Video Blog: Response To G.I. Joe Director’s Stupid Claim That Critics Hate All Popular And Successful Movies
Posted by John Campeaon 11. 08. 2009in News Chat
G.I. Joe director just did one of the most moronic interviews I’ve read in a long time. In it he cries and whines about people who don’t like his movie and makes the claim that movie critics hate all films that are popular and successful and ONLY like dark and depressing movies. I use this installment of my video blog to respond to that claim and make some observations of my own.
This post was written by :
John Campea who has written 6783 posts on The Movie Blog
visit author's website | Contact the Author
I tend to disagree with you a lot, but your recent defenses of film criticism have been right on. If studios really didn’t care about reviews they wouldn’t fill their advertising with film critic quotes.
Except that most studios on “craptacular” films tend to butcher quotes from film critics to their own advantage….
ie:
“In watching GI JOE I felt like I was on the stupidest action-fuelled insanity filled ride of my life! says MJS”
and they’d only take
MJS says about GI JOE “Action-fuelled insanity! Ride of my life!”
I somehow did not realize that the GI Joe director also did Mummy II and Vanhelsing. I may be in the SMALL minority but I own and enjoy both films. All my instincts tell me that GI Joe is not good but I think I am going to have to rent it at least based on my enjoyment of his other films.
Nothing wrong with that at all William. All film is subjective. If you like those films, more power to ya brother.
As far as G.I. Joe goes… I don’t think it’s good, but it was a lot better than I thought it would be to be honest. Sommers should just keep his mouth shut and be grateful for whatever success the film does have.
You forgot The Mummy, John. Granted, Mummy Returns and Van Helsing were quite floppy, but I watched The Mummy again recently, and it is one of the best action films I’ve ever seen. Right up there with Raiders Of The Lost Ark, The Matrix, and Terminator 2.
Great video, though. Your points are entirely valid. It was quite funny, as well.
You’re not serious are you?!
I was talking about what you said about the Mummy not the video.
I see it as a chance to go to a drive-in and check out Transformers 2 and GI JOE. Make it worth my money, support the local drive-in AND i’ll even watch an old copy of Masters of The Universe just to make it seem better.
And for everyone commenting on THE MUMMY. John pointed out MUMMY 2 in his review, he didn’t mention the first one…which actually was a fun movie to watch. But heck if Sommers can overlook logic, then John’s entitled to leaving out his one half-decent film from the list.
“As far as G.I. Joe goes… I don’t think it’s good, but it was a lot better than I thought it would be to be honest. Sommers should just keep his mouth shut and be grateful for whatever success the film does have.”
ENtirely true. totally agree with john
@Jake
LOL…THE MUMMY=TERMINATOR 2
My Goodness, what has gotten into these people?
Terminator 2 is a legend in film-making. The Mummy is a fun film and nice to watch but its too much to ask for it to be compared with the LEGEND!
Hey, in a top 10 Action Flick list, I would definitely place T2 near the top. The Mummy, on the other hand, would be somewhere near the bottom. My point is, IT’S UP THERE. Genuinely good action flicks are hard to find, and when it comes to The Mummy, I can’t think of a single major flaw in terms of plot, casting, dialogue, or cinematography. It’s a great film.
Plus, one of the best villains ever. Who doesn’t empathize with a guy that just wants to get his girl back, even if he’s willing to murder many innocent people to do it?
Goodness! Off the top of my head I can name 10 action films that are far superior to “The Mummy!” It’s a good adventure movie but damned if it makes my top 10, or even 20, action films. But that’s just me. Kudos if you think “The Mummy” is great!
“Good” being “solid” and “great” being “solid”, “cool” and “satisfying”, yeah. Yeah, The Mummy is great. It’s got solid pace, unique plot, great actors, distinct characters, and a great and epic villain. That’s all an action flick essentially needs. Nobody here has argued otherwise, just guffawed at me repeatedly.
So, if I may ask, what IS your top 20 list?
@Jake
Lets see, my top 20 (No particular odrer):
Raider of the Lost Ark
T2
Aliens
Lethal Weapon
True Lies
Die Hard
Enter the Dragon
First Blood
Bourne Identity
Gladiator
The Last Boy Scout
Hard Boiled
Casino Royale
Captain Blood
The Adventures of Robin Hood
Superman II
The Mask of Zorro
The Dirty Dozen
Gunga Din
Predator
Good list. For the most part, I agree. T2, True Lies, Predator, Bourne, First Blood, Lethal Weapon, Robin Hood, Aliens…plenty of awesome choices.
But, if I may, please permit me to express my personal opinion.
I know that Spielberg has a tendency to bring it into his films, but in Raiders the whole Deus Ex Machina routine comes across as an inextricable dropoff. In an action film, the whole point is to build to the climax in act 3. In Raiders, there is no climax. It’s anticlimactic to a fault, in my opinion. Despite what IGN had to say. I would have put in Last Crusade as well, I think. That or placed it in it’s stead. There are many reasons why, but I’m going to keep going.
When you say Casino Royale, I assume you mean the new one with Daniel Craig, rather than the parody that was released in 1967. CR was great, and it’s got some fantastic parkour, but it’s almost the least action-oriented film in the series. I, personally, would have put Goldeneye there instead, for it’s more action-focused plot. Just saying. If you want you can ignore me.
Also, if I may say so, Hard Boiled had some of the best gunplay sequences yet filmed. But the plot was horrendous. I found it to at times be even more unwatchable than Advent Children.
Though I loved the action-oriented take Superman II brought to the franchise, I really think(unlike with the first film) someone should remake it. It builds the foundation nicely, but the action in the third act can drag a little. It’s just cheezy the way they presented it.
As for Mask of Zorro…well, it’s been a while since I saw it, though I’ve seen it multiple times. Saw it when I was younger. Good times.
Also, I’m a little surprised Bullitt isn’t here. It’s a classic film and the chases are legendary.
As for what we were talking about concerning The Mummy, I think one of the major reasons people are turned off by it is that it’s SUPPOSED to feel in many ways like a cool B-movie. The kind that brings a neat idea to the table but doesn’t really pull it off because of poor structure. Only, unlike B-movies in general, The Mummy has a very competent plot. I find that quite admirable. It’s not like people love Mummy for the action. That’s just a little icing on the cake here and there. It’s the plot that’s so invigorating.
Oops. Where I said, “inextricable”, I meant to say, “inexplicable.” My bad.
I must say this is one of my favorite video blogs you’ve done in a while. Mainly by how you used all the examples to prove that guy’s point wrong. It was kinda funny
Hahahahaha
Give ‘em hell John! Great post.
It is up to each person to make their own decision about a film. LOTS of people actually do let reviewers shape how they feel about a film before it is released, though and that is just a fact. This is a case of someone getting their feelings hurt about a film that would have done at least “well” no matter who directed it. I do believe though that most people want to take pride in their work and he was probably offended. I have never directed a film so it is impossible for me to say how easy/hard it is. In my opinion though I believe it would be a lot harder to do a film right now that is a completely original concept, compared to a film based on a comic/graphic novel/Saturday morning cartoon because most studios are willing to greenlight any/all of those no question because they will make money no matter what. He didnt have to put up a fight to get this film made.
His films are just not good. Regardless of the fact he obviously takes pride in them. Screaming at the reviewers only makes him look bad. Michael Bay’s films are awful and he is extremely full of himself but (as far as I know?) he hasnt attacked reviewers.. he just rakes in the cash and shuts his mouth. Good man.
At the risk of sounding like an illiterate teenager:
EPIC PWNAGE!!!!
Good post John. I was greatly entertained by it.
Very very true >.>
I went to see a movie on sat, and even the theater’s manager said that G.I. Joe was complete crap..lol..Was funny.
So, I don’t actually disagree all that much with the points you’re making here, John, but I find the arguments you make and the evidence you present to be a little iffy. I guess i just feel argumentative.
I’m not going to get in to the apparent weight you’re lending a producer’s claim about the box office magic the GI Joe name carries, because I don’t know the producer’s track record. But whatever you think of the movie, the $50 million dollar opening was good enough to be the 4th best August opening ever. I’m not sure I agree with you that a deformed monkey could have done that. Also, while giving examples of his previous movies, I think it hurts your credibility to leave out the first Mummny and Deep Rising. Admittedly, they were from quite a while ago, but I think they still serve as solid evidence that the guy doesn’t have to suck.
When a studio spends $175,000,000 on a movie (not including advertising)…they expect more than 50 million. It’s a fact. So Summers should get off his high horse of thinking he has a hit. It’s marginal at best…
At the end of the day, I think it’s obvious that Sommers doesn’t really think critics “only” like serious movies and “hate” popular ones, but rather was being hyperbolic to make his point.
He was just making a point? Yes… so? His point was completely erroneous.
Hyperbole is fine… when it’s making an accurate point and the hyperbole reflects a significant majority. His point was neither.
Four times he makes the point:
1) Critics love to hate my kind of films
2) Critics like dark depressing movies
3) Critics don’t like popular commercial movies
4) The most popular films of the decade get it the worst.
Wrong, wrong wrong and wrong.
Only Sith think in absolutes!
nice one Rodney :D
“4) The most popular films of the decade get it the worst.”
Absolute nonsense. Just to use a reference, TDK is one of the most popular (IMO) films of the decade, and look at that-the critics and everyone (most everyone, and that’s fine) LOVED it.
This director needs to suck it up and just face the fact that not everyone’s gonna like his film.
Oh yeah, and OH GREAT, GI Joe 2…….
John
I agree with what you were saying, but how does that explain Transformers 2: ROTF? It had something like 19% on Rotten Tomatoes, but it is just shy of $400M already. Is that the exception to the rule?
Also, as you say, film opinions are subjective, but there have been a lot of reviews lately including of the GI Joe film, that slam the movie and get the facts, like casting and actual story line, wrong. I saw one review for GI Joe from a big name critic that did not know the difference between Christopher Eccleston and Joseph Gordon Levitt, or the fact that there were 3 missiles, not 4! It is reviews like these that help the “Don’t Listen to Critics” mob mentality as a review like that gives me the impress they SLEPT thru the movie, so why should I listen to them to begin with?
Transformers 2 is not an exception. Fans of the first film knew and expected the film to be better and worse then the last one and it was. Critics dont have the time to looked for every bit of info about the film before the film is finished to judge it. So all they have to judge on is the film itself. Now as far as that goes I remember a film called “Howard the Duck” The movie was an all purpose bomb of a movie but years later its a cult classic. Go figure that out.
We are not talking nitpicked, small plot points though. We are talking major plot points (and I do use that term loosely in GI Joe’s case)
The review in question took 2 entire paragraphs on the missiles alone, plus at the beginning thought that Channing Tatum was flying the plane that shot them down, not Marlon Wayans. (They later changed that one after a lot of people contacted him)
As for TF2 not being an exception, why not? Would it have 12 million more had the average review rating been 50-60% instead of the 19% it ended at the first weekend? There were a bunch of people I know that borrowed the first movie from me just so they could see so they knew what was happening before going to see the sequel.
Grave is right. Transformers 2 is a sequel, most people more or less enjoyed the first one and wanted to check out the sequel.
Since one of his films was the slightly entertaining ‘Deep Rising’, I’m wondering, since that film wasn’t that successful or popular, did the critics really enjoy it?
I already know the answer, but that’s beside the point, isn’t it?
But I was wondering something…I did some checking…
Rudyard Kipling’s The Jungle Book, which Sommers directed back in the mid 90′s, holds a 94% Rotten Tomatoes rating.
Believe it or not.
Those were the days, no?
So basically what your saying is that you’re a worse director than a disfigured monkey with turrets, good job, you just shot my expectations for the Anniversary.
Good video blog. However, I take a look at http://www.boxofficemojo.com and the indication of a
GOOD (or even GREAT) movie is not by the opening
box office numbers but by the % decrease the movie
made from its opening weekend to the 2nd weekend.
Normally, an average movie would show a 50% -55%
drop in box office numbers while a GOOD movie will
only show a 25% – 30% drop in box office movie.
That is a better indication of whether a movie
is good or bad. Take a look at TDK, Titanic, Iron
Man and all the movies that are above 80% on
Rotten Tomatoes. I bet that their box office numbers dropped less that 30% from its opening
weekend.
which brings me to the point:
a) Opening box office numbers does not indicate if a movie is good or bad but it just shows how good a marketing campaign the movie has done.
Very few movies deliver on great trailer combined with a great movie experience. The Dark Knight was the first… Lord of The Rings trilogy was the second…..
oh – Avatar (James Cameron version) would be the third example of how (or will be) a great trailer
will be combined with an amazing movie going experience.
Five words for Stephen Sommers:
The Lord Of The Rings
also, Star Wars original, Dark Knight, Saving Private Ryan, Jurrasic Park, etc, etc… I wonder is it animation movie count?
“Oh The Dark Knight got a 94%,” haha I lauged my ass off.
Great vid John.
I found your your video interesting, but I do not believe for one minute that all critics do not have a vested interest in whether a film does good or bad. I am not implying for a second that you are dishonest John, but there is corruption in any type of industry and/or job, or even critics.
I come to this site because I believe in the sincerity and integrity of the writers here, I do not have that same belief for every site I go to or every article I listen to in the media on TV and Radio.
Great blog John, I was laughing hard when you brought up Star Trek, Dark Knight, Iron Man, Up, and all the other successful films.
What about his points on being attacked personally? I’ll see critics do that from time to time. They wont like a film and will say nasty comments about the director as a person. That’s not cool, or professional but in today’s world anyone can be a critic and pretty much write what they want.
Most critics wont do that but the few that do really ruin it. If I were Stephen Sommers, I’d have a hard time respecting people that attacked me.
It’s funny that Sommers considers critics such an “irrelevant breed” since he seems to be paying a lot of attention to them.
Nice video John. I have seen most of Sommers movies and most a think are ok time wasters except Van Helsing god that was a piece of shit I spent money to see in the theater at least I got some enjoyment out of GIJOE. But you are right, you could have gotten The woman who got kicked off punisher warzone, probably would have made more then 50mil and she probably would have been more faithful to the source material making fanboys more happy lol
My god what was he thinking?
You always seem pissed in your videos…lol
That’s what makes them all the more enjoyable
But wait! Would you define GI JOE as successful???
It landed like 50 mill opening, right? Is that good for joe? What was its budget?
I agree with a lot of people here. I’ve seen Van Helsing and the first 2 Mummy movies and overall I enjoyed them. Do I think they’re sublime and amazing? Not even close, Van Helsing had a huge number of problems but if you take it as it should be: a passable action/summer movie, its fun and forgettable.
Now there are movies that make a crap load of money that critics hate, like Transformers 2. I personally liked it. Its a perfect summer movie, and thats how I took it. Yes, dissecting the plot leads you nowhere pretty but the film wasn’t exactly designed to be analyzed.
One of the problems I have with some critics is they seem to want to grade movies like Transformers and The Reader on the same scale. Yeah, of course Transformers is going to suck when thats the metric you’re using. Reading John’s reviews I get the impression he gets that not all movies are created equal; which I appreciate.
Having said that, I’m still trying to figure out how Crank 2 got a 7.5 out of 10. I really liked the first one but the second one made me wanna attach a car battery to my body about half way through.
I disagree with John that any monkey can make a GI Joe movie. These action films with huge set pieces are difficult to do. It’s easier to make an artsy film with a bunch of talking heads. But when you got a film crew of sometimes over 1000 people, coordinating all these departments as a director is a tough job. Michael Bay said that making one these action films is like making 4 regular movies. It’s 2-3 years of your life devoted to this. Not everyone is capable of making one of these big budget action film. Even Martin Scorsese said once in an interview that he wouldn’t known how to make a big film like that (not that he would want to, but….)
I like Sommers’ films. I like Bay’s, Emmerich films. Sure they are thin when it comes to plot and acting, but it’s fun. I like it more than Star Trek.
Star Trek, IronMan, Spider-Man, GI Joe, TF, X-Men, Hulk…. For me, I rate all comic book movies the same….some are slightly better than others. The only film that stands heads & shoulder above all comic films is TDK. It transcended the genre. It is the only comic book film that make the most money and broke all kinds of records. Praised by most critics and won many film awards including Oscars. No other comic book film in history had ever done that…and won’t be for a long while.
You forget that it may be even MORE difficult to create a film with a great plot and compelling characters. If Sommers, Bay and Emmerich put as much energy into those things as their action sequences then most people wouldn’t be complaining.
I disagree. Making a big budget film like TF2 is like building a skyscraper. Making a low budget indie film is like building a nice little charming cottage. The architects & engineers who build a skyscraper can probably make a cottage, but the guy to made the cottage may not be able to build a skyscraper.
Technically, yes, an action film is more difficult. But all of those set pieces and action sequences are pointless if there is no compelling story or intriguing characters to give them a point. Creating those things may be even more difficult and are not at all easy as Bay demonstrates with pretty much every movie he makes.
This is what Bay & Sommers has to deal with: you got a whole bunch of bad guys, a bunch of good guys, bad guy with evil scheme to take over the world, good guys try to stop them, tons of actions. With these requirements, you just don’t have time to do character devel like you would on a movie like “Juno”.
When you got tons of giant robots fighting, you can’t make it intimate and personal like “ET”….you just can’t. A TF movie with just Optimus Prime sitting around and ponder the meaning of life with Sam is just not a TF movie. A GI Joe movie that focus mostly on Snake Eyes personal struggle is not a Joe movie.
Absolutely untrue. There’s no reason there can’t be any character development with any kind of characters. Even robots can have character development, need I refetence WALL-E?
There’s no reason that a movie based on ANYTHING has to suck in terms of plot and characters. Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl was based on a THEME PARK RIDE and it had both a compelling plot and interesting characters.
“I disagree with John that any monkey can make a GI Joe movie. These action films with huge set pieces are difficult to do”
I think some people are missing the point of the monkey comment. The point is that it doesn’t matter who directs GI JOE, the film would still pull in $50m. He’s not saying directing an action film is a cake wake or so simple even a caveman can do it, only that $50m was expected based on the name GI JOE.
@SlashBeast
I agree with ya. One thing that vexes me is when a movie as dumb as GI JOE comes out and people try to give it a pass based on the “Well, it’s based on a toy, what did you expect?” excuse. That’s a lame justification! A competent writer can easily take the GI JOE concept and flesh it out, actually develop a story that appeals to both kids and adults. It doesn’t need to be intellectual as “The Dark Knight,” but along the lines of “Iron Man.” This flick only appeals to 10 year old kiddies who like explosions and pretty people, not that there’s anything wrong with that, and it’s fine if you like it, but the film’s idiocy is too overwhelming for my tastes.
Silly Sommers; in a way he sounds just like the people on the internet who vainly try to defend certain films from all attacks. Kind of like the people who would vote TDK a 10/10 on IMDB (and The Godfather a 1/10) before actually seeing it.
It’s a shame too because he made, in my opinion, one of the few entertaining, energetic films of the summer (and it has been a pretty crappy summer). Plenty of people enjoyed the film and that should be enough.
I just noticed something, every single movie that came out this summer, (aside from Up which was excellent, but we all knew it would be,) the outcome of that movie was different than what we (or I) expected.
Wolverine- I thought it would be a fun action movie-nope.
Star Trek- I thought it would suck- HELL NO!
Terminator Salvation- I thought it would be as good as the originals-nope
Transformers 2- I thought it would kick the 1st one’s ass-nope
Harry Potter- thought it would be the best of the franchise-nope
Public Enemies-thought it would be an oscar contender-nope
Funny People- thought it would be Judd Apatow’s best
It’s been a disappointing year.
Any excuse to slam Sommers and GI Joe…
You spent the months leading up to it’s release posting any tidbit of news with the same old prediction the movie would suck.
Then when some early reviews came in positive you had your big conspiracy theory about how Paramount were trying to hide their film from critics. Those reviews were “hand picked” so, their opinion can’t be right.
Then of course when the negative reviews came in, we got constant updates on the Rotten Tomatoes score. “All film is subjective”… unless you can try to use subjective reviews to prove you were right.
Now of course because the film is making money and successful with the masses, you have to show us all how the director is moronic. Oh, how dare he try to say that critics aren’t right about his film! Those reviews all prove how right you were for months don’t they John? So of course Sommers must be moronic if he doesn’t listen to all those people being right about how much his movie sucked.
…And you wonder why people think you had it in for this movie before it even came out John.
I don’t know if Sommers is a moron, but he did make a moronic statement.
Yeah… Just watched this video blog. He’s an idiot, and all of his movies suck…
I mean… the trailer for G.I. Joe wasn’t even good. And when your two main actors are Channing Tatum and “Little Man,” you’ve got trouble. Didn’t see G.I. Joe, and I probably never will. Guess I’m in that 12% who listen to educated people.
in addition to the movies you mentioned in your response to Sommers saying critics don’t like popular movies, let’s look at the Pixar movies
Toy Story: 100%
Toy Story 2: 100%
A Bug’s Life: 91%
Monsters,Inc: 95%
Finding Nemo: 98%
The Incredibles: 97%
Cars: 76%
Ratatouille: 96%
Wall-E: 96%
and of course as you mentioned…
Up: 97%
There’s not enough Pixar in your list.
Look, obviously Sommers was making a generalization, and just because John and yourself can find some exceptions to the rule doesn’t mean that what Sommers said was in any way moronic.
He’s quite right, that often successful and popular movies get bad reviews. For the most part, film critics look for different criteria when judging a film, than what most of the general public do when deciding to see a movie. You can’t deny that. If that statement was wrong, then you would never see films getting poor reviews and still raking in money.
You know why they’re exceptions? Because they’re GOOD movies. Critics don’t hate commercial or popular films, they hate BAD movies, which is what G.I. Joe is.
No Slashbeast, there’s no such thing as a “bad” movie, because that’s subjective. However, what can be measured is success and popularity based on how many people go to see a movie and buy the DVD.
The majority of critics agreeing a movie is “bad” does not make it so. Especially when the film is getting a lot of viewers and making a lot of money.
If nobody was seeing GI Joe, nobody was buying the merchandise, and nobody bought the DVD, then you could measurably argue that it was unsuccessful and unpopular. As it stands, people are seeing it, people are buying the merchandise. So by “bad” you can only mean that critics are not rating it highly.
Critics are displaying hatred towards a popular and successful film. And it’s not the first time. So how does this make Sommers statement “moronic”. Your statement only proves Sommers is right.
In general, more films make a lot of money and rate poorly with critics than vice versa. Since it has to be accepted that any discussion about “critics” is speaking in general terms anyway, since every critic is an individual, obviously every aspect of his statement is meant to be taken as an average based on overall critical response, and looking overall at most film releases.
Pointing out a few exceptions to the general rule does not prove him wrong.
It’s consensus reality. There’s a certain standard most people/critics have for the facets which go into making a movie. If 90+ percent of people tend to agree that a movie was “bad”, then in most people’s eyes that movie was “bad” and it will be considered so despite that a minority of people may think otherwise. If 90+ percent of people agree that a movie was “good”, then I think that gives weight. Most people/critics consider G.I. Joe a “bad” movie. According to their standards for what a basic “good” film is, it has failed in terms of all the things which make a movie, e.g. acting, special effects, editing, dialogue, direction. They don’t hate it because it’s popular or commercial as you keep claiming. They hate it because, according to their, and most people’s, standards, it’s a “bad” movie.
Also, I never called Sommers “moronic”.
hey slashbeast…
are you talking about mine or john’s list when you say “there’s not enough Pixar in your list?”
Your list. And it was a joke by the way, apparently not a very good one.
I saw GI Joe this weked guys and let me tell you that its much better than Benjamin Button, a real piece of shit film that got 13 nominations(which belonged to TDK)an which critics unanimously loved.
I thinks critics are biased most of the time.
Critics didn’t unanimously love Benjamin Button, it has a rating in the low 70′s on Rotten Tomatoes.
Besides, EVERYTHING is biased.
I saw GI Joe this weekend guys and let me tell you that its much better than Benjamin Button, a real piece of shit film that got 13 nominations(which belonged to TDK)and which critics unanimously loved.
I thinks critics are biased most of the time.
Wow, I just saw GI Joe, and boy was it bad. I had no expectations of a quality movie by any standards, but I really could not believe how much I hated it. All I wanted was to be amused. That was it. No art, no meaning, all I was looking for was mind numbing amusement, and it didn’t even deliver that.
If I hadn’t ridden with other people, I would have walked out and asked for my money back.
Sommers’s complaint completely falls apart right at the very beginning. Saying that critics love to hate films like his is moronic. Why would a critic, ANY CRITIC, go into a film WANTING to hate it? I know for me, I always go into a film wanting to like it, or (gasp) even love it. Why would a critic actually enjoy wasting 2 hours of his life sitting through a mediocre effort like GI Joe? That seems like the worst way to make a living.
I think what Sommers meant (but couldn’t possibly admit or say aloud) is that critics generally don’t like shitty movies and love to give shitty movies bad reviews. Guess what Stephen, nobody likes shitty movies. I haven’t been able to make it more than 30 minutes into Van Helsing (I’ve tried a few times) and I think the Mummy movies are vastly overrated. I wouldn’t say either one is horrible, but when you’re spending $80-$100 million to make them, I think it’s reasonable to except more than that they’re simply “not horrible.” It’s Sommers’s responsibility to make sure the films are better than “not horrible” and it’s a task he’s repeatedly failed at.
Now Sommers could make the argument that GI Joe is aimed at kids and therefore carries a slightly different, more immature tone than something geared towards teens or adults. I would counter that with two points:
A) GI Joe carries a PG-13 rating, meaning it was made and marketed towards an older audience. You can’t make a movie aimed at children and fill it with content that creates a rating that shoots over them. That would be… I don’t know… bad directing/writing/producing/marketing.
and
B) the movies I grew up on that were the things that thrilled and excited me as a child (movies like the Star Wars films, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Ghostbusters, Poltergeist, Star Trek II, ET, Back to the Future, Superman, Gremlins…) were movies that didn’t have to be stupid to appeal to a child/teen. These are films that adults loved as much as kids. Justifying that something can be stupid and poorly made simply because it’s aimed at kids is retarded and lazy and, again, it’s bad directing/writing/producing. If the only way you can say you made an entertaining film is to make it appeal exclusively to people with an IQ under 70, then you’re probably not very good at what you do. Targeting a younger demographic is not an excuse to make a bad film. Sommers needs to differentiate between a fun summer popcorn movie and a poorly made film with questionable/bad directorial decisions. They don’t have to be the same thing.
Finally, I want to point out (as John did) that Sommers didn’t direct GI Joe to a $50 million opening. Paramount marketed the film to that opening. What Sommers has made will be revealed in weekend #2. If this thing drops hard (which I predict it will) that’s the true indicator of what Sommers has created.
So, your argument is that GI Joe is a “shitty movie” and that “nobody likes shitty movies”. Well, plenty of people DO like GI Joe, hence why it’s doing well at the box office. All those people going to see it, and buying the merchandise, and who will buy it on DVD… they like it. The poor critical response does not reflect the large amount of people who are happy with the film.
Why would critics go to a movie wanting to hate it? You answered your own question; it’s their job. They go to see what they are paid to see, regardless of how much they may not be anticipating it. But the same does not apply to someone going to see a movie for entertainment. You would have to ask why the general public would be going to see “shitty movies”.
And this claim that Sommers is not responsible for the strong opening also applies to any movie, not just those you deem “shitty”. People go to see movies based on the trailers and the promotion… but those trailers include footage directed by Sommers, so I fail to see how he is not responsible in some way. Obviously since critics opinions have absolutely no reflection on a films opening weekend, they are the most irrelevant in determining a films success.
“Obviously since critics opinions have absolutely no reflection on a films opening weekend, they are the most irrelevant in determining a films success.”
I thought we were over this. John himself stated that critics have have a 12% up or down swing for a movie’s success.
Besides, if critics didn’t have any power over a movie’s success, why would Paramount bother to hide G.I. Joe from critics?
Shane, obviously you LOVE GI Joe and I can’t fault you for that. Even the worst movie in the world is someones favorite film. But you didn’t really defend or back your opinion as much as you tried (and, I feel, failed) to discredit mine.
“Well, plenty of people DO like GI Joe, hence why it’s doing well at the box office. All those people going to see it, and buying the merchandise, and who will buy it on DVD… they like it.”
WRONG!! It’s doing well because Paramount created a strong marketing campaign that brought people in opening weekend. If you look at user ratings on Box Office Mojo (you know, for those non-critic types who actually saw it), it has more “F” grades than “A” grades. It’s ranking other places seems to have it about 60% (which is a “D” if you’re still in school). History has shown that that percentage will only go down as the film loses its ‘new car smell’ and people get less and less caught up in the hype. Trust me when I say history will not be kind to this version of GI Joe.
“And this claim that Sommers is not responsible for the strong opening also applies to any movie, not just those you deem “shitty”. People go to see movies based on the trailers and the promotion… but those trailers include footage directed by Sommers, so I fail to see how he is not responsible in some way.”
I never said GI Joe was alone in that its marketing was responsible for its opening weekend. All films pretty much have that in common. But I’ve seen great trailers for bad films and bad trailers for great films. Having a great trailer doesn’t guarantee a great film, but it’s the trailer’s job to make people think that. And just because Sommers shot the footage that was used in a good trailer doesn’t mean that it’s representative of his work on the film as a whole. Did you ever see that great video of The Shining re-cut to seem like a romantic comedy? It works amazingly well and it’s a great trailer, but that obviously isn’t what the actual film is. Again, I will point to weekend #2 and beyond as the real tell-tales of what people REALLY think about Sommers’s work.
“Why would critics go to a movie wanting to hate it? You answered your own question; it’s their job. They go to see what they are paid to see, regardless of how much they may not be anticipating it. But the same does not apply to someone going to see a movie for entertainment. You would have to ask why the general public would be going to see “shitty movies”.”
I’ve saved this one for last because I find it absolutely baffling. A critic’s job is not to hate anything. The role of a critic is to experience something (whether a film or food or art or a hotel) and relay their opinion of that experience. How you can justify to yourself that a critic is excited by the prospect of having a bad time is beyond me. Do you really believe in your heart that a critic walks into a screening of GI Joe or Land of the Lost or Imagine That and HOPES it’s bad? As I said, that’s a hard way to make a living… hoping that things you are forced to see are bad and difficult to sit through.
…and by the way, one of the worst films I have ever seen, Norbit, made almost $100 million dollars, was #1 its opening weekend (during which I paid to see it- although by your logic, the fact that I paid to see it means I must have liked it), and has a 3.7/10 user rating on IMDB. So sometimes box office success in not a clear indicator of a film’s popularity.
But none of that has anything to do with the ridiculous notion that critics enjoy hating films.
Cliff,
I don’t think GI Joe is a fantastic film. I don’t think it’s terrible either. I think it did exactly what it intended to do as a film, and I enjoyed it for what it was.
Regarding the critic comment, I do not think a critic goes to a film wanting or expecting to hate it. However a professional film critic sees the majority of films that get released. So obviously they will like some and hate some. The average film going public will only go to see what they expect to like. A critic will go regardless of that fact. So hence the likelihood that a film critic would go see a film they are less likely to enjoy than anyone else.
And you cannot use ANY sort of rating system to gauge popularity. Because by participating in any sort of rating system, a person falls into the category of “critic”, and someone who gives more after-thought to films. The majority of people who see movies do not spend their time rating them.
Your example of Norbit does not prove your argument at all. It simply shows how much of a gap there is in general opinion between those who spend time reviewing movies, and those who do not. How on earth would a movie make $100 million if nobody liked it? The IMDB rating is obviously not a reflection on the films popularity if it managed to make that much money.
Have a look at DVD sales statistics, compared to Rotten Tomatoes ratings. Now surely nobody buys a DVD of a film they hated. So how do films like Paul Blart: Mall Cop (34% on RT) sell around $45 million worth of DVDs? How about Beverly Hills Chihuahua, (40% on RT) making around $56 million in DVD sales? You can’t put all those DVD sales down to just clever marketing campaigns. The vast majority of sales would be to people who genuinely like the films.
So clearly critics general opinions have no baring on what the majority of the public think, nor do they reflect what the general public think. I don’t see how anyone could argue that critics have any sort of relevance to the majority of film goers, since there are absolutely no statistics that argue in favor of that.
“And you cannot use ANY sort of rating system to gauge popularity. Because by participating in any sort of rating system, a person falls into the category of “critic”, and someone who gives more after-thought to films. The majority of people who see movies do not spend their time rating them.”
Of course you can use a rating system to gauge popularity… That’s what the rating system is for! It’s certainly a better gauge to determine how people feel about a film rather than whether or not they simply paid to see it. That was your point wasn’t it?- “All those people going to see it… …they like it.” But even people who HATED the film had to pay to see it. So if someone walks up to me and says, “I paid to see GI Joe and I thought it was a bad movie,” should I not believe that they didn’t like the movie simply because they paid to see it, or do I trust that them giving me their opinion of the movie is truly their opinion of the movie?
“I don’t think GI Joe is a fantastic film. I don’t think it’s terrible either.”
When someone is spending $175 million to make a film, shouldn’t their responsibility be to make a film better than “I don’t think it’s terrible?” Don’t you want to see films that are actually better than the bare minimum? That’s what this whole thing has been about. It really isn’t about GI Joe at all. It’s about a director making a movie that falls short of its potential (or several of those movies) and then lashing out at the people who were observant enough to notice and call him out on it.
Now it’s entirely possible (probable) that most/all of the problems with GI Joe are a result of meddling and bad decisions made by the studio or producer or other outside forces. Sometimes a film falls victim to too many outside forces (Die Hard 4?)
BUT… at the end of the day Sommers is still the director and it’s his name that all responsibility has to fall on. If you’ve seen the making of for Batman & Robin, Joel Schumacher admits the film was basically overtaken by the marketing and toy divisions, but he also admits that it was his fault that he allowed that to happen. I don’t see Sommers taking that kind of responsibility and humility.
And BTW, Batman & Robin is another wonderful example of a film that made a pretty good chunk of money ($42 million opening weekend and $107 million domestically – It actually had a higher per-screen average than GI Joe and that was back in 1997) but is pretty much almost universally reviled. I’m sure back around June 23rd of 1997, someone somewhere was defending Batman & Robin against people who said it sucked by going on and on about how much money it made and therefore people obviously liked it.
If GI Joe make it much past $125 million, I’ll be very surprised.
No Cliff, the topic of discussion here is NOT whether a director should be making a better film for this budget; it’s his comments about critics responses to popular and successful films. I enjoyed GI Joe, but it certainly doesn’t rank as one of my all time favorite films.
I think you need to look at exactly what Sommers was saying. He was talking about critics not liking “popular” and “successful” films. These things can be measured by statistics. Ticket sales, merchandise sales, dvd sales all prove popularity. Success is measured by the money a film makes.
You can measure a films success and popularity, you can also measure overall critical responses to films on sites like Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB etc. This gives you a way of comparing the two, and for the most part Sommers is correct. A few exceptions to the rule does not make his general statement completely wrong.
The only reason people seem to be criticizing what Sommers said is because:
A) They don’t like Sommers or his movies,
B) The don’t want to accept the reality that critics are irrelevant and have no impact on audiences.
Shane. Its pretty ignorant to say that critics have no impact on audiences.
There is clearly SOME influence, even if its not on you.
Shane,
I can’t keep dancing around the same points with you. I know exactly what Sommers said… I read it first hand in Variety. What I was trying to illustrate was (and this is what John was saying as well) that Sommers’s comments are delusional and defensive. Critics don’t want to hate films and saying that critics hate films which are popular and successful has been proven false repeatedly.
Now, (and this ties directly into my comments about Sommers’s films and budgets) I could certainly understand situations where films with bigger budgets have higher expectations, and are therefore held to a somewhat higher standard… but they should be. I just got back from seeing District 9. It’s a film with a $30 million dollar budget that contains wonderful acting, an excellent story, great action… AND some of the best visual effects I’ve seen in a film this year. Why is District 9 a better made film with pretty much all of the same ingredients, but for 1/6 the money? If you’re spending 6 times the money on your film, can’t I expect it to be as good or better?
Sommers made a dumb (inaccurate) comment in order to distract people from the fact that his movie was getting bad buzz and some people were just observant enough to see that. That’s all this really is about.
But I would ask… Do you think that Transformers 2 is the best film of the year? It’s made more money than any other film in 2009. By your judging standards, does that make it the best film of 2009?
Shane,
You’ve encouraged me to do a bit more research to make the claims by Sommers all the more baseless. The following are the number one films at the box office for the past ten years (the decade Sommers says has gotten particularly bad) and their critic rating from Rotten Tomatoes.
2008: The Dark Knight 94%
2007: Spider Man 3 62%
2006: Pirates: Dead Man’s Chest 53%
2005: Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith 79%
2004: Shrek 2 89%
2003: Lord of the Ring: Return of the King 94%
2002: Spider Man 90%
2001: Harry Potter Sorcerer’s Stone 78%
2000: The Grinch 53%
1999: Star Wars: Phantom Menace 63%
And then…
GI JOE: THE RISE OF COBRA 38%
With the exceptions of Pirates and Grinch, all of the top money makers for the past decade have all been certified fresh on Rotten Tomatoes (and even Pirates and Grinch received more than 50% positive reviews). Sommers’s film isn’t even in the same league. Clearly the critics didn’t get the memo that they’re supposed to love to hate popular and successful films, just as they did with GI Joe.
But here are the numbers and it proves pretty much the opposite of what Sommers claimed.
Sorry Rodney, it’s not ignorant to say that critics have no impact on audiences it’s the absolute truth.
I’m not denying they have impact on SOME people, however they certainly do not have influence over the vast majority. Otherwise, as I’ve said before, there would be a direct correspondence between overall critical response and the box office success of films that would be evident in EVERY case, not just some. The fact that some successful films rate highly with critics does not mean a thing. That means that sometimes the two match up. But the fact that critical response is never an indicator of a film’s wider popularity or financial success means that critics are irrelevant to the MAJORITY of people.
If critics are not irrelevant to most people, then explain to me why is GI Joe is making millions of dollars? Why isn’t everyone listening to the warnings of critics? There, I proved you wrong with that one example.
Cliff, those are the number 1 at the box office for the last decade, and even of those not all of them rated highly with critics. That doesn’t prove the opposite of what Sommers claimed at all. He clearly has a valid point, where some of the most successful films of the last decade can rate so poorly with critics. If you want to ignore that because you want to believe that he meant his statement in absolute terms, then you’re missing the point entirely. I’m sure Somemrs isn’t in denial about those films that were successful AND rated well with critics. I’m sure he doesn’t think all critics are the same. Arguing about how some films are an exception, or saying that not every critic shares the same opinion is missing the fact that he’s talking in general, not absolutes.
Shane,
This will be the last time I respond to this because you seem to be the only person in this thread anymore that didn’t get it and I can’t keep going around in circles. Sommers made a dumb comment to assign blame and to help deflect away from his role in the bad reviews his films get. There has been ample evidence in this thread alone that, not only to critics not hold a grudge against popular and successful movies, but (as evidenced by the very numbers I provided) they have been very favorable to the MOST successful movies of the past decade. Sommers makes mediocre movies and gets mediocre reviews in return. If he makes a great movie, I guarantee you he’ll get great reviews. Remember Sofia Coppola? She went from getting some of the most brutal reviews and personal attacks for her role in Godfather Part III to some of the most glowing reviews of 2003 for her film Lost in Translation. Oh yeah… and she got an Oscar for that film as well. Sommers has already given up on the idea of making a great film because he lacks to confidence to know he could make one in the future.
Sommers needs to spend a little less time on the cross.
Great response John.
Does anyone know if Michale Bay did the same thing when Transformers 2 came out? For some reason I remember it that way but I could be completely wrong.
My favorite part: “a studio I’m not stupid enough to name, but I do anyway so I edit this…” LOL
This is FABULOUS. So much potential, so little delivery. The action sequences are ok. The writing is aimed at 12 year olds. The acting? Lot’s of talent that was voided with the word ACTION!
Watch the last 3 films he’s directed and that will confirm your suspistions
Better yet, watch the first two films he directed, (Huck Finn, Jungle Book) then wonder what the hell happened.