Wednesday, 15 July 1998

RANTING & RAVING

I was going to use this space to day for reader responses to the question I posed last week, "What advice would you give the studio heads?" Got some good answers and editing them is fun and interesting enough that it's like having a day off. But I changed my mind.

I am compelled to apologize for my self-indulgence before I even start. But, I have decided to respond to an issue that seems to sit forever on the stove like a pot of old coffee, staying warm, but growing thick with sludge at its bottom. The issue is anger. Hatred. Rage. I've been getting more mail than usual lately accusing me of those feelings. The e-mails have been well-written, well-thought-out and well-off-the-mark of how I really feel. I respond to each of these e-mails individually, as I do all my negative e-mail. It is only a tiny percentage of the mail get, so it is easily handled. But, in all honesty, it sticks with me longer than the fan mail.

I worry a lot about my objectivity. I am very aware of subjects that seem to drag on forever and start to look like a vendetta instead of reporting. And I understand that I have to earn the privilege to have you click on my bookmark six days a week. But I'm also aware that everyone is going to disagree with me sometimes and, when I take a hard look at a subject that is near and dear to the hearts of some, I will draw venom. That's fine.

But what actually worries me is when I am accused of letting my personal feelings get in the way of my analysis. Whether the issue is Titanic, Harry Knowles, Godzilla or Armageddon, the news keeps on coming, whether I like it or not. I do not create these stories. I just analyze them. That's my job. I spent months on Titanic, through every high and low. The fact that I didn't love the first 90 minutes of the movie didn't keep me from saying how great the last hour was and that people should see it on a big screen. Nor did I flinch from reported box office anomalies. And I sure as hell didn't put the words "I'm king of the world" into Jim Cameron's mouth on Oscar night.

I don't hate Harry Knowles, but I have real questions about some of his choices, and I won't give him a free pass because he's not from the big city. (Just call me Sgt. Carter.) It's that simple. He's been a freshman long enough. Time to declare a major.

I felt Godzilla was attacked a lot more aggressively than it deserved to be attacked, but I also printed negative comments aplenty, including the infamous Krillian's List.

And now, Armageddon is the story because there's no real reason to think it will do much better than the much-hated Godzilla, yet Disney is spinning the media harder than I've seen in a long, long time. If they stop spinning, I will happily stop writing about the movie. But every day, I seem to wake up to another set of bizarre excuses. And I've got to tell you, there was very little of this spin from Sony or Devlin/Emmerich after Godzilla hit the fan. If Jerry Bruckheimer would just stop blaming the critics and the media in a new way each day, there would be no stories for me to write. But not to write about it as it continues would be to be spun myself. No can do. Sorry.

Ironically, Ryan, the Reader of the Day just below, a regular who always has something interesting to add to the column, falls into the same trap I'm talking about, albeit in a subtle way. He writes with disdain about the media types who thought Godzilla was the film to beat, didn't think audiences would flock to The Truman Show and thought Titanic would lose money. Well Ryan, it's not always just a bunch of stupid, ill-tempered movie-haters trying to ruin it for you all. Sony was chasing the same kind of opening that shocked everyone the year before when the stiff that was The Lost World had a hype-based $90 million-plus opening. This year, the public got wise, and the rules were forever changed. The Truman Show was a risk, but it was a good risk given the Weir pedigree, and to say that the media didn't support the hell out of the film once they saw it would be unfair. And Titanic was a completely unpredictable phenomenon. As I've written before, had the film opened in the summer, it would have likely petered out with about $200 million domestic, a far cry from the record-breaking run that was helped greatly by a generally crappy line-up of winter and spring films this year.

OK. Wait. Now, how many of you are thinking, "Damn, he hates that movie! He won't let it go!" My point exactly. My analysis is based on the market, not on the movie. Two-hundred-million dollars in a much more competitive summer market is not an insult. My $120 million prediction for The Truman Show wasn't an insult. Nor was my $110 million prediction for The X-Files (to which it will not get close.) Frankly, most of my weekly estimates are high, not low. Including Armageddon. I was absolutely shocked by the soft opening weekend. That wasn't affected by whether I liked the movie or not. That was a perceived failure of marketing based on the same 1997 rules that made Godzilla's even-bigger opening seem like a failure.

OK, I'm done. Sorry to drag you through my angst. The truth is, the site is more popular than ever, you all are great to write for and your participation brings me joy every day. Working in mass media, I suppose I should toughen my shell and just work through the little adversity I am faced with in my e-mailbox. But sometimes, I just want to pull each of you close and whisper in your ear, in the words of Michael Corleone (really Puzo and Coppola), "It's not personal. It's only business."

READER OF THE DAY: Ryan wrote: "Perhaps you've noticed that I am no fan of the media. However, I will spare you my usual ranting and raving and just hit upon one story in particular that caught my eye today. It perfectly illustrates the self-important, 'we know better' attitude pushed by critics, analysts and reporters. In the New York Post (I know, I should know better than to take anything in the Post seriously, but I digress) they had a big article all about Leo's new film. One of the basic points in the article was about the excessive drug use in The Beach that could be exploited and graphically depicted by Danny Boyle and company onscreen, and how Leo's fans would not want to see it. This brings up two issues. Did any of these people actually read the book? It's an insult to Alex Garland to claim that his novel is about drug use. The Beach is no more about getting stoned than Jack Kerouac's On the Road was about it. Yes, the characters indulge in it. Is that what they're all about? No. In fact, Leo's reported character is more addicted to nicotine; and the hallucinations and illusions he suffers throughout the book are NOT drug-induced. Anyone who has read this acclaimed novel about Gen-X experience would know that.

"Second point -- why is everyone so concerned about Leo alienating his fans? Is it not his career? So, The Beach is much more appealing to males than it would be to females. Seems to me that this could only be beneficial to Leo. And anyway, he's not in the business to please fans. He has said on several occasions that he is not interested in being a movie star. He just is one in spite of himself. He would rather be an actor, and The Beach is the perfect role to remind everyone of how much acting talent he has. Maybe they've all forgotten that before Titanic he was not a 'heartthrob,' he was an indie-favorite. Of course, all these analysts, critics and journalists were also the same ones that said Godzilla would be THE film to beat this summer, nobody would pay to see Jim Carrey in a dramatic role, and Titanic would never ever make its money back.

"The film media -- critics, analysts, and journalists need to remember their place in the movie power hierarchy. They are only a mere fourth. Third is the talent -- actors, producers, directors, writers, musicians, cinematographers, etc. Second is the product itself -- the art, the film -- how it all finally comes together. First is always the audience. Without us, the rest of them wouldn't exist. So maybe instead of speculating or out-right telling us what we think, perhaps they should take the time to look at we actually think. Like you do, Dave."

---

E ME: Thanks for the parting compliment, Ryan. The rest of you know the drill. Start your e-mails...