« Hancock - Non-Spoiler Review | Main | Hancock - Spoiler Review »
July 02, 2008
Wow... That's Dumb - July 4 Edition
Erik Lundegaard is clearly an intelligent guy. But yesterday in Slate, he published one of the stupidest articles about box office I have ever read.
Entitled, "Why We Need Movie Reviewers - Despite popular belief, critically acclaimed movies actually sell better," this freakshow of pretzel logic is grotesque enough to actually look a lot like one of my less successful attempts to use math and odd stats to their worst end.
Here, he uses Rotten Tomatoes as a barometer...first HUGE mistake. I love RT. It is a great site and a great idea and as a basis for statistical analysis, you should probably poll Patrick Goldstein's neighbors as soon as use those numbers for a factual analysis. First, of course, any stat based exclusively on "rotten" or "fresh" or "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" is simpleminded by its very nature. But even more importantly, RT offers no notion, in rotten or fresh, of how rotten or how fresh or how many people are reading what percentage of the critics who are being counted and, in fact, the site is deciding "rotten or fresh" on their own for the critics with the widest audience reach, those in "Cream of the Crop."
The second HUGE mistake is, somehow, in spite of indicating a lot of knowledge in general, thinking that bulk numbers - as in, every film released on as many as 100 screens - can be used to analyze anything in a reasonable way. The math of the studio Dependents is quite different than the true indies, much less the small releases of under 300 screens and the behemoths of summer and the holiday season.
The biggest, perhaps, problem of all, is that after trying to take a run at this idea, and examining his data, Lundegaard didn’t just throw this junk science out. To wit… what is the leggiest wide-release movie (domestically, since it is the only stat we can use for all US releases as of now) of The Summer of 2008?
Anyone?
What Happens In Vegas.
It’s the only movie even close to 4x opening with a $20.2 million start and $78.4 million in the bank domestically.
Rotten Tomatoes percentage? 27%
Using the same standards, Iron Man has an RT of 93%, Indiana Jones IV of 77%. With that 16% difference, the two films are still neck and neck for who will be the top grosser of the summer so far and likely to the end.
And riddle me this… how can Lundegaard or anyone else assume that critics are increasing box office when “good” and “bad” are not the exclusive provenance of critics. There is no sane and knowledgeable person I know who does not accept that word of mouth is the most powerful element on the ongoing box office of a movie after the first week, just as marketing is the most powerful element going into that first week. Of the Top Five openers this summer to date, 2 were “rotten” on RT.
Moreover… only FIVE of the summer’s sixteen wide releases so far scored as well as a 70% on RT. 60% - 70% may count as “fresh,” but who is kidding who? But even including the two 60% - 70% films, we’re still only at seven… fewer than half the summer wide releases.
And of those eight “rotten” wide releases this summer, only three will fail to gross $50 million domestic… just as three will crack $100 million. But it’s no coincidence that the three “rotten” movies that will not crack $50 million are also the three with the only under-$20 million openings of the summer… the real barometer of how the vast majority of wide releases will perform every single years for many years now.
There is nothing in Lundegaard’s story that suggests in any sustainable way that critics reviews have a direct cause and effect on box office in a real way. That said, there is another phenomenon, not measure by RT or anyone else, where it does come into effect, I think. And that is when a movie has a lot of love, a strong opening then gets spun into a phenomenology that they makes people want to see the film, even if they were not in the target audience.
That is the difference, for instance, between an Iron Man and a Kung Fu Panda and an Incredible Hulk. Iron Man not only had strong word of mouth, but the chattering class talked it up endlessly the week before and after opening, while Kung Fu Panda, while well reviewed by RT standards, was still relegated to being a kids movie and Hulk was still a geek movie. They didn’t become part of the media culture’s idea of an “everyone movie.”
In a different way, there was a similar run for Sex & The City, which got killed in the reviews, but hit style pages as an event for women of a certain age and made making a party out of going a must for many.
Different again was Indiana Jones, which got smacked by early negativity in the New York Times, got mixed reviews (more positive than not, overall), and was then scooped up by audiences regardless of what anyone said… as still has a shot at passing Iron Man to be the biggest film of the summer. And even if it doesn’t, look at the difference in attitude, RT ranking, and even Lundegaard’s attempts at real screen count between the two and explain how media decides anything.
Posted by dpoland at July 2, 2008 12:50 PM
Comments
Really it should be "Wow...That's Dumb - July 2 Edition," since Lundegaard's piece is about as accurate as John Adams' prediction that July 2 would be the date Americans would celebrate their independence.
Posted by: Blackcloud ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/nav-commenters.gif)
at July 2, 2008 03:53 PM
Well, he should be able to confirm his results using Metacritic despite their higher standards. The summary seems to be something Dave has adopted...
"...write two reviews: a short one, to be printed the day or week the movie opens and that gives away little of the plot but tells readers whether it's good or bad (the service aspect); and a longer, more in-depth review that discusses the entire film, to be posted online (the critical aspect). Then I'd put a message board beneath the in-depth review and sit back. Most people don't want to hear about a movie before they've seen it but would love to discuss it afterward."
"...hire the best critic I could find" and charge $1 admission to an on-line discussion.
Try it Dave.
Posted by: T. Holly at July 2, 2008 05:50 PM
If nothing else, the last 10 years of online film prognostication has told us that there is no statistical formula to predict how a film is going to do. It's nothing more than an educated guess.
Films can still defy expectations. Look at Wanted. Who saw a 50 million dollar opening for that one?
Posted by: anghus at July 2, 2008 06:02 PM
You changed the discussion from critical review to prognostication with a flick of your keyboard. Cool trick.
Posted by: T. Holly at July 2, 2008 06:15 PM
well, the angle dave took seemed to be that despite the great reviews or poor reviews, some films were able to make money. I was just chiming in on that part of the conversation.
Posted by: anghus at July 2, 2008 06:52 PM
No, T Holly... Metacritic won't confirm or deny results since the entire hypothesis is based on nothing remotely concrete. It's junk science.
Even if you can make the math work, the presumption that criticism is driving the math has no foundation excapt wishful thinking.
Posted by: David Poland at July 2, 2008 08:17 PM
I used to use RT a lot, but have since realised its all just, as you say, junk. I did a little blog piece about it (link below, i can never get links to work in typepad) in which one Kyle Smith 1.5/4 review was given a "Fresh" rating while anothe 1.5/4 review was given a "Rotten" rating. Weird.
http://stalepopcornau.blogspot.com/2008/06/thats-rotten.html
Dave, as much as I completely agree wth you 100% I gotta bring umbridge with this comment:
"but hit style pages as an event for women of a certain age and made making a party out of going a must for many."
"of a certain age", Dave? I guess 18-60 is a demographic all of it's own these days, is it?
Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0 at July 3, 2008 04:58 AM
You can mitigate "junk in" by coming up with a weighted model with a lot more variables, but you need an econometric scientist, so good for Erik and his wild idea in search of a neat summary. Someday it'll be proved. Einstein had a theory.
Posted by: T. Holly at July 3, 2008 07:13 AM
Dear Glenn Dunks,
Thanks for pointing out the mistakenly marked Bra Boys review by Kyle Smith. While his 1.5/4 rating was notched correctly, it was marked "Fresh" when it should have read "Rotten." I've gone in and corrected the rating in our database.
In your blog piece, you seem to latch onto this isolated instance as a much larger indication of something that is inherently wrong with Rotten Tomatoes. Really, it was just a typo. We correct them immediately when they are noticed; in this case, it would have been very helpful to have been notified via email or contact through the site that we had an error on the page. I realize contacting our site is a step out of your way and not at all the reader's obligation, but in case this ever happens again please drop us a note (here's my email: jen@rottentomatoes.com).
Ironically, the New York Post review in question itself features a very prominent byline typo. Funny, no?
Posted by: jenyamato at July 3, 2008 11:08 AM
Dear Glenn Dunks,
Thanks for pointing out the mistakenly marked Bra Boys review by Kyle Smith. While his 1.5/4 rating was notched correctly, it was marked "Fresh" when it should have read "Rotten." I've gone in and corrected the rating in our database.
In your blog piece, you seem to latch onto this isolated instance as a much larger indication of something that is inherently wrong with Rotten Tomatoes. Really, it was just a typo. We correct them immediately when they are noticed; in this case, it would have been very helpful to have been notified via email or contact through the site that we had an error on the page. I realize contacting our site is a step out of your way and not at all the reader's obligation, but in case this ever happens again please drop us a note (here's my email: jen@rottentomatoes.com).
Ironically, the New York Post review in question itself features a very prominent byline typo. Funny, no?
Posted by: jenyamato at July 3, 2008 11:11 AM
Actually, I have to say that on the very, very few occasions one of my reviews has been mistakenly mislabeled on Rotten Tomatoes, all it's ever taken is a polite e-mail to set things right extremely quickly. The RT folks know what a valuable resource they produce, and it's been my experience that they take pains to maintain it.
Posted by: Joe Leydon at July 3, 2008 12:52 PM
Jen probably says, "oh there's Joe Leydon again."
Did you see that Lundegaard's piece linked to Slate on WashPo for a live discussion session (which blew -- but that could be Dave's point) but which is curious in that Lundegaard's conclusion is what WashPo does (i.e., a short and long review)? The few times I've hit the "contact RT" button to say "hey, could you link to the full review, instead of the short one" nothing happens, but Metacritic changes it within a few hours.
Posted by: T. Holly at July 3, 2008 01:27 PM
Actually, more like: "Oh, that asshole Leydon again!"
Posted by: Joe Leydon at July 3, 2008 01:53 PM
How bizarre.
Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0 at July 4, 2008 10:46 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)