Note: Sometimes Eric D। Snider gets sad about the movies not screened for critics. Why? Because he's doing it for you, the audience! In this column he breaks down the prospects for quality when the studios ignore him (and those of his ilk).
I like to call them Hollywood's shameful secrets: movies that are so bad, the studios won't screen them for critics before they open.
There's been an epidemic of this the last couple of years. It used to be an exception to the rule, happening with maybe five or six wide releases a year. Now it's common: 16 so far in 2007.
The reason behind it, of course, is that if they show the movie, there's a chance -- a very good chance, it seems -- that the critics will write negative reviews. By not screening it at all, they prevent those reviews, or at least delay them. That gives the studio a chance to make some money on opening weekend, before word gets around how stinky the movie is.
By now savvy moviegoers know the routine, and they proceed with caution when something wasn't screened. (Lucky for the studios, most moviegoers are un-savvy.) Not screening a movie automatically brands it with the reputation of being lousy.
But I got to wondering: Is that fair? Is not screening a film for critics ALWAYS a bad sign?
So I looked at the list from the last couple years. My findings?
Um, yeah, pretty much.
In 2006, "Hollywood's Shameful Secrets" included Grandma's Boy, BloodRayne, Doogal, Ultraviolet, Stay Alive, Larry the Cable Guy: Health Inspector, Silent Hill, Zoom, Pulse, Material Girls, The Marine, Saw III, and Let's Go to Prison. There's some varying quality on that list, but they definitely all trend downward.
So far in 2007, the dishonor roll includes Primeval, Dead Silence, Kickin' It Old Skool, Delta Farce, Hostel II, Captivity, Who's Your Caddy, Skinwalkers, and The Last Legion. There's not even any variety on that list: Those are all bad movies.
There have been exceptions. Snakes on a Plane was famously not screened for critics last August, as part of New Line's plan to make the movie a truly fan-oriented, grassroots event. And... the movie flopped. And guess what? Most of the critics who reviewed it liked it. (It stands at 69% on RottenTomatoes.com.) If they'd screened it in advance, those positive reviews would have filled the papers and the websites on opening day instead of being delayed. Who knows, they might have boosted the film's box office numbers.
What's shocking is when you look at the list of movies that WERE screened for critics. Are We Done Yet?, Norbit, Daddy Day Camp, Bratz, License to Wed, Because I Said So: not only is that the shortlist of Worst Movie of 2007 candidates, but they were all pre-screened, too.
What makes a studio say, "You know, this Delta Farce is a complete piece of crap, so we should probably hide it from critics. But Bratz! That's bound to get plenty of good press!"?
The only conclusion I can draw is that the people who make these decisions -- the non-creative types, the suit-wearers, the bean counters -- honestly don't know the difference between a good movie and a bad one. When they watch it, their brains don't register things like "this is funny" or "this is stupid." They think only in terms of whether the product will sell. So when it comes to quality, they have to guess wildly and hope for the best. For this they are paid millions of dollars a year, so obviously the system is working.
* * * * *
Eric D. Snider (website) wasn't screened for critics, either.
No comments:
Post a Comment