Would Critics View KISS More Favorably If 'Phantom' Were A Blockbuster Hit Film?

Music critics don't forget movies that reference The Beatles, though. Critics have longer memories than the average record buyer about cultural history. That's why Bee Gees and KISS film missteps affect how critics choose to interact with those acts and why critics move on to other acts to review. If those movies had no negative affect on critics' choices, Christgau would have given those two acts more of a chance in his reviewing world.

 

It was a moderate hit for them, charted at number 23, which isn’t bad.

 

Now that you mention it, Madonna has starred in a bunch of bad films and that hasn't much hurt her recording career. Because if lousy films did kill musical acts, she never would have been heard from after her embarrassingly awful turn in "Shanghai Surprise." This movie might actually be worse than "Phantom" since people had to actually pay to see it (and I'm saying this as a fan of her music).

 

I said the exact same thing when I saw the thread title. Maybe all the drug use DID fry my brain.

 

In the end, it didn't really hurt them long-term - they're still playing big venues almost 50 years after they started - but it seemed short-sighted back then.

I think they could've done some of this pandering and not been damaged so much - they just embraced the "teenybopper audience" so much that it became an issue...

 

Boo-urns on you!

I think "Earth" is a very good film, but I recognize that it's not an "accessible" movie. I had to watch it at least 4-5 times before it finally connected!

 

Okay, I think IMO Eric Carr was the best drummer KISS had, but even I think that statement is a bit ridiculous.

 

Just a bit???

 

It got even worse during Dynasty when the audience got even younger. Pandering to 10-12-year-olds is one thing but when it gets to 5-7-year-olds then its no wonder the older fan base split in 1979 and discovered the next wave of Hard Rock acts.

 

Kiss’s popularity in America had reached a plateau by the end of 1977. They were the most visible band in their home country at that point.

1978 saw the beginning of their decline and, though this is usually attributed to the underwhelming double-punch of the (appalling) television film and the underselling solo albums, I think those were just symptoms of a process that had begun even earlier in the year - I think by pulling themselves off the road and concentrating on the solo efforts, they lost momentum. By September 1978, there had been no new Kiss product for nearly a year (I don’t count Double Platinum) and ‘nearly a year’ was a long time in those days.

I don’t think anything they did would have made a difference to their treatment by critics - who either disliked them or ignored them.

The film was sowed the first seeds of discontent with Bill Aucoin’s management style: they’d been promised A Hard Day’s Night meets Star Wars!

 

Maybe if Jethro Tull had been in it, it would have been a blockbuster hit film and both bands would be in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame.

 

They had a crazy-ass schedule from pretty much when the first album came out through to early 1978. Those guys never took time off. There was a reason they release albums as often as they did so as soon as the previous album would stop selling the next album would be ready to go to keep the momentum levels. While there is likely a legit argument that them taking time off in 1978 to focus on the solo albums killed the momentum to some degree those guys probably needed time off of the road after 4 years at pretty much full speed ahead.

 

Instead, they got Harum Scarum meets Plan 9 From Outer Space.

D.D.

 

Also, they all hated each other by that point in time and desperately needed time apart.

 

If Criterion contacted Paul & Gene for present day interviews to supplement the DVD, I would bet my little toe they'd both do it with a straight face.

 

Oh yeah. Ace and Peter's issues were very much apparent by that time as well.

 

I loved that movie just for the cheese factor, the African-american stunt man (for Ace), the dubbed in dialog (Peter & Ace), the bad acting (all), the special effects that would make Bert I. Gordon proud, the fight scenes that make the one from the Batman TV series look real. This is the perfect film for MST3K or Rifftrax to rip to shreds for it's cheesiness since it oozes for 90+ minutes. At least the fans in the US saw it for free, fans in the UK had to pay to see it, what are the differences in the US and UK versions?Around 15 years ago Cheesyflicks put it out on DVD and had to pull it since it's still under copyright, I was lucky to grab it before it was pulled.
It's now going for $97.49 on Amazon.

 

"One of the YT reviews says "So KISS, intergalactic super beings with sailor moon transformations, help Scooby and the gang fight Volcano Galactus with their music powers, which include fire breathing and energy blasts, during a concert." At least it looks more believable than "Phantom" and it's a cartoon.

 

I'm probably gonna piss everyone off, but my goodness, we're talking about KISS, doing a movie. The best you were going to get out of them was exactly what they did. It's not like they were gonna make anything with any sort of depth to it, that could have possibly warmed the critics.

 

I don’t think it got a British release. It it did, it wasn’t well-distributed. Kiss were not a big deal in Britain at that point,

 

It came out in the UK as Attack Of The Phantoms, someone here posted the UK movie poster.

 

who cares about Christgau? or critics? both bands' legacies are in great shape. both in rock Hall. While both movies were terrible, they amount to a footnote in each band's history. That you've chosen to try to turn these particular molehills into mountains is a futile task. The music has transcended generations, unlike a fossil such as Christgau. He won't have a legacy -- he is unknown by younger generations, a non-entity.

 

If Helen Reddy had made that album with David Ruffin...

 

Come on, man, you're not even trying.

Steely Dan didn't make an album for the next 20 years.

 

Ignoring the huge role of critics and industry/radio people like Christgau in the years before MTV became a driving force because one doesn't like them isn't a smart rationale nor does it help one's argument. It actually shows a desire to bury one's head in the sand. Would you also negate the huge role that Rolling Stone magazine played in pop and rock?