DVD reviews that get their facts wrong (1 Viewer)

[ArthurMy]

I said it earlier and I'll say it again - Molly Brown was a modest success financially. That's really the end of the story. It was not a huge box-office winner as the original poster would have had us believe. It did not cause MGM to want to do many more musicals, as we all know. Had it been a huge financial success, that would have been the result.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Then that's where I differ because in some situations, I believe that if a film is released wide before December, it's eventual box office should be assigned to that year of release. IMO, this is especially the case back in the day, when the price of tickets were much lower than today, thus a box office hit would take months to get any type of high box office receipts.





Crawdaddy

 

[Patrick McCart]

I find it sort of annoying that 'dupe artifacts' are mistaken for edge enhancement on a lot of films. For example, it's mentioned in a lot of reviews that Citizen Kane, Giant, Doctor Zhivago, and 20000 Leagues Under the Sea have a lot of edge enhancement. Well, the truth is, on a smaller TV, it really does look like ringing.

Here's an example:

[url=http://img255.echo.cx/img255/2448/20leaguesdissolve25cm.jpg] [/url]

Also, LOW CONTRAST on B&W films is NOT fading.

 

[Thomas T]

My final words (God willing!) then I'll shut up.

Mr. ArthurMy,

Unsinkable Molly Brown was a hit for MGM. If there was a higher grosser than Molly Brown for MGM in 1964, I am not aware of it and I'm sure someone will gladly point it out to me. If by your standards, Brown's $7,000,000 gross makes it a "modest" hit then I have no problem with playing semantics, a "big" hit is downgraded to a "modest" hit but hardly a failure as Jeffrey insists. The fact remains that it was one of the top ten highest grossing films of 1964, my sources show it as no.4 but if other sources show it as no. 6 or no. 7, I'm not going to argue position.

From John Douglas Eame's The MGM Story: "UMB was filmed on a lavish budget, amply returned from American box offices but less so from overseas".

From the New York Times: "it struck a chord with audiences to the tune of a $7,500,000 gross".

According to Variety, this is a list of MGM's highest grossing musicals:

1. That's Entertainment $19,100,000.
2. Victor Victoria $10,500,000.
3. Unsinkable Molly Brown $7,700,000.
4. Gigi $7,300,000.
5. I'll Cry Tomorrow $6,500,000.
6. High Society $6,500,000.
7. Meet Me In St. Louis $5,200,000.
8. Show Boat (1951) $5,200,000.
9. 7 Brides For 7 Brothers $5,000,000.
10 Till The Clouds Roll By $4,700,000.

To those of you who insist that Unsinkable Molly Brown was a box office "flop", it's obvious nothing I say can convince you anymore than the naysayers who insist we never really landed on the moon, it was all staged. C'est la vie.

 

[Brian W.]

I don't know how "Unsinkable Molly Brown" did, but I do know that some of these articles/books that quote film grosses refer (usually without saying so) to a film's TOTAL gross over the years, including re-releases, special showings, everything.

To get a reliable picture of how successful a film was on its initial release, you really have to go back to the original trade magazines of the day, such as "Variety," which always listed the past year's top-grossing films at the end of each year.

 

[ArthurMy]

Funny, I don't see Singin' in the Rain on that list - that, to me, means that list is full of hooey. And they're not adjusting for ticket prices, clearly.

 

[Shawn Cornwell]

The "Reel Facts" book which list "Molly Brown" 3rd with a $7,500,000 take is referring to the film's initial box office success- future receipts are not being added to the mix. The year-to-year box office tallies in this book only include totals from the specific year mentioned- in this case, 1964. Total grosses are not factored in, as films that made the top 20 box-office in more than one year (e.g.- "Blazing Saddles") are listed as a re-release, with the box-office take for the re-release year, for years following the original year of a film's release.

As mentioned, the cut-off date explains why smash hits like "Goldfinger" and "Mary Poppins," which earned big dollars in 1965, aren't placed above "Unsinkable."

$7,500,000 in (uninflated) 1964 dollars does indeed make "Brown" one of the top hits of its year.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Well, at least we're not beating up some poor guy trying to do a difficult job.







Crawdaddy

 

[MatthewA]

Thomas,

Where did you get your list? I have had difficulty finding any accurate info on pre-1980 box office receipts anywhere.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Firstly,

let me state that as a volunteer reviewer (as are most other web-based DVD reviewers), I'm not paid and therefore have to find time after work hours to watch, research, and review. Typically research is based largely on the promotional material sent along with the DVD from the studio...often the source of the worst inaccuracies that get uncovered!

HOWEVER

In no way do I take offense at being corrected in any review that I write. Quite often members from HTF post corrections in the review threads on the forum here or email me privately if they feel that the error (or the corretion there-of) would be embarassing to me to post publically.

In all cases, I've accepted correction with grace, appreciation...and made the appropriate modifications to my review.

Education is a dynamic process, and there's a two-way flow for it to happen...no reviewer or expert (even RAH) can know everything absolutely, and so a non-defensive attitude about being corrected works best for me.

That being said, I always appreciate when HTF members offer their corrective-comments in a kind and respectful manner. While I'm always happy to make a change for the better, I enjoy it much less when someone is being needlessly rude (which happens from time to time).

Here's the best protocol I've found that works for me:

1. I attempt to do a reasonable job writing an accurate review. It helps that I have access to experts like ERNEST RISTER!

2. When readers discover mistakes in a review, I appreciate:

a. the reader emailing me privately if it's something embarassing, but in the case of HTF threads which are discussion-based I don't mind being made aware of basic things like typo's, incorrect dates, etc. right there in the thread.

b. the reader sharing his/her knowledge with me without rediculing me or drawing into question my committment to doing a good job on my review.



I realize that not all reviewers take this more open approach to feedback from their readers. There have been SEVERAL reviewers on other sites with mistakes in their reviews that, when I tried to offer *polite* insights to help them correct them, they basically told me to buzz off with an arrogant "I don't care" attitude (a review of the Sound of Music DVD on a very reputable site that criticized the "panning dialog" because the reviewer didn't understand the concept of directional-dialogue in historic big-budget WS films (which Fox had praise-worthily peserved) still comes to mind...).

I hope that my willingness to take reader feedback seriously, and make changes to my reviews when appropriate, demonstrates to the members of HTF that we all work together to educate each other--and that the process of learning is something to be embraced by reviewer and reader alike.

 

[Robert Harris]

To David Boulet...

Couldn't agree more. Things get even more difficult when doing a piece which appears bi-monthly or quarterly, as information becomes stale, studio-distributed listings change, and more important DVDs or events come to the fore.

This is a prime reason for the "A few words about..." pieces. I seldom can find the time to view an entire film before going on line with information, and will occasionally do a follow-up in a Bits piece.

It is the attitude of the "reviewer" which is of greatest importance, especially among untrained writers with eyes and ears which fit into the same category.

This is one reason why I miss Ron's reviews, which always came from an untainted "gee-whiz" place as we were able to join in as he discovered one classic after another for the first time.

RAH

 

[Aaron Silverman]

For the same reason, I love watching older films with my wife. Even though I haven't actually seen many of them before, I consider myself to be a student of film who goes into them with an inherent appreciation. If it weren't for me, however, Lucy would never have watched anything that wasn't a major recent release. Seeing her gradually come to appreciate the classics has been a wonderful experience. Five years ago, she would never have imagined how much she'd come to love westerns and gangster films!

 

[Nils Luehrmann]

Just in case anyone new to this thread misses David's superb response, here is the link


When I first saw this thread I was going to come to the defense of online reviewers, who as pointed out already get very little if any compensation for their work, and yet are often expected to give every single detail about a film or DVD without any errors.

Too often, you see people ranting about the quality or accuracy of a review, and yet most of them wont send the author a quick note to let them know that perhaps their information is incorrect. In fact, I suspect most complainers do not even bother to thank or acknowledge when a reviewer has done a great job.

That was until I saw Jeffrey's and ArthurMy's less than congenial responses - and on top of it they are most definitely incorrect and that TUMB was not only a big hit for MGM when it was released, but is still considered one of their most successful musicals when adjusting for inflation. Perhaps they are confusing box office success with critical success, as the movie was not well received by critics when it came out in '64, but even that did not keep audiences away making it one of the highest grossing films of '64.

As in this post Thomas has been quite respectful, even though the 'author' and 'Arthur' have been less than receptive. For that I applaud Thomas for his patience as well as his research.

At the same time, I applaud all the online critics who work so hard and for so little and are willing to subject their work to the court of public opinion - which is not always a rewarding experience.

I especially applaud reviewers like David who go the extra mile to assure the accuracy in their reviews and are receptive to feedback from the readers.

I lift my proverbial glass to you as well as those who attempt to assist reviewers such that the result leads to more meaningful and accurate reviews!

 

[Scott Kimball]

I'm glad this thread is back on track... it can serve to provide suggested action to readers who uncover errors in reviews here at HTF (or even elsewhere).

I am always appreciative of constructive and polite criticism. If a reader informs me of an error, I am quick to offer thanks and edit the review. I've even sought advance information from HTF members who have displayed superior knowledge of a title before its release. I've been lucky in that I can't think of a time when I received a really discourteous response to a review... though some are a bit more blunt than others.

I would imagine that all of us who write reviews here would be equally receptive to courteous, constructive criticism. None of us are perfect -with the exception of David, who once bragged that his direct line to a higher being allowed him to write all-knowing, unbiased reviews...

So, if you spot an error in a review here, let us know. If you don't want to post in the thread, an e-mail or PM will be well received.

-Scott

 

[Jeffrey]

Nils,

With all due respect for your opinion, I would re-think
the term less than congenial as far as my response. Sounds to me that could (and should) apply to the originator of this thread. But at the same time, I am in complete agreement with David's articulate, well thought out and classy post (thank you very much David...and RAH's thoughts as well; a wonderful two cents in from a gentleman whose opinions, musings and writings I genuinely respect on this forum).





As I stated earlier, a simple, nicely written e-mail to the web site pointing out my errors would have been much more effective than using a public forum to vent and instigate a thread that with few exceptions, is rapidly becoming a waste of web space. I mean, good Lord...I'm beginning to feel more like one of those folks that participated in CBS News' Bush-National Guard story for cryin' out loud. AH!

Jeffrey

 

[Thomas T]

Shawn,

Thanks for "getting" it.

Arthur,

Hooey to you, maybe. Variety, along with the Hollywood Reporter are recognized as show biz bibles when it comes to facts. No, the list isn't adjusted for inflation, why should it be? Most sources listTitanic as the highest grossing film of all time and it is. If inflation were taken into account that title would still remain Gone With The Wind. No, Singin' In The Rain didn't crack the top 10 but neither did Wizard Of Oz. Neither film were the massive hits the high esteem in which they are regarded today would suggest.

Matthew,

I have listed my two sources, Reel Facts and Variety. I also have an elderly friend who keeps old copies of motion picture annuals and almanacs.

Nils,

A sincere and genuine thank you for your kind words.

David,

Like you, if I've made a factual error, a typo, a misspelled word, whatever ... I WANT to be corrected.

For the record, I reviewed records for a small niche magazine in the 80s, for free (unless keeping the records counts as payment) so I understand the difficulty of holding a 9 to 5 job and writing for free. When an error was pointed, I accepted it with grace rather than defensiveness. Once I even got a nasty letter from the producer of a record that got a less than positive review from me telling me "that record is our biggest seller on our label so nyah nyah nyah". I responded to him very graciously and professionally.

To everyone, the original post was borne out of frustration at the dessemination of erroneous info (in its broadest terms) that someone would read and accept as fact that isprevalent on many DVD review sites, NOT as a specific attack on Jeffrey or digitally obessesed which was used as my example. In my naivete, I naturally assumed that someone would want to know something about history of a film he is reviewing.

Again, apologies to ANYONE who took offense at my remarks but I stand by my statements. Peace.

 

[MikeEckman]

http://www.ls2.com/usa/images/smilies/info-smilie.gif

 

[LaurenceGarvey]

Arthur, if you click on my link earlier in this thread, you'll find SINGIN' IN THE RAIN, which did good business but was considered a disappointment after AN AMERICAN IN PARIS.

 

[ArthurMy]

Just to be perfectly clear, I think you'd have to walk many miles to find anything in my posts that was "less than congenial". I just have a different viewpoint - of course, some people take different viewpoints as "less that congenial" but that's not really my problem or the truth.

This post is congenial, too.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

different viewpoints are one thing...whether or not a film is "good" is a viewpoint because it's purely subjective.

Whether a film was considered a success, flop, or moderate performer in its day is a matter of historical fact...or is at least a point of view that can only be meritted if substantiated by historical facts.

I think that misinformed perception that USMB was a failure at the box office has been sufficiently addressed with correct information in this thread.