Search forums

Forums

Export thread

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Aug 4, 2009#1

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.\"

Aug 4, 2009#2

bhamv3

So, basically, it's Transformers 2 2?

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

Aug 4, 2009#3

Lally

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

Aug 4, 2009#4

*waits for someone to get the reference*

Aug 4, 2009#5

Not screening for critics means the film is warmed over shit on a paper plate.

Aug 4, 2009#6

DarkAudit

Edrondol said:
Not screening for critics means the film is warmed over shit on a paper plate.

This.

Sigh. I was kinda looking forward to this one, too.

Aug 4, 2009#7

AshburnerX

You hear that sound? That thumping and moaning sound? THAT'S THE SOUND OF YOUR CHILDHOOD BEING RAPED BY HOLLYWOOD!

Aug 4, 2009#8

Hylian

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.

Aug 4, 2009#9

Krisken

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.

Aug 4, 2009#10

DarkAudit

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?)

Aug 4, 2009#11

Shakey

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]

Aug 4, 2009#12

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."

Aug 4, 2009#13

Shakey

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.

Aug 4, 2009#14

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.

Aug 4, 2009#15

North_Ranger

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...

Aug 4, 2009#16

sixpackshaker

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.

Aug 4, 2009#17

Krisken

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Aug 4, 2009#18

Hylian

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.

Aug 4, 2009#19

AshburnerX

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.

Aug 4, 2009#20

Shakey

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Aug 4, 2009#21

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.

Aug 4, 2009#22

Rob King

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."

Click to expand...

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.

Aug 4, 2009#23

North_Ranger

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".

Aug 4, 2009#24

CynicismKills

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.

Aug 4, 2009#25

Tress

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.

Aug 4, 2009#26

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!)

Aug 4, 2009#27

rac3r_x

A REAL AMERICAN ZERO G.I. $$DOUGH$$!! If it was worth seeing at all they would show a moderately coherent trailer.

Aug 4, 2009#28

bigcountry23

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.

Aug 4, 2009#29

CynicismKills

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.

Aug 4, 2009#30

The Lovely Boehner

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:

Aug 4, 2009#31

Shakey

Tress said:
Shakey said:

It's GI JOE. Of course it's going to be crap wrapped in explosions.

Click to expand...

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.

Aug 4, 2009#32

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.

Aug 4, 2009#33

AshburnerX

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.

Aug 4, 2009#34

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.

Aug 4, 2009#35

Shegokigo

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:

Aug 4, 2009#36

GeneralOrder24

And the number one movie in America was called "Ass," and that's all it was, for two hours.

Aug 4, 2009#37

Krisken

Egads, don't start that again. We'll have 24 pages of insistence that bad movies are proof the world is getting dumber.

Aug 4, 2009#38

Steven Soderburgin

Even though these people are generally siding with me on this, I have trouble taking anyone who brings up Idiocracy in a discussion on culture seriously.

Aug 4, 2009#39

Espy

I heard that JGLevitt is pretty freaking insane as Cobra Commando. Even though I know it's going to be a horrible movie dude has earned his cred. I'll see it one way or the other just to see him.

Aug 4, 2009#40

Kissinger said:
Even though these people are generally siding with me on this, I have trouble taking anyone who brings up Idiocracy in a discussion on culture seriously.

Aug 4, 2009#41

Steven Soderburgin

Espy said:
I heard that JGLevitt is pretty freaking insane as Cobra Commando. Even though I know it's going to be a horrible movie dude has earned his cred. I'll see it one way or the other just to see him.

See, this is sort of where I am. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is a really solid actor who tends to make some pretty brave choices. I certainly don't begrudge him this paycheck, and I'm curious what he'll do in a big time blockbuster. Also of note in this movie: Channing Tatum, a fine young upcoming actor.

Still probably gonna skip this unless someone makes a very compelling argument for it.

Aug 4, 2009#42

Krisken

Espy said:
I heard that JGLevitt is pretty freaking insane as Cobra Commando. Even though I know it's going to be a horrible movie dude has earned his cred. I'll see it one way or the other just to see him.

Wait, how did I miss this? I might have to check it out (on vid, of course). He's been pretty good in everything I've seen him in.

Aug 4, 2009#43

Covar

I've seen the toy for Cobra Commander and I really have to ask WTF? did they even do any film tests of his actuall masks? I have a hard time believing that the napkin would have looked that terrible on film.

Aug 4, 2009#44

Frankie Williamson

The toy doesn't really look like the movie mask.

Aug 4, 2009#45

Tress

Shakey said:
Tress said:

Shakey said:

It's GI JOE. Of course it's going to be crap wrapped in explosions.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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 poop blow up.

That's a fair point. Still, and I may be overly-optimistic here, I would like to think some good writing and directing could overcome the lack of source material. Instead, we've got shallow crap that is just as bad (if not worse) than the cartoon ever was.

Aug 4, 2009#46

sixpackshaker

At the risk of sounding Jingoistic, GI Joe should be a group of US soldiers. After all that is what the term means. If you want to have a UN/NATO force, come up with another property to use in that way.

Aug 4, 2009#47

Tress

sixpackshaker said:
At the risk of sounding Jingoistic, GI Joe should be a group of US soldiers. After all that is what the term means. If you want to have a UN/NATO force, come up with another property to use in that way.

While I understand where you're coming from, THAT is the least of this movie's problems.

Aug 4, 2009#48

ScytheRexx

Frankie said:
The toy doesn't really look like the movie mask.

The guy looks more like an emo sub-zero then Cobra Commander.

Oh, and... :popcorn:

Aug 4, 2009#49

Jay

I clearly remembering looking over to my woman after the seeing the trailer finished and saying, "I just felt Hollywood stick a huge black dildo in my ass because in no way, shape or form does this movie resemble G.I. Joe."

Not opening to critics? Ouch, is it really THAT BAD?

Aug 4, 2009#50

Rob King

Kissinger said:
Even though these people are generally siding with me on this, I have trouble taking anyone who brings up Idiocracy in a discussion on culture seriously.

I must have missed the post you're referring to. Who invoked Idiocracy?

Aug 4, 2009#51

MindDetective

Kissinger said:
read some of the reviews that disagree with you

This is the main thing I go to Rotten Tomatoes for. I want to see how a movie rates on average, obviously, but I also want to know WHY people didn't like a movie that caught my interest. I read a smattering of negative reviews, then a couple of positive reviews and decide on my own.

Aug 4, 2009#52

Rubicon

Living in Charlotte, I have noticed a lot of tv promos for G.I. Joe, like more so than your usual movie hype, guess that explains why. Like every other commercial on tv has been for the movie.

Aug 4, 2009#53

Steven Soderburgin

Rob King said:
Kissinger said:

Even though these people are generally siding with me on this, I have trouble taking anyone who brings up Idiocracy in a discussion on culture seriously.

Click to expand...

I must have missed the post you're referring to. Who invoked Idiocracy?

It was dis guy

GeneralOrder24 said:
And the number one movie in America was called "Ass," and that's all it was, for two hours.

That's a reference to the movie, which features a movie theater playing a film called "Ass"

Aug 4, 2009#54

Rob King

Kissinger said:
Rob King said:

Kissinger said:

Even though these people are generally siding with me on this, I have trouble taking anyone who brings up Idiocracy in a discussion on culture seriously.

Click to expand...

I must have missed the post you're referring to. Who invoked Idiocracy?

Click to expand...

It was dis guy

GeneralOrder24 said:

And the number one movie in America was called "Ass," and that's all it was, for two hours.

Click to expand...

That's a reference to the movie, which features a movie theater playing a film called "Ass"

Oh, alright. I thought you might have skimmed my post and concluded that that was what I was doing.

Aug 4, 2009#55

Shakey

Tress said:
Shakey said:

Tress said:

Shakey said:

It's GI JOE. Of course it's going to be crap wrapped in explosions.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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 poop blow up.

Click to expand...

That's a fair point. Still, and I may be overly-optimistic here, I would like to think some good writing and directing could overcome the lack of source material. Instead, we've got shallow crap that is just as bad (if not worse) than the cartoon ever was.

Personally I'd rather leave my childhood memories as just that. I really don't care what they do to anything I enjoyed as a kid. Like I said before, the only reason I really liked any of these shows was because they had some kick ass toys. My imagination was what made them enjoyable. I don't expect anything to change.

Aug 4, 2009#56

MindDetective

Shakey said:
My imagination was what made them enjoyable.

Pfft. Imagination is for...uh...people who...are...uh...dumb.

Aug 4, 2009#57

Shakey

MindDetective said:
Shakey said:

My imagination was what made them enjoyable.

Click to expand...

Pfft. Imagination is for...uh...people who...are...uh...dumb.

PEOPLE WITHOUT IMAGINATION ARE RUINING AMERICA!!!!

Aug 4, 2009#58

Iaculus

Shakey said:
MindDetective said:

Shakey said:

My imagination was what made them enjoyable.

Click to expand...

Pfft. Imagination is for...uh...people who...are...uh...dumb.

Click to expand...

PEOPLE WITHOUT IMAGINATION ARE RUINING AMERICA!!!!

... I can't see that.

Aug 4, 2009#59

MindDetective

Shakey said:
MindDetective said:

Shakey said:

My imagination was what made them enjoyable.

Click to expand...

Pfft. Imagination is for...uh...people who...are...uh...dumb.

Click to expand...

PEOPLE WITHOUT IMAGINATION ARE RUINING AMERICA!!!!

That sounds suspiciously like what someone with an imagination would say. Get 'im!

Aug 4, 2009#60

Steven Soderburgin

MindDetective said:
Pfft. Imagination is for...uh...people who...are...uh...dumb.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with this post, if any.

Aug 4, 2009#61

MindDetective

Kissinger said:
MindDetective said:

Pfft. Imagination is for...uh...people who...are...uh...dumb.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with this post, if any.

Use your imagination.

-- Tue Aug 04, 2009 4:55 pm --

In reality, I wasn't making any point. Just joking around. Did you think a point was warranted on the subject?

Aug 4, 2009#62

Steven Soderburgin

I thought that you might be trying to say that people who criticize movies like this don't have any imagination or something like that.

Aug 4, 2009#63

MindDetective

Kissinger said:
I thought that you might be trying to say that people who criticize movies like this don't have any imagination or something like that.

Oh lord, no. If anything, I'd say that movies that don't leave any room for your own interpretation (at least in some respect) are lacking. I'd rather not have a film that treats me like I can't fill in the pieces. Less is more, and all that.

Aug 4, 2009#64

Steven Soderburgin

Good! Yes! A great movie will respect the intelligence of its audience and actually excite the imagination! We're on the same page, there.

Aug 4, 2009#65

Alucard

Going to see it at the drive in this weekend as a hold over to District 9 and Inglorious Bastards

Greatly looking forward to seeing another Torantino film

Aug 4, 2009#66

The Lovely Boehner

I am going to see this because my name is Joe and I have a GI Joe woot t-shirt. That's all I got.

Aug 4, 2009#67

drawn_inward

Kissinger said:
Espy said:

I heard that JGLevitt is pretty freaking insane as Cobra Commando. Even though I know it's going to be a horrible movie dude has earned his cred. I'll see it one way or the other just to see him.

Click to expand...

See, this is sort of where I am. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is a really solid actor who tends to make some pretty brave choices. I certainly don't begrudge him this paycheck, and I'm curious what he'll do in a big time blockbuster. Also of note in this movie: Channing Tatum, a fine young upcoming actor.

Still probably gonna skip this unless someone makes a very compelling argument for it.

Please, say that was sarcasm. Channing Tatum is a shitty, shitty actor. He's another Marky Mark, Ashton Kutcher, etc. It makes sense that he is in this movie.

I do agree that Levitt has some talent, and has made some interesting movies.

Aug 4, 2009#68

The Lovely Boehner

Haha, wow, Channing Tatum might have the worst IMDB filmography I've ever seen

Aug 4, 2009#69

Charlie Dont Surf said:
Haha, wow, Channing Tatum might have the worst IMDB filmography I've ever seen

Well sure he was in Step Up and Step Up 2: The Streets, but that just means that when he's captured by Cobra, as shown in the tv commercials, he'll be able to dance his way out! It'll be great. Him and a bunch of Joes sent in to rescue him have a dance-off with Cobra Commander, Destro and others. The winners get the McGuffin. IT CAN'T FAIL!

Aug 4, 2009#70

Steven Soderburgin

drawn_inward said:
Please, say that was sarcasm. Channing Tatum is a shitty, shitty actor. He's another Marky Mark, Ashton Kutcher, etc. It makes sense that he is in this movie.

I do agree that Levitt has some talent, and has made some interesting movies.

Nah, I think he's got a lot of unrealized potential. He's certainly been in some bad movies, but I don't think he's the reason those movies were bad. I could be wrong about him, though. I suppose we'll see as his career develops.

EDIT: And yeah, he definitely doesn't have a very impressive IMDB profile, but he was noticeably good in A Guide To Recognizing Your Saints.

Aug 4, 2009#71

Simfers

I honestly don't care who gets to see it before whom or who it's shown to at what time or in what capacity. I want to see it and my girlfriend wants to see it, so it will be seen.

Because it looks fun.

That and, you know, Ray Parks as Snake Eyes, yo. :ninja:

:clap:

Aug 4, 2009#72

Bubble181

It's odd, but I've seen hardly any commercials for this, at all. As far as I can tell, there is absolutely zero hype for this movie here. Have they just given up on trying to market this all-american thingie to continental Europe or something? Doesn't make sense. Oh well, I won't see it anyway, I never even liked GI Joe (I preferred Barbie)

Aug 4, 2009#73

Alucard

and didnt they change the all american g.i. joe team to an international force now right?

Aug 4, 2009#74

Bubble181

Apparently they did, which makes it all the more odd that there doesn't seem to be any hype for it whatsoever here.

Aug 4, 2009#75

Alucard

i've maybe seen perhaps one or two tv spots total. doesnt paramount care about milking kids for cash from this film?

and whose the chick who plays the baroness?

Aug 4, 2009#76

drawn_inward

BlackCat said:
and who is the chick who plays the baroness?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1046173/

Aug 4, 2009#77

Philosopher B.

I decided I didn't need to see it after I heard the line 'when all else fails, we don't'. :blue:

Aug 4, 2009#78

drawn_inward

Kissinger, can you rename the thread. It's not that serious.

Aug 4, 2009#79

Steven Soderburgin

drawn_inward said:
Kissinger, can you rename the thread. It's not that serious.

nah, I know. It's just frustrating to hear a major studio VP talk about critics being irrelevant, when critics do NOTHING BUT HELP STUDIOS, FILMMAKERS, AND FILMGOERS BY PROMOTING FILMS THEY THINK ARE WORTH YOUR TIME. That's all they do! They put the name of the movie in the paper and the studio doesn't have to pay a dime for that!

Harumph!

Aug 4, 2009#80

Krisken

Kissinger said:
drawn_inward said:

Kissinger, can you rename the thread. It's not that serious.

Click to expand...

nah, I know. It's just frustrating to hear a major studio VP talk about critics being irrelevant, when critics do NOTHING BUT HELP STUDIOS, FILMMAKERS, AND FILMGOERS BY PROMOTING FILMS THEY THINK ARE WORTH YOUR TIME. That's all they do! They put the name of the movie in the paper and the studio doesn't have to pay a dime for that!

Harumph!

HOLY Shit! They make a living watching movies! That's all they Do!

Ok, it doesn't get me that excited.

Aug 4, 2009#81

Shakey

Kissinger said:
That's all they do! They put the name of the movie in the paper and the studio doesn't have to pay a dime for that!

Harumph!

Exactly, but if the studio knows that everything the critic says about the movie is going to be negative, why even give them the chance? They have obviously spent enough money so that every one knows it's coming out. What would they have to gain? Critics only really help smaller movies gain more attention. They may help some bigger budget movies get some positive reinforcement, but they already have the advertising budget to get their name out there.

Aug 4, 2009#82

Gadzooks

i plan to see it.

After i pay for District 9/Hangover/Something worth it.

Aug 5, 2009#83

Shawn

This another whiny Kissinger thread?
It's not like this is the first time a studio hasn't screened a movie for critics. Every time Kissinger and friends have a rant about how good movies will cease to exist because of poorly written summer blockbusters I always picture...

And from the few nerds and geeks that have seen it it's not a waste of film. In all honesty that's who we want this movie to impress in the first place isn't it? Why pay for critics across the states to view the film when you already know people are going to see it regardless of what the critics say? If the movie is worth watching, word of mouth will get out and others will see it. Yes that includes the critics too.

Aug 5, 2009#84

The Lovely Boehner

Shawnacy said:
This another whiny Kissinger thread?
It's not like this is the first time a studio hasn't screened a movie for critics. Every time Kissinger and friends have a rant about how good movies will cease to exist because of poorly written summer blockbusters I always picture...

This is the first time they haven't screened a huge summer tentpole type blockbuster movie. At least the first I can remember. And find the part where he says good movies will cease to exist because of this. Go on, I'll wait for you.

Aug 5, 2009#85

Shawn

Charlie Dont Surf said:
This is the first time they haven't screened a huge summer tentpole type blockbuster movie. At least the first I can remember. And find the part where he says good movies will cease to exist because of this. Go on, I'll wait for you.

Going back through that 20 page TF2 flame war (I have way too much free time at work) I can verify that you are correct and I owe Kissinger an apology. The above sign should instead be carried by Dark Audit, Eljuski, @Li3n, and Shannow who all did directly claim that well-made films will putter out of existence due to dumber audiences impressed by loud explosions and fart jokes.

Aug 5, 2009#86

fade

AshburnerX said:
Krisken said:

Live action Scooby Doo is the first instance of that raping I can think of.

Click to expand...

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.

Bleh. Kung Fu Daphne and Stupid Fred (Lawdsamercy, can't have a SMART white male leader--that's racist and sexist) capped off by some terrible computer animation killed it for me.

I have one reason to want to see this. Well, two. The Baroness. I get a warm [strike:1ck1t7pm]chubby[/strike:1ck1t7pm] fuzzy feeling every time I see her pull off her jacket in the trailer. Otherwise, it looks very boring. "What did you say your [blank] was called?" "I didn't." Gee. Never heard that line before.

(I was kidding by the way. I takes more that nice breasts to make me want to see a movie.)

Aug 5, 2009#87

DarkAudit

Shawnacy said:
Charlie Dont Surf said:

This is the first time they haven't screened a huge summer tentpole type blockbuster movie. At least the first I can remember. And find the part where he says good movies will cease to exist because of this. Go on, I'll wait for you.

Click to expand...

Going back through that 20 page TF2 flame war (I have way too much free time at work) I can verify that you are correct and I owe Kissinger an apology. The above sign should instead be carried by Dark Audit, Eljuski, @Li3n, and Shannow who all did directly claim that well-made films will putter out of existence due to dumber audiences impressed by loud explosions and fart jokes.

And I stand by that statement. The lowest common denominator bar gets lowered with each passing summer.

In that thread I blamed the "turn off your brain" fainbois who will swallow any shit shoveled their way if there were enough shinies and explosions to flavor it. And just as I predicted, it fell off the radar with astonishing speed as July drew to a close.

This movie is not one of those. I was looking forward to this one. If it is as bad as most "not screened for critics" films are (The Avengers, anyone?), than I will be angry, but at the producers of this particular film. With so much to work with, fucking it up is all their fault.

Aug 5, 2009#88

Shawn

DarkAudit said:
In that thread I blamed the "turn off your brain" fainbois who will swallow any poop shoveled their way if there were enough shinies and explosions to flavor it. And just as I predicted, it fell off the radar with astonishing speed as July drew to a close.

This movie is not one of those. I was looking forward to this one.

I seemed to have missed the trailer where you have deduced that GI JOE is not a film ripe with shinies and explosions and will indeed be a well written summer blockbuster.

Aug 5, 2009#89

AshburnerX

fade said:
Bleh. Kung Fu Daphne and Stupid Fred (Lawdsamercy, can't have a SMART white male leader--that's racist and sexist) capped off by some terrible computer animation killed it for me.

How was Fred EVER smart in the TV show? He basically existed to drive the van, tell everyone to split up once an episode, and be Mr. Exposition whenever Velma wasn't (which was rare). As for Kung Fu Daphne... do I really need to point out how played the distressed damsel stereotype is? They even make a point of her getting sick of it herself. I'll admit, however, that it had probably had more to do with Sarah Michelle Geller's previous role as Buffy than an attempt at humor.

The CG wasn't that great though... I'll admit that. It was like they couldn't decide if they wanted it to be cartoony or realistic.

Aug 5, 2009#90

Steven Soderburgin

Yeah, for all the money being spent on this movie, it's a very odd decision to not screen it for critics. This is a move that is usually reserved for movies with no budget to schedule screenings, or no faith from the studio. As I was implying earlier, reviews (even bad ones!) are basically free advertising. People scrolling through movie reviews or scanning the paper see it and say, "Oh, yeah! G.I. Joe is coming out this weekend!" Also, with screenings, they can pull a bunch of lines and quips for ads on opening weekend. It's just very strange. The budget is something like $170 million, so you'd think that Paramount would have faith in the film.

Aug 5, 2009#91

Shawn

Kissinger said:
Yeah, for all the money being spent on this movie, it's a very odd decision to not screen it for critics. This is a move that is usually reserved for movies with no budget to schedule screenings, or no faith from the studio. As I was implying earlier, reviews (even bad ones!) are basically free advertising. People scrolling through movie reviews or scanning the paper see it and say, "Oh, yeah! G.I. Joe is coming out this weekend!" Also, with screenings, they can pull a bunch of lines and quips for ads on opening weekend. It's just very strange. The budget is something like $170 million, so you'd think that Paramount would have faith in the film.

Considering that nearly every movie in history that has ever skipped critic screenings has been close to awful, history suggests the same fate will befall Joe. But for all we know this is just a new trick by their marketing to increase sales, or simply to reduce the costs of setting up those free screenings. Guess we'll just have to see the movie and make our own judgment this time.

Aug 5, 2009#92

MindDetective

Shawnacy said:
Guess we'll just have to see the movie and make our own judgment this time.

Or not see it and live without judgment.

Aug 5, 2009#93

DarkAudit

Shawnacy said:
DarkAudit said:

In that thread I blamed the "turn off your brain" fainbois who will swallow any poop shoveled their way if there were enough shinies and explosions to flavor it. And just as I predicted, it fell off the radar with astonishing speed as July drew to a close.

This movie is not one of those. I was looking forward to this one.

Click to expand...

I seemed to have missed the trailer where you have deduced that GI JOE is not a film ripe with shinies and explosions and will indeed be a well written summer blockbuster.

I deduced no such thing. I await reports from the field just as you do. :moon:

Shinies and explosions do not automatically turn a movie into shit, just as a shit movie cannot be saved by more shinies and explosions.

Aug 5, 2009#94

Cog

I seems to me that many of you only WANT this to be a bad movie.

Aug 5, 2009#95

Espy

MindDetective said:
Shawnacy said:

Guess we'll just have to see the movie and make our own judgment this time.

Click to expand...

Or not see it and live without judgment.

Or not see it and judge it anyway because, well, why the hell not?

Aug 5, 2009#96

JCM

Fuck the movie, I want to see Ray Parks as Snake-Eyes.

[/img]

Charlie Dont Surf said:
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.

Click to expand...

you have them confused with internet posters, and well I've just stopped listening to you :smug:

Aug 5, 2009#97

Gusto

Unlike Transformers, I think this movie will fall on the laughable side of over-the-top ridiculousness, rather than the painful side.

But who knows.

Aug 5, 2009#98

DarkAudit

Gusto said:
I think this movie will fall on the laughable side of over-the-top ridiculousness.

Not necessarily a bad thing.

Aug 5, 2009#99

Gusto

DarkAudit said:
Gusto said:

I think this movie will fall on the laughable side of over-the-top ridiculousness.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily a bad thing.

My point exactly! While descriptions I've heard of T2:ROTF made it seem like the kind of ridiculousness that made one want to tear out their own eyes, THIS seems like the kind on nonsense that can be manic and hilarious as well.

Aug 5, 2009#100

Frankie Williamson

In order for G.I. Joe to suck as badly as Transformers it has to do a couple of things.

1) It'll only show the G.I. Joe team in very sparse bits throughout the movie, deciding instead to focus on the younger teenage brother of Duke who is having a really rough time in his first year of high school.

2) In the final battle between G.I. Joe and Cobra, both sides will be shown to be relatively ineffectual and the Joes will have to call in the real heroes of the movie, a magic space key that the ancient Joes thousands of years ago committed suicide to half assedly hide as well as the good old US Army, Navy and Air Force who will thoroughly kick the fucking shit out of Cobra leaving people to wonder how they were a credible threat to begin with. Fuck you UN/NATO, you fucking suck!

Aug 5, 2009#101

AshburnerX

Frankie said:
In order for G.I. Joe to suck as badly as Transformers it has to do a couple of things.

1) It'll only show the G.I. Joe team in very sparse bits throughout the movie, deciding instead to focus on the younger teenage brother of Duke who is having a really rough time in his first year of high school.

I know your joking, but didn't this EXACT THING HAPPEN in GI Joe: Sigma Six? I know they had younger kids running around... and a robotic dog, I think.

Aug 5, 2009#102

Frankie Williamson

Is Sigma Six the G.I. Joe series that was all anime-ruined?

If so, probably.

Aug 5, 2009#103

fade

AshburnerX said:
fade said:

Bleh. Kung Fu Daphne and Stupid Fred (Lawdsamercy, can't have a SMART white male leader--that's racist and sexist) capped off by some terrible computer animation killed it for me.

Click to expand...

How was Fred EVER smart in the TV show? He basically existed to drive the van, tell everyone to split up once an episode, and be Mr. Exposition whenever Velma wasn't (which was rare). As for Kung Fu Daphne... do I really need to point out how played the distressed damsel stereotype is? They even make a point of her getting sick of it herself. I'll admit, however, that it had probably had more to do with Sarah Michelle Geller's previous role as Buffy than an attempt at humor.

The CG wasn't that great though... I'll admit that. It was like they couldn't decide if they wanted it to be cartoony or realistic.

You're kidding right? Fred was the leader. He made all the plans, and when the case was over he, along with Velma was always the one to express that he knew what was going on, saying something like "and that just about wraps it up", or "I think we've pretty much figured it out. Now all we need to do is this elaborate scheme (presumably invented by him) to catch the guy". Velma was the knowledge-brains, but Fred was always the planning/sleuthing brains--though Fred was sometimes the guy who pointed out the glass was from X or what have you. I could probably go to youtube and find all the specific examples in my head (in fact, I know this to be true because I just watched the Scooby Doo marathon on Cartoon Network this weekend) but I won't because that's a lot of work.

Even if he wasn't smart (which I argue that he was within the kid's context of the show), he certainly wasn't the borderline retarded doofus they made him in the movie. He never once says anything outright stupid or obviously wrong, either.

Also, I get the damsel in distress thing. I knew I should've put that in my first post. But there's a huge difference between "not the damsel in distress" and "kung fu ass-kicker". I mean, it's just too much to the opposite extreme for me. But it's more forgivable than Fred's fate.

EDIT: You know what, just to make my point. From "Jeepers, It's the Creeper!", one of the more popular episodes, here's some things Fred does. And not once does he act like the dork he was in the movie. In fact, he's quite serious compared to even Velma.

1. Initiates the case by noticing the car crash.
2. Plans the next step (taking guard to house)
3. Calls the sheriff while everyone else stands around.
4. Calms everyone when lights go out, AND plans the next stage (moving the party, organizing clean-up, etc.)
5. Comes up with the idea to make a paper airplane out of the paper while V and D sit around
6. Decides to investigate the car.
7. Notices Creeper's track in soil.
8. Comes up with plan to unroll bridge.
9. With Velma explains the solution.
10. Seems to understand perfectly well what "The flame..." bit means as he helps Velma demonstrate.

I mean I'm being ridiculously pedantic on purpose, but the point is, I don't remember Fred ever once being an idiot. He was the adultish leader. That role went to Daphne in the movie, who was a weak character in the show, sure. But they removed Fred's core personality (and group role) and replaced it with stupidity to do it. Literally.

Aug 5, 2009#104

AshburnerX

I would like to point out that Fred has NEVER made a successful plan. Ever. Yes, this is more to Scooby and Shaggy's bumbling than his skills, but you'd think he'd have figured out after the 3rd or 4th time that it happened that step one should always be "Send Shaggy and Scooby somewhere else" instead of letting them constantly fuck things up.

Aug 5, 2009#105

Fun Size

AshburnerX said:
I would like to point out that Fred has NEVER made a successful plan. Ever. Yes, this is more to Scooby and Shaggy's bumbling than his skills, but you'd think he'd have figured out after the 3rd or 4th time that it happened that step one should always be "Send Shaggy and Scooby somewhere else" instead of letting them constantly smurf things up.

Oh he had a plan alright: Scooby, Shaggy and Velma go check out the downstairs while he and Daphne check out the bedroom. :hump:

Aug 5, 2009#106

CynicismKills

Fun Size said:
AshburnerX said:

I would like to point out that Fred has NEVER made a successful plan. Ever. Yes, this is more to Scooby and Shaggy's bumbling than his skills, but you'd think he'd have figured out after the 3rd or 4th time that it happened that step one should always be "Send Shaggy and Scooby somewhere else" instead of letting them constantly smurf things up.

Click to expand...

Oh he had a plan alright: Scooby, Shaggy and Velma go check out the downstairs while he and Daphne check out the bedroom.

The Johnny Bravo episode that makes fun of Scooby Doo is priceless for this exact moment.

Fred, I should go with Shaggy and Scooby!

But Daphneee...*motions suggestively towards something off-screen as a bass line starts up*

Aug 5, 2009#107

sixpackshaker

The best treatment of Scooby Do was the Venture Bros. made them a good mix of Serial killers and Radicles.

Aug 5, 2009#108

rac3r_x

Jinkies!

Aug 5, 2009#109

CynicismKills

Scoring a whopping 85% on rottentomatoes last I looked, I guess some folks in the UK got to watch it already.

Aug 5, 2009#110

The Lovely Boehner

CynicismKills said:
Scoring a whopping 85% on rottentomatoes last I looked, I guess some folks in the UK got to watch it already.

That 85% is from people the studio has cherry-picked (harry knowles) to watch the movie that are very likely to give it a good review

Aug 5, 2009#111

Krisken

Charlie Dont Surf said:
CynicismKills said:

Scoring a whopping 85% on rottentomatoes last I looked, I guess some folks in the UK got to watch it already.

Click to expand...

That 85% is from people the studio has cherry-picked (harry knowles) to watch the movie that are very likely to give it a good review

So you're ok with critics seeing it early as long as they agree with what you already think?

Aug 5, 2009#112

CynicismKills

Charlie Dont Surf said:
CynicismKills said:

Scoring a whopping 85% on rottentomatoes last I looked, I guess some folks in the UK got to watch it already.

Click to expand...

That 85% is from people the studio has cherry-picked (harry knowles) to watch the movie that are very likely to give it a good review

Ahh, I see. Yeah, only two bad reviews last I looked, and even the good ones seem to start with "If I were 10 this would be awesome" or "Despite a bad story, wonky AGI and etcetc."

Aug 5, 2009#113

The Lovely Boehner

Krisken said:
Charlie Dont Surf said:

CynicismKills said:

Scoring a whopping 85% on rottentomatoes last I looked, I guess some folks in the UK got to watch it already.

Click to expand...

That 85% is from people the studio has cherry-picked (harry knowles) to watch the movie that are very likely to give it a good review

Click to expand...

So you're ok with critics seeing it early as long as they agree with what you already think?

Huh? I'm just stating how they saw it even though it's not being mass-screened for all reviewers. I don't think anything about the movie really yet. I would like all critics to get a crack at movies before they come out so they can have reviews in papers and such before Friday.

Aug 5, 2009#114

Krisken

Charlie Dont Surf said:
Krisken said:

[quote="Charlie Dont Surf":86d1gec5]

CynicismKills said:

Scoring a whopping 85% on rottentomatoes last I looked, I guess some folks in the UK got to watch it already.

Click to expand...

That 85% is from people the studio has cherry-picked (harry knowles) to watch the movie that are very likely to give it a good review

Click to expand...

So you're ok with critics seeing it early as long as they agree with what you already think?

Aug 5, 2009#115

Steven Soderburgin

Krisken said:
Ah, I see. I don't really agree with it, but I can respect it.

Why don't you agree with it?

Aug 5, 2009#116

Krisken

Kissinger said:
Krisken said:

Ah, I see. I don't really agree with it, but I can respect it.

Click to expand...

Why don't you agree with it?

Because all of this centers on opening weekend numbers. I don't care how a movie does in one weekend, so I have no feeling that a critic should get some sort of special treatment and be allowed to see it early.

The movie industry would survive without critics. I understand you guys would like your favorite critics to see the movie first to get an idea on the movie, and that's fine. It wouldn't hurt you to wait a week to see it after your favorite critic has seen it and given their view.

Aug 5, 2009#117

Steven Soderburgin

Krisken said:
Because all of this centers on opening weekend numbers. I don't care how a movie does in one weekend, so I have no feeling that a critic should get some sort of special treatment and be allowed to see it early.

The movie industry would survive without critics. I understand you guys would like your favorite critics to see the movie first to get an idea on the movie, and that's fine. It wouldn't hurt you to wait a week to see it after your favorite critic has seen it and given their view.

You may not care about opening weekend numbers, but the studios sure do. Opening weekend is pretty much the best way to determine the success of the marketing campaign for a wide release. That, and lines like "#1 movie in America" are pretty powerful advertising statements. Critics and their reviews allow people to be just a bit more informed when they decide which movie to see. Without critics, moviegoers would have no line of defense between them and studio marketing. Audiences would lose without critics. That's one of the services critics provide. I guess I just don't get why you dislike the idea of critics so much.

Aug 5, 2009#118

Krisken

Kissinger said:
Krisken said:

Because all of this centers on opening weekend numbers. I don't care how a movie does in one weekend, so I have no feeling that a critic should get some sort of special treatment and be allowed to see it early.

The movie industry would survive without critics. I understand you guys would like your favorite critics to see the movie first to get an idea on the movie, and that's fine. It wouldn't hurt you to wait a week to see it after your favorite critic has seen it and given their view.

Click to expand...

You may not care about opening weekend numbers, but the studios sure do. Opening weekend is pretty much the best way to determine the success of the marketing campaign for a wide release. That, and lines like "#1 movie in America" are pretty powerful advertising statements. Critics and their reviews allow people to be just a bit more informed when they decide which movie to see. Without critics, moviegoers would have no line of defense between them and studio marketing. Audiences would lose without critics. That's one of the services critics provide. I guess I just don't get why you dislike the idea of critics so much.

Obviously in this case, they studio doesn't care.

I don't dislike critics. I just don't care what they think.

Aug 6, 2009#119

JCM

Krisken said:
Kissinger said:

Krisken said:

Because all of this centers on opening weekend numbers. I don't care how a movie does in one weekend, so I have no feeling that a critic should get some sort of special treatment and be allowed to see it early.

The movie industry would survive without critics. I understand you guys would like your favorite critics to see the movie first to get an idea on the movie, and that's fine. It wouldn't hurt you to wait a week to see it after your favorite critic has seen it and given their view.

Click to expand...

You may not care about opening weekend numbers, but the studios sure do. Opening weekend is pretty much the best way to determine the success of the marketing campaign for a wide release. That, and lines like "#1 movie in America" are pretty powerful advertising statements. Critics and their reviews allow people to be just a bit more informed when they decide which movie to see. Without critics, moviegoers would have no line of defense between them and studio marketing. Audiences would lose without critics. That's one of the services critics provide. I guess I just don't get why you dislike the idea of critics so much.

Click to expand...

Obviously in this case, they studio doesn't care.

I don't dislike critics. I just don't care what they think.

I dont dislike critics.

They add to the reviews base in metacritic and rottentomatoes, making it easy to know how bad something is.

Aug 6, 2009#120

Shawn

Something I don't understand about critics is they make it seem like you need some kind of degree in movie psychology to have a right to decide on if a movie is good or not. If anything, the only thing they are good at (at least in some cases) is expressing their opinions. Many of them are failed script writers or directors who obviously believe they can spot the perfect movie forumla rather than come up with it on their own.

That being said, one of the first things I'll do when deciding on a movie is read reviews. This has nothing to do with believing that a critic has a better opinion of what makes a good movie than I do. Usually I read the reviews of only a few critics who I know have opinions close to my own. Movies.com for instance offers a critic that tends to enjoy the same type of movies that I do, and I've come to trust his opinion. I may still see a movie despite a negative review, but he's helpful on films that I have mixed feelings about.

Forums