The Hot Blog

The last paragraph that you quote does seem over the top (albeit in what seems like a deliberately exaggerated style), but the rest of the piece reads reasonably.

Plus I doubt he has much say in what ads the site takes.

Dave, why are you defending studio cynicism? When did you become that guy?

Just for the sake of discussion, let me spin a couple of not-improbable scenarios.

First, let’s assume “Movie X” is being released by Studio Z, and Studio Z has announced it will not screen “Movie X” for critics, and will bar all critics from any and all “opinion-maker” screenings. I am living here in Houston – where I am known by local publicists, and therefore could not very well sneak into an “opinion-maker” screening of “Movie X” undetected – when I get a call from a friend in Dallas. Or New Orleans. Or Austin. Or San Antonio. He or she has a ticket to a radio-sponsored screening on, say, a Tuesday evening. Maybe he picked it up at a music store. Or she got it by mailing a coupon to the local newspaper. Or, hey, maybe he or she advertised on Craigslist, offering to pay $50 to anyone who could fork over a pass. So I drive to the city in question, where I am not known to the local studio reps, and see “Movie X” with my friend. And then I write a review of the film, and send it to Variety, which posts it on line…. oh, let’s say Wednesday afternoon, before the Friday opening. Studio Z squawks – but, really, since there was no “review date” set for critics, because they didn’t screen the film for critics, what can they honestly complain about?

Now let’s assume I’m not Joe Leydon of Variety. Let’s say I’m Michael Patrick of the American Press newswire. I live in a major city on the East Coast – a city where “Movie X” will be screened at 12 midnight Thursday/Friday before its official Friday opening. All the papers across the USA that subscribe to American Press have been tipped off that Michael Patrick will file a review of “Movie X” at around 4 am EST. Or 1 am PST. Too late for most papers to run it in their Entertainment pages – though, presumably, a few West Coast papers could run the review on Page 2A if “Movie X” is as hyped as, say, “G.I. Joe.” But all the papers could have the review on their websites as early as… well, 4:30 am. On opening day.

Would such things happen every single time a studio released a movie without screening it for critics? Probably not. But the next time there is a “G.I. Joe” or something else similarly hyped? Well, it would appear the gauntlet has been tossed down. And, trust me, while you may be able to push around film critics, there are editors and other decision-makers at print outlets who don’t take being pushed very lightly. Indeed, it’s been my experience that some editors will decide at the last minute, at great expense, to send a film critic someplace where they can see, and quickly write about, a highly publicized and/or very controversial movie. Because there are times when a movie stops being a movie, and becomes a news item. And there are times when that happens because a studio has tried to hide that movie from the press.

Crow... if that's what you think I am, I have always been that guy.

Like homosexuality, studios are born cynical... it is not a choice they make based on moods or desire.

I think it is the height of cynicism to think this is a huge deal. It is the arrogance that we all engage in sometimes, that we have a right... that we are the guardians, keeping the multiplex safe for the innocent public. It's bullshit.

You know when I grew up on this a bit? When Charlie's Angels: Full Frontal screened and I literally felt that this was a key moment for cinema. If that movie was a commercial success, others would adapt McG's crap herky-jerky, speed cut style and movies would be worse for it. A critic I admire and like a lot personally, Joe Morgenstern, looked me in the bulging eyeballs and said, "Well, it's not the end of the world."

I kept screaming about it... in print... on radio... and Joe wrote about it... "It's not the end of the world."

And he was right. The movie was horrid. Audiences showed up for opening weekend. And they they stopped coming. And later, Amy Pascal had to acknowledge that it was a movie she regretted. Yay.

Ironically, studios stopped not-screening in LA and NY because of the kind of attacks now being launched at GI Joe. As the employer of critics who work outside of these two cities, I often have to deal with their regional embargoes - in Chicago... in Seattle - because it is so much worse for them than it is here. They are threatened with banning all the time.

But you know... the problem here is not Friday reviews by traditional media. The problem is that studios have lost control of the embargo system and the ONLY impact critics can have on GI Joe is a negative one... and only if there is a 80%+ pile-on... and if the critics are buzzing - not necessarily officially reviewing - for a week or two before the release. And that now happens. People want to state their opinion, plenty of newspapers and blogs are out there, and there can be a pile-on for weeks before a movie is seen. So, they occasionally figure, why bother?

And really, why do we in the media care? Because we were told, "no."

And who says the media is right about everything? There are many good movies that I have felt were killed by groupthink dislike or neglect by media and there are many shit movies that have been given a pass by the media. How many outlets do YOU think are protecting you from those bad, bad movie studios?

It gets blurry, absolutely. Shit movies are not good for the soul. But the marketing of shit movies is not a personal attack on film critics. It is not a cultural assault on the world.

There are more terrific movies that WILL NOT BE RELEASED IN AMERICA every year than movies that don't get screened for critics. How about a little noise for them, my cynically self-involved critical brethren? Why is it that the hysteria is reserved for when we are told, "no," causing us to act like 6-year-olds?

And Joe - One of the fears is - without studios not screening - is that we will have a dozen critics reviewing everything for every major outlet in the country soon. Tribune Company has something like 5 critics for 12 papers... and wants to cut more of them.

But WAHHHHHH... we didn't get to see GI Joe early... cue the sky falling.

Cynic that.

"And Joe - One of the fears is - without studios not screening - is that we will have a dozen critics reviewing everything for every major outlet in the country soon. Tribune Company has something like 5 critics for 12 papers... and wants to cut more of them."

David: You don't really expect me to disagree with that, do you? I mean, you do know that you're talking to a fellow who was pushed out of a New Times paper reviewing gig more than a decade ago, right?

But seriously: The studios are playing a game that, long-term, is lose-lose for them. All they're doing is setting up a system in which the few critics who are employed have less and less time to turn around reviews in a timely manner. And as I've said many times before, here and elsewhere, you do know the easiest type of review to write, don't you? Let me give you a clue: Can you say "scorched earth"?

And BTW: I think what Crow was getting at -- and, Crow, if I'm being presumptuous here, I sincerely apologize, and please correct me -- is that you seem to be coming down, with ever increasing frequency, on the side of the studios because of your concern for employees who might lose their jobs if this movie tanks, or that movie goes over budget. Such sympathy is admirable, to a certain degree. But I think it raises legitimate questions about which side you're on. For some of us, there is a very firmly defined line of demarcation. And it isn't the least bit blurred.

The moment Poland started selling his DP/30 interviews to studios so they could tack them on to the special features of the DVD release, he lost all credibility with me as a critic, because he is essentially being paid by studios for his "work" as a journalist.

If that ain't a conflict of interest, I don't know what is.

Wow, boltbucket... that was close to being such a Nikki kind of accusation that you may actually be Nikki. You only ever show up to attack me, so it makes reasonable sense. And you use the kind of nonsense - Nikki used to rant on about having ads on the site as an ethical problem... then would mock me and tell me that we didn't have enough ads on the site - that is so her.

And - since I am easily baited - besides that non-issue being completely off-topic, what are you talking about? I've done over 100 DP/30s, not one of them was done for a studio, and only a few have ended up on DVDs, two of them for free as a favor to the indie filmmakers.

Has Ebert lost his critical credibility because he's done commentaries on DVD, along with many other critics of long-standing?

Anyway...

Joe... I agree. But as I wrote, the people who see movies before release are no longer waiting until Friday to start writing about the movies. Feature writers are acting like critics. People are blogging. It's not exactly fair for them either.

If they had the balls to enforce their own embargoes and rules, it would be easier for everyone because then showing the films would be safe until opening day, when they really don't care what anyone says anymore. (But then they wouldn't have as many outlets to play with) It's the weeks of attack that have made the relationship even more tense when a studio is being overly tense... a few times a year for each.

David: Sorry, but Boltbucket has a point.

What is that point, Joe?

True enough: "A few times a year for each." Again, I don't think Fox was sweating my review of Aliens in the Attic

David: Conflict of interest.

Give me an example, Joe. And be specific.

I know that libeling me by inference is no big deal to you, but I take offense to it when you can't come up with a single example that comes even close to conflict of interest.

So put up... or shut up. Seriously.

And boltbucket... you don't know what conflict of interest is. Not my fault.

Hah! You can run, but you can't hide, from Variety!

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117940784.html?categoryid=31&cs=1

And BTW: There are many kinds of conflicts of interest. Getting too close to the people you write about is one fo them.

Prediction of Gene Shalit's review:

"G.I. JOE? More like G.I. NO!!!"

GOOD JOKE.

Just got back from G.I. Joe. It's about half okay, half terrible, which means for me it's in the same range quality-wise as Van Helsing. Channing Tatum is TERRIBLE. Sienna Miller, Byung-Hun Lee, and Quaid are all good. And I never thought I would hate backstory as much as I did here.

Van Helsing was such a disappointment. That was one I had high hopes for...classic monsters, period set film. Oh well.

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.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: