Penny Can

Home Entertainment Center => The Drive-In Theater => Topic started by: Mac on July 19, 2013, 03:20:18 pm


Title: Hiding from Critics
Post by: Mac on July 19, 2013, 03:20:18 pm
Yea, I wasn't getting any vibe from this. It looks like a MIB wannabe. But interesting perspective on studio's, faith, critics and buzz.

Why Universal Hid 'R.I.P.D.' From Critics

Quote
R.I.P.D. is indeed as terrible as the buzz has suggested over the last year or so. It is lifeless, badly acted, and arbitrarily plotted.  Moreover, it is filled with annoying and unpleasant characters, especially Jeff Bridges doing an extra obnoxious version of his Rooster Cogburn turn from the True Grit remake.  The special effects are rubbery and unconvincing, even with an alleged $130 million budget.  In short, Universal’s would-be comic book adaptation franchise-starter is every bit as awful as the whole ‘not screened for critics’ label implies.  The irony is that R.I.P.D. is more the exception than the rule.  More often than not, withholding films, especially bigger films, from pre-release press screenings does more harm than good.

With R.I.P.D., Universal clearly knew they had a loser on their hands.  One of the ways studios sometimes try to mitigate damage is to not screen the film for film critics prior to release.  Sometimes they do screen a given film but explicitly demand that all reviews be held until opening day. But even that isn’t a fail safe, as someone, be it a major trade or a random blogger who wants to be “first!”, will usually drop a review before opening day and spoil the non-surprise.  But here’s the rub: More often than not, withholding a film from pre-release press screenings creates an aura of catastrophe that often isn’t merited by the film in question.  And whether its critics aghast at having to spend actual money to see a film in a normal theater or writers subconsciously setting their critical phasers on “destroy”, a film that has been held back from critic screenings is almost certain to get worse reviews than it would have had it just screened for press a few days prior to release.

Just this spring, Dark Skies had a somewhat infamous release.  The UFO abduction thriller went out sans press screenings only to garner additional media attention when the Thursday-at-midnight screening attended by several online critics in New York failed to actually play, leading to comedic speculation over whether the film actually existed. In the end, the film made $25 million worldwide on a $3.5 million budget, which probably makes it a win overall for the Weinstein Company.  But the irony is that the picture is actually pretty good.  Its scares aren’t anything we haven’t seen before, but the film authentically establishes a genuine family unit with relatable problems.  G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra was another allegedly disastrous production that went out sans press screenings.  The irony is that, again, the film was much better than the pre-release buzz had led anyone to expect (it’s exactly what a $175 million film based on the 1980′s G.I. Joe cartoon should feel like), yet fellow critics’ knives were extra sharp as if they had been personally wronged by having to pay to see the film on a Friday afternoon with regular customers. To this day, I am convinced that the overly harsh critical assessment of the perfectly fun G.I. Joe film is due to the negative critical environment created by Paramount’s choice not to screen it for the press.

But what about when your film isn’t just better than the “not screened for critics” stigma but actually a genuinely good film?  Such was the fate of Snakes On A Plane back in late-summer 2006.  The would-be cult sensation was hid from all eyes until its Thursday at 9:00pm screenings, and it underwhelmed at the box office with $13 million over opening weekend.  Now, to be fair, a $13 million debut for a Samuel L. Jackson thriller about, well, snakes on an airplane, sounded about right before the hype machine kicked into gear and the film was sold by New Line Cinemas as the greatest cult film of all time. But most audiences, especially adults above a certain age, aren’t about to shell out money for movie tickets and possibly babysitters for a film that they’ve been told is “so bad it’s good”.  But the joke was that the film was actually a perfectly solid thriller and the reviews were actually mostly positive.  Imagine how much better buzz New Line Cinema would have had going into the weekend with a parade of positive critical notices behind them?

There are also any number of horror films, which are routinely withheld from press screenings which may well have benefited from the fact that they were pretty darn good. Genuinely solid horror films like , Quarantine, The Amityville Horror (also starring Ryan Reynolds, in a performance about 100x better than the one he gives in R.I.P.D.), Devil, or yes, Dark Skies that could have benefited from a slight critical nudge.  Quarantine especially was hurt a little by hiding it from the press, as the found-footage remake opened with $14 million over opening weekend even without a slew of halfway decent notices that followed over the weekend. Of course plenty of horror films, such as The Apparition, Apollo 18, or One Missed Call,  are withheld from the press for expected reasons. But I’d argue the practice of holding back somewhat higher profile films only creates the impression that a film is utterly terrible, which leads to critics proclaiming that harmless mediocrities like Gone, One For the Money, or Abduction somehow belongs on a “worst films of the year” list. While studios may think they are shielding paying audiences from terrible reviews for that all-important opening weekend, the practice with bigger non-horror fare often merely creates the impression that the film is on a higher scale of bad than it actually is. Not every film that forgoes pre-release screenings is as bad as The Avengers, but that’s the impression that is created every time.

Sadly R.I.P.D. is indeed that bad.  It’s somewhat rare for studios to withhold such a genuinely expensive film from critical glares. It was a big deal fifteen Augusts ago when Warner Bros. declined to screen The Avengers for critics, and the buzz was sadly true in that case. Even Jonah Hex was screened for press two days prior to release. But this is sadly an infamous misfire and this is a rare case where I’d argue that keeping word about the film’s utter lack of quality and entertainment value is indeed worth hiding from paying consumers for as long as possible. But I’d argue it’s the exception rather than the rule. Most films withheld from critics are horror films that don’t need or want critical approval or low-budget stinkers that aren’t expecting positive notices. But yeah, R.I.P.D. is the kind of film that justifies the stigma.
Title: Re: Hiding from Critics
Post by: Chiprocks1 on July 19, 2013, 06:43:00 pm
I thought the trailer was great. I guess they put all the good stuff into 2 half minutes for the trailer. This movie just went straight to my "maybe" list.
Title: Re: Hiding from Critics
Post by: Mac on July 19, 2013, 07:05:13 pm
Just read another blistering review...
... It sucks that bad or just a couple of  bad reviews?