You all know my opinion on what it means when a studio hides a movie from critics before it gets released. Not good news at all. Well… that’s exactly what Paramount is doing with G.I. Joe.
Instead of giving my usual rant about this, I’ll just quote Slant who put it very well:
G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra is a noxious green substance capable of dissolving the Eiffel Tower. Oh no, sorry, it’s a movie about a noxious green substance capable of destroying the Eiffel Tower. Such mixups are understandable, given that, like most other critics in the U.S., I won’t get the chance to see G.I. Joe before it opens. Paramount is taking the unusual step of shielding its film from all advance press coverage, a PR strategy usually reserved for movies that are both lousy and not eagerly anticipated by the public. (I Know Who Killed Me, the 2007 bomb starring Lindsay Lohan as a serial killer’s victim, is a classic example of a movie given the no-advance-screening treatment.) Since G.I. Tract—I mean Joe, sorry, haven’t seen the movie—isn’t a cheapo exploitation flick but one of Paramount’s summer tentpole releases, it’s odd that the studio has done everything it can to block access to the movie, going to great lengths to make sure it’s seen only by focus groups, military personnel (the movie premiered Monday night at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland) and a few fanboy-friendly blogs like Ain’t It Cool News.
However relieved I might personally be to not have to sit through G.I. Joke, this news ain’t particularly cool for the future of film reviewing. When major releases start to get waved past press scrutiny and rammed directly down audiences’ throats with hugely expensive marketing campaigns, we’re that much closer to a world in which the only voices talking about movies come from the people who stand to make money off them. As Nathan Rabin puts it in the Onion’s A.V. Club blog, “Who needs a cultural conversation about a film’s merits when you can have a massive one-sided publicity blitz?” The G.I. Joe action figures of old were brave and stalwart men (and one soon-discontinued and now highly collectible woman), ready to battle not only the Cobra Command but the leotard-clad Intruders, with their fearsome “Crusher Grip.” Hiding from a few puny-armed, laptop-wielding critics is hardly the G.I. Joe way.
Brilliantly put. This movie is going to suck. We’ll see if I’m correct or not tomorrow night.
Rotten tomatoes has it at 62% right now. So these are hand picked critics, eh?
Anyways, AICN has a couple of positive reviews, nothing negative yet. It a big dumb summer popcorn movie made from a Toy….seriously, what are you expecting? Just enjoy shit being blown up on screen now before all the depressing oscar movies come out later this year.
Hey T-VO,
Actually, when it was just the hand picked Critics the Rotten Tomatoes rating was 91% up until last night.
Now that the other reviews are coming in it’s dropped down to 59%.
So far I can say this… The films music is dull. The game would have been better if it wasnt based on the film and had more development time.
Reviews from professional critics are coming in from abroad, and they are siginificantly negative than the ones from the internet critics the studio hand picked.
can you blame them really?..
I watched this movie in the UK today. It’s first day of release. The trailer looked pants, but I thought I’d give it a try. It’s a film with a very thin plot and mindless action. The action however delivers and the effects are pretty decent. A good two hours of entertainment. Nothing to dwell on for ages but not bad at all, much better than Transformers 2.
Eh… This is such a silly argument. My apologies in advance, but… IT’S A BLOG. John’s writings shouldn’t make any difference to how people feel about this movie (unless they’re mindless fools who don’t know how to be critical towards something themselves).
G.I Joe looks like shit. John feels that way, I feel that way, and honestly (though with only a strong feeling)… Quite a big amount of the world’s population feels that way and each & everyone of us is allowed to write our feelings down about it.
If you find all the footage great and has got you excited, great. But don’t you try get over the fact that Paramount has Not shown this in advance for more than a very small selected group of critics who probably have waited for this all their lives. It’s fishy business and not right. I’m not saying other studios don’t do this kind of stuff… Hell, they ALL do. They are all cheating the customer, playing it dirty. If there’s a bad movie coming, then it DESERVES negative reviews.
Good on Paramount. I fully support this decision.
I haven’t drawn the conclusion from this story that Paramount is “hiding” their film, I have drawn the conclusion that this has shown what a bunch of self-important crybabies so many critics really are. The tantrums being thrown over the fact they don’t get special treatment by Paramount to see this movie before everyone else shows how pathetic all these “critics” really are.
“They won’t show me their film, so it must suck”. Yeah… right. And that hot girl who won’t date you must be a lesbian too, hey?
These days the traditional “critic” is becoming irrelevant. Every person with access to the internet can post their thoughts for the world to see these days.
I’ve known for months I want to see this film. So I’d see it regardless of reviews. So this move by Paramount changes nothing for me. However for these critics with a false sense of entitlement, it may be the beginning of the end for getting a free ride if studios make a habit of this. Time to get a real job perhaps.
Most people go to see a movie on opening day because they want to see THAT particular film, and would see it regardless of advance reviews. Once a film is released, if a film gets great reviews, word of mouth will get a lot of people going to see a film, but so too will the continued fact some people would see it regardless of reviews. If you like action films, and you’re going to see a movie, you’re gonna pick the GI Joe over some chick flick getting top reviews. Traditional media reviews mean so very, very little to the overall box office.
Paramount doesn’t owe these critics anything. Good reviews, bad reviews, or no reviews… opening day numbers would be the same regardless.
As for yourself John, every post about GI Joe you’ve made has been “predicting” it will suck. You’ve picked apart everything you could leading up to this movie, and posted anything you could to support your “prediction”. Why would so many readers all have come to the same “wrong” conclusion about your bias against this film? If it was not your intention to express this, and everyone has indeed got the wrong idea, then don’t get mad at the people who read what you wrote. Take it on board, and try to realize how your writing may in fact be giving so many people such a wrong impression.
GREAT POST :)
This move by Paramount was done to calm the overwhelming negative response of the online community. They “handpicked” critics from prominent websites who have some weight. But seeing how every single one of those critics shat on their other FX heavy toy based franchise, who at least had a surprisingly well received first chapter and very positive buzz on its own, I would rather think that Paramount knew they had a decent film on their hands and not deserving all this hate it has gotten. To me it looks like Paramount took a chance because these guys are usually pretty critical when it comes to this genre and not very forgiving at all. And it seems to have paid off, most of them liked it and many readers have then switched gears and said “maybe it isn’t so bad after all” but of course many have also said “these guys are sellouts and plants”.
But we can all stop bickering about it after tonight.
Screw the critics. Everyone bashed this movie without ever seeing it so Paramount is basically saying “Screw the haters”. It’s their movie so its their business. Who cares about the critics anyway? You usually have to go with the just the few that like the kind of films that you’re into anyway as most of the fanboy sites have guys that I believe don’t know a thing about movies and the older critics just never want to see a fun movie.
Wasn’t gonna see this anyway.
I wanna see District 9!
John, with all due respect, I would normally agree with your qualm over Paramount’s decision to deny screening for the critics. But after the trashing that Transformers 2 got, some of rather unfairly I must say, I can’t blame them for denying another smackdown from a critical base that seemed not so much to disagree with the picture, but to create hostility towards anyone who might enjoy it.
I can understand critics not liking it out of difference of taste, but even after audiences refused to listen to them, many of them started insulting the audiences who did enjoy it. At that point, it was no longer a matter of a critic giving an expert opinion, but dictating terms of taste ala The Fox News Channel.
I think Paramount is playing this shrewdly. While I agree that hand-picking critics does not bode well in the area of artistic validation, I seriously doubt G.I. Joe is going to make anybody’s top ten list. Paramount is doing something unique and it might backfire horribly. If it does, I doubt it will have anything to do with the critical backlash, but the fact that the movie was just awful.
My prediction is Critics will only like it if there are cameo appearances by Wrestling legend Sgt. Slaughter and former Chicago Bear William “The Refrigerator” Perry, the only two real humans to become G.I. Joes.
John if you really like it then how will you feel?
Very very very very happy. I don’t WANT G.I. Joe to suck. I’ve been wanting a G.I. Joe movie for decades. But I have to call it like I see it… this movie looks like total shit.
If it turns out good… I’ll be thrilled.
I think sending film critics to TF2 & GI Joe is like sending food critics to McDonald & Burger King. They will more than likely give it bad reviews. Yet, why does “mindless” movies like TF2 make more money in 1 midnight showing than some “Academy Award” films make in their entire run? Probably the same reason why McDonald & Burger King make billions of dollars & 4 stars restaurants go out of business. Why do people reads the so-called “mindless” twitter, facebook & blogs instead of Tolstoy & Shakespeare ?
Would you see GI Joe as it is (fun popcorn) or would you prefer a GI Joe film that is more serious (like Apocalypse Now)? I would like too see both. but I must admit that I’ve seen the Mummy many times, but Apocalyse Now only once.
I would prefer an entertaining “popcorn” movie that isn’t mindlessly dumb and full of nothing but bad CGI explosions.
What about a return to the entertaining and actually well-done action blockbusters of the past like terminator or die hard? Oh well, I guess we have G-Force to watch instead.
A more story-driven and serious take on one of these “comic-book” type movies WOULD be really interesting as well, I wonder if those sorts of movies are going to start coming out.
That depends on your definition of “entertaining and well-done”. terminator or die hard got bad reviews too.
maybe so, but reviews aren’t everything
Wow, very entertaining reading I must say. People have way too much time on their hands … and taking things way too seriously. Ease up, its just a movie. Go see it, make up your own mind. If you rely on critics to guide your movie-going decisions, wait until there are more reviews. If you are a critic like John, all things even out in then end. I don’t think a studio has ever been able to bullshit their way into a ‘hit’.
Man, nobody got all up in arms like this when people were predicting The Spirit to suck without having seen it yet. Sure it did suck when it finally came out, but I did not read hardly anybody but a few saying “wait til it comes out to make judgment”. Kind of amusing. Also amusing how you mention Transformers and you get a million posts about how Fox can’t act, but you mention G.I. Joe and there are hardly any (if any at all) complaining about how Tatum can’t act. Granted I think they both can act, just horribly and on par with each other, but to each his/her own.
seems like you and your buddy there are just bitter that you werent allowed to screen the movie, and your undeserved feeling of self-entitlement has been put in check.
people who have seen it, are saying that its way better than transformers 2
that’s not exactly high praise
Oh thank God. Another post where someone shows their inside knowledge of Hollywood and the screening process. What? Movies not screen for critics might suck?! Gee… never… ever… have I heard that before.
And the next movie that isn’t screened… probably won’t get another post that once again postulates this as a fresh new idea.
EVERYONE ON THE FRIGGIN PLANET KNOWS THIS. MOVE ON.
ok to everyone who keeps bringing up the “why would they give it to the guy who hated transformers” thing
A simple browsing of this website will show you that the writers enjoy the fantasy, science-fiction, and comic book genres. Just look at the movies blogged about and the movies topping the lists. Therefore, no matter what John had to say about Transformers 2, I STILL think of him as predisposed to like GI JOE because of the other movies he tends to like.
Similarly, just because the Jonas Bros movie bombed doesn’t mean Disney isn’t going to continue marketing the same type of movie to the same audience. They have shown in the past that they are predisposed to like those kinds of movies, even if there have been exceptions.
If someone blogged only about art-house movies, I’m fairly certain they wouldn’t get an exclusive review screening of GI JOE.
And come on everybody, the preview looks generic and bad.
Lack of sleep gets the best of us, Crews.
Oh, and at least your Punisher write-up had the following phrase:
“Look, I haven’t seen Punisher: War Zone yet, so I can’t say the movie will suck…”
Maybe you should be similarly tactful here.
Bottom line: I think a more reasoned take on the entire situation would have gone a long way here. But you mix “reason” with stuff like “this film will suck” and it just puts you in a bad spot, man. Clearly you have readers here who have the impression that you have bashed the film from the start. Maybe you should take that to heart, in some small way.
I’m dealing with something similar at my site with a recently posted negative review of Inglourious Basterds. I have indeed been somewhat hating on the film for months, but a lot of that had to do with a reading of the awful script a year ago. So it wasn’t coming from a total place of ignorance or anything. But you think any of the IC readers believe I went into the film open-minded? Nope. Even though I liked the film much more than the script and that’s evident from the review.
For your sake, I guess, I hope you like “G.I. Joe.”
Here’s a novel idea, wait a week. Let the movie be seen, get the word of mouth, get the reviews (if reviews are important to you), and THEN go see it.
John, the last was in response to the quote from Crews, who in fact said Paramount picked people they “knew” would like it.
John WTF?! “at what point did I ever bash the movie”?
Do you actually have the nerve to say this about Gi Joe?!!!
You have done nothing but bash a movie you have not seen since you saw the first trailer and now pretend that you never bashed it and are now “open-minded”.
I am sorry John, i am a huge supporter of you and this website but I draw the line here like a lot of people in this thread.
You have SWORN for months that it is a 100% FACT that GI Joe is going to suck. Period.
Don’t try to take it all back now. Also, you are over-simplifying things here. You can tell yourself all you want that Fact #1 and #2 you keep repeating are the only considerations that matter here but you are wrong.
I will go a step further and say that the the absolute Smear campaign done on GI Joe by movie fan and blog sites including yours is a signifigant part of the reason Paramount is choosing NOT to screen this film for critics.
Some people may say that the blog community has NO impact on mainstream Hollywood but some of us know that it does. Much of mainstream Hollywood does indeed follow what is going on in the “genre” blog community.
TO be blunt, Bloggers like you spend months trashing Paramount’s film before they even see it or it is even out then act surprised and angry when Paramount reacts to it.
What did guys think Paramount was going to do?
Sorry Jason, never once did I say the movie WAS bad or DID suck. I can’t say that because I haven’t seen it.
I’ve said many many many times that it WOULD suck. That is my prediction. You make predictions, I make predictions. 98% of the time my predictions are right (as far as my opinion goes that is), and when it turns out I’m wrong (like with Punisher War Zone and TMNT) I come out and say so (look it up).
Everything I’ve seen from this movie looks like total shit, and I’ve called it on that, just like I did for Punisher. HOWEVER, never once did I say the movie WAS shit. I can’t say that until I see it. Maybe I’m right… maybe I’m wrong… but I have every right to say what I’ve seen so far looks good or bad… and to me it looks VERY VERY VERY bad.
I think they’re pulling a Godzilla, which they should do from a business standpoint. Hype up the marketing, and try to get as much revenue as you can opening weekend, because you probably won’t get much after that.
Crews: The idea that Paramount showed the film to people they “knew” would like it is foolish on its face. Like a commenter said above, Devin shat all over Transformers 2. There was no “knowing” here. Just an understanding of who would give the film the time of day and who wouldn’t.
Damn Kris, now you’re putting words in my mouth.
“You’re falsely putting words in my mouth. I didn’t say Paramount picked guys they knew would like it. I specifically said they picked guys they knew were “predisposed to liking that genre of film”. Which is 100% true.”
I’m going to have to eat my words here. The idea of Paramount picking guys they knew would like the film is a strong conviction, one I neither intended to make nor quote John as saying. Those selected for early screenings were indeed predisposed to liking that genre, and my earlier statement was neither due to lack of familiarity or comprehension, but lack of sleep. My apologies.
It’s not over rationalizing, John. I love you, but if you were in the trenches with the studios day in and day out, you’d understand points like this. Being at arm’s length leaves you with opinions such as the one you’re offering here, which is fine. It’s essentially the fanboy take on the scenario, and valid for that. But it’s not a thorough understanding by any means.
And I didn’t concede your point. I fleshed it out a little more, which is what you should have done form the start. Again, nuance. Things aren’t black and white in this business.
And I’m not calling YOU childish, I’m calling your crusade (which is what it appears to be) childish. Just as the AP story was childish, and the Salon story.
For more examples of thinking these things out and not rushing to simplistic judgment, I recommend David Poland’s take:
http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/archives/2009/08/g_i_dont_care.html
Also, saying a movie “looks good” is a far cry from saying “this movie will suck” and you know it. And therefore, you’ll forgive me if I don’t believe you when you say you’ll go into it with an open mind. You’re trying to have your cake and eat it too here.
Hey Kris,
Before calling me a liar, read this:
https://themovieblog.com/2008/07/why-punisher-war-zone-is-doomed
Then this:
https://themovieblog.com/2008/12/punisher-war-zone-review
A prediction is a prediction.
And I love you too man, but your holier than thou “oh john, if only you really understood” stuff is getting really tiring.
Facts are facts, they only showed this to critics who are predisposed to liking films in this genre. This is not in dispute by anyone.
“Also, saying a movie ‘looks good’ is a far cry from saying “this movie will suck” and you know it. And therefore, you’ll forgive me if I don’t believe you when you say you’ll go into it with an open mind.”
So your saying you have never seen a movie that you thought was going to suck and ended up liking it? That would mean you saw the movie with an open mind, because otherwise you would have still thought it sucked when you walked out of the movie no matter how good it might have been.
An open mind means your willing to have your views changed. It is possible to have an open mind no matter what kind of biases you may have going into something. The fact that John is going to still see the movie despite thinking it will suck is fairly open minded; whereas a closed minded person would probably blow the movie off and say it would be a waste of time to see it and post a review that would once again say it sucked.
see my problem with this is as much as every one thinks this movie is gonna suck i feel the same way about your movie “The Anniversary”.
mainly cause your just a moviefanboy with a toy sight yadda yadda yadda.
ok see i dont agree with the above statement cause
1. i havent seen it
2. who knows you could be a awesome director
3. its always good to give something a shot
what im trying to get at is basically i rather watch it before i bash it because it could be really fun and maybe actually something i can like.
Bigsampson,
What’s your point? At what point did I ever “bash” the movie? I haven’t seen it yet. I’ve said it LOOKS like shit… and it does look like shit. But just like I did with Punisher, and TMNT, I’ll go into it with an open mind and judge it on its merrits, not on what it LOOKED like.
For now, I stand by my PREDICTION that it’ll suck. But I’m fair enough that if it proves me wrong (like Punisher and TMNT did) I’ll say so. Simple as that.
well your not gonna hear me debate that….i am pretty sure it will suck to…i just thought you were saying that it was gonna suck..if your saying that then its just pre bashing that hates on other peoples finances….better to see it first and then bash it….but if your just saying it looks like shit then thats the fault of the editor of the trailer….u can make shit look gold if done by someone with talent =)
And I’m offering no opinion on the film here, mind you. Just fighting against blanket statements that are pure speculation and nothing more.
Kris,
Anytime we say a movie looks good, or not good, before seeing it is speculation. I’ve never claimed my prediction about the movie sucking was anything other than speculation. I’m just pointing out that my speculation has a very solid basis. Could be right, could be wrong… but my reasons for believing so are as solid as they get.
Yeah, I’ve read what you’re repeated over and over again and that you keep repeating it and think that it somehow represents the “truth” that the film “will suck” is my point.
Why would Paramount show this film to a legion of old-media critics who aren’t going to give it the time of day? I think it’s a shrewd move, and it doesn’t say as much about the film, per se, but it says plenty about the disconnect between film critics and populist entertainment.
You seem to be implying that because Paramount showed the film to critics in the entertainment wheelhouse that they somehow are pulling the wool over people’s eyes and that those folks and their opinions don’t matter. In truth, much of the online press brings much more thought to the table with films such as this than stuck-in-their-ways critics at the major outlets. And just because these are new-media critics doesn’t mean they and their opinions are out to lunch. Devin can be as eclectic as the next guy when it comes to taste.
So, again, you are grossly over-simplifying the situation. In a way, I think we’re on the same page, but your crusade of “this movie will suck,” which is somewhat childish and irresponsible, is coloring your perspective of the situation greatly.
It’s not “hiding the film.” It’s being careful about how you roll it out to those with soap boxes. It’s marketing 101.
One thing certainly isn’t in dispute here: By not screening the film, Paramount has caused more people to talk about it than had they offered a standard roll-out. Plus, they don’t have to deal with the inevitable negative reviews from old-media types. Shrewd.
But I think, at the end of the day, based on the reactions I’ve heard from smart people, the film could have its old-media champions as well, just like “Speed Racer” did.
Not over rationalizing a desperate point is not “over simplifying”.
I’m seeing a lot of creative excuses and justifications for not showing this films to critics. But it all boils down to this.. I’ve NEVER, not once, seen a film that a studio hid from critics turn out to be anything less than garbage. Those films are batting 1000%.
And you seem to be under the impression that I… a new media guy… have an anti-new media bias. How does that make any sense?
But you did just prove my point. By saying it’s “smart” for paramount to not show the film to “stuck-in-their-ways critics at the major outlets”, you concede my point that Paramount specifically selected only those “critics” who are more likely predisposed to enjoying that type of film. As such, the RT ratings at this point are totally pointless. Reviews as a whole are pointless if you only allow reviewers who are more likely to enjoy the film to see it.
So no Kris, my arguement is neither an oversimplification nor off base. It’s bang on, and calling me names (childish) doesn’t change that fact.
But I am open minded. I’m going to see the film and if I like it, I’ll say so.
I was certain I’d hate Punisher War Zone… but I went into it with an open mind and gave it a positive review. I’ll do the same thing here if it’s warranted.
Kris, you need to take into account that John’s generalization of how “this movie will suck” is a simple prediction, and in no way a claim that the film actually does suck. Paramount allowed screenings for a select group of people that the company knew would enjoy the film, no one else. How can you not point something like that out? And besides, he has said on multiple occasions that he is open-minded and will reserve judgment until he is able to see it himself. His perspective can now be dubbed ‘childish’ and ‘irresponsible’, possibly because he disagrees with you?
I’m not John’s guard dog, but you’re disparaging an opinion for the simple sake of being an opinion. Besides, I agree, the movie probably will suck.
Woops, wasn’t able to get my post up before yours, John.
Ya I myself have not liked the trailers. Although the tv spots are awesome.
Anyways I don’t know but most of the websites that reviewed this weren’t supporting it earlier so getting good review from them is an accompalishment I guess.
Maybe expectations were just toooooo damn low from these geeks so they were pleasantly surprised after watching the movie.
The footage I’ve seen so far has looked pretty bad. I think the movie will suck but I will see it and all the better if it ends up being good. Nothing better than a movie thats better than you expected.
“Devin over at CHUD.com gave G.I. Joe an 8.5 out of 10, but gave Transformers 2 the single worst review this side of Ebert with an abysmal 1 out of 10.
If I were Paramount, I wouldn’t go knocking on the door of the guy who vomited all over my last big flick.”
Thank you.
John, as usual, I think you’re over-simplifying. There is more nuance to this situation.
No Kris, I’m really not.
I’ll just repeat what I said earlier:
Fact #1 – Paramount is hiding this film from the vast majority of critics.
Fact #2 – The tiny group that was allowed to see it was specifically hand picked by Paramount to see it.
Neither of these two facts are in dispute. These two facts make their own argument.
You can try to rationalize it all you want, but these are the facts.
I gave Transformers 2 a negative review too… but I’m STILL predisposed to liking a film like G.I. Joe. Remember, Devin gave a glowing review to Punisher War Zone (A film that ended up with a 26% on Rotten Tomates) I think mostly because it’s a type of film that he and I are predisposed to enjoying (I’m one of the other shmucks who gave it a good review too).
Just because Transformers 2 sucked so bad doesn’t mean G.I. Joe isn’t the type of film us fanboy webmasters aren’t predisposed to enjoying.
But like I said… even though I know it’ll suck, I’m open minded. I won’t know if I’m right or wrong until I see it… and I COULD be wrong.
I don’t care whether it has been screened for critics or not but bottom line is that the same reviewes on RT did NOT like TF2.
Sorry John TF2 was pure crap. It got 19% on RT. I am confident that Gi joe will beat that although yes the grade will drop hard once critics start reviewing.
Hey Don,
#1 – What on earth does Transformers 2 have to do with G.I. Joe?
#2 – I myself gave a negative review of Transformers 2… so I’m really not sure what your point is.
I don’t know. To me, that quote sounds a lot less “brilliantly put” and a lot more like a guy who’s bitter about Paramount’s decision and maybe a little scared for the future of his job. As anyone with an internet connection can attest, there are plenty of people talking about upcoming films who don’t have a financial stake in the films themselves, with or without the traditional critics. If I were making a film, why would I ever want to screen it for someone who clearly had his mind made up without ever seeing it? To change his mind and hope he has the integrity and professionalism to reverse his position? Yeah, that quote sounds like it came from a true professional.
As for your assertion that Paramount hand-picked reviewers that they somehow knew were going to like the film, or, as you actually said: “were predisposed to liking that genre of film”, that seems like an odd complaint in light of 2 things.
1. As has been pointed out, a lot of the sites that were “hand-picked” had given bad reviews to Transformers 2, another Paramount release.
2. Why would I want to read a review of a film by someone who doesn’t like the genre?
i really dont care what any anyone has to say about this film im still pumped for it as are my kids and we will all be going to see it on opening day.
the fight between storm shadow and snakeeyes alone will be worth seeing this.
Rotten Tomatoes should take down the score on their site, the score has no credibility if it’s only made up of reviews from fanboy jizzpools like AICN.
I was shocked to see rotten tomatoes has this at 91% Like John said possibly because they handpick who sees the film. The problem with this film is that they did not finish the CGI. WTF
John, did you even look at the Rottentomatoes reviews?
You are not really making sense. GI Joe is getting many positive reviews from respectable sources. Transformers 2 on the other hand was mostly hated by all the critics.
As people here have pointed out, some very legitimate review sites have given GI Joe some decent scores. These are not small sites that’s run at home by some guy doing it for fun.
IGN, IGN UK, CHUD, Joblo are sites that i really respect and have good content. I consider them legit sites that people can trust.
Also some of these same sites have bashed Transformers 2 another Paramount release.
They are basically comparing the two, and telling us why GI Joe is really a lot better than Transformers 2.
Dax,
It’s a 91% out of the critics Paramount hand picked to see the movie. Keep that in perspective.
They are not allowing the vast majority of critics to see the film… there’s a reason for that.
And hey, I haven’t seen it myself… so I may be wrong. I won’t know for sure until I see it myself tomorrow night.
so John you’re saying Paramount knew ahead they will like this movie. YOu’re saying we can’t trust any of those sites that have reviewed GI Joe. We can’t trust IGN, Joblo, CHUD, timeout new york.
You’re saying they let Devin Faraci review GI Joe, knowing he will give a positive review. Why would Paramount let him review it? He is the same person who gave Transformers 2 a 1 out of 10.
Some of the sites that reviewed GI Joe have bashed many other summer blockbusters this year.
I don’t think you have a strong argument.
Yes I very much do have a strong argument. The argument is Paramount isn’t letting critics see the movie except for a select tiny group that they themselves have hand picked to see it. Those are the indisputable facts.
Devin (who is a friend of mine) himself acknowledges that makes the whole thing smell very fishy.
I have yet to see a film that a studio withheld from critics that turned out to be any good at all. It’s never happened (unless you think Snakes on a Plane was a “good” film).
100% failure rate means I have a good argument.
HOWEVER….
Like I said before, that doesn’t mean it CAN’T happen. I won’t know for sure until i see it myself tomorrow night.
There has been only one film that wasn’t screened for critics that was actually a great film and that was 1993’s Tombstone starring Kurt Russell and Val Kilmer. Roger Ebert mentioned this and said that because of this Val Kilmer never got the nominated for an Oscar for his role as Doc Holliday.
Devin Faraci gave Transformers ROTF one of the harshest reviews out of everyone.
Why would Paramount handpick Devin to review it?
How would they know ahead that the group they handpick to review it would like it?
Joblo gave Transformers ROTF a 2/10.
CHUD gave Transformers ROTF a 1/10.
Dax,
That’s totally irrelivant. None of what you just said changes the facts:
Fact #1 – Paramount is hiding this film from the vast majority of critics.
Fact #2 – The tiny group that was allowed to see it was specifically hand picked by Paramount to see it.
Neither of these two facts are in dispute. These two facts make their own argument.
You can try to rationalize it all you want, but these are the facts.
I gave Transformers 2 a negative review too… but I’m STILL predisposed to liking a film like G.I. Joe. Remember, Devin gave a glowing review to Punisher War Zone (A film that ended up with a 26% on Rotten Tomates) I think mostly because it’s a type of film that he and I are predisposed to enjoying (I’m one of the other shmucks who gave it a good review too).
Just because Transformers 2 sucked so bad doesn’t mean G.I. Joe isn’t the type of film us fanboy webmasters aren’t predisposed to enjoying.
But like I said… even though I know it’ll suck, I’m open minded. I won’t know if I’m right or wrong until I see it… and I COULD be wrong.
We will still be seeing their reviews cause they will be going to the midnight show also wont they?
I’d have to agree with dax, even if the reviewers were hand picked they are the types of outlets which I tend to relate to in my personal tastes. Therefore, I do value and trust their individual opinions and comments about the movie. The fact that they were hand picked certainly invalidates the 91% on RT as a measure of quality, but the individual reviews are very meaningful for those of us who tend to agree with IGN, etc.
John,
Those 2 facts only “make their own argument” if you:
1. Assume that Paramount is “hiding” and not just refusing to show a movie to a bunch of critics who seem to have already decided that they won’t like it. Maybe a safe assumption based on history, but ever since I first became aware of the debate about what it means when a studio doesn’t screen a film for critics, I’ve waited for a studio to wise up and refuse to show a movie to critics when they are pretty confident in that movie’s merits, thus damaging the axiom that it’s always bad when they don’t screen. Maybe that’s happening here, maybe it’s not, but given the generally positive reviews it has been getting, it might be.
2. Assume that Paramount some how knew that the critics they did show the film to would like the film. Here’s the weakest part of your argument. Sure, internet fanboys might be predisposed to like the genre, but they’re also predisposed to rip a movie apart for the smallest infraction. Bottom line is that if a movie is bad, there is no “safe” audience.
Maybe you feel comfortable making these assumptions, but that doesn’t make them accurate. As you say, though, none of us will really know until we go see it this weekend.
Oh it’s not just saying that it
s better than Transformers 2 better than 1 as well.
I hope John does a review on this but with this argument I don’t think John has a chance at likening it.
Im not saying John will want to hate it he just might be thrown off after this.
ign gave it 3 1/2 stars out of 5 & ign UK gave it 3 out of 5
More and more I find actions like this counterproductive.
Paramount is thinking that all (or majority of) the film critics in mainstream media are going to not like the film. However, the studio(s) fail to take into account that there may be some film critics who actually might like the film. Given the fact that not *everyone* reads AICN, CHUD, or other related sites, how will a “general” movie going public be influenced? The trailers never looked that great.
Sometimes I see a statement that a film is “criticproof”. Which is a pointless statement, since websites still play ‘critic’, critics will get around to said film if they choose (or are paid) to do so. If a film is ‘criticproof’ put it to the test and show it to critics. If one thinks that mainstream critics’ words on paper or newspaper website doesn’t matter… what’s the harm in it, if nobody is going to pay attention? Again, what if a critic LIKES the film? The studio robs this, robs the potential audiences who are swayed in Anytown, USA, and then it is up to the ad campaign, which hasn’t (again) been the best.
Also that new trend with the youth- buying tix within 10 minutes of showtime. What the Group decides to see is what what the Group decides to see. They may choose to see the new thriller with Milla Jovovich instead.
One of the biggest criticisms about Transformers 2 was how it used stereotypes, strong sex hints and other things, and targeted the young kiddies etc etc. Will there be fallout with GI Joe? Maybe not. But The Parents of the kids will now want to escort the young ones, or want to know what the film is about. Do they “trust” Harry Knowles? Moriarty? How about the faceless nameless dual moded commenters saying how the film Is The Best Movie Ever Made and ranks up there with Snakes On A Plane?
Look, Paramount, we all luv ya..but perhaps since expectations are low the film may surprise on that level. Stephen Sommers usually delivers on the airheaded popcorn flicks so it still might be alright for a day or two before we tear the hairs on our heads out and go nuts anyway.
We know it will have a huge opening…unless a wet n wild Milla gets more attention than Sienna’s latex butt. But we also know it will have a huge drop. You raise a red flag where there may not be a need to raise one.
I don’t know what film I’ll see this weekend. I might just be like the lot of them and do something else instead.
Right now because of all of this humdrum. I’m waiting for DVD.
I never thought I’d live to see the way when I would write that “wait for video”. First time for everything, ” ‘spose.
This makes sense.
I’ve been wondering why this movie has had such a high rating on RottenTomatoes.
now i feel dumb
Oh no….I’m not sure what I should do??? Do I go see G.I.Joe or not? I mean there are only so many reviews out there for me to base this decision on and those might be stacked in the studio’s favor? Nnnnoott strongggg eeeenough tooo make upppp owwwn minnd…head hurts…
This is going to be baaaad.
Now lets just hope the brain dead masses dont reward them for it.
Insult the people who like something that you don’t. There you go.
Get a life.
This makes sense.
I’ve been wondering why this has had such a high rating on RottenTomatoes.
Laugh all you want about how bad Joe will be but this shitty movie will probably make 5x more money than this years Oscar winner. (unless its Up) The studios are not afraid of the critics when they are backed up by the “fans”. When movies like Beverley Hills chihuahua, and G-Force are the #1 movie in America, they have no obligation to preview GI Joe to the press and expect and loss of revenue if they don’t.
Maybe this is a marketing move to lower expectations for the movie. People will be pleasantly surprised by a not complete shit movie and spread the word.
and i still can’t figure it out on how Beverly Hills Chihuahua and G-Force can be no 1 box office…. oh humanity. No wonder aliens eager to wipe us out of the existence (sarcasm here)
What if this becomes a monster of a success solely cause of how bad it is? Like so bad it’s good? I’m kinda thinking that’s what is going to happen.
I bet this will be a pretty good movie. Nothing spectacular. About as good as wolverine was. It’s funny that slash sees this move by paramount as the end of fair movie reviews, hah! As if critiques have this far been immune to company biases.
Well thanks John for answering my question, which was: why are so few film critics reviewing it? well I guess this is why
Haha! Maybe I was right after all. I’m still not even sure if I should see it Friday
Speaking of Devin Faraci, here’s his take on this mess: http://bit.ly/CCLtf
A bit…
“The problem with all of this is that while almost everyone who saw the film walked out positive, with the exception of Garth Franklin of Dark Horizons, Paramount continued to hide it from the rest of the critical community. And so a whole load of bluster began; not only was there the usual ‘This must suck because they’re not showing it’ talk, but there was also a bunch of sideways glances at the likes of CHUD, Aint It Cool News, IGN, JoBlo and other sites that had been invited. The thought was that Paramount had just shown the movie to a bunch of easy marks.”
I would’ve thought CHUD were an “easy mark” had it not been for that BRUTAL Transformers 2 review. Who knows?
Devin over at CHUD.com gave G.I. Joe an 8.5 out of 10, but gave Transformers 2 the single worst review this side of Ebert with an abysmal 1 out of 10.
If I were Paramount, I wouldn’t go knocking on the door of the guy who vomited all over my last big flick.
But they did. And that one single review has given me hope that Joe might not COMPLETELY suck.
Here’s hoping…
I’ll be seeing it tommorrow as well. While every other review i’ve read has been praising it, Dan Jolin at Empire gave it 2 out of 5 and said this:
“And the climactic undersea battle? You know Sommers wants us to think ‘Thunderball’. But the Bond movie this ugly mess most closely resembles is Die Another Day.”
Now I’m really looking forward to it.
Why are people treating this movie like The Hottie and The Nottie when it’s far from it?
Because it’s got a Wayan’s brother in it, and that’s almost as bad as having Paris Hilton show up!
;)
This movie will suck donkey balls, and maybe ass too!
Well the word on the street is the exact opposite of this. Those who have seen this are urging Paramount to show it to critics because apparently it’s not as bad as pretty much everyone thought.
Hey Gutpunch,
The problem is Paramount hand picked the guys they showed it to. Guys who they knew in advance were predisposed to liking that genre of film. Not a good sign.
Some of the sites and people they invited had been publicly bashing this for a while, based on the clips, toy designs, etc. And we are talking GI Joe fan sites, so for them to do a 180 must mean there is something there. I personally will go in with an open mind to see whether it is good/bad
It’s funny how there’s so much assumption that this movie will suck, but is anyone actually remembering the source material? This is GI Joe.
There’s no cool things like robots, magic, claws or space travel, yet as kids we all still enjoyed the show for being a mindless 30min about good vs evil (followed by 20sec reminding us why we shouldn’t start fires).
GI Joe PSA Parodies
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJ-ckU_D1fg
Good vs Evil. Scarlet vs Baroness. Snake Eyes vs Storm Shadow. I know every sign indicates this “should” suck but I’m actually excited to see it.
I have to disagree with you, John, about Paramount picking only people they “knew” were going to like it (they can ‘guess’, but ‘know’? Uh-uh).
If anyone’s on the fence and wants a second opinion on the matter, check out Chud.com’s take on the issue.
Royal,
You’re falsely putting words in my mouth. I didn’t say Paramount picked guys they knew would like it. I specifically said they picked guys they knew were “predisposed to liking that genre of film”. Which is 100% true.
If you’re going to argue with me, at least argue what I actually said.