The late review embargo: a last-ditch effort by studios to disarm a box office bomb. But does putting duct tape over a critic’s mouth actually work?
With filmgoers’ increasing reliance on Rotten Tomatoes and other review aggregate sites (to say nothing of the hot take factory that is Twitter), it’s become more important than ever for studios to ensure their films get a positive critical response out of the gate. But what happens when that isn’t possible? What if your film is a complete and utter garbage fire that only a mother could love?
Well, you protect it, of course. Like any well-intentioned parent, you try to shield it from the worst criticism — after all, you’ve invested a lot of time and money on this thing, and its abject failure is only going to wreak havoc on your bottom line. (That’s how parenting works, right?)
And so, the late review embargo was born. By prohibiting critics from releasing their reviews until as close to the general release date as possible, they delay the inevitable moment when everyone realizes what an abomination their film might actually be.
But the question is, does this practice actually work? If you can prevent audiences from hearing negative buzz before opening weekend, will that translate to butts in seats that might have stayed home otherwise? There’s an argument to be that when it comes to major tentpole franchises, a decision has already been made by many fans long before reviews start to pour in.
Ben Affleck, Jason Momoa, Gal Gadot, Ezra Miller, and Ray Fisher in Justice League (2017). Photo Credit: Warner Bros. Pictures.
A heavily anticipated blockbuster film will likely do well no matter what the critics say. Justice League, for example, had DC fans everywhere excited. Sure, it has a shaky 40 percent on Rotten Tomatoes, and ok, it’s widely considered a box office disaster. But when all is said and done, it still finished in the top 10 for the year.
In a case like Dark Phoenix, its fate was cast long ago. Interest in the X-Men prequel franchise has steadily declined over the years, and anticipation for the latest Jean Grey adventure was hardly at a fever pitch. The box office potential of Dark Phoenix was always going to be limited, regardless of what the critics said.
Dark Phoenix poster. Image via EPK.tv.
Furthermore, it’s entirely possible that putting a muzzle on critics actually does more harm than good. If you aren’t going to let them talk about the film, the only thing left for them to talk about is the fact that they can’t talk about the film. It’s seen by many as a cynical maneuver on the part of a studio and indicates that they have lost faith in the project. If the goal of a late embargo is to prevent viewers from absorbing negative information about a film, it’s entirely counterproductive; you couldn’t find a more effective signpost for failure than the refusal to allow anyone to critique your work.
The issues with the imposition of an unusually late embargo on a film are two-fold. One, they generally indicate to viewers that a studio is preparing for a film to be panned and scrambling to do damage control, which is never a great look. It cements in the minders of audiences the simple but powerful idea that this movie is so bad, even the studio knows you’re going to hate it.
But perhaps more importantly, there’s considerable evidence to suggest that poor reviews are not the key factor in why a film fails. With so many teasers and trailers and those weird little five-second pre-trailer teasers, fans are getting an opportunity to judge for themselves whether a film is going to be worth their time. The explosion of superhero franchises means that the target audiences already know the characters and have a sense of the narrative that would interest them. By the time the critics have their hands on the film, their opinions are practically a moot point. Fans have already decided whether or not they’re going to see it.
Do you think late reviews hurt or help movies like Dark Phoenix? Let us know in the comments.