Brian Robbins has been making himself and others quite rich recently as the director of the Eddie Murphy comedy "Norbit" and the co-producer of last weekend's top-grossing movie, "Wild Hogs." But guess what? He's distraught that his motion pictures were not accorded a more positive critical reception. (He's almost as upset that more music critics aren't fans of "American Idol," but can't bring himself to talk about that just yet.) As he complained in The Hollywood Reporter:
"How does a movie score in the 90s with an audience and get a 9% positive rating on Rotten Tomatoes?" Robbins said, referring to "Norbit's" onslaught of negative reviews as summarized on the review compilation site, rottentomatoes.com. "How do you figure that? Is the audience that stupid? Is America's taste that bad? I don't think so."Oh, Brian, Brian, Brian. You are so right... and yet, so wrong.While the jury may still be out on America's intelligence, Robbins has given up making movies for critics.
"If you read reviews on a consistent basis on all films, you realize that the majority of films just get murdered," Robbins said. "The only films that get good reviews are the ones that nobody sees. I just don't think you can make movies for critics."
Let me ask you: Did you make "Norbit" and "Wild Hogs" to please critics? Did you expect those movies to get good reviews? Do you think moviegoers read the negative reviews and then just decided to buy their tickets anyway? If that's the case, then what are you complaining about? You want glory and money? How often does that happen in Hollywood?
So, consider this: Did you ever entertain the possibility that perhaps "Norbit" and "Wild Hogs" were neither designed for, nor marketed to, people who pay all that much attention to movie critics? Why in the world would you think that general audiences and movie critics should agree? (See ancient analogy about McDonald's and food critics.)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe "Norbit" (the movie that some speculate may have cost Eddie Murphy his "Dreamgirls" Oscar because it was released during the Academy voting period) was screened for critics. I don't remember about "Wild Hogs" because, well, that was so long ago. Seems like they may have screened it on a Thursday night for an opening the next day. But, really, why did you bother? Do you think most critics would go see your movies if they didn't get paid to? Do you realize that critics probably make up 0.0001 percent of the moviegoing population -- or less?
So, if you don't pre-screen the movie, then what more are you gonna do? Keep critics from buying movie tickets like everyone else (because their editors want reviews, even of trash)? Make all moviegoers agree to keep non-positive opinions to themselves -- you know, in case they have blogs or friends or something and might spread negative word of mouth? Ask more rhetorical questions?
I like this: "If you read reviews on a consistent basis on all films, you realize that the majority of films just get murdered."
YES!!! It may be just a coincidence, but most movies are also crap! Even if they're relatively enjoyable at the time, they're forgettable and disposable, like yesterday's lunch. Imagine if you had to spend more time writing about movies than you actually do seeing them. Because most reviews take longer than 90 minutes to write, which is probably why many critics prefer writing about films that give them something to write about. Something that may be worth thinking about after you pay for your parking.
And then there's this: "The only films that get good reviews are the ones that nobody sees. I just don't think you can make movies for critics."
You are so right about that! Nobody sees "The Departed" (RT: 93%) or "Casino Royale" (94%) or "Little Miss Sunshine" (92%) or "Borat" (90%) or "The Devil Wears Prada" (76%) or "Cars" (76%) or "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" (89%), to name some of the top-grossing and/or most profitable movies of 2006. ("Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest" rated a 53%.) So, you should just stop right now trying to make movies like "Norbit" and "Wild Hogs" for critics. Don't waste your time on us ungrateful scribes who fail to sufficiently appreciate the joy you are attempting to introduce into our humdrum workaday lives! Here's the deal: You take the multi-million dollar ad campaigns and let the wretched critics scribble about those tiny little movies that can't afford those kind of expenses -- you know, "the ones that nobody sees" because aren't advertised in every conceivable medium for weeks before they are released. Deal? Deal!
Movies that get good reviews are seen by nobody?
There are plenty of examples of quality movies doing well at the box office. Sure, not all obscure Danish arthouse films are going to be huge hits but to say a movie has to be trash to be embraced by a mass audience is ridiculous.
Look at "The Departed". 93% on the RT-metre and over $100million in domestic box office. Or even "Casino Royale"? 94% and $167million.
Always interesting to see the old cliché about critical acclaim [or non] and audience numbers perpetuated - this time by a sub-standard paint-by-numbers director.
Nothing against a shallow movie going for gross-out entertainment, to the contrary, I really liked Cannonball Run when it came out [I was 15] and I have evenings when I thoroughly enjoy such films. From the outset they are much better than those trying to be deeper - just missing the mark. In every aspect of life I found that total misses are more enjoyable than near misses.
But, is it really true that critical acclaimed movies do not gather a large audience? Or that big audiences equal bad reviews, or vice versa? I doubt that.
First of all, many crowd drawers, like the Star Wars movies, get good to raving reviews. But even those movies that get middling to bad reviews are not a surefire crowd pleaser. What is even better, the "art" films Mr Robbins most probably alludes to, the movies critics really like but popcorn audiences possibly not [at first run], turn out to be sleepers - admittedly often decades long sleeping.
Will Citizen Kane, His Girl Friday, Some Like It Hot or even a Kubrick movie still be seen and enjoyed in 50 years time? I bet. Norbit, Wild Hogs, anyone?
Sorry, first week-end sales are surely important to studios and distributors since many bad movies will inevitably generate their income over the first three or four days before people realise that they can watch crap cheaper at home - in their bathrooms.
Picking on Norbit or anything the director of Norbit says doesn't feel so right. It sounds more to me like venting anger at the general public for letting films of virtue go unwatched.
On a different note, your most recent image captions really crack me up, especially the puns in Brokeback Jack. I don't know if finding them humorous is inherently homophobic, or even something deeper, but the laughs I got nearly made up for you picking on a director who made a simple movie, for simple people.
I would actually love to see Robbins try to explain why his film must be better than, say, 'Children of Men,' since the box-office numbers clearly indicate that.
The thing that upsets me about the Brian Robbins, and the Tim Storys, and Shawn Levys and Adam Shankmans of the studio world is that people so clearly devoid of any artistic interest in the medium of film are some of the most ubiquitous and (without the audience knowing who they are) popular directors.
More people are seeing the schlock they put out than anything else. Occasionally a Speilberg or a Zemeckis or Jackson will slip in and break the streak of crap, but mostly it's the hired guns who don't seem to have any motivation to film whatever material their seven writers have "created" beyond their own financial gain.
That Robbins is seemingly so unaware of what he's doing, makes it all the more depressing.
Sorry, first week-end sales are surely important to studios and distributors since many bad movies will inevitably generate their income over the first three or four days before people realise that they can watch crap cheaper at home - in their bathrooms.
You are so dearly right, Dierk. I hope that someday in the future, audience members can demand their money back, in total or in part, after they see the movie. (This is assuming a world where people don't cheat the honor system, but work with me here). This would once and for all demolish the idea that box office totals = audience endorsement, because logic is apparently not enough to do the job on its own.
Look, Brian Robbins: a movie's box office indicates nothing but what people put down before they saw a movie. It is not an endorsement, or a statement of satisfaction. It's someone taking a gamble.
Admittedly, if they gambled on Norbit or Wild Hogs, they probably shouldn't get their money back no matter what, just on principle...
Robbins' comments really bothered me, but they're nothing new...Hollywood hacks have been questioning the merit of critics for years now.
What's interesting is that Robbins mistakes his two films' box-office intake for actual enjoyment by the audience. There is a huge distinction between how many people SEE a movie and how many people ENJOY a movie. How can Robbins interpret Wild Hogs' excellent opening weekend as indication that the public loves it? All it means is that the public loved the trailer. When one looks at how the public is actually reacting to the two movies, a different story is told. Currently at the Internet Movie Database, "Wild Hogs" has a mediocre rating of 6.0 out of 10. Not exactly setting the world on fire. "Norbit" has a rating of, get this, 2.8 out of 10! Now, granted, the people who might take the time to vote on IMDB tend to be in sync with critics' taste a little more than John Q. Public, but still...it's not like "Norbit" is taking the nation by storm.
I got into an argument with a co-worker over this very same subject (the necessity of critics) merely two days before Robbins' comments. We were talking about the film "300", and I said I wasn't sure I would go to see it, because the early reviews made it sound like exactly the kind of mindless testosterone-fest that I usually hate.
"But why read critics and let other people tell you what to see?" was my friend's response.
My retort was simple: there is a finite amount of time on this Earth that we all have. No one can possibly see every single movie that is made throughout the world. Thus, we must make choices. One can make an informed choice by weighing several factors (a film's trailer, its subject matter, its director and cast, the reviews it receives, the word-of-mouth one hears from friends), and that is what I usually try to do. But if one ignores critics, then people are influenced to see movies simply by the distribution of those movies, the budget of the films, and the bombardment of their trailers. So either way, other people are deciding what we see...I would rather it be someone who knows about film and cares about it, as opposed to whichever studio has the most money to shell out.
This reminds me of one of my favorite quotes. When Bret Ratnet was asked if he got final cut, he scoffed: "What would I want with final cut? Final cut is for 'auteurs' and for other people who don't make money."
Actually, I don't really have a problem with that quote. Ratner knows he is a hack, likes being a hack, and is very good at being a hack. Nothing wrong with that.
Robbins seems a bit more tortured about his role, but that's understandable. Most people don't really like to think of themselves as hacks (Ratners of the world aside) and I wouldn't be surprised if he genuinely believed he had made two good movies. And he looks to the people who give him the most support... namely "the people." Unappreciated auteurs whose movies are "never seen" may scoff at audiences, studios and dsitributors, while cozying up to the critics who appreciate them the most. I don't think it's that big of a difference from what Robbins is saying here.
The notion that popularity equates with equality is noxious, but he's hardly the only one who thinks that. I don't know why he's so upset about the lack of critical acclaim, but I'm sure he'll get over it once he signs his next contract which will be a whole lot more lucrative after his recent b.o. success.
What perplexes me most about Robbins' comments to the Hollywood Reporter is that he doesn't claim that bad reviews hurt his films at the box office. Indeed, he's saying they did quite well (though where he gets his "90 score with an audience" figure is unclear. Where did he get that number? Pre-release testing? Exit polls? Which service did they use?)
Anyway, it seems clear that even overwhelmingly negative reviews did not affect the box office results. So, what is he complaining about?
Critics don't tell Brian Robbins what kinds of movies he should make. So why should Brian Robbins tell critics what kinds of movies they should like more?
Wild Hogs screened at least once two weeks before its opening, for an invitational audience (the dregs of society that do nothing but see free screenings of films all week.)
There were a handful of Seattle critics at the screening at my theatre. The audience reaction to the sold out show was uniformly positive, as far as our audience survey could tell. I don't know what the critics thought.
My goodness, if I just had two hit movies at the theater, I would try to find other things to complain about than how critics viewed them. I would actually be quite thankful, and use that new power to make something perhaps a little more worthwhile as a film.
Perhaps Mr. Robbins is simply frustrated that, as a former sitcom actor, he skipped right over the "This Is Spinal Tap" / "Big" / "Splash" phase of directorial success and has been permanently mired in "North" territory with dreck like "Good Burger" and "The Shaggy Dog." Perhaps he should take a hint and stay on TV -- where he's had more success with "Smallville" and tween fare.
This is certainly an interesting topic, especially since I come across so many people who raise an eyebrow when I explain my dreams of remaining an independent director. Working at a theater (though I intend to upgrade to liquor store within the next few weeks), I work with a lot of people who actually rate a movie based on the market it does.
"World Trade Center must be better than United 93. After all United 93 was moved to the low-income theaters upstairs in the first week while WTC continued to draw a crowd."
"Ghost Rider had to suck. The comic didn't make anybody rich. Can you even name me a Ghost Rider villain?"
"Pan's Labyrinth was alright I guess, but I had to read!"
I find it especially interesting to put these statements in context to M. Night Shyamalamadingdong's defense of Lady In The Water after winning two Razzies. “I’ve got shit to say! I need to say it! I don’t want to think about ‘Will they like it or will they not like me?’” After all, he assures us that time will be show it for the beautiful film that it is.
"What would I want with final cut? Final cut is for 'auteurs' and for other people who don't make money."
Thank you so much for that quote, Christopher. It made my night. I have tremendous respect for Ratner that I didn't have before. I never thought much of him, but it's so rare to see a hack that admits as much. Obviously I have much more respect for someone who is doing something because he loves it or has something to say and not for the money--but I mean, a lot of people do their jobs for the money only. His honesty is refreshing.
Why on earth should this Bozo care whether critics like his films? It's really odd. . . the guy's clearly making product, and since he's able to sell it, and since the people who watch it seem to enjoy it, why should it bother him if it's not actually any good? What's actually disturbing about this is that critics (or their editors most likely) actually feel the need to review stuff like Norbit. It seems inappropriate somehow to waste brain cells explaining why its a bad film.
Norbit is a bad film, but certain kinds of bad films please people. If a film's purpose is to please people by appealing to the lowest common demoniator, and it is successful. . . what's the big deal? The guy's a hack, but apparently an effective one, and he should wise up and understand taht criticism isn't really relevant to what he does. This guy should take a long look in the mirror.
Norbit didn't have a critics-only screening, but it was screened before its release. I'm a critic for a small paper in the New Orleans area and I saw it a few days before release in a packed auditorium for a passes-only screening.
Yes, I despised Norbit. And yes, judging by the number of guffaws, the rest of the audience seemed to absolutely love it.