Box Office Might Doesn't Mean Critics Wrong

I have some thoughts that cannot be confined to 140 characters on Twitter.

I recently came across an article on Yahoo which analyzed the fact that "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" has been so terribly reviewed (running at only 20% on the Tomatometer) and yet is such a box office smash (grossing over $200 million in its first five days).

The extraordinary popularity of the film cannot be denied. What I find most galling about the article, however, is a tendency I have found in many articles in recent years: The argument that box office might makes right. If a movie makes all that money and the critics hated it, well, obviously there's something wrong with the CRITICS.

First of all, the success of a film in its first weekend is less a testament to the film's quality and more to the success of its marketing campaign. Tons of people are convinced, through aggressive TV, print and web marketing (to say nothing of children's marketing, as most of Transformers' audience had children in tow) that the film is an event they CANNOT miss, and they would see the film no matter what the critics say. Yahoo's article attempts to sidestep this by claiming that after a strong first day, the audience didn't drop off on Thursday, obviously thanks to strong word of mouth. Huh? When was the last time a movie dropped off the face of the map after one day? Word of mouth is IRRELEVANT until later weeks, when the initial burst of enthusiasm due to marketing has faded, and then whether the movie is any good actually continues to draw people in. What film ever lost over half of its audience from opening day to its second? Ohwait...that would be "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen," which on Thursday grossed less than half of what it did on Wednesday.

Besides, the second we start letting box office success be the ultimate factor in film quality is the second we have to say that "The Phantom Menace" was a WAY better film than "Empire Strikes Back" or "Return of the Jedi," since its grosses were higher. Or that "Shrek 2" is one of the greatest movies of all time, since it's ranked in the top five. Movies are not a horse race, and who "wins" is much less relevant to you or me than a simple question: is it any good? Is it worth taking two hours of our lives to see it? How many people are seeing it means just as much as how many lemmings are going over the cliff. Well, they're all going, I might as well, too...

That's what criticism is for. You find a good film critic or two (or hundreds, if you like rottentomatoes.com) whose writing you like and whose opinions you respect, and take their reviews into account. They can direct you to some good films you didn't consider before. You won't always agree with them, but you'll find far more awesome experiences than you ever knew were there. And occasionally, you'll get to read some hilarious jabs taken at some truly worthy targets.

Paramount executive Rob Moore, however, claims (note that no critics were actually quoted in the article, only talking-head studio execs) that critics "forget what the goal of the movie was. The goal of the movie is to entertain and have fun." Yep. It was not at all a cynical attempt to cash in on 80's nostalgia and make a cross-marketing deal with a toy manufacturer, "Transformers 2" was ONLY about entertainment and fun. I'm sure Paramount's "G.I. Joe" film later this summer has similar goals. He says this critics are expecting every film to be "Citizen Kane" or something. Oh, wait, Kane WAS entertaining and fun. It was also thought-provoking, challenging, brilliantly made and acted, and influenced American moviemaking for decades afterward. I think I can say confidently that none of THOSE descriptors will ever be applied to "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen."

A movie does not have to be EITHER "entertaining and fun" or "a great film." Believe it or not, it can be both. For evidence, you merely have to look at last year. "The Dark Knight" was as big a blockbuster as they come, made millions of dollars, and was also a huge critical success. So was "WALL-E." So was "Star Trek," earlier this summer. A film can satisfy both the masses and hardcore film buffs (as critics are), and when it accomplishes that, it is usually a wonderful thing to behold. And those are the movies which live on well past the initial burst of the initial marketing campaign.

I should point out that I am saying all this having not seen "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" myself. I do not know what I think of the movie. I saw and enjoyed the first one. Most of the people I've talked to seem to think the second is a major step down. I probably will see it, since a.) I get free passes and b.) I have plenty of friends who want to see it, too. My point in writing this is to reject the opinion the writer of the Yahoo article seems to hold...that any box office success a film achieves is enough to call into question any criticism directed at it. If we are to appreciate movies as art, we must not let commerce influence our opinion of its success. For us as individuals, the success of a film must be measured solely on its impact on us as a moviegoer. How many other people are seeing it does not matter nearly as much as what it means to you as an experience. Some of the best movies I've ever seen, I saw alone. Some of the worst, I was surrounded by hundreds.