Attitudes towards the general audience.

Handsome Bob

Critics and Audiences Keeps Growing


Reason No. 68 why the disconnect between film critics and moviegoers is bigger than ever: The elitism of the old guard. Over the course of the past week, well known and nominally intelligent film critics Roger Ebert and A.O. Scott both wrote that the decline of the film industry is in direct proportion to the increasing stupidity of the audience. (Jeffrey Wells, hysterical blogger and all around curmudgeon, had written the same thing previously, albeit in more breathlessly hyperbolic terms.) Apparently, if you thought the culture war was reserved for political campaigns and Fox News talking heads, you were mistaken.

Of course, the funny thing is that these critics are waging this culture war on what seems like the entire population of the United States. Their consternation lies mostly with the wild success of two movies: G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra and Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. The latter, with close to $400 million in total grosses is one of the worst reviewed movies in the history of Hollywood to reach such lofty financial heights; the former was famously left unscreened for major film critics and scored a $54 million opening over this past weekend despite that fact. To Messrs. Scott and Ebert, the thinking seems to be that if crappy movies are making big bucks, the audience—particularly the young and impressionable—are to blame. (Mr. Ebert has even gone so far as to say that film critics are more “evolved” than regular moviegoers; this from the man who gave Knowing four-stars [Editor's Note: Some of us here also think that Knowing is pretty awesome.]). What other reason could there be for the perceived “failures” of ostensibly highbrow films like Public Enemies and The Hurt Locker, two critically beloved summer entries that have supposedly underwhelmed? Never mind that Public Enemies is actually kind of successful (Michael Mann’s gangland epic has grossed $94 million to date) and The Hurt Locker hasn’t been shown in more than 535 theaters at any point this summer (by contrast, G.I. Joe opened in over 4,000 theaters). The real reason Hollywood continues to put out a crappy product is because of you! This is all your fault.

And therein lies the problem: It’s not your fault! Was it your fault when Slumdog Millionaire grossed well over $100 million, or when Up and Star Trek, two of the best reviewed movies of the year, grossed over $250 million, each? Sure some great movies (like The Hurt Locker) will inevitably fall through the cracks, but most of the time, we audience members do see the good movies, if we’re given the opportunity. Of course, we see the crap movies too. That’s issue with these film critics: Somewhere along the way they forgot that people just fundamentally like going to the movies. This has nothing to do with intellect—or lack thereof—but a wish to escape the rigors of daily life for a couple of hours. The person who paid to see G.I. Joe this weekend isn’t necessarily dumb, just like the one who paid to see The Hurt Locker isn’t necessarily a Rhodes scholar. It’s time to separate the quality of the films from their paying audiences. The sooner film critics do this, the better.

http://www.observer.com/2009/movies/...ws-even-bigger

During my regular morning of surfing the internet I came across a disgruntled blogger who was annoyed with attitude that critics apparently have. He claimed critics should be "thankful" to have such an "undemanding" job and that they take their job way too seriously. Basically he was a pissed off fanboy who was angry at critics for "hating" movies.

However in response another blogger posted the above snippet and I find it quite interesting. I do myself think that it's a bit much insulting the intelligence of the general audience and blaming them for the "dumbing down" of movies. People will go to good quality films if they are available. For example Mesrine is a film that has gotten absolute rave reviews. People want to see it. However UCI is just one cinema that isn't showing the film so how can the general audience be accused of not going to see good quality films if they aren't even available?

Driver 8

There has been, to a greater or less extent, a kind of disconnect between critical opinion and a film's financial success for a long, long time. I stress financial success because just because something like Transformers 2 makes that much money obviously doesn't mean that anything like all of those people were satisified with the film (not to say that some weren't).

There are many kinds of filmgoers. There are people that may seek out the less mainstream films, and there are those who just go to see whatever's showing, or what they've seen advertised on tv or whatever. And there are every other kind of filmgoer in between.

To an extent, it's somewhat understandable to see people like Ebert getting annoyed at how much, say GI Joe makes in comparison to the Hurt Locker. But it's not exactly a level playing field for audiences. I went to see the latest Harry Potter movie and Moon on the same day, but only because I had the option to do so, with both showing in Dublin. I'd imagine a lot of people who want to see Moon will have to wait for the dvd. I think the fact that that films like Moon and the Hurt Locker exist is good, just as the fact that films like Star Trek and Up exist is good. My only concern is that audiences are given an opportunity to see both kinds of film.

unreggd

I fvckin hate critics

Films, just like music, are subjective

Some people like them, some people dont

Yes, Transformers 2 woulda made $400 million

Why? They'd have a giant promotion budget under a huge studio [DreamWorks]
Geared towards kids: More kids go to the cinema

Box Office figures have nothing to do with how good / bad a film is

If a critic is moanin about that, then he clearly doesnt know what the fvck he's on about, and shouldnt be a critic

][cEMAN**

Movies who appeal more to children (including those who need parental supervision), or teenagers either looking for a feelgood movie, easy plot, or place to hang out, are doing better in theatres than those films which would normaly be seen by people who either work strange hours, can't afford to go see all the new releases, or are just too cheap to go, and would rather either wait till DVD release, or buy/download rips.

That...is...shocking!! Logic is clearly on holiday here...

Karl Hungus

It's an interesting read, and I went on to read Roger Ebert's piece (here) that was linked. Honestly, I can see the argument from both sides.

But what it really comes down to is this, are you stupid for seeing a bad movie?

I say no. Now I don't think I'm stupid, and yet I went to see Transformers 2. Me and some friends had a few drinks before the film, then went in to see robots fighting for the laugh. Now, I thought it was a thoroughly terrible film, it was overlong, the action was messy as hell, and it was somewhat sleazy for what was essentially a movie aimed at kids. Even with low expectations, I was disappointed. But my reasons for seeing the film were for enjoyment, and while I didn't get out of the film what I wanted, I don't believe it speaks ill against my intelligence, nor does people in general having seen the film speak ill of their intelligence either.

Fysh

I'm always unsure of how to take Ebert's reviews. On the one hand he's passionate about film, but on the other hand he admits to giving films a rating based on their intended audience. Which does suggest an understanding and acceptance of the idea that not all filmgoers scrutinise films in the same way that critics do.

On the topic of crap films doing well...didn't we have a thread on this ages ago where Karl provided compelling evidence for the theory that crap films have been doing well at the cinema for decades, probably because film is for many people a leisure activity and thus not something they want to have to dissect and analyse for hours afterwards?

I'm also curious as to the whereabouts of the line between "it's good fun in a leave-your-brain-at-home way" and, say, Meet The Spartans or Epic Movie, given that afaik both these were roundly lambasted as arsegravy of the worst kind on this board (success in film of the week notwithstanding )

jonsnow

I have just watched GI joe today in large part because i had seen every other decent movie that was showing.I enjoyed it immensely.It was hands down one of the worst dumbest films I have ever seen.My friend and I were roaring laughing at the dialogue,hammy acting and plotholes.Yesterday I watched Three colours blue and I enjoyed that too.

People going to stupid blockbusters know that they,re stupid.

faceman

Ive never subscribed to the theory that audiences are stupid. I believe that studios provide us with stupid movies.

Transformers is a good example. I loved transformers as a kid. I went to see both films. The second was truly truly awful and crossed a new line in terms of children's entertainment for the worse. There was no alternative for me though. In fact there never is. Therefore I have no choice but to watch stupid movies in the cinema, if i wish to continue my hobby of going to the cinema.

Unfortunately as blockbusters become more expensive and F/X now sells a movie as much as sex used to, we will never see a return to quality studio films that we saw in the 70's and some of the 80's.

As the budget gets bigger, the margins get smaller. If a blockbuster flops, it can kill next years output. Therefore studios like to stick to a safe formula. Many film's budgets exclude advertising costs which are often covered by studio directly. Marketing campaigns are getting more aggressive, and more expensive.

Ironically the only studio still ploughing out (almost) indie films is Fox Searchlight. IMO Fox are the worst of all the studios for throttling creative control on a film set.

Handsome Bob

Fysh wrote: »

I'm also curious as to the whereabouts of the line between "it's good fun in a leave-your-brain-at-home way" and, say, Meet The Spartans or Epic Movie, given that afaik both these were roundly lambasted as arsegravy of the worst kind on this board (success in film of the week notwithstanding )

I use the line "it's good fun in a leave-your-brain-at-home way". For example when I went to see GI Joe last week I went into it with extremely low expectations as I knew it wasn't going to be a masterpiece. I think I made a conscious decision (rather than lacking intelligence) to take the film at face value and I felt that I got my tickets worth.

I would also take the likes of Meet The Spartans and Epic Movie at face value however I was still able to call them for what they were; unfunny flat pieces of garbage.

I think the general audience has the same attitude and can thus still recognise bad films even if they do make the decision to leave the brain at the door.

faceman wrote: »

As the budget gets bigger, the margins get smaller. If a blockbuster flops, it can kill next years output. Therefore studios like to stick to a safe formula. Many film's budgets exclude advertising costs which are often covered by studio directly. Marketing campaigns are getting more aggressive, and more expensive.

Agreed and I think that is why we are seeing so many remakes. Unless they are willing to give a film a huge budget (Transformers for example), Hollywood seems too afraid to take a chance on an original formula. Instead they fall back on the tried and tested franchises.

faceman

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I use the line "it's good fun in a leave-your-brain-at-home way". For example when I went to see GI Joe last week I went into it with extremely low expectations as I knew it wasn't going to be a masterpiece. I think I made a conscious decision (rather than lacking intelligence) to take the film at face value and I felt that I got my tickets worth. .

If anything, the Dark Knight demonstrated that we shouldn't have to put up with "leave the brain at home" movies as mainstream movies.

Fysh

faceman wrote: »

If anything, the Dark Knight demonstrated that we shouldn't have to put up with "leave the brain at home" movies as mainstream movies.

Absolutely - I can't agree with this enough. I do understand the appeal of "leave your brain at home" films, but there's too often an element of not trying to do anything interesting because it's "just fun".

For example, I saw the rather dismal Terminator 4 when it came out earlier this year, and participated in discussions about it. I have read reviews and discussions of Transformers 2 and G.I. Joe, but do not intend to see either, because while I would quite like to see a balls-to-the-wall action film, I also know that neither of those films is delivering what I'm looking for. I would much prefer something along the lines of Crank or Crank: High Voltage, because while those films were both very very silly, they also tried to do a few interesting things to keep you from noticing that the film was essentially a bunch of jokes and action scenes strung together with only the barest of plots.

There is always space to be creative in films, no matter how high- or low-brow the project. While I think there should be space for all types of films, I would like to see more effort on the creative aspect of the "leave your brain at home" films, because all too many of those films have badly written cliché-riddled scripts, and the excuse is that "oh, it's just fun, don't go taking it seriously".

purple_hatstand

faceman wrote: »

Ive never subscribed to the theory that audiences are stupid. I believe that studios provide us with stupid movies.

Transformers is a good example. I loved transformers as a kid. I went to see both films. The second was truly truly awful and crossed a new line in terms of children's entertainment for the worse. There was no alternative for me though. In fact there never is. Therefore I have no choice but to watch stupid movies in the cinema, if i wish to continue my hobby of going to the cinema.

Unfortunately as blockbusters become more expensive and F/X now sells a movie as much as sex used to, we will never see a return to quality studio films that we saw in the 70's and some of the 80's.

As the budget gets bigger, the margins get smaller. If a blockbuster flops, it can kill next years output. Therefore studios like to stick to a safe formula. Many film's budgets exclude advertising costs which are often covered by studio directly. Marketing campaigns are getting more aggressive, and more expensive.

Ironically the only studio still ploughing out (almost) indie films is Fox Searchlight. IMO Fox are the worst of all the studios for throttling creative control on a film set.

I would agree with this except I go to the cinema less often than I used to because my local one (the only one I could reasonably drive to and home from in an evening) is pretty pants and (mostly) only shows the lowest-common-denominator type films (blockbusters, rom-coms, 'comedies', teen horror etc...).

I just don't have the spare time to get to the cinema, sit through something like 'Transformers 2' and get home again.

I love films and I'm sure I watch more films than the average person (whoever s/he is) - I just don't do it in the cinema very often.

Does this mean I'm more intelligent than people who have been to the cinema to see 'Transformers 2' etc....? Er, no. It just means I'd rather be doing something else.

bnt

This is what Ebert actually said:

If I mention the cliché "the dumbing-down of America," it's only because there's no way around it. And this dumbing-down seems more pronounced among younger Americans. It has nothing to do with higher educational or income levels. It proceeds from a lack of curiosity and, in many cases, a criminally useless system of primary and secondary education. Until a few decades ago, almost all high school graduates could read a daily newspaper. The issue today is not whether they read a daily paper, but whether they can.
...
Some weeks ago I went so far as to suggest the gap between some critics and some moviegoers may be because the critics are more "evolved." Man, did the wrath hit the fan. I was clearly an elitist snob. But think about it. Wouldn't you expect a critic to be more highly evolved in taste than a fanboy zealot? And what about "A Kid?" Should she be shunned by her peers for having her own ideas? And what about another one of my readers, the 15-year-old who says he has viewed dozens of my "Great Movies?" If you're his friend, isn't it worth wondering what he's stumbled onto? And what about your date this Friday night? If he or she only wants to see the movie "everyone" is going to see, is that person going to be much good for conversation?

Read the whole thing. His remarks are specifically about the USA, and criticize education standards in general. He thinks mass marketing of films like Transformers drown out smaller, more intelligent films. He's not suggesting that kids are "stupider", but that they aren't getting a chance to develop intellectual curiosity. The comments are good too.

doctor evil

Which came first, the film or the audience?

faceman

doctor evil wrote: »

Which came first, the film or the audience?

The stage actually

super_furry

jonsnow wrote: »

People going to stupid blockbusters know that they,re stupid .

Exactly. I went into GI Joe expecting a stupid, action packed popcorn film and got exactly what I wanted – entertainment.

Capt'n Midnight

faceman wrote: »

As the budget gets bigger, the margins get smaller. If a blockbuster flops, it can kill next years output the studio

FYP

I hate the way they dumb down so much and be so safe

El Mariachi cost $7,225 to make, (11:20 on Fiver USA 174 tonight BTW) and has a better plot than some bigger movies. Stealth was a mess
And how many writers were there for The Flintstones , when they had many years of scripts to use.

Let's not forget that Sony used fake critics to promote it's films at one state or the astro turf campaign for Blair Witch.


Maybe critics should have more than one rating for films , quality vs entertainment.


At the end of the day studios only care about the bottom line, quality is nice but bums on seats is what pays the bills.

doctor evil

faceman wrote: »

The stage actually

Touché