Fan Rant: Why Studios Hide Horror Flicks From the Press
Filed under: Horror, Fandom, Fan Rant
My good pal Eric Dee Snider and I were recently enjoying some Instant Messenger banter, and our main topic of conversation was this: Why are studios and distributors so damn scared of their own horror movies? Sure, I know the obvious answer: Of all the rotten movies released in one calendar year, a good portion of 'em will be horror movies -- because horror movies often represent the best low-overhead investment for a production company that's looking to earn a quick buck. Yes, a lot more potentially profitable than a comedy, a drama or (dear god) a low-budget action flick.
So if you KNOW you just finished post-production on a real stinkeroo, of course you'll want to "hide" it from the press for as long as possible. But here's what annoys me: Nowadays the distributors don't seem to have even the slightest clue as to what they're looking at. Case in point: This weekend's The Ruins, which (if measured on its own merits and its specific intentions) is a pretty damn effective horror movie -- so why did DreamWorks / Paramount refuse to screen it for the professional movie nerds? OK, to be fair, there was a press/promo screening at 9pm on April 3 -- but that means they're screening the flick THREE HOURS before it opens?
Obviously it's impossible for any print critic to have a Ruins review ready for opening day -- and I think that will really hurt the film in the long run. Even a colorfully negative review would bring in more viewers than no review at all, plus there IS the idea that, y'know, some film critics actually can appreciate a horror film! Mr. Snider's theory goes another route: That the studios are shooting themselves in the foot by not screening these movies, because "unscreened" flicks appear to be tainted in some way. Eric further asserts that some critics allow the "unscreened" status to seep into their reactions to the film ... which sort of means that Paramount is creating its own bad press. In a weird, roundabout way.
When asked for his opinion, film critic / horror fan Eugene Novikov had this to say: "The studios' thinking goes like this: a horror movie has to be the second coming to get any sort of positive reception from critics. And the market for horror films by and large doesn't care what critics think. So why spend money on press screenings to get press that will most likely be bad and will, in any event, have no effect on your core audience?" I agree with that logic, but I can't help but think a little confidence and some early reviews for The Ruins would have helped its chances at the box office. (A $2.8 million opening day.)
Over the last 15 months, the following horror movies have "dumped" into release without any sort of legitimate press screening: Alien vs. Predator: Requiem, Awake, Captivity, Dead Silence, The Eye, Halloween, The Hitcher, Hostel Part 2, The Invisible, The Messengers, One Missed Call, Primeval, and Vacancy. So in some cases, sure, there's no reason to have a press screening because the film in question is an undeniable piece of crap. But just about all of these movies could have used a little help at the box office, so maybe if the studios showed a little more foresight, they'd treat the horror movies like all their other movies. (Or, in a perfect world, there'd just be a whole lot more quality control down at the studios.) But I refuse to toss Dead Silence, Hostel 2, The Ruins and Vacancy into the same bonfire as Captivity and One Missed Call.
On the other hand, Dimension pre-screened (and showed a lot of confidence in) Frank Darabont's The Mist, and that flick didn't do much box office business either. But boy is it awesome.
Tom Cruise and J.J. Abrams Reunite for 'Mission Impossible 4'
'Big Top Pee-Wee': The Original Benicio Del Toro Wolfman
Spin-ematical: New on DVD and Blu-ray for 2/9
Watch This: Brilliant Oscar-Nominated Short 'Logorama'
Chris Nolan to Lead 'Superman' Reboot!?
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
4-06-2008 @ 8:17PM
Gregory Moore said...
I, for one, sympathize with the logic that the horror movie crowd simply isnt paying enough attention to the big name critics to care what they have to say. As a pretty avid fan of horror films, and films in general, i find that the general response of the critical community is far from valuable, especially in the realm of horror films. I can't remember the last time i let a critic keep my away from a horror flick, or further entice me towards it. So i dont blame, or care that the production companies arent accomodating criticism.
Not to say that it doesnt effect some people's actions, but from a purely selfish approach, it doesnt bother me any.
btw Vacancy blew me away, as i expected it totally suck, and it was actually at least a few steps above decent.
Reply
4-08-2008 @ 11:00PM
Griezz said...
Actually, I would approach things from another angle. See, I can't think of the last time that praise from a movie critic enticed me to actually watch a film, horror or otherwise; for example, even with all the hoopla they got at the Oscars, I have no plans to see either "No Country for Old Men" or "There Will Be Blood".
(Speaking of which, am I crazy or was "there will be blood" actually the tagline for one of the "Saw" movies? I'm sure it was something like "Oh yes... there will be blood." I bet that's a first in Hollywood, that a film whose title matches another film's tagline gets an Oscar.)
4-06-2008 @ 9:02PM
seraphflux said...
I think it's a variety of factors, actually. I think regular studios don't know how to handle genre properties so even when Paramount gets a The Ruins (or Universal gets a Doomsday, to make another recent example of genre movie I loved) they don't know how to market it.
There was a recent news (on Bloody Disgusting) about how Warner decided to drop (as in "not releasing it anymore") Trick 'r Treat, the Bryan Singer-produced horror movie starring Anna Paquin, that actually got some good notices at test screenings from the horror crowd, from what I heard.
But the whole "denying press screenings strategy" gives indeed a bad image to the movies themselves (not to mention it pre-emptively gets part of the press against you) and that's a bad policy. If I were a studio executive, even if I thought a movie was awful a-la Shutter or a-la The Fog remake, I would hold test screenings, let alone if I had in my hands good genre flicks like The Ruins, Doomsday, Vacancy, that have all the chances to become little cult movies with time.
Reply
4-06-2008 @ 9:02PM
Peter Hall said...
I don't think there is much theory involved. A withheld film has a taint, period. Just look at Cinematical's own official review of THE RUINS. Jeffery M. Anderson opened his review pointing it out. Just off the top of my head, Massawyrm at AICN opened with the same thing and I'm sure there are plenty more.
I have to wonder who is responsible for the taint, though. I'm not so convinced it is because withheld films have over time established themselves as being inherent crap. It is a good indicator, sure, but it hasn't quite become a litmus test just yet.
I'd like to propose the following: The press cause the taint, not the studios. Mayhaps it is jealousy for not being in the press, but I can't help but whiff a hint of entitlement. As if critics are somehow owed the ability to bestow judgment before anyone else. And when this ability, which is a privilege as far as I'm concerned, is denied, critics boast about, collectively hoisting the cowardice upon their shoulders for all to scorn.
Granted, film critic is a job just like any other and denying a critic permission to perform their job with punctuality is clearly mischievous on part of the studios. That said, I still think boasting about studios paper bagging their own films is out of proportion to the studio's financial intentions. The backlash is their own fault and I'm not here to pin the scarlet letter upon critics. It is a shame a flick as solid as THE RUINS has this indelible mark stamped upon it, and while the studio hand is the one slamming the stamp down, critics are just as eager to sweep in and blow on the ink, making sure it dries nice and loud.
Reply
4-06-2008 @ 9:40PM
Jeff said...
Is it possible that move studios consider such horror films to be appealing to such a specific audience, one that will likely see a horror film with or without the good reviews, that they don't bother with the screenings?
I don't know alot about the film industry, but it seems like sci fi, horror and other niche genres get so much publicity inside their own community that movie studios don't really need to spend a lot on marketing or advance screenings.
Reply
4-06-2008 @ 10:06PM
Vaggelis Kapartzianis said...
Dreamworks in fact went one step further and held test screenings for the press, judging from early but apparently approved reviews for The Ruins in BloodyDisgusting.com ShockTillYouDrop.com, etc.
Horror fans are not mainstream-audience-stupid and obviously studios have decided that they don't want to bother with critics that cannot tell the target audience anything about the movie and will deter anyone else, as you mention. Especially now that the genre has become unappealing to the mainstream, simply due to production glut, in my opinion.
Reply
4-06-2008 @ 11:03PM
Bob said...
I hope the studio was so ashamed of the "happy" ending they had hammered onto what was otherwise a servicable if disappointing rendition of a pretty good novel. I can only imagine the author's reaction when the suits made him let the pretty brunette just RUN AWAY for God's sake. Despicable! But by then it was so obvious that they weren't going to get anywhere near the money they needed to do real justice to the novel's true creepiness, I bet he just said "Fine. Whatever. Let's just get this out there and over with." A sad little fable of disappointment and failure. Too bad. I was actually looking forward to this.
Reply
4-07-2008 @ 12:51AM
kelly said...
Horror fans don't give a shit what the 'critics' say. Odds are they'll hate the film anyway and odds are the horror fans will go anyway. Doesn't bother me in the least.
Reply
4-07-2008 @ 1:30AM
Mr. R said...
Most recent horror films are over crowded with clichés, that is what kills them, there is no freshness. We have seen the hot girl overcoming her fears, the evil that lives on after the whole ordeal , the black guy getting killed first, Mexican second, the fat guy third, it goes on and on. Truth be said, recent horror flicks suck, they just don't have an edge. How long ago did you see something in the quality of the Exorcist or The Shinning. I saw the Thing not long ago and the acting and the results of limited resources are just amazing, still up to par with todays taste. The reason this movies are being kept is because they flat out don't have the cutting edge, they are bad movies. I am reminded of what Clooney said not long ago, that Hollywood was no longer making masterpieces and it's very much the same with horror.
Reply
4-07-2008 @ 10:44AM
Gilbert Davis said...
"Bob said - I can only imagine the author's reaction when the suits made him let the pretty brunette just RUN AWAY for God's sake. Despicable!"
Well there is your answer right there. an audience that finds it 'despicable' for a 'pretty brunette' to run away from the horrible torture/death/murder/sexual abuse that has befallen every other character of the show is an audience that any Movie company with any sense of conscience is ashamed of and will not wish to cozy up to. Like the drug dealer who wouldn't want his sister using his product, movie studios see no advantage in bringing to anyone's attention that they are selling the crap they are selling. Like any good drug dealer, the movie studios know they just have to have the crap they sell to make their profit and whiny movie critics are like whiny drug addicts complaining about the quality of the crack they are buying. Like it makes any difference, you'll still buy it cause you're crackheads.
Reply
4-07-2008 @ 1:07PM
airtoast said...
I remember back in the early nineties when Siskel & Ebert publicly declared that they would no longer review horror sequels (Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, Halloween) because they were so disgusted with them. I think some of this treatment of horror movies can be traced back to things like that. Even though a large majority are garbage, they have no chance at a fair shot. I mean, how can the nation's top movie critics just refuse to do their job like that on such a narcissistic and pompous basis?
Reply
4-08-2008 @ 5:23AM
MagnusCthulhu said...
I do want to come to the defence of film critics, who, quite often, take a beating from the so-called "average movie goer" for being out of touch, or pretentious, or what have you, and there is a reason for this. Your average movie goer may see, say, two to three new films a month. That's twenty-four to thirty-six films a year. I guarantee you your average film critic sees far more films that that. I, personally, see an average of eight a week, every week, year round, and have for the past three or so years. And I can tell you, I judge films pretty harshly, and I'm not even a professional reviewer. So, yes, it is vastly harder to please a film critic than it is your average movie goer. Does that make the film critics "out of touch"? Perhaps. But if they are out of touch, it's only because they have so much more experience in watching film that it's hard to compare the two. That's why we (should) listen to film critics. Because they simply know more about what they're talking about.
What does this say about horror films, when film critics like Ebert start refusing to review them? Well, yes, it says that films are working against a bias, but, let's ask ourselves, where to these biases come from? Ebert doesn't want to hate these films. It's not a goal of his to prove that horror movies suck. It is, simply put, that the vast majority of horror films suck, and that's where the bias comes from. With the track record that horror films have, is it any wonder that these critics, already harder to please than the general public, simply don't want to waste their time anymore?
The article creator, for example, states that he doesn't want to list Dead Silence and Hostel 2 along side the likes of Captivity and One Missed Call, and I will say that, yes, both of those films named are better than the other two (I can't comment on The Ruins because I haven't seen it, and I will say that Vacancy was surprisingly effective), but they were still vastly flawed films by any standard, especially Hostel 2, which was basically a mediocre remake of the first film, itself not all that special, and they deserved every poor review they got (even considering that Dead Silence had kind of an interesting visual style).
For every truly great horror film that comes out, five or ten worthless ones get released. So, no, I don't blame critics for not wanting to waste their time. And I don't, either, blame studios for making terrible films, as many others do. I blame every person that goes out and pays money to see these crappy films, allowing the studio to make a quick buck.
4-07-2008 @ 4:55PM
Peter Hall said...
I also just noticed, Scott, that you chose a still from a scene that didn't even end up in the theatrical cut...
Reply
4-08-2008 @ 2:04PM
ric said...
The reason for not showing horror movies to critics is more a practical aspect of filmmaking. Most movies do the bulk of their business in the first few days. Only the truly popular movies make any money past 2 weeks. A bad critical review - and, to be honest, who could praise cannibalistic vegetation - will deter those who are not hard core horror fans, thereby cutting into the impulse viewers. Better to have a good marketing campaign, garner as much as possible in the first 2 weekends and then everything else is gravy. A critic won't help with the hard core fans, but could hurt the attendance of casual viewers. I love good horror, but most, including The Ruins, offer nothing new except some good old snuff porn.
Reply
4-09-2008 @ 4:04PM
Peter Hall said...
Ric, have you even seen THE RUINS? How does it qualify as snuff porn? Please elaborate.
4-09-2008 @ 12:42AM
CA Jencks said...
I'm not a big horror movie fan - in fact the only horror movies I watch are when there's one with one of my favorite actors or actresses in it, and then only sometimes - but as a big sci-fi/fantasy/adventure movie fan, I can sympathize with the "I pay no attention to the critics" mindset. I don't either. Of all the movies I saw last year only two got any Oscar nominations, and that was Pirates III and Enchanted. Generally I wonder what the critics are on, and whether or not it's legally prescribed.
If I was the movie studios though, I don't think I'd do much more than posters and a trailer and maybe some press leaks. The mysteriousness would probably get people to see it. The only exception would be on book adaptations or true-history films, where people already know the plot (or can find out if they care) - like LOTR or Harry Potter or Lawrence of Arabia or Apollo 13 or whatever...
Reply
4-10-2008 @ 10:26AM
ric said...
Peter, I define porn as a movie with little plot, poorly written that includes bad acting, where the point is to watch good looking people have sex. The Ruins is a movie that has very little plot - young people defy logic and go into dangerous area. It was poorly written (the book and the movie). And, the whole point was to watch good looking people die - by carnivorous plants of all things. This thing reprises The Day of the Triffids and the Navy Vs. the Night Monsters only with young, hotties. Hence, it is snuff porn. I guess I am old fashioned. I like to see reasonable characters who have more than the one dimension of being just a victim. I like plots that don't insult the intelligence. And, while I enjoy female hotties, I do not feel they are essential to good horror.
Reply
4-10-2008 @ 4:49PM
Peter Hall said...
And here I thought the whole point was to tell a survival story where the monster is a damned plant. And I say that with no accusatory tone. I cherish the absurd plot of this movie and the fact that it was played straight. I'll take a killer plant over the current crop of j-horror remakes, slashers and STD zombies.
I too feel hotties are non-essential to good horror, but I don't see their inclusion as some kind of ploy, either. If it fits the situation, it fits. It fit THE RUINS.
Regarding the snuff angle. Just can't agree there. All horror has a gravity to it, drawing it inevitably towards death. Snuff, on the other hand, should only ever be categorized for what it is; realistic filming of someone being murdered. THE RUINS is far from realistic.
4-10-2008 @ 6:53PM
ric said...
Pete, that's why they make different kinds of movies. I'm glad you enjoyed it, given it's box office they needed every fan they could get. Still, you ought to try out the Navy Vs. the Night Monsters, they don't hardly get no badder than that. Thanks for the exchange.
Reply