Bad News (Maybe) for Indy Fans
May 12th, 2008 | By Rick | Category: News & Comment
Well, it had to happen — several reviews of Indy’s newest outing have hit the fan, and they aren’t all that pretty. The worst one has been posted at Ain’t It Cool News by someone who calls himself (or herself) ShogunMaster:
. . . this is the Indiana Movie that you were dreading. During the whole of the movie, there was not a single moment that I thought our hero Mr. Jones (actually Colonel Jones as he was a hero in WWII now) was in any sort of peril or even significant inconvenience. In most cases, you were so many steps ahead of the characters that it was really just an arduous wait for them to get through it.
Ouch. According to Michael Cieply of the NY Times, ShogunMaster probably saw the film at an exhibitor screening last week:
Paramount had shown the film to a handful of theater company executives at its Los Angeles lot and elsewhere.
Movie studios increasingly tend to protect their biggest bets from advance showings. Two years ago, for instance, Sony Pictures screened “The Da Vinci Code” for critics at the Cannes Film Festival only two days before its opening in the United States. But exhibitors’ screenings can open a window for determined reviewers.
Such screenings are required in about two dozen states that have laws against blind-bidding, a practice in which theater owners were once asked to bid on films they had not seen.
As Johnny Carson used to say, I did not know that. But given that Steven Spielberg is it’s director, it’s unusual that advanced reviews of any kind have leaked about Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull; according to Cieply,
Mr. Spielberg is unusually fastidious when it comes to protecting his films from advance word that can diminish excitement or muddy a message planted by months of carefully orchestrated publicity and expensive promotions (including, in this case, a February cover article in Vanity Fair, complete with Annie Leibovitz photos of the cast, and leather bullwhips delivered weeks ago to newsrooms).
Mr. Spielberg customarily avoids leaky test screenings. Even Marvin Levy, his publicist of more than 30 years, said he had not yet seen the new movie.
At least as interesting as what may or may not be a legitimate review has been the blogosphere’s response to it. It started with David Poland at The Hot Blog, who wrote about Cieply’s piece:
Wow.
Does it get any stupider than this?
I hardly know where to start counting the layers of idiocy. But I will try.
1) The big paper gets to be top of the heap. By makng a NYT story out of 2 anonymous “reviews” of this movie, The Paper of Wreckord took a blip that would have been seen by a few hundred thousand people, at most, who are going to this movie no matter and made it into national news that will now be picked up by every paper in the country in one form or another. Congratu-fucking-lations. How proud Bill Keller must be!
Then, Craig Kennedy at Living in Cinema takes a similar, if better-written, tack:
Frankly, it’s the kind of piece you’d expect to find in a blog not unlike LiC. There is little in the way of actual reporting. Cieply called Spielberg’s publicist Marvin Levy and got a couple of one line quotes that don’t illuminate or offer any new information and then he talked to Tim Ryan, the senior editor at Rotten Tomatoes about when legitimate reviews of the film are likely to first appear. That’s it. The rest I could’ve done myself if I’d cared to think thing about such a thing for longer than two seconds.
When I see folks react like this, I wonder a couple of things. First, are they stockholders in Paramount Pictures? Why should they care if the Times reports — undoubtedly on a slow entertainment-news-day — a piece like that? Could there be a little jealousy involved, that this guy who wrote such an inconsequential piece gets to write it for the Times?
Second, do they get the irony of castigating someone for exploiting a non-story by doing the same thing themselves? Kennedy seems to be at least semi-aware of this, but Poland seems not to have a clue. Come on guys, it’s the blogosphere. It’s what we do, what I’m doing, digging up stories, posting them with a spin, trying to stir up readership. Lighten up!
Finally, as all the carefully-laid plans of mice-and-Spielberg highlight, those who live by the hype sometimes die by it. Carefully-leaked little tid-bits about the movie, fedoras given out at Blockbuster, bull-whips sent to reporters — sometimes they backfire. And if leaks like this don’t matter, if anonymous, viral reviews don’t amount to a hill of beans, why is the director so hell-bent on controlling them?
Be that as it may, in this case, negative reviews probably won’t matter — if any of this summer’s blockbusters is “critic proof,” this is the one. I’ll certainly go see it, if only for the nostalgia, and to see how Harrison Ford hides the walker.
RSS 2.0
I’m still in two minds as to whether I’ll see this at the cinema.
Of course it reeks of desperation and I have this feeling it’s going to be awful but like a car crash, I don’t know if I can turn away.
I’ve decided not to read any reviews before going into this so that I can enjoy it fully the first time around. I’ll probably see it again after that with my critical cap on. I read an interview with Spielberg predicting that critics will hate this one, so I wouldn’t be surprised at the reaction. He said he had fun making it and the fans will have fun watching it. What more could we ask for?
(I guess…)
Hey Rick, thanks for the link.
My whole point was that Spielberg is being Spielberg and AICN is being AICN and it wasn’t news until the NY Times made it news.
I was a little shocked that a reputable paper seemed to be trying to manufacture a story out of it. Traditional media likes to mock the internet and bloggers, yet apparently they’re not afraid to stoop to the same tactics. Seriously, where’s the actual news here?
I don’t have an interest in how the movie comes out, though I do hope it’s great because that’s good for everyone.
I didn’t read any of the reviews in question. I was already on board as soon as I saw that firt picture of Harrison Ford in the hat so all a review can do is ruin it for me.
Ibetolis — I know what you mean, I’m of two minds as well … I’m not sure it reeks of desperation, though. Spielberg, desperate? Have you seen his production schedule over on IMDB?
Phillip — exactly. I’ll go see it, a lot of people will go see it, they’ll make a ton of money, and really, who could ask for anything more? (Well, maybe a good movie, but who knows? That it may be.)
Craig — I’m sure that if the Times didn’t make a story of it somebody else — perhaps a lesser outlet, true — would have made a one. It’s only the biggest film story of the year, I think — the return of one of the most beloved film series ever … I remember when Lucas revived the Star Wars with those misbegotten prequels. Every little thing was built up into a big deal. It’s just the nature of the beast.
Love your blog, by the way …
Thanks Rick, I look forward to checking yours out some more.
I’m sure you’re right about it becoming a story, and among assorted fanboys and movie nerds like us, it is a story, but I still think it was beneath the Times and I enjoy poking the established media in the eye whenever I’m offered a chance.
Worlds collide! Two of my favorite bloggers find each other!
I had to carefully skate around all of this. I haven’t even seen a trailer for it yet. Like you, Craig, the simple fact that this film is happening with the original players is enough for me to consider it required viewing on opening day. My expectations are tempered as much as I can control, but maybe I should buy into these bad reviews and be surprised when it turns out to be great.
I’m gonna go see it, no question … maybe not on on opening day — I’m allergic to crowds — but not too long thereafter.
I thought the idea of a new Indy movie was stupid on its face and never intended to see it. As for the NYT, it has lost a huge amount of credibility with me for a variety of offenses that I won’t bore anyone by detailing. NYT isn’t the paper of record for me anymore–if it ever was–and the stories it chooses to run don’t deserve more or less attention than any other reasonably considered major daily.
Hey Marilyn: The NYT was never my paper of record, either … which is why I find it strange when folks react to a dumb-bell article.
I can’t understand why they’re making another Indy movie, either … could it be money? Surely everyone involved has buckets … Spielberg is too big to be pushed around by a studio, isn’t he?
How was Hawaii, by the way?
Hi Rick. I’m still here. One more day of film festival (and an optional awards day and best of the fest) and then down to Kona for snorkeling and stuff.
We saw Redbelt while here. I really liked it.
BTW, I think the Indy movie was the result of Harrison Ford’s initiative. I think Spielberg might have done it out of friendship. I’m sure the studio thought that a Spielberg movie means money–and this one will make it, no matter how bad it is–so they got on board.