Paramount Confirms 'G.I. Joe 2', Director Confirms Critics are "A Dying Breed"

Hard to say we're surprised by the official announcement from Paramount that a second G.I. Joe movie has been given the go-ahead. Could it be a little premature? I think so. A $54.7 million debut is nothing to build a franchise around, at least not when the movie cost over three times that much before promotional and advertising expenses. Remember, the parent company of Paramount, Viacom, saw a 32% decline in earnings in the second quarter of 2009 versus the second quarter of 2008. But, you say, Paramount's biggest movie - Transformers - didn't hit until the third quarter. Yes, but that's still no reason to be $130 million below earnings from the same period the previous year. In addition to Paramount, Viacom controls CBS and a bunch of cable outlets and something called Rock Band. So even though Joe will make money in the long run, is it going to have legs past the opening weekend? What if it only makes about $350 million around the world, less than twice what it will ultimately cost? That makes a sequel just as risky, even though the cast was already signed up to return. If two movies in the same franchise don't give you a 2:1 return, that's not really in line with current acceptable levels of profitability, especially if the company behind it is licking some financial wounds already. I think a lot rides on what it does in the next ten days. If it was a three-day pop, then a sequel doesn't make a lot of sense, just because the movies are so damned expensive. There's a big difference in a movie with a $170 million budget dropping off after a $50 million start and a $30 million horror movie falling off the face of the earth after taking in $25 million in a debut. The second movie can afford a sequel because they're cheap enough to do over and over again. Those movies are designed for opening weekends. Tentpoles with budgets over $150 million have to make significant money over the long haul. There's no guarantee yet that Joe will be that big. While we're on the subject, G.I. Joe director Stephen Sommers is gloating over his film's success, essentially saying that movie critics are useless and don't get mainstream audiences. "I make the kind of movies critics love to hate," the director tells Variety. "They love dark and depressing movies. If you make those, you expect they will love you, you need them to love you. The kind of movies I make? They don’t enjoy commercial or popular movies." Well, let's see. I'm a critic, and have been for over a decade. Of my five favorite films of 2009 so far, only one is dark and depressing, The Hurt Locker. However, it's also the most original movie of the year featuring the best performance I've seen so far. The others, in order, are Star Trek, The Hangover, Up, and (500) Days of Summer. Three of those have made over $250 million, which by definition makes them commercial and popular. Last year, my top movie was Slumdog Millionaire, which did not begin as a blockbuster but without critics never would have made $376 million around the world. And I'll be curious to see if G.I. Joe ever gets to that total. Continued Sommers, "On the most popular movies of the last decade, the reviews have gotten more vicious, more personal. These critics have become a dying breed, and part of it is how much more vicious and personal they’ve become. They attack the directors, personally." OK...a few things. First, what are the most popular movies of the past decade? Critics loved The Dark Knight, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and the first two Spider-Man movies. The jury was split on the second Star Wars trilogy. Critics enjoyed the first Pirates flick and everything Pixar has ever made. Secondly, even among the popular films critics didn't like, I don't think anything received the kind of backlash that Revenge of the Fallen did. Perhaps that isolated incident is what he's referring to. I wrote a negative review because I had never in the past decade wanted to walk out of a film so badly, because it had no aim other than its size. I didn't know it was going to be a critical dogpile, and I suspect other critics who felt the same way wrote their reviews with that in mind, also unconscious of the fact that this kind of sentiment was brewing. But nobody was nasty to Spider-Man 3 or Sam Raimi - a director critics typically like quite a bit - so much as they were confused and frustrated. Thirdly, if critics are a dying breed, then the companies that bypass them for one movie should stop quoting them in commercials for other films and stop spending thousands and thousands of dollars on press junkets about 45 weekends out of the year. When the announcement was made that Paramount wouldn't screen this movie for the press, I mentioned that to pull the rug out from under the media now is kind of a cheap move. If the studio had said a year ago "we won't screen this," then I bet fewer outlets would've covered it as extensively as they did. It's a two-way street, and all we ask in return for devoting page after page to your summer blockbuster is that you give us a chance to see the film. If my opinion's not valuable, don't give me a mountain of screeners in November and December so I can vote on the best films of the year. Clearly, what I think of those films isn't of any interest if the movies aren't dark and depressing, right? On the other hand, Sommers admits in his Variety interview that he would "love rave reviews," which seems counterintuitive to the rest of his argument. What good is a positive review from someone so completely out of touch that he or she no longer matters to moviegoers? Tellingly, Sommers also says that word of mouth means more than critical reviews, which is absolutely correct. And we'll see how long that holds up for G.I. Joe.

Comments

[FrankyJ]

Well its is certainly reassuring that if anything should ever happen to Michael Bay there is a backup director to steal my money.

[W]

I work for a studio and one that has made 2 of your favorite movies of the year. I have always found your reviews to be spot on. G.I. Joe was not good. It was a popcorn flick with the worst acting this year. I don't even mind Channing Tatum. I wish he would do comedy. His acting is very comedic, whether he tries it or not. I get why they greenlit a sequel, but I would be surprised if Sommers returns to direct it. Why don't they make a dark G.I. Joe movie and one that is more realistic to the world. We all know there isn't a millionaire in a bat suit beating up people...but that movie felt very real. I might be very off base on my point here...basically, this is my favorite blog, you do an amazing job, if you are a dying breed, then my day is about to get a lot more boring, and Sommers can enjoy his hiatus before making another movie with bad acting, poor story development and pointless scenes that go nowhere.

[Will]

So the critics destroyed Van Helsing, Sommers? Really?

[K]

Well, I will agree and disagree with his comment that critics are a dying breed, because they certainly can make or break a movie, but not all the time. Let me explain. Movies like Transformers are destined to be big successes solely because they are extremely fun to watch. I would not give Transformers immensely good ratings when it comes to depth and good characters (although I do like the characters and think they are all relatable in some way). It's story was rather disorganized at times, but for what it lacked, it made up for it with huge explosions and some of the best effects I've ever seen in a movie.

Movies like that are always going to sell well both in theaters and on video because people, for the most part, could not care less about characters and storylines and things like that; they want something they don't get to see in real life, which 50-foot robots that surprisingly look realistic blowing the crap out of everything and each other delivers in spades. There are movies that critics can kill, like Terminator Salvation.

This movie was adequate and was definitely better than the third Terminator, which was just lacking in every department, but it got terrible reviews from critics, and made almost nothing compared to what predictions were for that movie. Obviously movies like Star Wars is going to make, even if it sucks, like Episode 2 did. That was rather poor and easily the worst in the series, of which I am a huge fan.

So his comments about critics being a dying breed and his comments about being happy if his movies got rave reviews makes perfect sense because reviews aren't vitally important to a movies success, but having good reviews can certainly make it a little easier to sleep at night knowing that people are going to see it because of someone else's opinion. Slumdog Millionaire is not a movie I've seen, partially because it's not my type of film, but I was surprised at how much money it made, but the reviews were a big factor. Transformers got terrible reviews, but it made almost $400 million domestically, and over $800 million worldwide. I would call that a commercial success, but some might disagree.

But, I definitely enjoy reading your blog and learning about movies, but I do agree that reviews count less and less all the time because people are looking for cheap thrills moreso than they might have 10 years ago.

[D]

I think it's worth noting that GI Joe doesn't have to make a killing at the box office to be a financial success since a lot of it's profitability comes from merchandising (at leas in theory).

[W]

For the record, it wasn't that I hated GI Joe...it was mildly entertaining. However, I feel it was poorly directed. There were random cuts of them celebrating success that were, well, lame. The actors couldn't decide between being tough soldiers and toys. I know the script went through about 52 rewrites (actual number), so that might have something to do with it. However, a movie like the Hangover, went through 1 amazing rewrite, did become a success (huge success) because of critics. As for Transformers, I think the critics bashing it so harshly actually helped it at the box office. Bad PR is still PR.

[SEAN]

Sommers needs to chill out bashing critics and such....

I mean fuck, why do these people (actors,directors, etc) feel like they need to bash the critics continuosly, WE ALL KNOW YOU FUCKING HATE THEM!!!!!

I mean we know you hate critics but why keep repeating it, especially since their not going away....

Colin, made a good point, if you hate them why quote them in your movies for their "good" reviews, and in commericals, and all the test screenings...
-I mean WHAT THE FUCK....?

Seems a bit hypocritical to me....Critics single out certain people such as actors and directors if they do bad because they want it to be known they did freaking bad!!!
- THEY ALSO SINGLE OUT ACTORS OR DIRECTORS IF THEY DID GOOD!!!

SOMMERS YOU HYPOCRITICAL FOOL!!!
-Even though I think your not all that bad (example Michael Bay)

AND ALL YOUR TALK IS SOOO PREMATURE...WHO KNOWS WHAT WILL END UP OF GI JOE.... we have to wait and see...

heres an idea...

Channing Tatum should honestly reject coming back for the sequel, unless he has already signed on...

I mean think about it he could release a statement saying he wants to be "a serious actor" and get better quality roles....

And i betcha if he did that he would be getting better roles...Tom Cruise did it back with Top Gun instead of doing a Top Gun 2 and moved onto Born on the 4th Day of July ....
-not saying Channing compares to Cruise but heyyy its worth a shot....

Efron did that and well he is another story all together

Channing has more connects with directors and worked with some big fellow costars, somewhat

ALSO

Sommers comments on "dark movies" get better great reviews is FUCKING RIDICULOUS!!!!

What the fuck does that even mean "dark movies" what an inarticulate fool...

Movies that are spun that way are more real and truthful you dumbass...Obviously this guy doesnt know films or rather I say real stories with truthful conflict with emphasis on relationships and ACTING ABILITY....

He just knows how to blow shit up and make monsters(ie Mummy) and jet packs and choose hot female costars....

PLAY YOUR POSITION STEPHEN SOMMERS you are not or will be the OSCAR caliber director or a great director, the least you can do is make blow up movies with some fucking substance.... (example Hurt Locker)

People still follow and listen to critics....
You just managed to release a film in the summer aimed at popcorn fun which young children and kids go see... and having Channing doesnt hurt

[vf1rj]

Well, this article certainly seemed to attack Sommers, personally. What Sommers said regarding critics, it was meant to be a general statement. For every "general rule", there are exceptions. So, if the writer of this column felt slighted, because he views himself as someone who is relevant, then just count himself as one of the few exceptions. And naming the commercial success of a few films which the critics liked (like LOTR) is neither here nore there. For every movie the critics got right, there are an equal number where they got it wrong. Critics are just like everyone on this planet, they have their own opinion about things, except that, it seems, they think that their opinions carry greater weight than the rest of us simply because they work for a newspaper or an internet site (you know, like this one). One critic's opinion, is just that, one opinion among billions of people. But they somehow make or break a movie (which cost millions to make), simply because they own a computer. Too bad for the film (and film investors), if those critics happen to watch a movie they are screening, and they were constipated at the time. For every Bourne film which critics like, there is a movie Taken which critics attacked for being "unrealistic", as if a super assassin with amnesia is grounded on reality.

Regarding G.I. Joe, it's a movie meant for kids, and teens, and should be viewed in that context. One cannot expect "Balck Hawk Down" from a movie based on a cartoon, which is in turn based on a comicbook, which is also based on a toy line.

What I found ridiculous is the fact that people were already predicting the movie will fail months before the official release. I do not expect anybody to say they like something, if they didn't. However, is it too much to ask to wait until you have seen the movie before you lambaste it? I mean, really, people were already comparing it to Streetfighter The Movie even before we have seen an official trailer.

Bottom line, G.I. Joe:Rise of Cobra is a very entertaining film, fast-paced, a roller-coaster ride of a film.