Sommers needs to spend a little less time on the cross.

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.

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.

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?

There is clearly SOME influence, even if its not on you.

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.

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.

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.

“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.