OK, who's ready to see the new movie about a gastroenterologist named Joe?
One of my favorite tree-based movie critics, Ty Burr of the Boston Globe, explains why you won't be seeing many reviews of "G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra" before it opens (Paramount isn't pre-screening it for critics) and wonders who cares -- about the movie or what critics think of it?
Movie critics are put on earth first to alert you to good movies you might otherwise miss, then to cut through the PR fog and consider the actual worth of a given film (depending on what, exactly, it hopes to achieve). With certain types of movie -- typically smaller, more ambitious fare attended by people who regularly read reviews -- a critic can mean the difference between a successful run and an early DVD release. But blockbusters? In most cases, we're BBs bouncing off the hide of an elephant....
I can think of a few critical pile-ons that helped speed a big studio movie's demise -- "Gigli," for one, and "Dr. Seuss' The Cat in the Hat." But the former arrived in theaters awash in weeks of lethal pop-culture buzz, and the latter's crassness was so dissonant with the tone of the original book that family audiences were repelled. The negative reviews, in both cases, were an entertaining sideshow and little more.
As a longtime pro, Burr has a realistic view of the role of critics and the role of marketers in the release of wide-release motion pictures. The studio salespeople hope that critics will help put some momentum behind their movie -- but they also know they might not. If they have a picture that they know people with knowledge and experience in movies aren't likely to go for, what's the advantage of screening the picture for them in advance? Well, it's this: Not pre-screening the movie (for the press or the pubic) is usually a sign that the studio itself thinks the movie isn't going to play well.
That's the old way of thinking, at least. It used to be standard operating procedure to screen a film -- a professional courtesy on all but the few pictures that the studio expected to dump after meeting its marketing obligations for the opening weekend. Fair game: In exchange for seeing the movie in advance of opening day (to meet their deadlines), critics agree to hold their reviews until the movie has actually started showing to the paying public. Well, neither side holds up their side of that bargain anymore.
If the studio flacks really aren't sure what they've got (or just need to show they'd done due diligence) they'll sometimes sneak in a critic for a confidential pre-release opinion, so they can reassure their bosses: "Yeah, we showed it to a critic and he hated it and said he thought everybody else would, too." In the last few years, by choosing not to screen more movies in advance (usually inexpensive comedies and horror films), the studios have been trying to reduce the stigma formerly associated with non-press-screened films. Burr describes the approach for "G.I. Joe":
Paramount spokespeople are saying they want to protect their new action extravaganza from the kind of nuclear reviews "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" received. "We want audiences to define this film," in the words of studio vice chairman Rob Moore.
[...] "G.I. Joe" is "an expensive and, for the studio [Paramount], risky attempt to establish a new franchise, one based on a toy that has never really had the cool-factor of Optimus Prime and his pals. So in a sense they're right to be wary.
But don't audiences always "define" movies -- at least in the days and weekends surrounding their initial release? Movies don't fail because they get bad reviews; they usually flop because -- whether they're any good or not -- the first audiences to see them don't particularly like them, and/or ticketbuyers never show up in the first place because the marketing and advertising hasn't motivated them. (The trick is to making a movie "bulletproof" is to make it something people they feel they have to see in order to have an opinion to talk and text and post about this week[end]. Social currency is the best kind of income.) When a movie with major studio muscle behind it hits or dies it's not because of the critics' reviews -- it's because of the audiences'. But critics' reviews come from people who've already seen the movie and the majority of ticket sales from those who haven't yet (unless they're coming back to see it again).
So, it's not like reviews are telling audiences what to think. Like the critics, they responding to the movie experience they're given. When a potential franchise movie is not screened in advance for the public (the weekend before opening, or at late screenings the night before), you know the studio's pre-release testing has indicated that critics and audiences are going to share a less-than-enthusiastic reaction to it.
The irony now is that texting and Twittering and Facebooking make managing the "buzz" more difficult than ever for a studio to control. Critics like Ty Burr will have their reviews online within hours of the first public showing Friday morning, so people will still have access to the reviews before Friday night, and many will already have heard about it from friends who attended opening day matinees. By not screening "G.I. Joe" for critics, Paramount is buying the movie a few more hours of "audience definition," but that's about it. Everybody -- critics and moviegoers-- are going to be spewing their "G.I." tracts electronically on opening day, and at that point it's out of the marketers' hands. The movie's on its own.
I've already vowed not to see "G.I. Joe." Summer 09 has been a watershed moment for me, as "Wolverine" and "Terminator Salvation" taught me the hard way to stop watching summer blockbusters based on things I used to love that can now only disappoint (and I was never even a big G.I. Joe fan as a kid anyway).
What I don't understand, though, is that if these sort of movies are so critic-proof (and I agree that they are), then why is Paramount so afraid to screen it for critics? Obviously it didn't hurt "Transformers," nor the aforementioned "Terminator Salvation" and "Wolverine," which both got a lot of negative reviews but had big opening weekends regardless. In fact, I always thought refusing to screen a movie for critics was in some ways worse PR than screening it and getting a lot of bad reviews. At least with the latter (as with "Transformers"), the studio and filmmakers can then go on a tirade about how critics are "out of touch" with audiences for hating a movie that "regular folk" loved. But with the former, the studio is basically admitting that they know their movie will be hated, and they have no faith in it themselves. If they don't believe in their own movie, why should I?
JE: "Wolverine" -- in what decade was that released? I never knew anybody who was a big G.I. Joe fan. It was always one of those second- or third-tier toys -- not anybody's favorite. Joe was kind of anonymous by design, without the personality variations of even the 3-D airbrushed Barbies. (Oh, wait, that's right -- he's an "action figure," not a doll!) You're right about the studio's attitude, I think. If Paramount thought the movie would get good word-of-mouth, they'd be screening it in advance, having "pre-opening" public preview screenings in the weeks and days before the official opening, tacking on a late-night Thursday screening to boost the opening weekend grosses... They're not so much afraid that critics will taint the movie for audiences. They're admitting that they believe audiences aren't going to like it any more than critics will.
Right on, Ty Burr.
I have heard from a few critics who are actually upset that they aren't getting a preview of the movie. Huh? If it got me out of seeing the movie, I'd send Paramount a thank you card. I realize this means some critics will have to see the movie on Friday and then rush a review but doesn't that show you what a silly notion it is that any movie with a big budget is "important" and must be covered?
I've been wondering how long it was going to take studios to stop automatically setting up previews for movies. It's probably an expense they can afford to cut in the case of movies like this now that the business is all about the first weekend. I'd think that this would be a development that would make both studios and critics quite happy.
I always raise a skeptical eye towards my colleagues who get worked up in a lather about the opportunity (or the lack thereof) to review the latest piece of juvenilia. Why so eager to be part of the Hollywood publicity machine?
I never knew anybody who was a big G.I. Joe fan. It was always one of those second- or third-tier toys -- not anybody's favorite. Joe was kind of anonymous by design, without the personality variations of even the 3-D airbrushed Barbies.
The new "G.I. Joe" movie is based on the cartoon and toys from the 1980's, not the original dolls from the '60s (which do look remarkably dull). I was a big fan of the 80's incarnation and remember it being pretty popular (right alongside the "Transformers" cartoon and toys). But I thinks its kind of funny that those of use who were young enough to watch the shows and play with the toys are too old to be the primary audience for these movies now. I guess with Transformers, the appeal is built right into the concept and transcends familiarity with the original series/toys, but G.I. Joe is probably a slightly tougher sell. Still, I would be surprised if the movie wasn't a big hit. I can't be bothered to see it though. Now I might consider it if Ebert had loved it, but I guess we won't be seeing that review now.
JE: Thanks, I was indeed thinking of the '60s original. I didn't know the line had been revised and revived in the '80s (when I was in my 20s and not paying a whole lot of attention to things like that!).
Just for the record- G.I. Joe was my favorite toy growing up. I'm not sure I ever knew any of the characters names, nor did I really watch the animated show. But they sure were cool in the epic battle scenarios I set up, with those green plastic soldiers and various Lego figures as back up. My Darth Vader action figure always lead the cool guys, of course, jumping with two G.I. Joes out of the AT-AT.
I'm just saying.
About Burr's piece- is there anything new about this? Does anyone care? Transformers was mentioned...the reviews didn't seem to hurt its B.O. Whether the reviews come out on Wednesday or on Friday, it's not like the film is going to be remembered any differently. Although...now that I think about it, Aint it Cool has been pushing Joe. But they're not really effected by press screenings with most of this stuff.
JE: Thanks, Shlomo -- I was thinking of the original '60s toy, unaware that it had been revived in the '80s. Burr is asking those very questions. As for AICN, my understanding is that the studio has screened the movie for them and other core fan groups, just not for mainstream movie critics.
That's so infuriatingly cowardly that I might go against my original plan and see this, so I can review it out of spite. All a move like that does is play into the idea of film critics being part of the marketing campaign, a notion that needs to go the way of the dodo as soon as possible.
Earlier in the summer, there were rumors floating about that Stephen Sommers had been fired from GI Joe and that they had hired editors to make the film releasable after it scored some of the worst test audience scores in PAramount history. The studio said it was just rumors, but then again, when the workprint of Wolverine leaked, Fox said that the movie was longer and that the special effects weren't finished- the special effects got finished but the runtime remained unchanged.
This is all pretty much old information in the column, but I do always find it fascinating when studios decline to show films. Hell, The Perfect Getaway just screamed "not screened for critics" but all the critics managed to see it, and GI Joe is pretty much the last big budget movie of the summer and they're going to keep it under wraps? IT's like they're practically screaming "Don't see our movie!"
I think this year's Watchmen was an interesting exception to the rules presented here. It was a film that rode an intense wave of buzz, got stellar reviews, and then underperformed (I don't want to say flopped, because it did pretty well, but it only made $107 million on a $130 million dollar budget and was only able to make a profit with overseas grosses), because I don't think most of the viewing audiences knew how to respond to a nearly three hour comic book movie that dealt with some pretty serious issues. I had problems with it myself, but I think it deserved to do a little better than that, and certainly is an interesting case of audiences being completely against the grain with the critics on a big budget movie- usually the critics hate it and the audiences love it (Transformers 2).
Yeah, I was a child of the 80s, which is the G.I. Joe incarnation I was referring to. I have a couple of long-time friends who loved G.I. Joe as kids, but I was too preoccupied with Ghostbusters, Ninja Turtles, and Lego's at the time. Show me a summer blockbuster based on Lego's, and I will watch the hell out of that movie (Michael Bay would be perfect, since every play session with Lego's inevitably ended with smashing whatever you made into pieces).
And speaking of the 80s G.I. Joe series: This is neither here nor there, and apparently it's a few years old, but I only just found out about these re-dubbed G.I. Joe PSAs, and it's way too hilarious not to pass on. Apparently the writer of these went on to write for Tim and Eric, which doesn't surprise me one bit.
"Thanks, I was indeed thinking of the '60s original. I didn't know the line had been revised and revived in the '80s (when I was in my 20s and not paying a whole lot of attention to things like that!)."
Yeah, G.I. Joe was huge in the 80s. It was launched as a cross-media juggernaut consisting of a line of toys, a cartoon series, and a Marvel comic book series (and the comic book even had television commercials, which is unheard of today). The comic book actually had some substance for a kid's series (Cobra, for instance, was a terrorist organization rooted in white, middle-class suburbia, so it became a not-so-subtle satire on bourgeois values), and was fairly influential.
I try never to judge a movie based on it's trailer. I have not seen "GI Joe." Therefore, I will withhold judgement.
That being said, Dennis Quaid has used up all the capital he had from the magnificent "Savior" years and years and years ago. I don't recognize a single name among the actors, producers or director. Oh, and the trailer made this movie look less appetizing than the sweat on a giraffe's ball sack.
I believe I'll pass.
If Ty Burr's idea of how critics function (pointing out movies worth seeing to those who wouldn't otherwise see them) is correct, then I wonder if it would be worthwhile for reviewers to not review a movie at all if it isn't pre-screened.
Effectively, the critic community would be saying if the studios won't do a pre-screen for us, you don't get any press from us. This would be trying to take advantage of the "publicity is good, good publicity is even better" idea. After all, how much of the press for Transformers 2 was driven by the critical hate-on vs. the fan-boy love in? If you subtracted the critical hate-on, there's no story, and no publicity.
I wonder if not screening a large blockbuster is simply an attempt to improve the rotten tomatoes score. By not screening the film for critics, the studio is largely reducing the pool of reviews to those people who were inclined to see the picture in the first place. You're right that few people spend much time reading individual reviews, but a lot do look at the aggregators.
I have to wonder what the POINT of reviewing G.I. Joe would be?
Not only is it financially critic proof, but the kind of experience that the majority of audience members will want out of the movie has very little to do with anything a critic might comment on. From looking at the trailer, I can provide the kind of review of it that the target audience would need: "Good looking people in cool outfits? Check. Lots of CGI enhanced fight scenes? Check. A sprinkle of nostalgia for anyone who was a kid in the 80's? Check. Go see it if you're into these things."
Of course summer blockbusters can be more, and sometimes there is actual wit and smarts behind the noise, but that's kinda beside the point. G.I. is meant for a certain kind of audience who want a certain kind of movie.
I think it's a bit problematic that so much of the discussion about film critics is about people who publish reviews of this weekends openings. Criticism is more than "reviewing" the latest batch of product. I can imagine a really good essay about consumer culture and the "Transformers" and "G.I. Joe" movies. There are things to say about those flicks, but they aren't "reviews" as such. For "reviews," you can watch the trailer and expect it'll be like that.
Of course occasionally a big dumb movie has a little more going on in the head than necessary (the first Transformers movie was really funny and entertaining. . it was much better than it had to be) and if G.I. Joe is one of those, then the studio is missing out on a lot of tickets from grown ups who aren't going to pay to see explosions. Since they are ignoring us grown ups, I think we can rest assured that what they've got isn't going to work on that level.
I think we could stand to read some criticism of G.I. Joe, but I really don't think I need to read a review. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't like it.
Here's the thing - GI Joe is going to flop and flop badly. It's being released in August, it is getting lousy buzz, and it isn't an "event" movie like Transformers 2. It doesn't help the movie that I can't tell if it's a kids movie, a movie for teens, or a movie for nostalgic fanboys. I know that's purposeful - they want to bring in all audiences - but it will scare away casual filmgoers.
Currently, bulletproof movies are (1) big-star, big-budget action movies released near the 4th of July or Memorial Day; (2) movies based on recent and massively popular books aimed at the teen/pre-teen audience (Twilight, etc.); and (3) slasher horror movies. All three get lambasted by critics, and all three do well in the box office (with a very few exceptions). Everything else is helped by critical praise or hurt by critical panning.
"So, it's not like reviews are telling audiences what to think. Like the critics, they responding to the movie experience they're given."
I worked a movie theatres for almost 10 years as I dawdled my way through my BA. What does the current crop of exhibitors think of all of this? I ask because so much of the movie experience rests with the exhibitors.
When I was working at theatres it was the beginning of the super-multiplex/stadium seating era. The staff loved movies and paid attention to reviews, sharing opinions freely with ticket buyers. We felt conflicted about dedicating 2 or 3 screens (of about 20) to a single film, as that cut down on the number of different movies we could show. Do exhibitors have an opinion now on the pre-release screening for critics question?
We put a lot of effort into making the movie experience a really enjoyable one. We had a low-key (non-advertising) slide show between showings, trailers for coming (and some current) attractions (with maybe one promo for popcorn mixed in). I hesitate going to see movies in theatres now because of the constant barrage of non-movie advertising thrown up onto the screen. The movie experience has been damaged by exhibitors before the movie even begins.
Anyway. Some reminiscing, and some crabbing about theatres, but I haven't noticed much comment on these pages in the months I've been reading Scanners about exhibitors and their impact on movies.
The commercials for this film rubbed me the wrong way from Day One: the "American Bad-ass" song in the background of the radio commercials sounds like a take-off on Team America's "America F*** Yeah" theme song, only it doesn't realize it's a parody. And the whole idea of these low-rent Iron Man knock-off super-soldiers ... wasn't the original G.I. Joe from the 1960s supposed to be an ordinary grunt? Wasn't that the whole idea, to make a hero out of the ordinary G.I.? It appears we've replaced that with stylized military hardware fetishism and alpha-male idolatry.
I guess I'm just not part of the target audience for this movie. I ask the wrong questions, when the studio would like me to ask "how big are the explosions" and "will there be any hot naked chicks".
I think most people are like me when it comes to the critics. Some movies I’ll see no matter what the critics say (Star Wars, Batman, Spiderman, Woody Allen, Scorsese – these are event movies in my life and I’m there no matter what!), some movies I’ll roll the dice and watch solely because Ebert recommends it (“The Hurt Locker” – loved it, “Man Push Cart” – detested it!) and some movies I’ll never watch no matter how great the critical praise (Nora Ephron’s take on Julia Child – I’d rather watch a colonoscopy).
But as a kid who had the GI Joe toys, watched the cartoon, and read the comics in the 1980s, I wanted to see how GI JOE translated into a live action, big budget flick. For me, the studio’s decision to block the critics had zero influence on my decision to buy a ticket.
My expectations were low for GI JOE because the previews looked cheesy and the Transformer movie from 2 years ago was such a waste of potential. I haven't even bothered with this summer’s Trasnsformers 2.
But I really enjoyed GI JOE. In fact, my two favorite movies of this summer are "GI JOE" and "The Hurt Locker". Two movies about "war" that couldn't be any more dissimilar (and war is incidental to both).
As a kid, my friends and I loved playing with our GI JOES in the sandbox, the swimming pool and in the snow. Apparently, the director did too because he utilized all three of those settings in the film wonderfully – with a chase scene in Paris to boot. The sets were amazing (the elaborate secret bases were really impressive) and the JOE’S training room put the X-Men's danger room to shame. Considering the number of characters (Hasbro's got sales numbers to meet), the movie actually painted interesting back stories for Destro, Cobra Commander, Baroness and Duke. Will this movie be a success? I hope so because I’d like to see a sequel get made. This was the most fun I’ve had seeing beloved childhood characters adapted into a movie since Spiderman 2.
I really enjoyed the G.I. Joe comic-book growing up in the 1980s, but I have no desire to revisit the characters.
If the studio admits the movie is critic-proof, then what are they afraid of? By withholding the movie from advance screenings, what they are saying to me is, "We think this film is on par with a Paris Hilton comedy...but you should see it for yourself and see what YOU think!"
No thanks, Paramount. I'll take your word for it.
By admitting that they'd rather have the audience define "G.I. Joe" than allowing critics to define it, Paramount is admitting that they don't consider critics part of the audience. As someone who considers himself a critical viewer, it feels insulting to have a studio admit that it doesn't value that kind of thinking in the theater. Of course, this is all business to them. If critics end up loving the movie for some reason (I've seen it, so trust me when I say that won't happen), you can bet Paramount would blast choice quotes across their ads.
It's a real shame GI Joe wasn't screened for critics, because it looks awful and had terrible buzz going into the weekend. The only plus in the film's favour was casting Joseph Gordon Levitt as Cobra Commander.
There's been a small trickle of fan reviews on line, and they're very mixed, though everyone seems to think it's better than Bayformers 2. Maybe I'll catch a matineee, but decent reviews from professional critics on top of the late wave of mild buzz, given my nostalgia for the 80s* version of the property, might have pushed me to actually buy a ticket.
*I know you've heard already Jim, but GI Joe and Transformers both owned the mid-to late 80s toy market in the US. Everything else was a passing far by comparison. The mostly by Larry Hama comic was actually very good and certainly miles better than it should have been. For comparison's sake, until Marvel brought in the British Simon Furman, who mostly ignored the central premise, the Transformers comic was full of absurdities like Optimus Prime's entire mind being stored on a 5.5" floppy disk.
"The mostly by Larry Hama comic was actually very good and certainly miles better than it should have been."
This reminds me that one of my favorite comic book lines of all time comes from the G.I. Joe comics of the 1980's.
The Joe team has gotten into some scrape, and an mystery old-timer soldier has helped them out. He rides off into the sunset or whatever at the end, and after he's gone it's revealed that this soldier is the "original G.I. Joe," the one the team was built from/by/something.
One of the new Joes from the team closes the issue with the line, "I thought he'd be taller..."
GI Joe never really left the consciousness of young fans. It went through several incarnations in the 90's (including the laughable GI Joe Extreme) and survived in the 2000's with GI Joe Sigma Six (which starred the same characters as the ones in the movie). Plus the original 80's cartoon has been on heavy rotation in the Cartoon Network for the past decade. Which still surprised me when a young man just entering his 20's and not born in the United States told me he was excited to see the new GI Joe movie. I said that he wasn't around for when GI Joe first aired, but he assured me he'd seen it. So it's not just marketed toward 30-something men like myself.
(Who went to see it, by the way. I saw the movie at a theater than only admitted over 21's because they served alcohol, and it was packed with people my age.)
Incidentally, Jim, if I may be permitted to snark for one paragraph, you really are showing your age when the first GI Joe you think of is the original toy from the 60's and not the 80's cartoon. Are you sure you were the perfect foil for Roger Ebert in the whole "are video games art" debate?
I'm just sayin'.
Just as a minor correction, when the first commenter Kris Pigna said "Wolverine" above, he meant X-Men: Origins. It sounded like you misunderstood the title so I'm just clearing that up here. Great job with this entry and the blog.