There has been a growing trend with the studios recently to NOT show advanced copies of their films to critics. According to Craig’s Flix Picks, 7 films were withheld from the critics last year… there have already been 8 this year.
Folks… whatever your opinion is of film critics… WHEN A STUDIO WON’T SHOW IT’S FILM TO CRITICS IN ADVANCE, IT’S A BAD SIGN AND MAJOR RED FLAG.
There are obviously exceptions to every rule, but generally when a studio KNOWS a film sucks so bad that they can’t risk letting bad reviews get out… you know something is wrong. The sad part is… we stil fall for it.
4 of the 8 films not shown to critics have opened at #1. The Studios gamble pays off. Don’t let the public know how bad the film is… and they can still make big money on opening weekend before word gets out about how bad their movie really is. So do yourselves a favour… and send the studios a mesage: If you notice that there are no reviews available for a film that’s opening up, DON’T SPEND YOUR MONEY ON SEEING IT until the following week once some reviews and word of mouth have got around about it. You could save yourself $10 and teach the studios a lesson.
I dont comment much here but I do enjoy this site. I would like to mention that a review is meaningless as it represents a persons personal taste. I never look for reviews before I go see a movie. Why should I worry about someone elses opinion. To me, if a studio doesnt want to have reviews, to each their own. I view movies based on the synopsis and trailer and sometimes the actor/director.
This goes right along with your other thread about “Giant killer animal” movies. Some movies are horrible, but can still be entertaining for whatever reason. Those types of movies really dont need a review. Its not ment to be an oscar movie, but that doesnt mean it’s not going to be watched and certinaly doesnt mean its a bad movie. If I see a plot I think might work, and a trailer that peaks my interest, I dont even look for reviews and the common person usually wont until the movie is no longer mainstream and the advertising is gone.
Critics dont effect early revenue (as much as) but they effect long term revenue as people’s word of mouth drops and the movie moves out of mainstream, advertising stops so too does people memory of that title.
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2429(199704)61%3A2%3C68%3AFCIOP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-X
Though, critical reviews are key in the independent and/or limited release movies because the reviews effect the limited number of people who can view these movies.
Someone mentioned that ultraviolet will not have a prescreen for critics. I didnt take the time to verify this but does that mean its going to be a bad movie? Time will tell but I will be there, not because I think its award winning, but because I think it can be a fun movie and coming from the director of Equalibrum, guns, swords, impossible odds and solid colors. No review will change my opinion that it will be a fun movie except of course the movie itself.
FYI….ULTRAVIOLET won’t be screened for critics either. Sounds like a possible stinker.
Actually no… I did in fact skip that part. Guilty as charged. Either way, I still stick by my opinion that screening costs are peanuts. The whole thing sounds pretty lame.
Jax, did you even go to the link in John’s rant? If you did, you’d see Tom Ortenberg, the President of Lion’s Gate, specifically mentions the costs of screenings for films like this.
“We are not going to spend $50,000 for the privilege of negative reviews for a film that isn’t going to be affected by them,” Tom Ortenberg, president of “Madea” distributor Lionsgate, told The Post.”
and
“Ortenberg concedes it’s a “tough decision” to skip screenings. But in this case, he says, “the money for screenings will be better spent on more advertising.””
Let me stress again the contradiction of Campea:
“There are obviously exceptions to every rule, but generally when a studio KNOWS a film sucks so bad that they can’t risk letting bad reviews get out… you know something is wrong.”
So avoid all films that don’t screen for critics. But there are ‘exceptions’!
So—people actually do miss out on a few good films now and then, as well as get spared the trash –Holy crap—it’s just like any other movie at the box office, screened or unscreened.
“There are also some cases where a studio simply has no faith in a picture and will attempt to bury it.”
Ahhhh yeah. Roger Corman’s “Fantastic Four” comes to mind… hehehe
John makes some good points, but sadly, he also jumped off the boat a little bit here…just enough to get the shoes wet.
There are several films that are not screened for critics; this does not always mean the film is bad. Yet there are several pictures that are screened for critics- and they stink. There are also some cases where a studio simply has no faith in a picture and will attempt to bury it.
Not screening for critics usually get on thier bad side, and it seems there are two ways out: one is to go Gilliam style (remember the battle of Brazil) and filmmakers personally screen thier films for critics or-
Hit the film festivals. It helped Saw.
(not Saw II)
“Simple: it costs money to set up screenings. That’s why. In cases like the ones we’re talking about, the studio would rather save money on the screening costs.”
Easy for you to say, but you weren’t the one that made the decision. Therefore I’m not taking that as gospel. If you DO in fact have some official source for that statement, it would be greatly appreciated if you could provide a link. Otherwise I’ll be forced to assume you’re just speculating (which is a point I brought up in my previous post).
I’d also like to point out that the amount of money it would take to distribute “screener” copies of the film to critics and set up a few organized screenings is pocket change compared to the money spent on producing the film itself. It’s one of the cheapest ways of promoting a film currently available. I seriously doubt the process was eliminated in these cases strictly to cut corners.
Without any OFFICIAL word on why it was done, the only explanation I can come up with that makes any sense is that they were afraid that bad reviews would hurt the box office take, so the advanced copies were withheld. While you and I may not pay the critics any heed, many people do. That’s why critics still have paying jobs. Until anyone actually associated with the films say otherwise, I’ll have to agree with John that this could very well constitute a red flag as to the quality of the finished product.
WTF! Red Flag my white Amercian bum. The Fog RULED!!
Jax said: “If the audiences for these films supposedly don’t care what the critics think, then the real question is why NOT allow the critics to view advanced screenings? It doesn’t matter what they say anyway, right?”
Simple: it costs money to set up screenings. That’s why. In cases like the ones we’re talking about, the studio would rather save money on the screening costs.
“…audiences do not care what the critics thing–whether it’s a positive or negative review.”
“In those cases, why would the studio bother to set up critic screenings?”
If the audiences for these films supposedly don’t care what the critics think, then the real question is why NOT allow the critics to view advanced screenings? It doesn’t matter what they say anyway, right?
Now I’ve never been an advocate of conformity. Doing something just because everyone else is doing it is never a good thing. But when a filmmaker breaks with this kind of procedure or tradition, like it or not, it does send a message to some people (especially those who are undecided about seeing the film in the first place) that the product won’t hold up under such “professional” scrutiny. That may not be the truth of the matter but let’s face it, without any official statement to explain this kind of move people are bound to speculate.
The point here is that you absolutely SHOULD see a film that interests you no matter what the critics may say about it (or in this case, what they didn’t say). They may get paid to judge films but that doesn’t mean their taste agrees with, or is in any way superior to yours. However if a filmmaker is going to break with the tradition of advanced screenings for critics, they really should explain why they’re doing it. It may not affect the opening week’s box office take at all, but it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth for some reason. We get left in the dark about too many things these days as it is.
John, I think YOU’RE the one missing the point, as usual. It’s not that the studios necessarily think that their films are bad. It’s just that they believe that, for certain films, audiences do not care what the critics thing–whether it’s a positive or negative review. Certain critics are almost always going to hate certain types of films–but those films might still have huge paying audiences. In those cases, why would the studio bother to set up critic screenings?
I think this is great advice.
I would just like to point out that Aeon Flux had no reviews and made just 25 million total.
I should add that the studios really have nothing to worry about. Bad reviews, good reviews, no reviews. We’ll see what we want.
fgdfgd is missing the point totally.
The point isn’t “wait till you hear what the Critics say about a film”… the point is, that if a studio is SO convinced that their film is so bad that the critics are sure to blast it, then that should tell you something.
I’m not saying avoid a film if the CRITICS think it’s bad… I’m saying avoid a film is the STUDIOS show us that even THEY think it’s horrible.
According to the post, 50% of unreviewed junk opened at #1. A complete study would analyze how well poorly reviewed films do at the box office. “The Pink Panther” opened very well with 21% at Rotten Tomatoes. We still get suckered in even when bad reviews come out before the film.
bollocks… mkae up your own minds..
go see the movise regardles of what critics say if you are interested…