Why isn’t Paramount screening GI Joe to nationwide critics?

[That-Guy]

LOL did anyone notice how they spelled Bangkok Dangerous on the graph?!!

 

[Timstuff]

Transformers 2 got bad reviews but it still made a lot of money. So Paramount is scared that this movie won't be critic proof.

I don't think they expected Transformers 2 to get reviews as bad as it did. Paramount likely believes that Transformers 2 got good reception due to the built in audience and agressive marketing, and while GI Joe has had aggressive marketing, it does not have a built-in audience since it's not a sequel. The sequel factor was enough make Transformers 2 critic-proof, but they don't have that with GI Joe, which is why they've taking a much more dodgy approach with the reviews. I think if anything, Transformers 2's success in spite of bad reviews emboldened Paramount to the point where they felt secure in releasing GI Joe without mass press screenings.

 

[TheVileOne]

Timstuff, this movie has had a ton of bad buzz surrounding it for a long time. There was the story of the movie testing badly and Sommers being taken off the movie as well. Transformers didn't have that.

Also, the positive early reviews were from fanboy websites and plants who would pad out the RT rating before it plummeted like it did today.

 

[Timstuff]

When the "bad buzz" is largely based around Snake Eyes' mask having a mouth and it being from the guy who made Van Helsing (but also The Mummy, which is one of my favorite movies), it kind of de-legitimizes most of said "bad buzz" IMO.

 

[TheVileOne]

That's really cute Timstuff, I see what you did there.

Also, Van Helsing was a huge disappointment and a flop for Universal, and tons of fans on here CONSTANTLY trashed it when it came out.

Also, there was the story about Sommers getting fired because the movie was horrible, and Paramount scrambling to save the movie.

 

[Timstuff]

Van Helsing was a financial disappointment considering it had a budget of 170 million, but a 300 million global gross is still no chump change. It was an underperfomer, but it wasn't any more of a flop than Superman Returns, and yet Bryan Singer doesn't get trashed 1/10 as much as Sommers does (well, the Superman boards not withstanding).

Van Helsing's biggest fault was that it had a broken story. GI Joe has an extremely simple story, but I haven't heard many people claim that it's broken since there's not a lot there to break. I think Van Helsing was a dumb movie (and not dumb in the good way), but I would be lying if I said I didn't leave the theater feeling excited. The movie did not hold up to repeat viewings since the flaws became increasingly apparent, but that was one movie out of the many he's done. I still love the mummy movies, and by now I've probably seen the first one at least 15 times. It was a dumb summer action movie, but it was the best kind possible-- the kind that lets you shut off your brain and have fun, without drawing too much attention to its shortcomings. That is why when Sommers was announced as the director of GI Joe, I was EXCITED, even though everyone else was jeering. I know a lot of people believe that a director is only as good as their last movie, but I'm not one of those people.

And finally, I wouldn't put too much stock in the farce story about Sommers being fired-- as in, none at all. Don Murphy was just pissed off at Lorenzo Di Bonaventura, and decided to play a little "prank" on him that got out of hand. It was bad buzz, but it was false, and the people who still cling to it probably never wanted to see the movie succeed in the first place.

 

[TheVileOne]

Van Helsing was a financial disappointment considering it had a budget of 170 million, but a 300 million global gross is still no chump change. It was an underperfomer, but it wasn't any more of a flop than Superman Returns, and yet Bryan Singer doesn't get trashed 1/10 as much as Sommers does (well, the Superman boards not withstanding).

Van Helsing was meant to be a huge franchise and also a spinoff TV series for Universal. None of those materialized. It was a failure.

And finally, I wouldn't put too much stock in the farce story about Sommers being fired-- as in, none at all. Don Murphy was just pissed off at Lorenzo Di Bonaventura, and decided to play a little "prank" on him that got out of hand. It was bad buzz, but it was false, and the people who still cling to it probably never wanted to see the movie succeed in the first place.

Also a cute way to dismiss the bad and negative buzz. Not to mention how fans all around the web were trashing the trailers and clips.

 

[The Guard]

Well, the most recent reviews aren't surprising, but I do think a lot of them are being ridiculously harsh. Haven't seen the movie yet, but it's readily apparent that the mainstream critics who are reviewing it aren't putting much work into doing so. It's also, like many of these movies, readily apparent that they think the basics of GI JOE are silly, with no redeeming qualities. That, or they think GI JOE is nothing more than a catchphrase, a "Real American Hero", and can't get past things like GI JOE being multinational, etc. And quite a lot of them are giving a not so subtle "**** you" to Paramount for not seeing a screening. There's a definite agenda in some of them.

So, Paramount Pictures officials: This is the movie for which you chose to go to war with movie critics?

Ah well. The movie is what the movie is.

 

[Timstuff]

Van Helsing was meant to be a huge franchise and also a spinoff TV series for Universal. None of those materialized. It was a failure.



Also a cute way to dismiss the bad and negative buzz. Not to mention how fans all around the web were trashing the trailers and clips.

I didn't say Van Helsing wasn't a disappointment. What I said is that it was not a flop. A movie that makes 300 million at the box office is not a flop, or else almost every movie out there would be a flop save for a few blockbusters. A movie that makes 300 million without bringing in a decent profit is an under performer. A flop is a movie that doesn't even register with audiences, let alone make a profit (i.e. Speed Racer, which I loved but the box office did not).

They trash the trailers and clips because of stupid reasons though. It's always about accelerator suits, Marlon Wayans, Duke not wearing a WW2 uniform, etc. Occasionally you'll get a legitimate complaint like how the CG looks fake, but a lot of it is just typical fanboy nonsense that has nothing to do with whether or not the film is enjoyable on its own merits.

Basically, you keep bringing up bad buzz, but none of it is really that relevant to whether or not the movie will be a success with audiences. The audience doesn't care that Cobra Commander wears a scuba mask instead of a hood, nor do they follow rumors about the director being fired. They watch the trailer and commercials, decide if it's how they'd like to spend 118 minutes, and then they either go or they don't. Most people do respond favorably to GI Joe's ads, so while the internet community may be up in arms over the movie I doubt they will have much control over the movie's performance.

Also, as The Guard said, many of the critics are rather dismissive of the source material just as much as they are of the movie, so I don't understand why so many fans who are against the movie use them to validate their opinion. The critics would probably say the cartoons and comics are just as kitschy as Rise of Cobra, so if you are expecting a decent GI Joe movie to be looked at as high art your expectations are waaaay too high.

 

[TheVileOne]

Eh prove it the Guard.

This all sounds pretty ridiculous to me if you look up the reviews for a movie like Iron Man or The Dark Knight, and Paramount reportedly put even more money into GI JOE than what were the budgets for each of those movies.

 

[Doctor Jones]

This is the first movie in a big potential franchise, they don't want to take any risks with it. I can understand that. But hopefully it pulls in enough money. I sure as hell want a sequel. There definitely could be one.

 

[TheVileOne]

Any movie is basically a risk. And they still don't block potential franchise movies from critics more often than not.

 

[Timstuff]

Eh prove it the Guard.

This all sounds pretty ridiculous to me if you look up the reviews for a movie like Iron Man or The Dark Knight, and Paramount reportedly put even more money into GI JOE than what were the budgets for each of those movies.

Iron Man had a budget of 186 million, wheras GI Joe's was 170 million (also, a large chunk of Iron Man's budget came from Marvel). Keep in mind though, that comics are now considered a "classy" source material. GI Joe and Transformers are primarily toys and cartoons, and it should go without saying that a lot of critics aren't going to be particularly forgiving of them for being true to their roots.

 

[Timstuff]

This is the first movie in a big potential franchise, they don't want to take any risks with it. I can understand that. But hopefully it pulls in enough money. I sure as hell want a sequel. There definitely could be one.

Superman didn't screen for critics, and it got 4 sequels.

 

[TheVileOne]

Iron Man had a budget of 186 million, wheras GI Joe's was 170 million (also, a large chunk of Iron Man's budget came from Marvel). Keep in mind though, that comics are now considered a "classy" source material. GI Joe and Transformers are primarily toys and cartoons, and it should go without saying that a lot of critics aren't going to be particularly forgiving of them for being true to their roots.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=ironman.htm

BOM says $140 million, and Favreau was also quoted as saying that after the movie came out, so take that for what you will.

Timstuff, the toy excuse doesn't fly. All these movies have tons of toys and merchandise.

 

[powerbomb1411]

I think it's been proven time and time again critics views on a movie don't matter for jack.

And I'm glad to see it's not being screened for them. I think there is seriously wrong with someone being paid to look for flaws in something that is supposed to be entertainment.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Dude, you keep wanting to be something that it's not. It's based off a cartoon and a toyline. That's what they first were. What's wrong with basing it off of that? Maybe the sequel can go to the comics more?

 

[TheVileOne]

Dude, you keep wanting to be something that it's not. It's based off a cartoon and a toyline. That's what they first were. What's wrong with basing it off of that? Maybe the sequel can go to the comics more?

Once again, more ******** excuses. So what if it was based on this or not? That means it has to be dumb and stupid and idiotic?

Batman is based on a comic book. you know, people running around in tights fighting crime. So what's wrong with Batman and Robin?

 

[Timstuff]

Because Batman and Robin had manipples, neon, and 1,253 ice puns.

Seriously, GI Joe CANNOT be that bad.

 

[The Guard]

Eh prove it the Guard.

Prove what, exactly?

This all sounds pretty ridiculous to me if you look up the reviews for a movie like Iron Man or The Dark Knight, and Paramount reportedly put even more money into GI JOE than what were the budgets for each of those movies.

THE DARK KNIGHT had a budget of $185 million. IRON MAN's appears to have been somewhere around $140.

But GI JOE appears to be a much larger film in terms of scale than either of these films. That said, what does the budget for GI JOE have to do with anything in terms of its quality?

 

[TheVileOne]

It means they invest a lot of time and money in this ****. You know, get something good out of it.

 

[Sarge 2.0]

Nobody is expecting it to be "high art". They're just expecting it to be a decent movie. The fact that it's based in juvenilia doesn't help it's chances, though. If anything, critics are harsh on films like these because they go into it with *reasonable* expectations (because they watch lots of movies and see a ton of terrible ones, and they know good from bad at this point in their lives) only to be severely underwhelmed. Fanboys go into a movie like this with a completely different mindset, and thus view the movie differently. The critical community, for the most part, is more evolved and informed in their tastes and understanding of cinema than the demographic for this film. So why should they lower their standards and expectations to calibrate with fanboy mentality? They're not expecting "artsy fartsy". Just a decent movie. But fanboys and mainstream audiences taste is so marginalized that their view of a "good movie" is completely different than what your standard, well versed film critics is. So I don't get why you guys complain when people who have a higher understanding of film than you do trash a movie like this. Why shouldn't they? It doesn't mean they "don't know how to have fun at the movies anymore", it just means that cheap, juvenile movies made to cash in on toys isn't their idea of fun. They can have fun with real movies instead.

 

[TheVileOne]

Star Trek was one of the best reviewed movies of the year.

CRITICS LOVED STAR TREK. Star Trek is not going to win any Oscars for acting performances.

 

[Sarge 2.0]

Star Trek, Iron Man, and The Dark Knight are proof that the "artsy fartsy" critics can still "have fun at the movies".

That being said I don't think Star Trek was a very good movie. Although I loved the acting.

 

[Figs]

Have you seen it yet Sarge2.0?