DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Penny Can
HTML https://pennycan.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: The Drive-In Theater
*****************************************************
#Post#: 21075--------------------------------------------------
Hiding from Critics
By: Mac Date: July 19, 2013, 5:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Yea, I wasn't getting any vibe from this. It looks like a MIB
wannabe. But interesting perspective on studio's, faith, critics
and buzz.
[glow=red,2,300]Why Universal Hid 'R.I.P.D.' From Critics[/glow]
[quote]R.I.P.D. is indeed as terrible as the buzz has suggested
over the last year or so. It is lifeless, badly acted, and
arbitrarily plotted. Moreover, it is filled with annoying and
unpleasant characters, especially Jeff Bridges doing an extra
obnoxious version of his Rooster Cogburn turn from the True Grit
remake. The special effects are rubbery and unconvincing, even
with an alleged $130 million budget. In short, Universal’s
would-be comic book adaptation franchise-starter is every bit as
awful as the whole ‘not screened for critics’ label implies.
The irony is that R.I.P.D. is more the exception than the rule.
More often than not, withholding films, especially bigger films,
from pre-release press screenings does more harm than good.
With R.I.P.D., Universal clearly knew they had a loser on their
hands. One of the ways studios sometimes try to mitigate damage
is to not screen the film for film critics prior to release.
Sometimes they do screen a given film but explicitly demand that
all reviews be held until opening day. But even that isn’t a
fail safe, as someone, be it a major trade or a random blogger
who wants to be “first!”, will usually drop a review before
opening day and spoil the non-surprise. But here’s the rub:
More often than not, withholding a film from pre-release press
screenings creates an aura of catastrophe that often isn’t
merited by the film in question. And whether its critics aghast
at having to spend actual money to see a film in a normal
theater or writers subconsciously setting their critical phasers
on “destroy”, a film that has been held back from critic
screenings is almost certain to get worse reviews than it would
have had it just screened for press a few days prior to release.
Just this spring, Dark Skies had a somewhat infamous release.
The UFO abduction thriller went out sans press screenings only
to garner additional media attention when the
Thursday-at-midnight screening attended by several online
critics in New York failed to actually play, leading to comedic
speculation over whether the film actually existed. In the end,
the film made $25 million worldwide on a $3.5 million budget,
which probably makes it a win overall for the Weinstein Company.
But the irony is that the picture is actually pretty good. Its
scares aren’t anything we haven’t seen before, but the film
authentically establishes a genuine family unit with relatable
problems. G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra was another allegedly
disastrous production that went out sans press screenings. The
irony is that, again, the film was much better than the
pre-release buzz had led anyone to expect (it’s exactly what a
$175 million film based on the 1980′s G.I. Joe cartoon
should feel like), yet fellow critics’ knives were extra sharp
as if they had been personally wronged by having to pay to see
the film on a Friday afternoon with regular customers. To this
day, I am convinced that the overly harsh critical assessment of
the perfectly fun G.I. Joe film is due to the negative critical
environment created by Paramount’s choice not to screen it for
the press.
But what about when your film isn’t just better than the “not
screened for critics” stigma but actually a genuinely good film?
Such was the fate of Snakes On A Plane back in late-summer
2006. The would-be cult sensation was hid from all eyes until
its Thursday at 9:00pm screenings, and it underwhelmed at the
box office with $13 million over opening weekend. Now, to be
fair, a $13 million debut for a Samuel L. Jackson thriller
about, well, snakes on an airplane, sounded about right before
the hype machine kicked into gear and the film was sold by New
Line Cinemas as the greatest cult film of all time. But most
audiences, especially adults above a certain age, aren’t about
to shell out money for movie tickets and possibly babysitters
for a film that they’ve been told is “so bad it’s good”. But
the joke was that the film was actually a perfectly solid
thriller and the reviews were actually mostly positive. Imagine
how much better buzz New Line Cinema would have had going into
the weekend with a parade of positive critical notices behind
them?
There are also any number of horror films, which are routinely
withheld from press screenings which may well have benefited
from the fact that they were pretty darn good. Genuinely solid
horror films like , Quarantine, The Amityville Horror (also
starring Ryan Reynolds, in a performance about 100x better than
the one he gives in R.I.P.D.), Devil, or yes, Dark Skies that
could have benefited from a slight critical nudge. Quarantine
especially was hurt a little by hiding it from the press, as the
found-footage remake opened with $14 million over opening
weekend even without a slew of halfway decent notices that
followed over the weekend. Of course plenty of horror films,
such as The Apparition, Apollo 18, or One Missed Call, are
withheld from the press for expected reasons. But I’d argue the
practice of holding back somewhat higher profile films only
creates the impression that a film is utterly terrible, which
leads to critics proclaiming that harmless mediocrities like
Gone, One For the Money, or Abduction somehow belongs on a
“worst films of the year” list. While studios may think they are
shielding paying audiences from terrible reviews for that
all-important opening weekend, the practice with bigger
non-horror fare often merely creates the impression that the
film is on a higher scale of bad than it actually is. Not every
film that forgoes pre-release screenings is as bad as The
Avengers, but that’s the impression that is created every time.
Sadly R.I.P.D. is indeed that bad. It’s somewhat rare for
studios to withhold such a genuinely expensive film from
critical glares. It was a big deal fifteen Augusts ago when
Warner Bros. declined to screen The Avengers for critics, and
the buzz was sadly true in that case. Even Jonah Hex was
screened for press two days prior to release. But this is sadly
an infamous misfire and this is a rare case where I’d argue that
keeping word about the film’s utter lack of quality and
entertainment value is indeed worth hiding from paying consumers
for as long as possible. But I’d argue it’s the exception rather
than the rule. Most films withheld from critics are horror films
that don’t need or want critical approval or low-budget stinkers
that aren’t expecting positive notices. But yeah, R.I.P.D. is
the kind of film that justifies the stigma.[/quote]
#Post#: 21081--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hiding from Critics
By: Chiprocks1 Date: July 19, 2013, 8:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I thought the trailer was great. I guess they put all the good
stuff into 2 half minutes for the trailer. This movie just went
straight to my "maybe" list.
#Post#: 21086--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hiding from Critics
By: Mac Date: July 19, 2013, 9:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Just read another blistering review...
... It sucks that bad or just a couple of bad reviews?
*****************************************************