A_nobody
patreon
Chapter 129: Why It's Popular
🕑 Added 2024-10-17 21:49:06 +0000 UTC"Because the audiences of the two shows are completely different."
This was the answer from Nancy Josephson, followed by a simple explanation for Duke.
In fact, it can be summed up in one sentence: the audience of *The Oprah Winfrey Show* is completely different from the potential audience for Duke's films. Anyone who knows a little bit about it understands that 70% or more of Oprah's viewers are housewives over forty, mostly from small towns. And Duke's films?
These fast-paced, visually impactful films target viewers between the ages of 17 and 35, with an overwhelmingly male audience! Even among female fans, they're mostly young women, not housewives.
Who would expect housewives to pay for such movies?
After hearing Nancy's explanation, Duke immediately thought of the type of movie housewives love to death: overly dramatic love stories.
Yes, *The Oprah Winfrey Show* is very famous, but it's not suitable for every actor or director. For a director like Duke, aside from the publicity the show could bring, it wouldn't actually provide much benefit, at least not right now.
Maybe one day, if Duke transitioned to making films for housewives, he'd definitely reach out to Oprah.
Duke didn't join the national promotional tour, but he was still busy in Los Angeles. The Independence Day holiday quietly passed as he traveled around, and *Independence Day* saw a small rebound in its box office numbers that day, earning $18.56 million. Despite all the surrounding resistance, the film steadily marched toward the $100 million mark.
One day ended, a new day began, and the sun rose and set again. In a studio near Chicago, the bright lights never went out, as if only they could illuminate the darkness in Roger Ebert's heart.
After receiving a message from his agent, this towering figure in the film critique world turned on the TV, switched to Fox, and coldly watched as the young director spouted his thoughts on the show.
"Why do critics attack me and my films so harshly? I think there's something everyone might be missing here. *Independence Day* has an average critic rating of just 3.1, but 85% of the 120,000 viewers surveyed gave it positive reviews. A large number of audiences ignored the critics' bashing and flocked to the theaters to watch *Independence Day*. The fact that audiences don't care about their opinions is what really angers critics."
Roger Ebert's face darkened. Duke Rosenberg was directly exposing the critics' weak spot, and he didn't seem to have any intention of stopping.
"Does everyone remember how the critics reviewed *Star Wars* in the '70s? They called it cheap entertainment, and said Lucas's baby was doomed to fail! But what happened? *Star Wars* became one of America's cultural symbols and responded to the critics' attacks in the most powerful way, crushing all their dignity."
The TV echoed with sharp laughter from the live audience. Roger Ebert's expression grew cold. Back then, he had been one of those critics, and there had long been an unspoken agreement in the critic community not to bring up this topic again. But now, this young director was once more exposing their scars to the entire nation!
"*Independence Day* may not be *Star Wars*, but it won't fall under the critics' attacks either. Its opening weekend box office and audience reception have already proven that. I only have one thing to say: in today's film industry, audiences don't need to care about what critics think..."
The hand resting on his desk gripped a pencil tightly. It was as if Roger Ebert had turned the pencil into that young director from the talk show, wanting nothing more than to strangle him and shut him up.
"The film critic community has produced great figures like André Bazin, who made outstanding contributions to the development of cinema. But after that first generation of highly professional and knowledgeable critics retired, what's left of the professional critic community today? Did anyone read yesterday's papers? Critics' columns are filled with malicious personal attacks on me. I'm curious, is this what they consider meaningful critique? Or are they teaching the nation how to use vicious language to insult others?"
Roger Ebert's brows furrowed deeply. Even though those were the actions of just a few critics, Duke was now pinning the blame on the entire film critic community.
"Today's critics lack substance. Besides snarky comments and insults, they can't write anything with real insight. Their knowledge and professionalism are severely lacking. The things they write to insult others — can we even call that film critique? What is film critique? The essays André Bazin wrote for *Cahiers du Cinéma*, those are critiques. Bazin not only reviewed films but also made essential contributions to the development of cinema. Even though he wasn't a director, his theories shaped the film industry."
The person on the TV didn't seem to have any intention of stopping, delivering a powerful counterattack in the same way the critics had viciously attacked *Independence Day*.
"A true film critic must have a deep cultural background, not just knowledge of pop culture, but also a profound understanding of cinema. Film critique should be a highly respected profession, but now it's become lowbrow, infiltrated by many people with very poor professional skills. These people are good for nothing except using sensational and malicious words to gain readers' attention."
"Let's think back to the '50s and '60s. What were critics like back then? And now, look at today's critics. The overall quality of critics has severely declined. Where can you find a truly good review today?"
Roger Ebert's grip on the pencil tightened. Duke Rosenberg was indeed smart. People are nostalgic, especially those who had lived through the '50s and '60s. They're bound to miss the golden age.
Duke Rosenberg was masterfully using this to his advantage!
Even though Roger inwardly acknowledged his opponent's cleverness, the person on the TV clearly had no plans to let them off the hook.
"Most critics today just follow the crowd. If it's a commercial film, they'll trash it. If it's fast-paced and full of visual effects, they'll sneer at it. They have no original opinions. And even when they're right — when a film really is bad — their reasons for why it's bad are ridiculous, showing a complete lack of basic professionalism."
"They never analyze trends. It seems today's critics deliberately distance themselves from the general audience to appear superior, never bothering to analyze why the audience loves a particular film. Anything popular with the masses is immediately scorned, highlighting their own supposed 'superiority.'"
"Critics are deliberately isolating themselves from the public to emphasize their own presence, rather than objectively analyzing why a movie is so successful. What attracts audiences to it? What are its strengths? Critics naturally position themselves against the audience!"
Hearing these piercing truths, Roger Ebert's hand suddenly clenched, the tip of the pencil snapping with a crack, anger rising on his face.
What Duke was saying was the truth, but it was the truth all critics tried to avoid!
If this truth became a consensus among the public and Hollywood, critics would lose much of their influence over the lucrative summer box office. Their income would shrink, and they might only be relevant during awards season!
Finally, as Roger Ebert watched coldly, the young director on the screen exited the show. But the next segment seemed to be a direct response to the review show he and Gene Siskel had recently aired.
The TV showed a montage of scenes from *Speed*, *The Rock*, and *Independence Day*, accompanied by commentary that sounded to Roger like outright praise.
"Since *Speed*, Duke Rosenberg's films have been loved by many fans, reaching a peak with *Independence Day*. Last weekend, nearly 13 million people went to the theaters to watch the film, setting a record-breaking opening weekend gross of $63.08 million. Why are Duke's films so popular?"
"Duke Rosenberg knows how to deliver a great audience experience in three key ways."
"Explosion-packed! Lots of explosions. Critics find it annoying, but audiences think it's worth every penny. And Duke's explosions aren't like everyone else's. First it was cars, then islands, now spaceships. Each time, he surprises people. From *Speed* to *The Rock* to *Independence Day*, Duke Rosenberg's explosions always deliver fresh shocks to the audience."
"Visually stunning! He uses a lot of wide-angle, large-scale shots, creating breathtaking visuals. In *Speed* and *The Rock*, the flipping cars and explosions on highways, the camera angles following the tires spinning — these are things rarely seen in other films. Duke Rosenberg always offers audiences the most exciting and fresh experiences."
"Great concepts! Duke picks films with highly conceptual ideas and loves using unconventional settings. For example, the tension of *Speed* comes from confining the protagonists in a fast-moving, narrow space, while *Independence Day* thrills with humanity's desperate fight against annihilation. His high-concept movies are attention-grabbing from the story alone, drawing people in even before the films are released."
"In short, Duke Rosenberg has a talent for captivating audiences!"
Sitting there, Roger Ebert gradually calmed down. The show had completely turned what he and Siskel had criticized into selling points. Judging by *Independence Day*'s box office performance in recent days, this publicity strategy wouldn't be ineffective.
Turning off the TV, Roger Ebert quietly pondered for a while. He had to admit, competing with a hot summer blockbuster and a popular director right now was not a wise choice. Perhaps it was time to ease up before things spiraled out of control
He'll be waiting for Duke Rosenberg during the most powerful awards season for film critics!
