aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

  • Thread starter Steven Soderburgin
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Steven Soderburgin

http://www.variety.com/article/VR111800 ... Id=13&cs=1
It's the biggest movie of the summer that practically no one has seen.

\"G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra\" opens Friday, but Paramount Pictures isn't screening the blockbuster for critics beforehand. Only a select few writers from blogs and movie Web sites have seen it for review - such as Harry Knowles, the self-professed \"Head Geek\" from Ain't It Cool News - and their opinions have been mostly positive.

Instead, the studio says it's intentionally aiming the movie at the heartland, at cities and audiences outside the entertainment vortexes of New York and Los Angeles. Paramount held a screening Friday for 1,000 military service members and their families at Andrews Air Force Base; it's also focusing marketing efforts in places like Kansas City, Charlotte, N.C., and Columbus, Ohio.

While appealing to a sense of patriotism nationwide, the plan also is inspired by the disparity that existed between the critical trashing \"Transformers: Rise of the Fallen\" received and the massive crowds it drew at the box office.

\"`G.I. Joe' is a big, fun, summer event movie - one that we've seen audiences enjoy everywhere from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland to Phoenix, Ariz.,\" said Rob Moore, vice chairman of Paramount Pictures. \"After the chasm we experienced with `Transformers 2' between the response of audiences and critics, we chose to forgo opening-day print and broadcast reviews as a strategy to promote `G.I. Joe.' We want audiences to define this film.\"

With a reported production budget of $175 million and a cast that includes Dennis Quaid, Channing Tatum, Sienna Miller, Marlon Wayans and Joseph Gordon-Levitt, \"G.I. Joe\" follows the adventures of an elite team using high-tech spy and military equipment to take down a corrupt arms dealer. It comes from director Stephen Sommers, whose previous films include \"The Mummy\" and \"Van Helsing.\"

Long before anyone saw the completed product, though, \"G.I. Joe\" drew mixed buzz at best for its trailer, which premiered during the Super Bowl. Now it's the final action picture of the summer - and it has a lot in common with the highest-grossing film so far this year, the \"Transformers\" sequel. Both are effects-laden spectacles based on Hasbro toys and both are Paramount releases from producer Lorenzo di Bonaventura.

\"Transformers\" has gone on to gross more than $388 million in the United States alone since its opening six weeks ago, despite receiving just 20 percent positive reviews on the Web site Rotten Tomatoes, a critical aggregator. The withholding of \"G.I. Joe\" from mainstream critics suggests that the studios believe they can succeed at the box office without them.

It's a tactic normally reserved for horror movies or other genre pictures with built-in fans who don't necessarily care about reviews - ones based on video games, for example - not summer blockbusters. Still, \"G.I. Joe\" has been tracking well because it represents the last big bang of the season, said Paul Dergarabedian, box-office analyst for Hollywood.com.

\"They don't need (to screen) it and there's no upside to negative reviews. The film is going to open well no matter what,\" Dergarabedian said. \"They're being very strategic in who they show the movie to. If they can win over their core audience from these reviews, that's good for the movie.\"

Devin Faraci from the film Web site CHUD.com is one of the few writers who have seen it for review purposes, and not just for junket interviews. He's among the critics who've contributed to the movie's 88-percent positive rating as tabulated by Rotten Tomatoes, saying: \"If I was 10 years old, `G.I. Joe' would be one of the best movies I had ever seen.\"

Faraci said he was in Toronto recently when he received a phone call at 8:30 a.m. Los Angeles time, asking if he could come to the Paramount lot that day for a \"G.I. Joe\" screening. He flew back, got off the plane and headed right over.

\"It's silly. It's a film that plays on its own terms,\" he said. \"I don't think reviews will kill it but I think it'll get a more positive response than they expect. It's a big, silly, pulpy, cartoony action film and it makes no apologies for being that way.\"
 
So, basically, it's Transformers 2 2?

Also, this thread is going to go places. I can feel it already.
 
L

Lally

Come on Kissinger, I just want to see stuff blow up!!! Who cares if it's coherent! GET OFF YOUR HIGH HORSE MAN
 

Not screening for critics means the film is warmed over shit on a paper plate.
 
You hear that sound? That thumping and moaning sound? THAT'S THE SOUND OF YOUR CHILDHOOD BEING RAPED BY HOLLYWOOD!
 
I was looking forward to seeing this but I must admit that every time I saw a commercial for it part of my soul died. I am still holding out a slight hope for it though but I think the following comic explains so much about who will see the movie.


 
AshburnerX said:
You hear that sound? That thumping and moaning sound? THAT'S THE SOUND OF YOUR CHILDHOOD BEING RAPED BY HOLLYWOOD!
I'm 32. By this point my childhood has been raped so many times I don't even notice anymore. Like the crack child with the dull look on her face being fucked for another ounce of heroin.

Live action Scooby Doo is the first instance of that raping I can think of.
 
AshburnerX said:
You hear that sound? That thumping and moaning sound? THAT'S THE SOUND OF YOUR CHILDHOOD BEING RAPED BY HOLLYWOOD!
They did it already. The GI Joe of my childhood had "realistic facial hair" and the "kung-fu grip". and was also 12" high. The 3" high Rambozos of my teen years were beneath contempt.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IavyqrEI6SY&feature=PlayList&p=C7D0D5904EAD0459&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=58:3bl97lr6][/youtube:3bl97lr6]

(yeah, that's Rambo in the clip, whaddaya want from me?)
 
It's GI JOE. Of course it's going to be crap wrapped in explosions.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DN034sBeF4c:3a1pohh4][/youtube:3a1pohh4]
 
S

Steven Soderburgin

This is really the first time a really big summer blockbuster has not been screened for critics. What really gets me, though, is the bolded quote in which a Paramount exec basically says "Fuck the critics, we don't need them."
 
Kissinger said:
This is really the first time a really big summer blockbuster has not been screened for critics. What really gets me, though, is the bolded quote in which a Paramount exec basically says "Fuck the critics, we don't need them."
It's because they don't need them for this type of movie. It's going to get it's money off of nostalgia, not critical acclaim.
 
S

Steven Soderburgin

Shakey said:
It's because they don't need them for this type of movie. It's going to get it's money off of nostalgia, not critical acclaim.
That and its massive marketing campaign.
 

North_Ranger

Staff member
Am I the only one who wasn't impressed with the trailer? Save for Mr Ecclestone's performance, it looked yawn-inducing in its blandness. Yeah yeah, Eiffel Tower falls down, big explosions, America fuck yeah...
 
This is never a good sign. It means that no rational viewer will enjoy this movie. Instead of fixing the film, they will release it anyway and hope the brain dead masses will buy the toys and happy meals anyway.
 
Kissinger said:
Shakey said:
It's because they don't need them for this type of movie. It's going to get it's money off of nostalgia, not critical acclaim.
That and its massive marketing campaign.
That too.

Seriously, the critics not being able to see it early doesn't bother me. Just means that people who give a shit what critics think have to wait a few days after opening day to see their reviews. Woop dee doo.
 
North_Ranger said:
Am I the only one who wasn't impressed with the trailer? Save for Mr Ecclestone's performance, it looked yawn-inducing in its blandness. Yeah yeah, Eiffel Tower falls down, big explosions, America fuck yeah...

The commercials and the trailer left me pretty "meh". The only reason I am excited for the movie at all is because it has the name G.I Joe. But deep down i know it is going to suck or at best be nothing more than a popcorn flick.
 
Krisken said:
Live action Scooby Doo is the first instance of that raping I can think of.
The live action Scooby Doo was actually good though, or at least the first one was anyway. It poked fun at all the cliches inherent in the series while still being reverent to the series itself. It both made fun of AND honored the original source material, like any good modern remake should.
 
Kissinger said:
Shakey said:
It's because they don't need them for this type of movie. It's going to get it's money off of nostalgia, not critical acclaim.
That and its massive marketing campaign.
Exactly. Critics have always been cheap advertising for the studios. With movies like this they don't need it, so why risk losing sales due to bad reviews.
 

I am hoping there is a prolong fight between Snake-Eyes & Storm Shadow. Not the lamefest that we got of Sub-Zero vs Scorpion in the second, god awful Mortal Kombat movie.
 
Shakey said:
Kissinger said:
This is really the first time a really big summer blockbuster has not been screened for critics. What really gets me, though, is the bolded quote in which a Paramount exec basically says "Fuck the critics, we don't need them."
It's because they don't need them for this type of movie. It's going to get it's money off of nostalgia, not critical acclaim.
That, and, let's face it: American mainstream culture has been fairly ignorant for several decades now. As long as there are adults that have only read Harry Potter and/or Twilight in the last ten years, and people only care about how pretty a movie is, critics aren't going to matter. Critics don't matter to these people, because critics play on a field that is entirely above the field that the rest of Americans play on.

Give it another decade or so. Soon enough we'll have bored ourselves so stupid with pretty explosions and shiny visuals, that we'll start to care about characters, plot, and themes again.
 

North_Ranger

Staff member
AshburnerX said:
The live action Scooby Doo was actually good though, or at least the first one was anyway. It poked fun at all the cliches inherent in the series while still being reverent to the series itself. It both made fun of AND honored the original source material, like any good modern remake should.
True dat. And that is part of the reason why I think this G.I. Joe the movie will stink like a week-dead rat wrapped in jockstraps: there's no way in hell the movie can make fun of itself (save for kidding about everybody being about as accurate marksmen as Stormtroopers) without somebody getting pissed off and going on a patriotic rant. I remember how in Ye Olde Phorumes somebody (can't remember who) went on a tirade when the movie was suggested about being some kind of a covert UN/NATO task force ran from Brussels - and not about "real American heroes".
 
I've been of mixed opinion for awhile, but after Transformers being a big old stink-bomb, I don't think I'm going to bother with this one. Only thing I was looking forward to was Eccelston but I can wait until Netflix.
 
Shakey said:
It's GI JOE. Of course it's going to be crap wrapped in explosions.
But it doesn't have to be crap. I think some of the recent comic book movies have shown that movies based on source material previously reserved for children can rise above and become quality movies themselves. Iron Man and the first two Spiderman movies are good examples.

I'm willing to bet that GI Joe is going to suck. That's based mostly on the trailers, and somewhat on the fact that they are dodging critics because they anticipate it being reviled. But what pisses me off is that it didn't have to be that way. It may never have had a chance to win an Oscar, but it could have been a decent film with good acting, writing, and directing. Instead we get this crap.
 

CGI Joe

(I thought this was original but doing a Google search I see someone else did the joke. But I *DID* think of it myself!)
 
A REAL AMERICAN ZERO G.I. $$DOUGH$$!! If it was worth seeing at all they would show a moderately coherent trailer.
 
Movie critics are a dime a dozen. Any A-hole with an opinion and an outlet can be one. I look forward to the day when people stop listening to them and they go away.
 
bigcountry23 said:
Movie critics are a dime a dozen. Any A-hole with an opinion and an outlet can be one. I look forward to the day when people stop listening to them and they go away.
Oh

Oh

This is going to be good.
 
bigcountry23 said:
Movie critics are a dime a dozen. Any A-hole with an opinion and an outlet can be one. I look forward to the day when people stop listening to them and they go away.
you have them confused with internet posters, and well I've just stopped listening to you :smug:
 
Tress said:
Shakey said:
It's GI JOE. Of course it's going to be crap wrapped in explosions.
But it doesn't have to be crap. I think some of the recent comic book movies have shown that movies based on source material previously reserved for children can rise above and become quality movies themselves. Iron Man and the first two Spiderman movies are good examples.
True, but those comics already had some fairly good story lines to work with. GI Joe never had that. The only thing that made GI Joe great was our memories of playing with the toys and watching shit blow up.
 
S

Steven Soderburgin

bigcountry23 said:
Movie critics are a dime a dozen. Any A-hole with an opinion and an outlet can be one. I look forward to the day when people stop listening to them and they go away.
When talking about movie critics, I'm not referring to your average idiot with a blog (someone like me, for instance). I'm talking about people who have perspective, experience, and insight into cinema as an art form. Critics serve an important purpose. They're there to help you, Average Movie Goer, decide the best way to spend your movie dollar. In addition to that, they are there to guide you, Average Movie Goer, to smaller films that are interesting, innovative, or unique in some way. They provide insight, promote discussion, and help you become a better movie fan. Again, I'm talking about the good film critics, here. Their entire role is to help you find good movies, and encourage you to think about them. That's all their job is.

And the day you're waiting for appears to be here, with an executive of a major studio blatantly saying that critics don't matter.
 
bigcountry23 said:
Movie critics are a dime a dozen. Any A-hole with an opinion and an outlet can be one. I look forward to the day when people stop listening to them and they go away.
Critics are important for calling out artists for lazy work and not furthering the art form. Without them you get stagnation, like the mainstream music industry... and it's already looking like the US movie industry is heading that way.

I'm not saying that Critics need to remain individuals in lofty towers, looking down on the peons that are trying to get their attention. Sites like Rotten Tomatoes are fairly accurate in the quality of a movie, so a more community minded critic system may be the wave of the future. There just needs to be SOMETHING to keep Artists pushing the new frontiers.
 
S

Steven Soderburgin

Also it's important to note that critics are not some single minded entity. Sites like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are useful for gauging average response, but the real meat lies in the actual reviews themselves. If you see a movie and are looking at Rotten Tomatoes, wondering what it's rating is, read some of the reviews that disagree with you. See how your thoughts on the film measure up. Particularly if there is only one dissenting opinion. See if that one review raises any good points you hadn't considered.
 
Ray Parks = Snake Eyes

That's the one and only reason I'm going. Everythingelse about it can suck for all I care.

By the way, Transformers, for ME was a pile of refuse NOT for it's bad acting or stale storyline (Do you even REMEMBER the source material?) but BECAUSE they didn't even attempt to stick with the original source material BASICS.

I go to watch a movie like GI Joe because I want to see the old cartoons brought to life, not for an action version of Schindler's List. I'll be good if the characters are true to source.

Oh yeah and just for good measure:
Ray Parks = Snake Eyes. :uhhuh: :thumbsup:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top