In case you somehow missed it, the hubbub yesterday was reported talk of studios considering eliminating critic screenings because “Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales“ underperformed (domestically) and “Baywatch” bellyflopped in cinemas, and were scorched on Rotten Tomatoes. Both received negative scores — 31% for the former, a brutal 18% for the latter. The irony is that Dwayne Johnson tweeted in defense of his movie (and its poor Rotten Tomatoes score) only a few days before it hit theaters, saying that snooty critics were out of touch.
READ MORE: Dwayne Johnson’s Ample Chest & Charms Cannot Rescue ‘Baywatch’ [Review]
“Yay positive upticks ? Fans LOVE the movie. Critics HATE it. What a glaring disconnect. People just want to laugh & have fun. #Baywatch???,” he wrote.
Much like Trump, The Rock suggests populism rules and the media has nothing in common with the average moviegoer. Sadly for him, fans didn’t really love “Baywatch” or want to indulge in that brand of supposed fun, and the movie opened to a substandard $18.5 million off a $69 million budget. In the minds of the studios, if “Baywatch” wasn’t poorly reviewed and fans were able “to make up their own minds” (as if they can’t do that already), perhaps the movie would have performed better in theaters.
Yay positive upticks 😂
Fans LOVE the movie. Critics HATE it. What a glaring disconnect. People just want to laugh & have fun. #Baywatch🔥🤙🏾 https://t.co/GrPgdevRuz— Dwayne Johnson (@TheRock) May 25, 2017
Or, maybe it’s possible that no one was interested in seeing a remake of a cheesy ’90s show even if it featured one of the world’s biggest stars (Johnson) and former “High School Musical” heartthrob Zac Efron. Maybe it speaks to the general disinterest in the property that these two stars (and their gorgeous co-stars) couldn’t compel asses to get in the seats. As for ‘Pirates Of The Caribbean,’ franchise fatigue seems to be setting in. After five films, there appears to be a growing indifference with North American audiences to Captain Jack Sparrow and his wacky adventures. The numbers bear this out. Studios are likely holding postmortems on both films now.
Apparently, and this could just be studio locker-room talk, because of these “flops” (‘Pirates 5’ had the lowest grossing opening of the series since the first film), studios are blaming the reviews aggregator for “slowing down the potential business of popcorn movies” and could pull screenings away from critics (which is ironic because a few years back, the “do critics matter anymore?” narrative was front and center).
And hell, that’s the studios’ prerogative. Seeing a movie in advance of its release date as a critic is a privilege, not a right. But it’s probably not the best move for a variety of reasons. Firstly, studios already attempt this trick and rarely does it pan out. Audiences aren’t stupid; in fact, they’re savvy and can smell a turkey a mile away, so think about all the movies that aren’t screened for critics (usually a lot of mediocre horror movies, and the occasional genre B-movie) — it immediately signals to viewers right away that the studios are hiding a dud.
And what about a film that needs or feeds off good critical buzz? “Wonder Woman” was originally tracking towards a $65-$70 million opening, but thanks to nearly unanimous praise for the superhero movie (currently 96% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes), it’s looking like the film could gross north of $90 million domestically, and $175 million globally on its opening weekend.
One of the most common responses to a negative review — at least on social media — is “well, I’m going to make up my own mind and see it.” Great, you totally should. Our reviews are nothing more than a subjective opinion (do not make me laugh with the idea of an “objective review”; that’s a nonsensical term that’s discussed at length in this smart Flavorwire piece) of what we saw and how we felt about it. There’s always going to be a critic you trust and are on the same wavelength with (which is why we started The Playlist in the first place — finding likeminded voices), and you’ll use their reviews as a recommendation engine of what you will and won’t see. And if there’s a critic you don’t like, you just won’t read them.
As culture becomes more alarmingly polarized, confirmation bias is a real, growing phenomenon outside of politics. Most people want to hear what they already believe. “Baywatch” is great, and you’re going to see it regardless of what critics say. Great! Have at it. No one’s ever put a gun to your head and said you can’t see a movie. Critics aren’t a cabal of writers who collectively decide that a movie should be viewed negatively. Rather, it’s a consensus that forms. Which brings us to Rotten Tomatoes, which is what the studios are ultimately afraid of, not critics. They’re worried about a negative consensus forming about the product they put time, effort and money into. Understandably so, but we have our job to do, too.
Is Rotten Tomatoes the culprit? Well, its binary good-or-awful split — which came from Roger Ebert’s “thumbs up or thumbs down” model, mind you — isn’t ideal, and a lot of critics (myself included) have major issues with the site. It’s a necessary evil because audiences do look at it. Here’s a suggestion: let critics opt out of “fresh” or “rotten” reviews if they have a film that requires a little bit more nuance. That’s probably not going to work for the aggregator who act, or see themselves acting anyhow, as a recommendation service to audiences. Ironically, Rotten Tomatoes has been around for ages, but through the growing and opposing black-and-white narratives of social media, where everything is epic or flaming garbage, or greater >>>> than or less <<<< than, Rotten Tomatoes has gained more power and traction. Don’t hate the player, hate the game, some will say. Hell, most critics don’t like the Oscars and the Razzie awards (which they actually loathe) because they are too binary about “best” and “worst” (most get far too worked up about it, to be honest, but that’s another story about ignoring what you don’t like for your own mental health).
The rambling, possibly incoherent point as it applies to Rotten Tomatoes and film writers is this: No critic (or audience member) wants to sit through a bad movie (and viewers certainly don’t want to spend their hard-earned money on a bad movie either). Critics want what you want: they want engaging, captivating, satisfying, entertaining, thought-provoking movies. We want to be dazzled. We want to laugh. We want to cry. We want to be emotionally crushed. We want to be awed. We want to be scared. We want to be surprised. Whatever the movie is really trying to express — 9 out of 10 times, we want to share that feeling (with exceptions like torture porn, a Dinesh D’Souza film, or something really vile of that nature).
Critics generally do not want to hate anything — and if you’re going to go on about studios paying writers to give positive or negative reviews, we’ll laugh you out the door. Ha, we wish! Again, we want “good” movies, but that beauty is, of course, in the eye of the beholder. You’ve got to be honest with how you feel.
I’ve personally received a little flack and flame about my unfavorable — but ultimately positive, though very mildly so — review of “Wonder Woman.” It’s definitely one of the more negative out there, but I gave it a positive RT score because there are certainly valuable elements in the film. And why would I want to hate it? “Why wouldn’t you support this film?” a reader asked. First off, who, aside from the privilege-clueless dude who bought tickets to the all-women screening of “Wonder Woman” just to be a scorching asshole about “equality,” doesn’t want “Wonder Woman” to succeed? There hasn’t been a good female-led superhero film in years. Again, everyone wants to just see a good movie, and diversity is ideal, because don’t we all want to mix up our movies and get different perspectives? Variety is certainly the spice I want in my life, personally. Granted, in my mind, “Wonder Woman” is pretty much the same as most superhero stories and doesn’t have much of a gender-politics point of view, but a) that’s ok, it doesn’t have to; b) the point is, it would be nice, just for once, to have female-led superhero film that’s compelling and not “Catwoman”; and c) that doesn’t preclude me wishing ill against it (or the DCEU for that matter).
READ MORE: What Will Be The Biggest Box Office Blockbuster Of 2017?
So yes, I support and wish “Wonder Woman” all the best, and I’d be pleased as punch if it cracked box-office records — it surely deserves to make more money than “Batman v Superman: Dawn Of Justice” and “Suicide Squad.” But I cannot lie: I didn’t wholeheartedly love it. That’s not a conspiracy, that’s not my bias. That’s how I felt about it (and Lord, it’s hard to have an unfavorable opinion of Gal Gadot).
In conclusion, despite the divisiveness in movie culture with critics and some fans or the dissonance between critics and studios (though they love us when we love their films, how about that…), we’re all on the same side. Our goals and objectives are the same: to experience something special.
Remember: a critic is just a critic. Opinions are like assholes: everyone’s got one, so don’t sweat it too much. Or if you care enough, just become one. Many of us did just that and didn’t ask for permission to do so (it’s not hard to start a site on Blogger; that’s what we did). You don’t have to listen to critics if you don’t want to. Regardless, we’ll be doing our job, 99% of us because we love movies so much that’s why we entered this godforsaken, low-paying industry in the first place. Studios, hide your wares at your own peril. #MakeMoviesGreatAgain #SupportMoviesThatAreAlreadyGreat #RambleOn
