Remember Transformers 2 got panned by the know-it-all, so-called, self-styled critics, but millions of real, right-minded people went to see it anyway? Paramount does. So, with GI Joe getting reviews in Australia that state, "This film is so bad it makes the worst of the second round of Star Wars movies look good", it's opted to bypass critics entirely.
Of course, there is beautiful spin on this. It comes from Rob Moore, vice chairman at Paramount, who tells Forbes, "After the chasm we experienced with Transformers 2 between the responses of audiences and critics, we chose to forgo opening day print and broadcast reviews. We want the audience to define the film."
'We want the audience to define the..." Prepare for this sentence to be used by at least one gaming executive soon.
Of course, there is beautiful spin on this. It comes from Rob Moore, vice chairman at Paramount, who tells Forbes, "After the chasm we experienced with Transformers 2 between the responses of audiences and critics, we chose to forgo opening day print and broadcast reviews. We want the audience to define the film."
'We want the audience to define the..." Prepare for this sentence to be used by at least one gaming executive soon.
Companies:
Paramount Pictures
Read More Like This
Comments
SPInGSPOnG 7 Aug 2009 13:14
1/10
The audience are predominantly mouth breathers. They WILL define the movie. Anyone who goes to see a movie that has bypassed the critics deserves what they get.
I'm not saying that critics are always right, and we should take any notice of them, they are predominantly mouth breathers. But when a studio decides to bypass them, it's because they hope to get a bit or their money back before word gets around. F**king studio execs and marketing people: predominantly mouth breathers.
I'm not saying that critics are always right, and we should take any notice of them, they are predominantly mouth breathers. But when a studio decides to bypass them, it's because they hope to get a bit or their money back before word gets around. F**king studio execs and marketing people: predominantly mouth breathers.
GetALoaf 7 Aug 2009 14:05
2/10
Rod Todd wrote:
The audience are predominantly mouth breathers. They WILL define the movie. Anyone who goes to see a movie that has bypassed the critics deserves what they get.
What a retard you are sir. Noone needs critics anymore. The internets are full of people who don't get paid by the companys in order to have their opinions worshipped. The internet has killed the critic dead thank f**k. Transformers 2 was a ride, GI Joe will rock. They are fun movies not things to be 'criticized'. F**k the critics and good for Paramount serving up entertainment for the public and profit for the stockholders.
more comments below our sponsor's message
Daz 7 Aug 2009 14:38
3/10
I don't read reviews so whether it skips critics or not makes no difference to me because if I wanna see it, I'll go see it no matter what.
Rutabaga 7 Aug 2009 14:45
4/10
TBF the trailer for this looked rubbish. So I'm guessing it will be a 2hr CGI cut scene with no story, that will be on five on a sunday afternoon in a years time.
SPInGSPOnG 7 Aug 2009 20:05
5/10
GetALoaf wrote:
What a retard you are sir. Noone needs critics anymore. The internets are full of people who don't get paid by the companys in order to have their opinions worshipped.
I'm the retard, but you are the one unable to spell correctly the plural of company.
They are fun movies not things to be 'criticized'. F**k the critics and good for Paramount serving up entertainment for the public and profit for the stockholders.
Here ends today's message from Paramount's "gorilla" marketing mouth breathers.
Joji 7 Aug 2009 21:46
6/10
You could be right, critics only want to look at stuff if it can't be intelectually dissected etc. Heaven forbid a film to be just enjoyable ride anymore.
Many people hated Transformers 2, even critics, and look what happened. The box office taking were off the charts, because it was a fun action film. Enjoyment is why we watch stuff, so the views of critics mean less these days. Good to see people voting with their feet.
I really enjoyed Transformers 2, and I feel that I'll dig GI Joe too. Screw critics.
Many people hated Transformers 2, even critics, and look what happened. The box office taking were off the charts, because it was a fun action film. Enjoyment is why we watch stuff, so the views of critics mean less these days. Good to see people voting with their feet.
I really enjoyed Transformers 2, and I feel that I'll dig GI Joe too. Screw critics.
Steviepunk 8 Aug 2009 12:15
7/10
I saw GI Joe last night, wasn't expecting much at all as the trailer looks rubbish, however I was pleasantly surprised. It's not looking for an oscar, but it know's it there as a bit of fun and it works reasonably well - I'd certainly have no complaints of substance (I'm sure you could pick holes in it if you wanted, but I just like to sit back and enjoy :) )
the relevance of the professional critic is definitely changing, while they certainly do have a place, they are no longer as significant as they used to be. Most tend to look at things in terms one scale of quality (ie. oscar worthyness, or the relevant award for the media in question), but this is just wrong as different movies/games/music have different objectives.
Just looking at critic scores vs user scores (metacritic, etc), you can see there is a difference in what people actually enjoy and what critics think. And since we're on the subject of movies, the two of the more controvertial ones this year:
(mc = metacritic critics, mu - metacritic users, rc - rotten tomatoes critics, ru - rotten tomatoe users)
GI Joe: 32%(mc), 39%(rc) ,52%(mu), 61%(ru)
Transformers 2: 35%(mc), 20%(rc), 60%(mu), 58%(ru)
Whether you agree or not, the overall opinion is that peoples tasks are somewhat different to the critics and while there are sometimes movies that we can all agree on (like The Dark Knight), those are in the minority. If people see that they don't agree with the critics on things, then their importance is vastly reduced.
the relevance of the professional critic is definitely changing, while they certainly do have a place, they are no longer as significant as they used to be. Most tend to look at things in terms one scale of quality (ie. oscar worthyness, or the relevant award for the media in question), but this is just wrong as different movies/games/music have different objectives.
Just looking at critic scores vs user scores (metacritic, etc), you can see there is a difference in what people actually enjoy and what critics think. And since we're on the subject of movies, the two of the more controvertial ones this year:
(mc = metacritic critics, mu - metacritic users, rc - rotten tomatoes critics, ru - rotten tomatoe users)
GI Joe: 32%(mc), 39%(rc) ,52%(mu), 61%(ru)
Transformers 2: 35%(mc), 20%(rc), 60%(mu), 58%(ru)
Whether you agree or not, the overall opinion is that peoples tasks are somewhat different to the critics and while there are sometimes movies that we can all agree on (like The Dark Knight), those are in the minority. If people see that they don't agree with the critics on things, then their importance is vastly reduced.
DoctorDee 8 Aug 2009 14:15
8/10
Steviepunk wrote:
Whether you agree or not, the overall opinion is that peoples tasks are somewhat different to the critics and while there are sometimes movies that we can all agree on (like The Dark Knight),
Ironically, I hate the Dark Knight, and many of my friends feel the same way about it. We're Batman fans, super hero movie fans, Chris Bale fans, even Chris Nolan fans (well, Memento and batman Begins)... but for me Dark Knight is one of the most over-rated movies of all time... however!
If people see that they don't agree with the critics on things, then their importance is vastly reduced.
I think the point here is not that "proper" critics are in any way great or special, even Rodd stated that. But more that when a studio refuses to do pre-screenings of a movie, even if that was just for bloggers and Internet forum posters, it indicates that they are trying to "pull a fast one". They know the movie sucks, but they hope to get good opening figures, and some of their money back before word gets around.
"Letting the Audience define the movie" is just disingenuous corporo-bullshit to try and disguise the fact. These same studios will be schmoozing critics like there's no tomorrow when Oscar nomination time comes around.
Steviepunk 8 Aug 2009 14:29
9/10
@DoctorDee
I think the point here is not that "proper" critics are in any way great or special, even Rodd stated that. But more that when a studio refuses to do pre-screenings of a movie, even if that was just for bloggers and Internet forum posters, it indicates that they are trying to "pull a fast one". They know the movie sucks, but they hope to get good opening figures, and some of their money back before word gets around.
On one hand I would tend to agree, but when you have something like GI Joe or Transformers 2 they will likely know that critics are going to slate it, even though the people the movie is targetted at are generally going to enjoy it, so all the critics are going to do is stop people going that would have actually enjoyed it (and yes, reduces the revenue for thet studio..)
I'd then agree that doing previews for bloggers and movie fans (assuming there was a fair way on getting people in, not just getting movie bloggers like AICN), but then they hit the problem that plagues the internet in general.. the ones who shout the loudest about something are the ones that like to bitch and complain... let's face it, you're "cool" and "independent thinking" if you complain about something... but you're just a fanboy/zombie/sheep/corporate puppet if you actually try to praise something!
Well.. the world would be a boring place if we all agreed on everything... :)
I think the point here is not that "proper" critics are in any way great or special, even Rodd stated that. But more that when a studio refuses to do pre-screenings of a movie, even if that was just for bloggers and Internet forum posters, it indicates that they are trying to "pull a fast one". They know the movie sucks, but they hope to get good opening figures, and some of their money back before word gets around.
On one hand I would tend to agree, but when you have something like GI Joe or Transformers 2 they will likely know that critics are going to slate it, even though the people the movie is targetted at are generally going to enjoy it, so all the critics are going to do is stop people going that would have actually enjoyed it (and yes, reduces the revenue for thet studio..)
I'd then agree that doing previews for bloggers and movie fans (assuming there was a fair way on getting people in, not just getting movie bloggers like AICN), but then they hit the problem that plagues the internet in general.. the ones who shout the loudest about something are the ones that like to bitch and complain... let's face it, you're "cool" and "independent thinking" if you complain about something... but you're just a fanboy/zombie/sheep/corporate puppet if you actually try to praise something!
Ironically, I hate the Dark Knight, and many of my friends feel the same way about it. We're Batman fans, super hero movie fans, Chris Bale fans, even Chris Nolan fans (well, Memento and batman Begins)... but for me Dark Knight is one of the most over-rated movies of all time... however!
Well.. the world would be a boring place if we all agreed on everything... :)
DoctorDee 9 Aug 2009 12:58
10/10
Steviepunk wrote:
Well.. the world would be a boring place if we all agreed on everything... :)
Too right, but I'm normally fairly zeiteisty. But Batman Forever and Casino Royale are two movies where the public in general thought they were superb, and I just missed them point. I loved Quantum of Solace though.
Anyone who's seen Transformers 2 (and GI Joe too, now, I guess), is it (are they)any good?