All Thumbs Down

|

Forbes celebrates the decentralized aggregate mind of Web sites like Rotten Tomatoes over traditional top-down major film critics when it comes to deciding what movies to watch. The piece is hooked to the fact that this year 11 major studio films have been released without any critic pre-screening (vs. only two at this point last year)–and three of them premiered at number one at the box office: Underworld Evolution, When a Stranger Calls, and Tyler Perry's Madea's Family Reunion, all representatives of beloved genres not traditionally beloved by critics.

As someone whose movie watching is completely dominated by Netflix anyway these days, and can thus rely on both personal word of mouth and a lifetime of dimly-remembered desires to steer my film viewing, my interest in this is mostly academic (especially since the last movie I did see in a theater, Woody Allen's Match Point, was not appreciably better than most of his last 10 movies, despite widespread critical reaction based on that weird tropism that sweeps the Critical Mind writ large regarding formerly beloved media characters every once in a while–see the "comeback of Prince" over the past couple of years for another example of this, with albums no better and in most respects worst than all the ones everyone ignored in the 1990s). But in general, the New World that has dawned in the past decade in which cultural gatekeepers of whatever strength lose influence and power–even if only perceived influence and power–is always a more fun one to live in.

The "whatever strength" and "perceived influence" point is interesting in this regard–none of the press I've found regarding this recent increase in no-critic-screenings has addressed or drawn upon any long-term data about the relation between box office and critical praise or blame. As the biggest film gatekeeper of them all, Roger Ebert, has noted, studios would tell him that horror flicks in general were as invulnerable as Freddie Kreuger to the natterings of him and his ilk–which is as it should be.

Some smarty-pants marketing professors have found that

both positive and negative reviews are correlated with weekly box office revenue over an eight-week period, suggesting that critics play a dual role: They can influence and predict box office revenue. However, the authors find the impact of negative reviews (but not positive reviews) to diminish over time, a pattern that is more consistent with critics' role as influencers. The authors then compare the positive impact of good reviews with the negative impact of bad reviews to find that film reviews evidence a negativity bias; that is, negative reviews hurt performance more than positive reviews help performance, but only during the first week of a film's run.

Hollywood is famously the "no one knows anything" industry, but the aggregate mind of the audience, talking to itself through many and varied forums of special or general interest, does tend to know what it likes.

NEXT: Give Me Failing Schools Or Give Me Death

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. that weird tropism that sweeps the Critical Mind writ large regarding formerly beloved media characters every once in a while–see the “comeback of Prince” over the past couple of years for another example of this, with albums no better and in most respects worst than all the ones everyone ignored in the 1990s).

    See also “Rolling Stones – return to form of” and “Dylan, Bob – continued relevance of” for any album either artist has produced since 1981.

  2. with albums no better and in most respects worst than all the ones everyone ignored in the 1990s

    Amen to that. They say His Royal Badness is back, but I say he never went away.

  3. I remember really enjoying Bullets Over Broadway by Allen but I very nearly didn’t see it. The critics had given it great reviews, but had given similarly great reviews to some of his previous stinkers.

  4. I’m still reeling over the early demise of Larry The Cable Guy: Health Inspector. Wasn’t that released without a critical pre-screening, too?

    Red State America, why hast thou forsaken him?

  5. I use the Rotten Tomatoes Tomatometer regularly, but it totally failed me on Match Point – 78% for a totally predictable film with no funny and no likable characters.

    And of course it’s useless for action movies and comedies, because most movie reviewers hate those genres for some reason.

  6. I once had a reviewer call me to tell me he was going to release a bad review for one of my films the day before its release. I had to tell Joann Pflug and Dyan Cannon to stop tea-bagging me long enough to call some stuntmen who owed me a favor. They nabbed this reviewer, subjected him to beating behind the Brown Derby, and told him if he ever tried a stunt like that I’d send Divine over to sit on him. Y’gotta know how to talk to these people.

  7. And that, folks, is why Robert Evans is my fucking hero.

  8. See also “Rolling Stones – return to form of” and “Dylan, Bob – continued relevance of” for any album either artist has produced since 1981.

    Ditto for everything Paul McCartney has done since about 1975.

  9. I need some documentation on that McCartney claim. His post-Beatle stuff has been universally despised, as far as I can tell.

  10. Tim,

    What about “Live and Let Die?” I still like it.

  11. Wings sold a few million albums. If that’s scorn I’ll take some of it.

  12. Both “Flaming Pie” and “Chaos and Creation in the Backyard” got good reviews, IIRC. By the way, I nominate this is the best post about media criticism since … “Blood on the Tracks”!

  13. Prince’s past two albums have been lauded because they’re good albums in the mold of his most successful 1980s work. Obviously, more people like that sound and aesthetic than liked what he did in the 1990s. In that sense, then, the past two albums ARE “better.” Unless one is simply a snob who disdains the public’s vote in the matter, and the subsequent response to that signal by the media (or “Critical Mind”).

    Additionally, the recent burst of Prince attention can be attributed to his own deliberate revamping of his public persona. He has reembraced his fame (and his catalog of old chestnuts) in a big way — he’s doing TV again, he did a greatest-hits tour, etc. Not unnotably, he also has given in and hopped back onto the major-label promotional train.

    All of that adds up to a “comeback” from his decade in the public-image wilderness, and rightfully so.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.