Movie Reviews

Ever wonder what the studios expect us to think when every single movie trailer or poster claims that this film is the best movie of the year? Do they think that we only see that one trailer or poster that happens to be making that claim at that time? Don't they realize that people see more than 1 movie trailer per year, and if every single one of them claims to be the best movie of the year, the consumer is left to realize the physical and mathematical limitation that only one can be #1, and certainly not more than one, let alone ALL of them.

So they really shoot themselves in the foot, as big studios do with just about everything that was probably really cool in earlier stages. Because when everyone all at once says they are #1, whomever they are saying it to, can only assume that none of them are #1, or at least are left to assume that one of them really is, but since they all appear identical its too much detective work to bother trying to figure it out so instead they decide to stay home and watch Deadwood.

Its like in the end of The Three Amigos, when the whole town dresses up as the 3 amigos so that Don Guapo doesn't know who the real 3 amigos are, and therefore, doesn't end up shooting anybody, and instead, is defeated.

I think this is called, the dilution effect. I think so not because I've heard that before, but because I think I'll call it that. Because that's exactly what the studios do. Dilute the market. If they were just a little more honest about the product they are trying to slang, maybe they would sell more of it. Instead of saying, this is absolutely the most heart warming and hilarious romantic comedy of the year, they said, this is a really funny, really cute romantic comedy. And its unique from the others because there is this really well written scene in the park where a bird poops on the guy just as he's introducing himself to the girl, etc etc.
Okay, well maybe just,
"this is a really funny, really cute romantic comedy that you won't want to miss."

I suppose I should address the concept that the studios themselves aren't the ones who make these claims, its actually the critics, but does anyone actually separate the two? The critics quoted are just mouthpieces of the studios. Sure the reviews are independently formed ideas, but the studios get to cherry pick these independently formed ideas and put together only the favorable ones, so really, its not that independent of a critique. No matter how god awful the film, there will always be at least 5 or 6 critics who will say,

"this is the most unbelievably incredibly fantastic movie I've ever seen!!!!! A trillion stars!"

If they expect us to believe these reviews, then they should expect us to believe that there is perpetually going to be a huge disaster tomorrow, every day. Because every time there is a disaster, someone comes forward and says they predicted it, and they can usually prove that they 'predicted' it. This is because every single day, someone somewhere publicly predicts that tomorrow there will be a disaster, and then when one happens, whoever that plucky charlatan is, is "proven" to be psychic.

Perhaps if there were some standardized panel of critics, and this panel was the only source the studios were allowed to cite, and they always had to cite them this panel no matter what, even if the reviews for a particular film were bad, the studios would actually GAIN.
Why?
Because essentially this is what they do already, just not publicly. You might think that if they had to publish this Supreme Panel's opinions, no matter how terrible the review, that would actually be shooting themselves in the foot even more by admitting when movies are horrible, but not really. With the dilution effect, they bring down every film to an average level and destroy any sense of trust. The studios already operate under a system where they know that they produce a majority of money losers, but they bank on those one or two box office giants to carry them through to the next year, and pay for all the losses of the stinkers. There is a term for this but I can find it anywhere on the internet. If they were just honest, they could gain the publics trust, and not dilute everything, and people would start going back to see movies again because they know what they are getting. If those films that are reviewed poorly by the Supreme Panel are doomed to failure before they even release, the net monetary gain of all combined releases is no worse off than it is are under the current system where the studios pay for shit movies with the money that the blockbusters generate.

And most importantly they'd have some level of trust, rather than trying to trick people into seeing bad movies and eventually disenfranchising the entire public into not wanting to take a chance on any movies as all, which is where we are today.

The moral of this story, DONT LIE. Every studio exec has probably learned this the hard way with their wife: its better to be honest and face the consequences that to be caught lying and face THOSE consequences. Usually the wives don't leave you for a lie because they love you more. Audiences aren't so loyal.