Do Hollywood marketing agencies have a way to collect data that determines how much more / less money a movie makes based solely on a positive / negative Ebert review, or Pauline Kael review, or some other famous critic?
Pauline Kael was NEVER a factor at the box office. Some Hollywood executives may have found her annoying, but NONE worried that his next film would flop at the box office just because Pauline Kael didn’t like it. Pauline Kael’s audience was small, and my guess is that 90% of the people who saw her obituary had never heard of her.
Roger Ebert is certainly the most influential single movie critic in the world, but even he would freely admit that his influence is limited.
For example, if Tom Cruise made “Mission Impossible 3,” and Ebert HATED it, do you really think a “thumbs down” from Roger Ebert would make even the slightest dent in the film’s grosses? Obviously not, and even Mr. Ebert would acknowledge that.
What influence DOES Mr. Ebert have? Well, from time to time, he has the power to get a large number of people to see a film that would otherwise be relegated to art houses. A movie like “The Crying Game,” for instance, would ordinarily have been a “cult” film seen only by a few people in New York and San Francisco. Siskel and Ebert were able to gain it a wide audience, and some Oscars.
And I think THAT’S precisely what motivates critics in ANY art field. A music critic at Rolling Stone KNOWS that there’s nothing he can do to convince 13 year old girls not to buy the latest N Sync CD, but if he’s lucky, MAYBE he can convince some people to listen to a talented (but obscure) artist they never would’ve listened to on their own.
Roger Ebert can’t turn ANY movie into a blockbuster, nor can he stop ANYONE from going to a Jerry Bruckheimer shoot-em-up. But he can sometimes turn an obscure film into a modest success.
Nor can he stop it. I recall that both he and Gene Siskel despised ID4. In fact, after it opened to over $90 million in business, they re-reviewed it (apparently a rarity to do so) and they STILL hated it. Of course it went on to make over $800 million worldwide.
I often wondered if a critic could review a movie AS a critic and then as an “average Joe”.
Ebert frequently frustrates that new dork they have working with him by giving a thumbs up to movies that are not a critic’s dream because they are excellent examples of their intended genre. Ebert doesn’t seem to object to populist stuff as long as it’s well done.
–John
The studios have a good idea about how well a movie will do through its run after its first night in wide release. The Ebert & Roeper program only airs after the film’s release, typically the Saturday or Sunday after the release date. Certainly, their reviews can affect viewership in the modest manner astorian suggested. But, after opening night, a film’s fate is pretty much sealed.
I forgot to mention that Ebert’s tv program nudoubtedly reaches a wider audience than his syndicated column (which is probably NOT read by your typical 15-25 year old moviegoer). The column is available on the day of a film’s release.
Ebert and Siskel used to do shows every once in a while where they would tell us movies they thought “sucked” [my word not theirs] but they liked anyway.
It is a fallacy to assume that Ebert – or any critic – is automatically out of step with the moviegoing audience. A good critic (and Ebert is one) will attempt to see if a movie succeeds on its own terms; they’re also less tolerant of bad plots and writing, having seen more examples of it than the average moviegoer.
Spy magazine did a story once, headlined “Whose is Bigger?” where they tried to figure out statistically whether Siskel’s or Ebert’s opinion had more influence. I don’t remember who won, but that’s okay because it wasn’t meant to be taken seriously.