06 July 2008

Hancock sucks, but movie studios claim its "fresh" and "different"

I love how movie studios spin things. They should be working for Bush, cause they can make even crap look good. Take, for example, Hancock. It opened on Wednesday, and made a $107 million in five days. Pretty good, but the film got horrible reviews.

"Will Smith, Mom, apple pie and the Fourth of July. It doesn't get any better," said Rory Bruer, head of distribution for Sony. "People just so relate to him and the characters that he plays. They totally embraced it as something different, something fresh."

Oooookkkkkkaaaaaay. If you say so.

Then there's this: "Hancock did not get great reviews, but it doesn't matter. A guy like Will Smith is arguably the most-bankable star in the world," said Paul Dergarabedian, president of Media By Numbers. "He's utterly likable and he's real, and that permeates from the screen to the audience."

I like Will Smith, but I find his films to be nothing but empty set pieces. I cannot "relate" to him, if only because he is a movie star and I'm not. He's less rich than Oprah, but he's richer than I'll ever be. And "something different, something fresh" is not in a studios vocabulary, so I wonder where this Sony guy got that idea.

All Hancock proved was that people will go see anything, even if its shit. And the studios know this, so there is no attempt to make anything that will have legs beyond its first week. Expect Hancock to have a huge drop off is ticket sales, next week if only because no one will pay to see it again.

Hell, if these guys can say this about Hancock, just think what they could do for W and his War on Terrorism (TM).

No comments: