Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Instagram
 

Tom Hanks Slams Movie Critics, Says Time is a Better Metric for Success

Photo Credit: Noam Galai / Getty Images for SiriusXM
Photo Credit: Noam Galai / Getty Images for SiriusXM

Not every movie can be a major success. Some tank at the box office and are either forgotten altogether or remembered for their poor performance. Others do okay at the time of their release, but eventually transform into fan favorites. Tom Hanks joined the Conan O’Brien Needs a Friend podcast, where he discussed the the way in which a film’s reception can change over time, calling time the only measure that matters.

Tom Hanks explained a movie’s reception

Portrait of Tom Hanks
Tom Hanks, 2024. (Photo Credit: Steve Granitz / FilmMagic / Getty Images)

While on the podcast, Tom Hanks described the phases a film goes through, from its inception to settling into its place in history.

“All of this stuff lives,” the actor shared. “Now what has happened is that time has become one of the metrics for how these things matter, right? Back in the day it was just a fistfight. It was every movie you had coming out, are you going to make the playoffs or not? Guess what? No, kid, you ain’t going nowhere. Or, you got a shot.

“It used to be you had these Rubicons that you crossed,” he continued. “First of all, do you love it or not? That’s the first thing. I read this [script] and I love it. The next Rubicon you cross is when the movie is completely done a year and a half later and you see it for the first time, and you might like it. It doesn’t matter if it works or not. You look at it and say, ‘Hey, I think we acquitted ourselves pretty good.’ That’s Rubicon No. 2.

“Then the critics weigh in, that’s Rubicon No. 3, and that’s always up or down: ‘We hate it, we like it. This is the worst thing. […] Oh hey, Tom, I saw you in a movie. It was cute.’ That’s when you ask the wife, ‘Hey, honey, could you take the revolver out of the glove box and hide it somewhere, because I think…'”

After that, it’s the box office, Hanks concluded, adding, “Then a ton of time goes by when none of that stuff matters anymore.” In the end, however, it’s simply time that becomes the most important factor.

“The movie just exists exactly as it is outside of loser or winner status or thumbs up, thumbs down,” Hanks went on to say. “And that’s when this stuff comes around, where it’s like that this thing that didn’t work back then kind of does work now, or just the opposite, a thing that was huge back then is a museum piece and doesn’t really speak to anything.”

That Thing You Do! (1996) is a perfect example

Cast of 'That Thing You Do!'
That Thing You Do! (1996) cast. (Photo Credit: Frank Trapper / CORBIS / Getty Images)

After Tom Hanks‘ explanation, Conan O’Brien brought up That Thing You Do!, the 1996 comedy-drama that he both starred in and made his directorial debut, to serve as an example of how time decides a film’s fate.

The movie follows the story of a small-town band called the Wonders as they rise to fame in the 1960s, after their song becomes a surprise hit. After its release, it was met with mixed reviews, with some praising it for its nostalgic feel and others criticizing it for having a surface-level plot. It also performed modestly at the box office, earning only $34.6 million worldwide against a budget of $26 million.

However, time has played a big part in how reception of the film has changed, as it has now become a beloved cult classic, despite its rocky release. This is something Hanks himself has noticed, and he commented on the change during the podcast. “Let me tell you something about these c*********s who write about movies,” he said. “Can I say that?”

Time helped a critic change their mind

Tom Hanks standing on a red carpet
Tom Hanks, 2024. (Photo Credit: Axelle / Bauer-Griffin / FilmMagic / Getty Images)

Tom Hanks went on to recall a memory about a critic who originally dismissed That Thing You Do! around the time of its release by writing, “Tom Hanks has to stop hanging around with veterans of TV, because this is just like the shot on TV and it’s not much of anything.” However, after several decades went by and the film transformed into one loved by all kinds of audiences, that same critic returned to share their enjoyment of it.

“They said, ‘All you need is 20 years between now and then, and it ends up speaking some words,'” Hanks explained. “But that’s the thing we all signed up for. That’s the carnival, that’s the contest. I got faith in that. That’s okay.”

More from us: Whoopi Goldberg Confirms ‘Sister Act 3’ Needs ‘Some Readjustments’ Following Maggie Smith’s Death

Want The Vintage News delivered straight to your inbox? Subscribe to our weekly newsletter!

Hanks may be right. There’s a handful of films we can think of that were okay when released, but that we absolutely adore now!

Samantha Franco

Samantha Franco is a Freelance Content Writer who received her Bachelor of Arts degree in history from the University of Guelph, and her Master of Arts degree in history from the University of Western Ontario. Her research focused on Victorian, medical, and epidemiological history with a focus on childhood diseases. Stepping away from her academic career, Samantha previously worked as a Heritage Researcher and now writes content for multiple sites covering an array of historical topics.

In her spare time, Samantha enjoys reading, knitting, and hanging out with her dog, Chowder!

linkedin.com/in/samantha-v-franco