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

craigdbfan

Avenger
Joined
Jan 4, 2008
Messages
31,172
Reaction score
1
Points
56
By The Numbers: Movies Not Screened For Nationwide Press

notscreened.jpg


"Paramount Pictures has decided to not invite critics to the nationwide screenings of G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra, in what one might suspect is an attempt to quash bad reviews. A very targeted select group of online outlets were chosen to screen the film (were any women invited?), and the buzz coming out of their reports has been surprising - the movie isn’t horrible, it might even be a little fun. So why isn’t Paramount screening GI Joe to press if the few critics that did see the film enjoyed it? It’s a question that has been the subject of conversation in the movie geek circles on Twitter last week.

But the bigger question is… does not screening a film for critics mean that a movie is bad? In today’s by the numbers, I take a look at the films released over the last year that were not screened for critics. And by not screened, I should clarify — I mean outside of NY/LA junket screenings.

The graph above shows the 16 films from the last 12 months that weren’t screened for critics nationwide. Click on the image to enlarge.


- The Collector 32%
- Obsessed 19%
- Crank: High Voltage 62%
- 12 Rounds 29%
- Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li 4%
- Madea Goes To Jail 28%
- Underworld: Rise of the Lycans 32%
- The Haunting of Molly Hartley 3%
- SAW V 15%
- An American Carol 13%
- Fireproof 37%
- My Best Friend’s Girl 15%
- Tyler Perry’s The Family that Preys 51%
- Disaster Movie 2%
- Bangcock Dangerous 9%
- Mirrors 15%


Of the 16 films, only one has a certified “fresh” rating from Rotten Tomatoes (Crank 2: High Voltage with a 62%). The 16 films together (including Crank 2) have an average Rotten Tomatoes rating of 22.9%. If Crank 2 proves anything, it proves that a decent movie can slip through the cracks when a studio’s marketing department lack’s faith or marketing budget.

GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra certainly doesn’t lack finances. According to a recent LA Times article, the film had a production budget of $175 million, and Paramount is expected to spend $150 million in marketing and distribution expenses. In fact, Paramount is still holding the usual word of mouth “advance screenings” in most of the major cities around the country. For those who don’t know, these are the screenings that regional press and critics are normally invited to. Press just wasn’t invited this time around.

Some lower budget horror films don’t hold any word of mouth screenings, possibly because it would be too cost prohibitive. In that instance, it doesn’t make any sense to screen a movie for critics, as it would be too costly to set-up screenings in all the major cities across the country. Plus, lets be honest: for the most part, critic attendance at the lower budget horror films is minimal (at least from what I can tell in San Francisco). But if a studio believes they have something good, like The Descent, they will promote and screen the film to critics.

And even if the film was a clunker, it isn’t like the bad buzz fuming out of critic reviews is going to hurt the film. For a recent example of this, look back at Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, which was slammed hard by most critics, very possibly ending up as the worst reviewed biggest box office success of all time. Remember that old saying, “There is no such thing as bad publicity?” Well it very much applies to these big budget event films.

In fact, I was unable to find a history of huge budget films not being screened for the press. The only possible example I could find was the 1995 film Waterworld (I’m sure there might be other examples I’m missing, if so, leave them in the comments). Usually when a film costs more than $100 million, studios screen it because they know - any publicity is good publicity.

While critics serve to help smaller budget and independent films, their positive or negative opinions don’t seem to help hurt bigger budget releases. But the reviews do function as a form of publicity (”hey look, Transformers 2 is coming out this weekend”) which helps add to the event release. Do you know how much a strip in the New York Times would cost the studio if they wanted advertise in the same space where a movie review would run? A lot. Reviews are basically free advertising for these bigger films.

I could argue for or against the value of movie reviews all day, but that isn’t what this article is about. The question is: why isn’t Paramount screening GI Joe to nationwide critics? They weren’t afraid to screen Transformers 2, and we all know how that one turned out. So what are they afraid of this time around

A very special thanks to Rotten Tomatoes’ Critical Consensus column, which was a valuable resource for discovering which films were not screened to the national press."

- /film

So we go back to the question why isn't Paramount screening G.I Joe: Rise of Cobra if they didn't fear showing critics TF:ROTF?

My guess is that the Paramount is aware of the bad buzz that was generated somewhat prematurely by a snowball of hate that turned into an avalanche based on "negative" screenings from anonymous sources that could have easily been fake.

Along with the gigantic backlash towards the trailer and some of the character designs. Oh and the rumors of Sommers completely messing up and having multiple editors fix the film and his ousting from post-production which was severely denied by the producer.

The last thing Paramounts needs now is critics giving this film the final blow (even though this might genuinely be better than TF:ROTF).

What do you guys think?
 
Last edited:
I suspect it's because TRANSFORMERS: ROTF, which was a big, loud, fun movie in most respects, was brutally savaged by critics. I just think they're not taking any chances. They'll need good word of mouth for the film to have legs as they don't have the built in fanbase ROTF had (being a sequel), and it will take a strong opening weekend. That might be a bit more difficult if critics ripped it to pieces beforehand. Although at this point, I'm pretty sure people will go see this movie regardless.
 
As we were leaving the theater on Sunday, I overheard someone next to me nitpicking various errors and aspects of the story, and I thought, "what's the point?" You are not supposed to think too hard, if at all, while watching this movie. You are supposed to bring your kids, or somebody else's kids, and bring them back again two or three times, and buy them all of the toys. It should be obvious within the first few minutes. The people making this movie clearly didn't care very much about what critics would have to say.
 
Movies like that are never really enjoyed by critics...it'd be pointless to put your movie out for screening for a majority of critic who have already made their mind up before they even see the movie. I can't even begin to count how many films I thought were great and the audience thought were great that critics completely destroyed.
 
Blame Transformers 2. If it had gotten better reviews, Paramount would have given GI Joe a press screening. Unlike Transformers 2, it doesn't have a built in fanbase, so they can't count on marketing and WOM to overpower bad reviews. I wish they had more confidence in their product than to expect bad reviews, but Paramount is basing their predictions off of Transformers 2, so they're bracing themselves for the worst case scenario.
 
Last edited:
Blame Transformers 2. If it had gotten better reviews, Paramount would have given GI Joe a press screening. Unlike Transformers 2, it doesn't have a built in fanbase, so they can't count on marketing and WOM to overpower bad reviews. I wish they had more confidence in their product than to expect bad reviews, but Paramount is basing their predictions off of Transformers 2, so they're bracing themselves for the worst case scenario.

And they should...everyone knows the critics will hate it...if anything, they are predictable. :) Now if Gi Joe was about an army guy dying of cancer and walking through the memories of his past trying to find meaning and solace....critics would LOVE it. Oh and you have to throw in a crying scene...because critics love crying scenes.

lol
 
It's not being screened for critics because the Paramount knows the movie sucks ass. It's a common practice.
 
If there was a total media blackout on the movie, there might be validity to that claim. The fact of the matter though is that Paramount is allowing people to see the movie before it's officially out, they just aren't holding screenings specifically for the press. Almost all of the aforementioned movies that had no press screenings were totally shielded from audiences right up until release to avoid negative WOM. Paramount is trying an experiment with GI Joe to see if it's possible to avoid mass bad reviews while simultaneously generating good word of mouth. Personally I think it's a dumb idea, but this is what happens when your other big movie in the same genre gets awful reviews, and you don't have a built-in audience to depend on.

Personally, I'm still hopeful that the general critics will give the movie favorable reviews since the "geek critics" usually aren't that far off from the consensus with big movies. I think Paramount is just overreacting to the fact that Transformers 2 got bad reviews. Their doubts in GI Joe's ability to get good reviews are probably more to do with its genre than its quality, since studio big wigs typically look at objective data (genre, stars, release date, marketing campaign) rather than the subjective things like quality. It might be dumb, but that's how the machine works.
 
Last edited:
Paramount is nervous because it might get the "transformers 2" treatment,as in " totally trashed by every critic on earth"...the critics are wrong most of the time,but they were right on the money about that one though (transformers.wow)
 
If GI Joe was about a soldier with cancer...during the Holocaust...then itd win the Emmy.
 
I don't think they're worried. If anything, TF2 proved that the masses either don't read reviews or don't give a damn what critics say. I don't.
 
It's not being screened for critics because the Paramount knows the movie sucks ass. It's a common practice.
Superman The Movie in 1978 wasn't screened and that was a huge hit.

Personally I don't listen to reviewers until after I've seen such movie and listen to their good/bad arguments, I agree that TFROTF was big, loud and too long but damn the critics really came down hard on it.

They totally missed the point that TF was made to put butts in the seats and not deliver tear-wrenching Oscar calibur performances.
 
Honestly I doubt bad reviewers would even effect the box office for a film like this. Loud movies the flop critcally still hit big, especially when there's nothing else showing
 
The simple answer: they know no one over the age of 9 should have any interest in this movie, let alone enjoy it.
 
Personally I have no problem with critics not seeing the film. I do not make my decisions on seeing or not seeing a film based off of what others say, most critics hate popular films anyway, the tore TF2 to shreds and it still raked in money.
The film looks good, no matter what age you are.
 
It's meant to be carefree fun I think. People shouldn't take a movie based on a toy too seriously. Just have fun with it.
 
I don't see this film being anywhere near as enjoyable as Crank 2.
 
Personally I have no problem with critics not seeing the film. I do not make my decisions on seeing or not seeing a film based off of what others say, most critics hate popular films anyway, the tore TF2 to shreds and it still raked in money.
The film looks good, no matter what age you are.
This post illustrates exactly why you should read the article I posted.
 
If Transformers 2 had gotten good reviews, I would be much more wary of the fact that Paramount isn't screening this for critics. However, I think it's pretty obvious that the decision was Paramount's reaction to TF2's critical reception a lot more than it was to the film's quality. We won't know until we actually see the movie, but I'm still very optimistic. Also, it doesn't change the fact that "geek critics" like Chud, Latino Review, and IGN are speaking highly of it.
 
I could care less what a Critic thinks, since they dislike most of my film collection. If a movie looks good, i'll watch it. I'm definitely seeing G.I.Joe!
 
I could care less what a Critic thinks, since they dislike most of my film collection. If a movie looks good, i'll watch it. I'm definitely seeing G.I.Joe!

Same here. Reviews can often sway my decision to watch or not watch movies that I feel iffy about, but if I've been looking forward to a movie as much as this one I'll see it regardless of what the critics say. People who act like it's rewarding studios for mediocrity are really just saying that it's wrong for us to disagree with critics, and that a movie's success should be tied directly to its tomatometer score. If I don't agree with the critics' taste though, why should I let them control what movies I watch?
 
Last edited:
The simple answer: they know no one over the age of 9 should have any interest in this movie, let alone enjoy it.

And if you dont like it, you should die. You should just ****ing die.



















Hyperbolic spew is fun! But seriously....****. I hate when people post **** like this. Its idioic, and rude. Get over yourself. People like to have fun. Sue them. And if you dont agree with me? Oh well? Get over it.

Oh and btw, I didnt think the movie was all that hot (its goin down in my eyes...:csad:) so, dont even think about attacking me over my opinion.
 
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.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"