Fant4stic: Reborn! - - - Part 37

[DigificWriter]

That's a good one.





...oh, wait, you're serious?

Of course I'm serious. If the film is good, the reviews will reflect that, regardless of when they're allowed to be posted, and the same thing applies in reverse.

Of course, it's only the people who want this movie to fail miserably who are trying to infer ANYTHING at all as far as its quality is concerned - or the studio's confidence in it - from there being an embargo on reviews being posted until the film's day of release.

 

[Son of Coul]

The only people to which the point at which reviews of the film are allowed to be posted means anything at all are the people who irrationally want this movie to fail.

If that's the case, it certainly shouldn't be that way. Most people have an understanding that studios will intentionally hold off reviews till the day before (or in rarer cases, the day of) a film's release to milk the film for all it's worth before negative reception hits and people get wind of it - especially the way social media operates now (See Green Lantern, the Friedberg/Seltzer films, etc). If I were anticipating a movie and this happened, I would certainly temper my expectations at the very least, and at worst, already be in mourning for what could have been.

 

[DigificWriter]

Decades of film history.

Give me 5 examples of instances throughout the history of film in which the quality of a film was reflected by the date at which reviews of said film were allowed to be printed/posted.

 

[Snow Queen]

Of course I'm serious. If the film is good, the reviews will reflect that, regardless of when they're allowed to be posted, and the same thing applies in reverse.

Of course, it's only the people who want this movie to fail miserably who are trying to infer ANYTHING at all as far as its quality is concerned - or the studio's confidence in it - from there being an embargo on reviews being posted until the film's day of release.

And you think that letting out reviews only at the same time screenings are already starting instead of, say, a week before the film is released to drum up hype on a film that's been getting very little is a sign of confidence?

 

[MrMaooz]

Okay, I'm one of those people who has thought the trailers have been good, but this isn't a good sign at all for the film. C'mon, DW.

 

[DigificWriter]

And you think that letting out reviews only at the same time screenings are already starting instead of, say, a week before the film is released to drum up hype on a film that's been getting very little is a sign of confidence?

I don't think it means anything at all when it comes to the studio's level of confidence in the film or its quality.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I don't think it means anything at all when it comes to the studio's level of confidence in the film or its quality.

Then you are hopelessly naive.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Of course I'm serious. If the film is good, the reviews will reflect that, regardless of when they're allowed to be posted, and the same thing applies in reverse.

Of course, it's only the people who want this movie to fail miserably who are trying to infer ANYTHING at all as far as its quality is concerned - or the studio's confidence in it - from there being an embargo on reviews being posted until the film's day of release.

If you want to ignore history, that is up to you, but don't act like people are making this up. No studio holds off reviews unless they are worried about them. To even imply otherwise shows a clear bias.

 

[Krystal]

These damn reshoots have ruined the movie. They took a good story that was light on action and turned it into a clone of something else. It was probably better before.

 

[DigificWriter]

Then you are hopelessly naive.

How is it naive to dismiss the idea that the quality of a film - or a studio's confidence in said film - is at all determined or reflected by the point at which reviews of said film are allowed to be released?

 

[Kanon]

I don't think it means anything at all when it comes to the studio's level of confidence in the film or its quality.

Quality, maybe, but it's undeniable that the studio lacks confidence. Otherwise, they would lift the embargo early enough to promote the movie with the good reviews they are confident to receive.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Give me 5 examples of instances throughout the history of film in which the quality of a film was reflected by the date at which reviews of said film were allowed to be printed/posted.

I don't have to look very far as Rotten Tomatoes did a study a few years ago to see how it affected film quality.

These are all from 2006:

Films Not Screened For Critics In 2006:
------------------------------------------------
29% -- Tyler Perry's Madea's Family Reunion (Feb. 24)
17% -- Grandma's Boy (Jan. 6)
16% -- Underworld: Evolution (Jan. 20)
10% -- When a Stranger Calls (Feb. 3)
9% -- Ultraviolet (Mar. 3)
8% -- Date Movie (Feb. 17)
7% -- BloodRayne (Jan. 6)
6% -- Stay Alive (Mar. 24)
5% -- Doogal (Feb 24)
4% -- Larry the Cable Guy: Health Inspector (Mar. 24)
Average Tomatometer not screened for critics: 11%

I can post films from other years if you like, but I feel this confirms my point. An embargo to the date of release is basically just the same thing.

 

[Snow Queen]

How is it naive to dismiss the idea that the quality of a film - or a studio's confidence in said film - is at all determined or reflected by the point at which reviews of said film are allowed to be released?

The quality of the film is not determined by when the reviews come out and no one is saying that, however if a film is good they're not going to be holding back reviews and only allowing them to be released as screenings are already starting.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

How is it naive to dismiss the idea that the quality of a film - or a studio's confidence in said film - is at all determined or reflected by the point at which reviews of said film are allowed to be released?

It's like talking to a brick wall.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

Then you are hopelessly naive.

No, he knows full well what's going on. Can't provoke people by agreeing with them, though.

 

[DigificWriter]

The quality of the film is not determined by when the reviews come out and no one is saying that, however if a film is good they're not going to be holding back reviews and only allowing them to be released as screenings are already starting.

You just contradicted yourself here.

 

[Kanon]

How is it naive to dismiss the idea that the quality of a film - or a studio's confidence in said film - is at all determined or reflected by the point at which reviews of said film are allowed to be released?

Your are wording that statement to make it look logical or true. The film quality and confidence is not affected by the date of the embargo BUT the date of the embargo (imposed by the studio) is influenced by the quality of the film and confidence of the producer.

So no, late embargo dates does not lead to bad film or low confidence

But

bad film or low confidence lead to late embargo date

 

[Erzengel]

Green Lantern opened up to press screening the Wednesday before the Friday release and we know what happened with that. Since then all the major CBM have reviews a week prior to the release.

 

[Snow Queen]

You just contradicted yourself here.

Care to point out how? Fox is saying no reviews can be posted until the time pre-screenings start. This is not a sign of faith.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

How is it naive to dismiss the idea that the quality of a film - or a studio's confidence in said film - is at all determined or reflected by the point at which reviews of said film are allowed to be released?

Because you clearly have a bias towards this film, so you are ignoring clear and obvious signs that point to this not reviewing good. Not saying you won't enjoy it, but there is a reason why films like Inside Out let reviews come out weeks early and bad ones avoid them to the last moment.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

No, he knows full well what's going on. Can't provoke people by agreeing with them, though.

Maybe.

 

[Marvel Spider]

These damn reshoots have ruined the movie. They took a good story that was light on action and turned it into a clone of something else. It was probably better before.

What I really liked about the teaser trailer, in addition to looking very well shot, was that it looked distinctive and different from a lot of the other films in this genre. I haven't been against this from day one like a large amount of people here. I thought Chronicle was great, so I had no ill feelings towards Trank. But you're right, the stuff I've seen from the reshoots sorta makes me a little weary. It makes me feel like the original vision might have been compromised, resulting in something worse than what it could have been. Of course, all of this is moot until the movie actually comes out. The day the embargo ends is not a good sign, though.

 

[MrMaooz]

I wonder how it feels to be the director or a star of a project with an embargo like this.

 

[TalismanRing]

The best case scenario is that the VFX aren't done. But the NYC premiere is August 4th.

So if it's ready to be shown then it should be ready to be shown to the critics and have reviews released that day or even the day before. But critic screenings aren't scheduled until the day after on August 5th and reviews aren't allowed until the 6th (online) 7th (print).

Studios use critic screenings and reviews and advanced screenings to build buzz and WOM. That's the sole purpose for having either. Holding all of that back until the day the film actually opens is counter productive if one is confident in one's product or even just wishy washy about it.

It's why only real bad stinkers don't even bother to hold critic screenings at all. Though that's unheard of for a tent pole budgeted studio film.

 

[DigificWriter]

Your are wording that statement to make it look logical or true. The film quality and confidence is not affected by the date of the embargo BUT the date of the embargo (imposed by the studio) is influenced by the quality of the film and confidence of the producer.

So no, late embargo dates does not lead to bad film or low confidence

But

bad film or low confidence lead to late embargo date

According to what, exactly?

Care to point out how? Fox is saying no reviews can be posted until the time pre-screenings start. This is not a sign of faith.

You can't say that the quality of a film isn't determined by the point at which reviews of it are allowed to be posted or printed and then literally turn around in the very next sentence and say the exact opposite, which is exactly what you did.