Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« Your Daily Poll Dance: Tell It Like… | Clinton And The Hostages »

Wednesday, August 5, 2009

Film Hey, Lindy! You Don't Have to Review the GI Joe Movie After All!

Posted by Jonah Spangenthal-Lee on Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 10:52 AM

Paramount has declared war on the Urban Archipelago and will not hold advance screenings of the GI Joe movie. Never a good sign:

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.

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[.]

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.

This really shouldn't come as a shock—no one expected this to be the Citizen Kane of movies based on a half-century-old toy line—and I was never a big GI Joe fan growing up, so I have no horse in this race. However, I am still baffled by the fact that studios are still willing to sink $100 million into a movie they're at least slightly embarrassed by.

Comments (28) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

If all film critics were pre-pubescent boys, the studio would be happy to screen it.

Posted by Urgutha Forka on August 5, 2009 at 10:59 AM

Wow. That costume is certainly pow-pow-titties, isn't it?

Posted by Bauhaus I on August 5, 2009 at 11:10 AM

Just because people saw Transformers 2 doesn't mean they liked it.

Posted by disintegrator

on August 5, 2009 at 11:14 AM

Just watch the real GI Joe trailer that someone did using GI Joe dolls - it's way more realistic than the green goo trailer is.

Posted by Will in Seattle

on August 5, 2009 at 11:17 AM

Harry Knowles of aintitcoolnews.com liked the GI Joe movie, which in my mind means that it will be a great opportunity to get my brain to shut the hell up for two hours.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/41748

Posted by Lilting Missive on August 5, 2009 at 11:27 AM

I bet they screwed up the Hiss Tanks.

Posted by jackie treehorn on August 5, 2009 at 11:32 AM

What makes you think the studios are even slightly embarrassed to make movies for audiences rather than critics?

Posted by RonK, Seattle on August 5, 2009 at 11:32 AM

The Urbs are in decay...people are fleeing to the hinterland...free of Paper Bag and Light Rail taxes from pesty Libs.

http://realestate.yahoo.com/promo/americ…

America's Abandoned Cities

Posted by Country Joe and The Fish on August 5, 2009 at 11:37 AM

I don't care about the movie, but if you could happen to send her over to my place (preferably dressed like that), I'd be awfully appreciative.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty

on August 5, 2009 at 11:41 AM

It's the George W. Bush theory of marketing: Turn your negative ("So dumb it actually drains IQ points from smart people who stand too close!") into a positive ("It appeals to regular, ordinary folks like you, but big-city 'elites' can't stand it!")

I see no reason why it won't work.

Posted by Proteus on August 5, 2009 at 11:43 AM

I think they realize that critics are irrelevant to a movie like this. Why trouble with a bunch of old white men complaining about a product that's in no way intended to appeal to them?

Posted by eric (the other one) on August 5, 2009 at 11:46 AM

i'm old enough to have played with the 12" gi joe prior to kung fu grip, eagle eyes, or life-like hair. this gi joe is some bullshit.

except for the tatties.

Posted by Max Solomon on August 5, 2009 at 11:48 AM

I have to say, I don't blame them. Bad reviews or no reviews, the people who want to see this will, and those who won't, won't. I don't need critics to tell me not to see it; I've already decided my money is better spent elsewhere.

Avoidance of the critics is usually a bad sign, but not always, not universally. I find reviews interesting, perhaps a noble enterprise in and of themselves, but I think they're as irrelevant to the viewer of art films as to the viewer of popcorn epics (and perhaps more so to those who have a balanced diet of both, which I think [hope?] would be all of us) in terms of actually informing us how best to spend our money. I might let a review break an internal tie now and again, but if I wanna see it, I will; if I don't, I don't.

Posted by thelyamhound

on August 5, 2009 at 11:53 AM

Sounds like Paramount, at least, was paying attention when Sarah Palin distinguished "real America" from the fake America you and I call home.

Posted by hillside_hoyden on August 5, 2009 at 12:18 PM

Where's the guys in that kind of outfit?!

But seriously, generally avoiding critics is not a good sign. Hopefully for the Joe fans that the movie won't butcher their childhood memories like those Movie Remakes of 80s TV shows did.

Posted by Shini on August 5, 2009 at 12:19 PM

This should be better than Transformers simply because it doesn't involve Michael Bay, or Jerry Bruckheimer for that matter.

Posted by Renton Mike on August 5, 2009 at 12:22 PM

I thought knowing was half the battle? Flint, you lied to me!

Posted by The Amazing Jim

on August 5, 2009 at 12:32 PM

@14 - um, you red staters are down to 5 states now, by the way.

We're the Real America here in the urbz, baybee!

Posted by Will in Seattle

on August 5, 2009 at 12:50 PM

@18 i think you misread @14

Posted by Beetlecat on August 5, 2009 at 1:17 PM

@8, at least one of us here might have appreciated you properly posting the link. I wouldn't mind scrutinizing your "facts" myself.

Posted by Tingleyfeeln on August 5, 2009 at 1:47 PM

If a person is dumb enought to pay to see G.I. Joe they will probably like it just fine.

Posted by McGee on August 5, 2009 at 1:49 PM

Jonah's just trying to get the 1MB dogtag in the GI Joe case, don't buy his argument.

Posted by Will in Seattle

on August 5, 2009 at 2:03 PM

@16: no, but it does involve Stephen Sommers, director of the Mummy movies and (gulp) Van Helsing. World-class hack.

Posted by schmacky on August 5, 2009 at 2:12 PM

And what was wrong with the Mummy movies? I thought the first one was pretty delightful.

Posted by Beetlecat on August 5, 2009 at 2:54 PM

I wouldn't see this "movie" at gunpoint

Posted by nobody asked, but there it is on August 5, 2009 at 3:21 PM

So it's going to suck. Who didn't see that coming?

Posted by Greg on August 5, 2009 at 3:32 PM

There's something about the shape and placement of those molded Barbie-style boobs in that outfit that freaks me out. It looks horribly anatomically incorrect. Give me Diana Rigg as Emma Peel anyday. She never looked like an alien life form.

Posted by Geni on August 5, 2009 at 3:50 PM