A Few Thoughts on G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra and Stephen Sommers Being Right
Now that I've properly digested and thought about the latest sugar-coated production from Stephen Sommers--and read the requisite F.A.Q. from Topless Robot--I've started thinking more about G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra. Sure, it made a lot of money and caused Sommers himself to renounce film critics as being uncessary.
Who needs a critic when THE PEOPLE are more than willing to pony up their hard-earned cash to see Marlon Wayans act like an idiot while wearing knock-off Iron Man armor that Sommers designed ten years ago.
So, in effect, Stephen Sommers is right: "mainstream critics [aren't] relevant here, they have criticized themselves into irrelevancy."
[caption id="" align="alignright" width="500" caption="The Yearly Averages of Stephen Sommers' Films (via RottenTomatoes.com)"]
[/caption]
What difference does it make that his career Tomatometer is a defiant 10 percent? It means nothing because critics cannot judge the talent and spirit needed to adapt films like The Jungle Book (94 percent) or The Adventures of Huck Finn (58 percent.) Critics can't comprehend the work that Sommers produces, such as the classic Catch me...If You Can, which has no rating. That doesn't mean that it is so awful no critic wants to watch it, rather Sommers' genius cannot be comprehended by anyone who labels themself as such a contrarian.
Sommers' (and Paramount's) ultimate goal became clear: if Critics want to give negative reviews to something, then it only makes sense if they are forced to pay for being so negative. This is only common sense in today's economic climate.
Screening for select critics generates semi-positive buzz, such as on Rotten Tomatoes, especially it's legendary drop from 100 percent to 91 and then below. And again, both Sommers and Paramount are right--the only catch is it isn't at all what they mean. In their ideal world, shitty and lazy filmmaking for a consumer so culturally dead is the goal. When I was joking with Matt Prigge on Twitter about #GIdiocracy. There is such mindless fun in this movie that indulging your inner ten-year old isn't such a bad idea. In fact, it's such a great idea that " it was already dead."
Joe has nothing of merit and a plot that's easily picked apart, but this is argued as "a kid's movie" so it can be lazy when it comes to explanations and things like making sense. But think of Jon Favreau's Zathura, Elf and Iron Man: all three are kids' films and/or designed with a fanbase firmly in mind. And of course you can make the argument that Sommers is no Favreau.
That's fine. But don't argue these are movies made for "the common person" when they're so dumbed down that it is almost offensive in wrapping up plot details and "them vs. us" before putting your main villains behind bars to justify their "comeuppance." Critics are a necessary evil for Paramount and the Stephen Sommers of the world because without them complaining about how evil and mean a Critic can be, people will become satiate with G.I. ASS: THE MOVIE. THE EXPLOSION. THE SEQUEL in 2012.
Which really isn't all that much of a coincidence.
-John Lichman
Who needs a critic when THE PEOPLE are more than willing to pony up their hard-earned cash to see Marlon Wayans act like an idiot while wearing knock-off Iron Man armor that Sommers designed ten years ago.
So, in effect, Stephen Sommers is right: "mainstream critics [aren't] relevant here, they have criticized themselves into irrelevancy."
[caption id="" align="alignright" width="500" caption="The Yearly Averages of Stephen Sommers' Films (via RottenTomatoes.com)"]
[/caption]What difference does it make that his career Tomatometer is a defiant 10 percent? It means nothing because critics cannot judge the talent and spirit needed to adapt films like The Jungle Book (94 percent) or The Adventures of Huck Finn (58 percent.) Critics can't comprehend the work that Sommers produces, such as the classic Catch me...If You Can, which has no rating. That doesn't mean that it is so awful no critic wants to watch it, rather Sommers' genius cannot be comprehended by anyone who labels themself as such a contrarian.
Sommers' (and Paramount's) ultimate goal became clear: if Critics want to give negative reviews to something, then it only makes sense if they are forced to pay for being so negative. This is only common sense in today's economic climate.
Screening for select critics generates semi-positive buzz, such as on Rotten Tomatoes, especially it's legendary drop from 100 percent to 91 and then below. And again, both Sommers and Paramount are right--the only catch is it isn't at all what they mean. In their ideal world, shitty and lazy filmmaking for a consumer so culturally dead is the goal. When I was joking with Matt Prigge on Twitter about #GIdiocracy. There is such mindless fun in this movie that indulging your inner ten-year old isn't such a bad idea. In fact, it's such a great idea that " it was already dead."
Joe has nothing of merit and a plot that's easily picked apart, but this is argued as "a kid's movie" so it can be lazy when it comes to explanations and things like making sense. But think of Jon Favreau's Zathura, Elf and Iron Man: all three are kids' films and/or designed with a fanbase firmly in mind. And of course you can make the argument that Sommers is no Favreau.
That's fine. But don't argue these are movies made for "the common person" when they're so dumbed down that it is almost offensive in wrapping up plot details and "them vs. us" before putting your main villains behind bars to justify their "comeuppance." Critics are a necessary evil for Paramount and the Stephen Sommers of the world because without them complaining about how evil and mean a Critic can be, people will become satiate with G.I. ASS: THE MOVIE. THE EXPLOSION. THE SEQUEL in 2012.
Which really isn't all that much of a coincidence.
-John Lichman
-
- groups:
- movies blog
