to go....stop caring.
Critics take bullets for us folks. They go to as many films as they can, and give us opinions. Good critics give impressions, cite reasons for their reviews and give some kind of hint of what to expect. Great critics do all that and also stay objective while addressing different viewpoints. They are schooled in films and filmmaking, they cite history and background, and give insight on the industry. A critic will go to EVERY film, and watch it with as open a mind as you can get. Then they give US an idea of what's REALLY out there without a corporate writer helping them...and let us make a decision.
I can see why Hollywood would love to kill this, the only early warning system we have for good or bad film.
Recently, the Spill Crew did a video review of a film...that had no screenings. Basing their opinions on past works and previews, they hope to give us a REAL review Friday...after the film is released to the general public. Recently there was a blog where the director from G.I.Joe slams critics as being irrevelant. A local paper critic noted that offers for critics screenings and even just preview screenings for films have dried up quite a bit. Some years back, Siskel and Ebert stated that some film companies will fly certain critics to special screenings, wine and dine them...and 'suggest' they give a favorable review....and they do.
It does seem to me that the industry has been doing their very best to silent, ignore and cajole any criticism of their films prior to release. It could be to post those all-important opening day and weekend totals, and '#1 film in America' titles. It could be that if they promote the hell outta a film to make you believbe its good just long enough to get you to buy a ticket, their advertising department is doing it's job. It could also be people are idiots. And maybe I'm just paranoid.
But films are something we cannot get our money back if we are dissatified with the product. Once you buy the ticket, it doesn't matter how much or little you like it. You paid the studio and they are done with you. By the time word of mouth gets out, the movie has usually been out at least a week. It would be nice if while watching a movie, you could decide to just leave halfway through, tell the manager you hate the film, and get your money back. But you can't.
I feel this is the reason for so much internet piracy of film, and the upsurge of services like Netfilks. People get burned and stop wanting to spend money on movies...stop wanting to go....stop caring.
Critics take bullets for us folks. They go to as many films as they can, and give us opinions. Good critics give impressions, cite reasons for their reviews and give some kind of hint of what to expect. Great critics do all that and also stay objective while addressing different viewpoints. They are schooled in films and filmmaking, they cite history and background, and give insight on the industry. A critic will go to EVERY film, and watch it with as open a mind as you can get. Then they give US an idea of what's REALLY out there without a corporate writer helping them...and let us make a decision.
I can see why Hollywood would love to kill this, the only early warning system we have for good or bad film.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Iron Man on -
Or they could wait after the screening (if they didn't get to see it) and review it when it comes out for everyone....
-
Permalink Reply by Gift of the Magi on -
Ah, but then the movie-going public has already been there. Critics used to release reviews severa weeks before the release of a film....then it was roughly 2 weeks....and lately you're lucky with its 5 days. The build-up for films and to be 'the first to see it' is huge and potent...as is the disappointment if the film is crap. Watch some trailers on TV, and you'll hear "Be the first to see the blockbuster hit of the summer!" or something close often.
Honestly, the lack of info and critics review has lead me to the desicion NOT to see films at the theaters much...or at least wait 2-3 weeks til I hear something. Dropping $15 and 2 hours of my life is no longer worth it for crappy film.
-
Permalink Reply by Alter_Ego on -
I still think the main reason bad movies become so successful (and the reason why studios continue to make bad movies) is due to all the 10-year-old kids who go to see them. 10-year-olds will go see anything if the commercials on TV look cool, or if the movie is adapted from their favorite cartoon/video game/action figure/comic/novel. They don't read the critics' reviews since they can't understant all the big words in the articles, and because reading is boring (unless it's about wizard kids and sparkly vampires). Although I will note that this reason may not apply to Halloween 2 since it's pushing the R-rating.
-
Permalink Reply by Alter_Ego on
-
That, too. They don't read, either. It's disturbing how Ray Bradbury's vision of a post-literate future seems to be coming true. The kids won't read anything unless the book/magazine has pictures, and the adults don't read anything because watching TV is so much easier.
-
Permalink Reply by ProtoEva00 on -
This completely ignores the rise of the Internet, a form of media, predominantly text, that has superseded television for average hours used, per capita.
-
Permalink Reply by ZZ-3000 on -
Yeah, I read Farehneit 451 recently, and I got all freaked out by the book, because of the fact that everything that is happening in the book, is beginning to happen to the world!
-
Permalink Reply by Alter_Ego on
-
Movies have gotten a lot more expensive, as well. If the studios invest $100-200 million into a film's budget in hopes of making a profit 3-5 times that amount, they're going to want to silence any negative criticism the viewers may have, or avoid any criticism, altogether.
-
Permalink Reply by Gift of the Magi on
-
Good point. The money is the bottom line for studios...and nowadays there is a little less around.
-
Permalink Reply by I.Koval on -
I have friends who make indie films. If they're running up a bill of 200 million, it means they're paying too much for everything. I have no pity on the studios for that kind of stuff. It doesn't cost 100 million to make a film. It just dunt. Sure they pay that much to get it done, but un-necessarily so,
-
Permalink Reply by ProtoEva00 on
-
This seems to be a stem of what the crew themselves referred too at comi-con. Too many Internet journalist, to the point, that all journalists are starting to get ignored for special treatment. They may have looked at some numbers, and decided that with the Internet, and so many reviews, it's not worth the time to woo the few influential, because any given critics influence, is far diminished, and there is absolute guarantee that their movie will be reported on in a form that every one has access too
-
Permalink Reply by Gift of the Magi on
-
To a point, I agree with this. However, post-release movie promos often have review quotes plastered all over the screen. I remember that steaming ball of crap Transformers 2 ACTUALLY had over a dozen quotes of "Fantastic", "Wonderful", "Imaginative" all over the same old action clips complete with the critic mentioned in tiny captions. I think Hollywood both wants to silence possible criticism of their film, but also control what reviews DO get out.
Follow Spill on Twitter!
Latest Activity
If you own an HD television, you most likely want to receive HDTV programming. However, to upgrade your current cable you need to pay an extra monthly fee (typically around 10 dollars). If you do not want to pay the extra amount but still want some…
A group dedicated to one of the biggest Action icons in the world.
Music
© 2009 Created by The Spill Crew
