Official RAZZIE® Forum Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > FORUMS on 30th RAZZIES Choices > G.I. JOE: THE RISE OF COBRA
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: The Dumbest Movie Idea EVER?!?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Calendar   Register Register  Login Login

The Dumbest Movie Idea EVER?!?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 7>
Author
Message
tomsmo35 View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: September 09 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 125
Post Options Post Options   Quote tomsmo35 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The Dumbest Movie Idea EVER?!?
    Posted: August 04 2009 at 3:46am

No go: Paramount won't show critics `G.I. Joe' (AP)

LOS ANGELES - 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."

credit: yahoomovies.com

Back to Top
dEd Grimley View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: July 31 2008
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2024
Post Options Post Options   Quote dEd Grimley Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 04 2009 at 6:15am
What I still cannot wrap my head around is why the GI Joes need supercyborg suits, and why that SOMEHOW manages to hold on to the spirit of the cartoon. What made the cartoon good was the personalities of the characters, and the subversive edginess. This movie looks like a-splosions, a-splosions, a-splosions.
-Iron helps us play-
Back to Top
Michaels View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: May 12 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2848
Post Options Post Options   Quote Michaels Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 04 2009 at 6:34am
No critic screenings except for unreliable bloggers? Not a good sign. Not a good sign at all.
Back to Top
moviewizguy View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: January 23 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2137
Post Options Post Options   Quote moviewizguy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 04 2009 at 2:36pm

91% at RT! I don't see it going up now, after it reached this high. 

Originally posted by dEd Grimley

What I still cannot wrap my head around is why the GI Joes need supercyborg suits, and why that SOMEHOW manages to hold on to the spirit of the cartoon. What made the cartoon good was the personalities of the characters, and the subversive edginess. This movie looks like a-splosions, a-splosions, a-splosions.

Back to Top
cvcjr13 View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: September 01 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1182
Post Options Post Options   Quote cvcjr13 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 05 2009 at 2:04am

MWG, only 11 critics have weighed in with that 91% rating, none of them are among the Rotten Tomatoes top critics.  Only one gave a negative rating, Emmanuel Levy, who often gave good ratings to what most people would consider bad movies.  The current RT rating should not be seriously considered.

 

Back to Top
moviewizguy View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: January 23 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2137
Post Options Post Options   Quote moviewizguy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 05 2009 at 3:07am
I don't really care... 
Back to Top
Michaels View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: May 12 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2848
Post Options Post Options   Quote Michaels Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 05 2009 at 3:48am

Yeah, we have noticed that. We can explain to you a thousand times how the studios is hand picking these critics knowing they will give the movie good reviews, yet are keeping the serious critics at bay -- and for a reason.

But hey, you've already made up your mind, so by all means, go see the movie and give it your usual 6, 7, or 8 out of 10 review. 

"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)
Back to Top
moviewizguy View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: January 23 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2137
Post Options Post Options   Quote moviewizguy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 05 2009 at 11:57am
I've stated what I thought about it, so you can go back up and read what I said. I've made my point, and whether or not Paramount is selective among the critics to show them the movie before Friday, it doesn't matter. If these reviewers gave negative reviews for most of the movies listed on this site, you wouldn't be nitpicking right now. For example, Emanuel Levy gave a negative review for "The Color Purple," but it's not as if anyone cared, right? He also gave a positive review for "Angels and Demons," but, like I said, nobody seemed to care.
Back to Top
cvcjr13 View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: September 01 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1182
Post Options Post Options   Quote cvcjr13 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 05 2009 at 1:12pm

If you didn't care so much about the Rotten Tomatoes rating, why are you quoting it?  If you're quoting it, why don't you care about who is doing the rating?

Selecting only the facts that are convenient to your argument while ignoring facts that contradict your argument causes people to suspect you are wrong.

 

Back to Top
moviewizguy View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: January 23 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2137
Post Options Post Options   Quote moviewizguy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 05 2009 at 2:43pm

You don't know that those who weren't offered screenings of the movie won't like the movie when they do see it. 

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Actually, moviewizeguy, there is ample historic precedent for assuming that a movie with-held from general screening for critics will wind up getting mostly negative reviews. Refusing to screen something (and by inferrence forcing critics and/or their employers to pay to see the film and review it) all but begs to be slammed once the critics do see the movie.

It is also a logical assumption that Paramount didn't pursue this strategy with G.I. JOE because they were afraid of getting favorable write-ups...


 

Back to Top
Michaels View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: May 12 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2848
Post Options Post Options   Quote Michaels Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 05 2009 at 5:06pm

As I said, we can explain it to him any number of ways, but he doesn't care. Once he gets behind something he thinks is "good", he'll support until his last dying breath. 

Originally posted by cvcjr13

If you didn't care so much about the Rotten Tomatoes rating, why are you quoting it?  If you're quoting it, why don't you care about who is doing the rating?

Selecting only the facts that are convenient to your argument while ignoring facts that contradict your argument causes people to suspect you are wrong.

 

"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)
Back to Top
cvcjr13 View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: September 01 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1182
Post Options Post Options   Quote cvcjr13 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 05 2009 at 8:21pm

Changing the subject won't get you around the fact that you pick and choose facts to support your conclusion rather than base your conclusion on all the facts, both convenient and inconvenient.  You don't understand how that makes you lose credibility, even more than having good opinions of movies we feel suck.

I'll let others handle your change of subject.  As for me, I will address this one, singular, gigantic flaw in how you form your opinion(s).

Originally posted by moviewizguy

Originally posted by cvcjr13

If you didn't care so much about the Rotten Tomatoes rating, why are you quoting it?  If you're quoting it, why don't you care about who is doing the rating?

Selecting only the facts that are convenient to your argument while ignoring facts that contradict your argument causes people to suspect you are wrong.


You don't know that those who weren't screened the movie won't like the movie.

 

Back to Top
moviewizguy View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: January 23 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2137
Post Options Post Options   Quote moviewizguy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 06 2009 at 2:58am
Originally posted by cvcjr13

Changing the subject won't get you around the fact that you pick and choose facts to support your conclusion rather than base your conclusion on all the facts, both convenient and inconvenient. 

I never said such a thing. What you just said can be applied to what ded has done, not myself. That's why I said to read my post to ded.

Back to Top
cvcjr13 View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: September 01 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1182
Post Options Post Options   Quote cvcjr13 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 06 2009 at 3:12am

Think concepts, not words.

You did say exactly that when, on one hand, you started repeatedly pointing out the Rotten Tomatoes meter, yet on the other hand you ignored which 11 critics contributed the reviews behind that number, you ignored how tepid the praise was within those positive reviews, and you ignored how all other critics were denied a pre-screening of the movie.

So, yes you did "pick and choose facts to support your conclusion rather than base your conclusion on all the facts, both convenient and inconvenient."  No, you didn't say those words, but you still did it.

Originally posted by moviewizguy

Originally posted by cvcjr13

Changing the subject won't get you around the fact that you pick and choose facts to support your conclusion rather than base your conclusion on all the facts, both convenient and inconvenient. 

I never said such a thing. What you just said can be applied to what ded has done, not myself. That's why I said to read my post to ded.

Back to Top
moviewizguy View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: January 23 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2137
Post Options Post Options   Quote moviewizguy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 06 2009 at 3:17am
Originally posted by cvcjr13

If you didn't care so much about the Rotten Tomatoes rating, why are you quoting it?

When did I say I didn't care? For some exceptions, I sometimes want to watch a movie that I don't care what critics or people say about the film.

If you're quoting it, why don't you care about who is doing the rating?

Irony...I've stated many posts above that if critics who gave positive reviews for this film but gave negative reviews for the other films listed on this site, you wouldn't bother saying something like, "Hey! This critic gave a positive review for G.I. Joe but gave a negative review for Meet the Spartans!"

Back to Top
moviewizguy View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: January 23 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2137
Post Options Post Options   Quote moviewizguy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 06 2009 at 3:23am
Originally posted by cvcjr13

Think concepts, not words.

You did say exactly that when, on one hand, you started repeatedly pointing out the Rotten Tomatoes meter, yet on the other hand you ignored which 11 critics contributed the reviews behind that number, you ignored how tepid the praise was within those positive reviews, and you ignored how all other critics were denied a pre-screening of the movie.

I said earlier that you hate critics when they don't agree with you but you love them when they agree with you. It's like Roger Ebert giving a positive review for "Pan's Labyrinth" and loving him and shouting, "ROGER EBERT GAVE PAN'S LABYRINTH 4 STARS!" However, when Roger Ebert gave a positive review to "Orphan," you will say something like, "He's been losing his head for the past several months. Why should I listen to him?" It's not as if you have never been guilty of what you're accusing me of right now.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 7>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down