Forbes.com and Mediabistro.com have both weighed in on the latest trend of studios not inviting movie critics to films they know will get bad reviews.
To me, these two paragraphs sum it up:
For movie studios, freezing critics out of select premieres might have been a smart move even decades ago. As with all complex products, there's plenty that can go wrong with a movie. Inevitably, there are films in which just about everything that could have gone wrong, does. Why throw a dog of a movie to a pack of wolves if you can avoid it?
But there have always been bad films, and critics always had their biases when it comes to genre. The tactic of skipping advance screenings is taking hold now because the dynamics of movie marketing and pre-release publicity have changed. (Ed. note: bolding is mine) Like other professional arbiters of taste, movie reviewers just don’t matter quite as much as they used to. Once upon a time, they were the point of origin for popular opinion. In an age of ratings Web sites and consumer-generated content, they are just one voice of many. Maybe a particularly authoritative voice, but no longer the popes they used to be.
Another thing about critics getting mad about not being able to get a pre screening of a movie; why should they get all the free perks. Ebert and Roeper talk about the "wagging finger of shame" as if their reviews are the reason why or why we don't go see movies. Note to Ebert in Roper: We disagree with you enough to know that at times movie reviews are arbitrary. But that isn't as much the point as this: how arrogant to give the wagging finger of shame when you don't get a pre-screening.
Then, of course, they don't review the movie at all. Why can't you fork out $8.50 on a Friday night like the rest of us so as to see the movie as it should be seen; with a bunch of strangers, some of which are clueless about cellphone use in public places.
Still, it takes all kinds.
Posted by: Jim Gleeson | July 13, 2006 at 05:51 AM