Clarifications
The last couple of days, I have found myself being “corrected” on a couple of things that I left myself open to via the use of my personal mental shorthand.
I am not thrilled with people who want to tell me what I think and assume that exy explanation is an “excuse.” But what can a guy do… I put myself in that position too.
The first thing was a detail… the questions around a sequel to The Chronicles of Narnia. The story was simple. Anchutz had been pretty clear that he wanted his company, with distribution by Disney, to make 2&3 together, a la The Matrix and Pirates sequels.
As things worked out, even though Andrew Adamson had publically made it clear that Prince Caspia would be the next in the franchise, it was just under three full months before Disney and Walden announced the greenlight. This is not normally how one establishes excitement for a sequel. The movie’s start did not assure sequels… its legs ultimately did, especially in international territories, many of which didn’t open day-n-date. In addition, they backed off the two-for-one plan, though it is possible that a part of that was Disney being mid-Pirates sequels, finding that expected economies were not so money saving.
That was what I was thinking about when I wrote, “barely made enough to get the second film greenlit.” And indeed, the legs and international of the film (almost $750m ww) made it a very good bet.
But also consider this, as you raise your pitchforks… $600 million worldwide for a movie that expensive is not a lock for sequels anymore. Remember, you/re talking about $300 million-plus invested in production and marketing… so thought $600 million assures profits in Home Entertainment and ancillaries, a sequel drop like Shrek The Third, much less Evan Almighty could mean a money loser. (The huge advantage Shrek has on the other two of this summer’s Big Three is that it can be made cheaper and cheaper… and is talent really going to lose a huge payday for doing voice over, so long as these films are theatrically released? Can’t wait to hear the direct-to-DVD replacements! Connelly/Cedric/Swank?)
But yes, I should have been more careful and specific.
The second case was my non-review for The Kingdom.
I find it surprising that so little detail – reviews for movies I really like tend to be a lot longer in a lot more detail – is being taken as a review. But more importantly, when it comes to embargo, I answer to the studio, not my readers. And here is what the studio wrote…
“Enclosed is a list of long-lead screenings for THE KINGDOM (Sept. 28, 2007). Would love for you to come and see the film – and you are fine to write about the film but just not review it. Is that ok with you?”
Yes.
I also read the NY Times piece on the movie, which was a lot more detailed than what I wrote. After a decade dealing with Universal, I understand what they were asking of me and why. I wrote inside those rules.
The headline was a bit of smartassity, speaking to this forever game of working inside and outside of the lines. There are other exchanges on this that I still consider private, so I will not expose them. But again, not a problem on a professional level in any way.
However, I do understand why some of you might assume I was skirting the rules in some way. I was not. But I suppose it is my responsibility to make that 100% clear, especially since I do feel free to comment on how these games are played, regardless on who is involved.
Even though I don’t want to have to explain myself to death all the time, enough people have spoken to this issue that I have to concede that I was not clear enough about my actions.
Fair enough.
You didn’t see Die Hard, did you?
The Narnia books could never have been made back-to-back. They are independent novels with different characters (apart from a few cameos) that take place in different parts of Narnia.
From the American Heritage Dictionary: Definition of review: “To write or give a critical report on (a new work or performance, for example).”
From The Hot Blog: “Director Peter Berg, screenwriter Matthew Michael Carnahan, and very hands on producers Michael Mann and Scott Stuber have built a unique machine here. The film fondles the work of Michael Mann, smells of The Bourne Identity, and is a kissing cousin to Syriana. But what makes this probably as commercial as Bourne and more commercial that either Mann or Syriana is its uniquely Bergian flair. It
I really can not imagine what would be different between what you wrote and an actual ‘review’. You go into detail about the production team and their contributions, the actors and what is good about their performances, Peter Berg’s development as a director, significant information about what you liked about the film…is it not a review because you didn’t include a plot synopsis?
I think this is a case of serious semantic juggling.
I agree with your conclusions on Narnia, Poland. Thanks for the clarification.
No, Poland. That’s a review. You know it. If someone fom AICN wrote that, you would have been all over it. You can claim anything you want, but I don’t stick googly eyes on a turd and call it a pet.
By doing the dance with these studio screenings, DP, you keep putting yourself in a position where the studios get to push you around. Sure, your opinion may remain intact, but they get to tell you what to do with it.
That’s not journalism you’re in. That’s marketing.
The fix is quick: Simply adopt a set of guidelines for publication of reviews. You’ve been avoiding this for a decade! Give us a full review the week it is released. People who come here would read your piece on The Kingdom in October as much as they would this week in June…
So what are so scared of?
I think Poland is rightfully afraid of alienating the very people who make his job possible, by breakin their rules, which could get him banned from screenings I would suspect. His post seemed to make clear that he didn’t break those rules.
All this semantic insanity makes my melon hurt.
I agree with Crow T Robot, some better organization of reviews would be a great idea. Poland sees and reviews plenty of movies at festivals that aren’t released until months later and then the review is lost in the archives. Even if it was just a link, it would be useful.
I think DP just relishes being the FIRST person to review a film, even if it’s not a real review. But, the thing is this: why would Universal screen The Kingdom for critics now if they didn’t want the critics to review it? Basically, they’re saying “if you have something good to say about the film, then you can faux-review it and help us build good buzz for the film”. And DP did exactly that. Although, I’m not quite sure it’s his fault for genuinely liking the film. The alternative would be that he wouldn’t have said anything I suppose. But, I do think it’s a bit hypocritical of him to jump all over AICN for having a review from a guy who saw Fantastic Four a week before it came out and then reviewing a film he wasn’t supposed to review. I think Crow is right that DP needs to adopt a set of guidelines for reviews.
My set of guidelines has been the same for a long, long time. It’s not a secret. It’s been discussed to death.
What I think you are trying to say, Crow, is why don’t I adopt YOUR idea of what my guidelines should be?
There is no studio in town that is happy with everything I do or enraged by everything I do. Does it strike me odd that I’ve seen more September releases lately – obviously not all written about – than I have August releases? Yeah. Does it gall me when a studio closes the sphincter on some summer movie but goes wide on some spring or fall flick? Yeah.
But I do not operate in a vacuum. Does in make any sense for the New York Times to be running a feature on The Kingdom now? No… except in the strategy that Universal has adopted here. So the “right” thing for me to do in response is to hold any writing until opening week? Interesting
“The Narnia books could never have been made back-to-back. They are independent novels with different characters (apart from a few cameos) that take place in different parts of Narnia.”
Which is why the films could not only be shot in quick succession, they could be shot simultaneously. (Note: “could” implies that it is physically possible to do so, not a statement that they should or will.)
David: Your response is worthy of a White House press spokesperson. But I’m afraid your beef isn’t with me. It’s with the dictionary.
You take the idea of “professional” and “amateur” a little to seriously. What makes you a professional? That you make money from reviewing film? That the studios know who you are? Does that make your opinion more or less valid? Yes, I know you said it doesn’t make anybody better or worse, but I just want to know what makes somebody a “professional” in your eyes. I’ve watched film my whole life and feel I have a pretty good grasp on the way things work and I can jump to correct conclusions without having inside info, so I would see myself as being quite a bit more learned when it comes to films than most people. I’m not saying that makes me a professional anything, but I’m sure as hell not an amateur. And yes, I am talking about this point solely, not the rest of what you just wrote DP, so don’t chastise me for taking what you said out of context. I read the entire thing and I just have a bone to pick with that one point.
I can’t argue your opinion on something like that, Noah.
I am a professional because, yes, I earn a living as a writer, and because I carry both the responsibilities and benefits of my professional actions on a daily/weekly/monthly/annual basis.
Or perhaps Joe can quote the dictionary for us.
Why wait?
Main Entry: pro
Okay, thanks for the clarification DP. By the way, after seeing Hairspray, do you still think it’s going to be a surprise hit in the vein of Wedding Crashers? (notice I didn’t ask if it would make 200 million dollars like Wedding Crashers, although you did say that you thought it was possible after watch the promo reel)
There is no clarification. I don’t know what you think you wrote, but what I read was a review. It delved deeply into direction, acting, theme, and somewhat into plot. And you expressed an opinion on what you saw. Again, this is a case of the David Poland “Do as I say, not as I do” mentality.
Look, I don’t care that you reviewed it, personally. But please, please stop pretending to yourself and to the rest of us that you are somehow above the fray. Look into a mirror, say “I reviewed THE KINGDOM even though the studio said I shouldn’t,” have a tall glass of milk, and head to bed. Welcome to the world of self-justification, and sleep soundly tonight.
Thank you for all you know, AC. Sorry to put the nasty details in the way.
Sky’s blue today. Comment?
The new Wilco’s great, yeah.
Poland, we all know the studios deal in buzz. They work in buzz and, as this summer is showing, their films are built largely upon buzz. My beef with you and many of the blogger cum critic types is that you’ve adapted your style to the language of buzz. Box office buzz. Oscar buzz. Media buzz.
When you review a film chances are the words “best” or “worst” can be found in the first paragraphs. You do this, whether you realize it or not, because this is the language of buzz. Anything in between these two extremes wouldn’t be worth fighting for in Buzzland. That’s why I think you “review lite” less and less.
Your The Kingdom thingy is at its heart a buzz piece. That’s all it can be three months away from release. There’s no critical integrity to it. Nobody can (or is permitted to) really argue for or against it. And yet, when someone throws it back at you, you go into overdrive, writing a long frustrated piece around the fact that it’s really just there as a fuck you to Universal: “I loved it! Can’t stop the buzz!”
I may be wrong but I still don’t think one can be an industry pundit and critical voice. These are two very different beasts that don’t play nice together. That is the schitzo nature of David Poland’s website. By it’s very nature it cannot play nice nor fair.
Also, if you were so confident you weren’t doing anything wrong, why mention you can’t review it? All you had to say was that the studio told you you could write about it, if you’re so comfortable that’s what you did. I think you felt a pinch of conscience, there, Dave-o.
Wow, did Dave just spend more words defending his “non-review” than he actually wrote in his “non-review”? 🙂
I’m convinced that David will write in more detail about the movie closer to release, but there is a fine line between posting something like “I liked it/didn’t like it” than actual reasons why he liked it. Then again, he didn’t really get into any plot details and I’m sure that’s what the studio is more worried about than having some early raves. (A friend of mine saw it a few weeks ago and he liked it too)
Sweet, I got another shout-out.
Actually, the word “amateur” is not the insult that many people (even those who mean to use it as such) seem to think. It derives from the Latin “amator” (lover) and “amare” (to love). Basically, it means someone who does something for love of the doing, not for pursuit of the paycheck. I daresay some of the better film criticism out there right now is being written by “amateurs” for their websites. As I have said for years: This very likely is the future of film criticism — people who work at other jobs (college professors, civil servants, librarians, auto mechanics, whatever) or retirees will write about movies they love in their spare time, and over time will attract devoted readers. Some may end up attracting enough readers to sell ads; most won’t. Some may feel compelled to soft-pedal criticism to remain on screening lists; others will write whatever they damn well please, even if that means they have to pay for tickets on opening day to review major studio releases. Most of this criticism willl be, at best, mediocre. (Just like most of what passes today for “profesional” film critcism.) But a goodly portion of it will be inspired.
Incidentally: I also predict that we’ll all live long enough to see a drastic cutback in advance screenings of tentpole pictures, action flicks, and anything else that studios might view as undependant on critical reaction. And that, folks, is when we’ll see an equally drastic shift of power and influence toward critics in the Eastern time zone, who can see movies on opening day and post reviews hours before their West Coast counterparts. Just think — the first really significant critical voice on the Internet may turn out to be someone working right now in an East Tennessee video store. These are the days of miracle and wonder.
Ha.
Well fucking Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick, good to know just what exactly some fuckabout cuntslap named Alan Cerny deigns to think constitutes a review. Wow!
Seriously, the highly-regarded, well-known, oft-celebrated writer who is Alan Cerny needs to just shove a fucking Lando Calrissian action figger up his fat ass and keep his Goddamn mouth shut. I guess the cum just doesn’t dry quick enough, though, does it, Al?
Dave, you and several posters disagree on what constitutes a review. Why not leave it at that? By arguing the toss you only fuel the flames. People stop reacting so much to the original issue and more to the particulars of your argument and its implicit and sometimes explicit assertion that you’re right and they’re wrong, ingenuous, not qualified to offer an opinion, or incapable of following a logical argument. I appreciate that it must be difficult to resist defending yourself and responding in kind when the expressed feedback is belittling. But isn’t it better with regards to a relatively minor disagreement like this to simply assert your and others right to disagree (even if you absolutely believe in your rightness and their wrongness)?
Joe, I think you’re a wonderful, talented critic, but you gotta stop with the dictionary definitions of things. Actually, don’t stop as it’s kind of interesting, but I don’t know if it’s relevant. You obviously are quite the linguist, but just because something is defined as such in the dictionary does not mean that the connotation is the same. When you talk about the etymology of “amateur”, I don’t really think that that was what DP had in mind when he used the word. But, thank you for helping me learn something interesting about language.
Now clarify your comment on the main page.
The budget of Transformers he mentions was only $2m off. THAT qualifies as major spin?
Noah: Sorry. Blame it on having a fave college professor who drilled definitions like that into my head. (And having, early in my journalism career, an editor who was even more pedantic.) But you do understand what I mean about so-called “amateur” film critics, right? It’s not necessarily a bad thing to not be a “professional” in this regard. A lot of crap is churned out by… well, insert the name of your least favorite high-profile professional here.
These were the most interesting quotes in that Michael Bay interview, to me:
“With GM supplying the vehicles and retrofitting them, Bay said he was able trim US$3m off the budget.
The United States Department of Defence also helped to foot some of the production costs.
‘You may not have noticed it, but we have some scenes in the movie for the Pentagon,’ Bay said. ”
What does it mean ‘scenes for the Pentagon’? Product placement, as it were?
Don’t stop the definitions Joe, I think they’re interesting! ;o)
And the two Narnia films couldn’t be filmed simultaneously “realistically”, the kids are supposed to grow up a bit in between! Between 2 and 3 Edmund and Lucy are supposed to age a year, and Caspian 3 years… and kids their age (expecially for Lucy) change rapidly as they grow, so there’s no “imitating” it accurately with makeup and special effects etc! 3 and 4 could have been done on a much closer basis, there’s only supposed to be a few months lapsus for Eustace in between them.
Obviously the studio of the movie isn’t going to care whether Dave gives it a positive review, but if it was negative then we’d have an issue.
To me, what he wrote was a review, but it was legit (not some AICN snotty bastard who viewed it when he was meant to be ushering or something) so it’s not that big of a deal to me.
But, as somebody said, Dave needs to get in line with linking back to old topics. Just a thought.
so my two cents on this is that dave plays the game and every so often tiptoes over the line. Aint it Cool, with no rules, actually draws a much more definable line. They’ll run what you send them if it’s interesting to their fan base. That’s the thing about AICN that people like: it’s all there for the fans to dig into.
That doesn’t make Dave or AICN right or wrong, just different.
Do i think that most sites play fast and loose with ‘the rules’? Sure. Do i think that all these sites need some kind of common set of editorial guidelines? No. How boring would that be? What’s great about the net is that there are different flavors and choices. To try and streamline everything into vanilla or chocolate seems pretty pointless.
One more thing. I converse with a few people who post in here, and i gotta say that the one thing that still grinds my gears is the natural tension between sites. I don’t like that disagreeing with someone’s position aoutomatically makes you their enemy?
I had someone comment to me that i must ‘hate them’ because i strongly disagreed with a position they took on the memflix debacle. But just because i don’t agree with you, or maybe stand on the opposite side of the arguement doesn’t mean there is any anger or malice.
Why is the natural state of disagreement online rooted in anger? Why can’t we disagree on topics without it turning into a flame war?
I won’t lie and say i’ve never been a party to it, but i think we’re far too antagonistic on the net.
Angus: I think you raise a very good point. I’m not a psychiatrist — I don’t even play one on TV — but I think it has something to do with the anonymity offered by the Internet. That is, you can go into a blog or chatroom or whatever and, using an untraceable alias, spew the foulest garbage and launch the most venomous attacks imaginable — and there will be no consequences. It’s the unbound Id, unfettered by Superego. In other words: The Net allows us to reveal our true nature. And that’s not always a pretty picture. That’s why I use the term Internet Brave in reference to some people — they talk a lot of trash on the Net, knowing full well that they’ll never have to answer for it. Give some people that opportunity, and you’ll be surprised — or, then again, maybe you won’t be surprised — at the hatred that gets unleashed.
Again, the fact that Dave Poland reviewed THE KINGDOM doesn’t bother me. I’m a Peter Berg fan, I had the pleasure of meeting him at a FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS screening, and as for that film I think it’s one of the best football movies ever made. He’s a good director who in time may very well become great. I look forward to THE KINGDOM very much.
I just don’t like this slippery moral line that Dave Poland draws when it comes to screening reviews. I quote HEAT – “If he said nothin’, I’da thought nothin’. But he keeps goin’ on about how he ain’t doin’ nothin’, and right then I KNOW… this cat’s got somethin’ goin down.” And I don’t like the wink-wink nudge-nudge aspect of how a studio says “You can write about it, just not review it.” That, to me, makes the studios just as complicit in getting the advance word out as much as early reviewers do when they break embargo. The lines should be clearly drawn, but make no mistake, this wasn’t in the least bit ambiguous. “Write about it, don’t review it.”
Again… just because you don’t get it, AC, doesn’t mean that I don’t… and more importantly, the studio gets it.
If you want to argue the overall issue of the system that exists, that’s cool. But you keep repeating my headline like a mantra… and like you haven’t been willing to even try to process anything else I wrote about it.
What is ambiguous is “What is a review?.” The Die Hard review today was a review. It’s soemthing more than my opinion of the film. There are specific arguments within the detailed context of the film. None of that is the case with what I wrote regarding The Kingdom. As I wrote earlier, there is a lot less info about the movie in my piece than in the NYT “feature.”
That said, you don’t seem a fan of amiguity, AC. (Or me, for that matter.)
P.S. ALL reviews you read are “screening reviews.” They are NOT test screening reviews. Semantic slippery slope there. Almost every time I walk into a screening, I know where the line has been placed. If I don’t, I ask before I act.
And yes, Anghus… it should always be a conversation. That is when it is valuable. And yes, you are often a rabblerouser yourself, making declarations about not only the ideas, but the motives of others. It is when we try to define the motives of others that, to me, the line gets crossed. I don’t know you (at least I think I don’t) and so I don’t know your motives. I only know what you write in here. So I try hard not to define you or anyone else in here as a person.
Put it this way, David, and this is likely to be the last I say on the subject…
Imagine a poster coming in the next few months, with a couple of blurbs that you wrote on it.
“THE KINGDOM is just plain solid, exciting, surprising, excellently crafted, and a great reason to spend a couple hours in the movie theater!”
or
“Great work!…classic!”
(Exclamation points and ellipses are my addition, but you see my point)
Would you consider what you wrote a review then? Is it not a review because it’s not long enough? There is an opinionated weight to what you wrote, and anyone who reads it will definitely know, if nothing else, that you loved the film. And that, for some people, would be enough. It certainly would be enough for any marketer. They could easily pull quotes from what you wrote.
You have a tendency to strongly resist when someone calls you out on something, and that’s probably natural to everyone. And I think it’s very endemic to the Internet in general – no one backs down when they’re wrong, no matter what. You’ll probably apply that to what I’m saying here. It’s highly unlikely the studio will have anything to say about this either way. But let me ask you this… if THE KINGDOM turned out to be 50 shades of awful, would you have said anything? Anything at all?
“And yes, you are often a rabblerouser yourself, making declarations about not only the ideas, but the motives of others. It is when we try to define the motives of others that, to me, the line gets crossed. I don’t know you (at least I think I don’t) and so I don’t know your motives. I only know what you write in here. So I try hard not to define you or anyone else in here as a person.”
i don’t have any motives. i don’t write for websites or work in entertainment journalism. i have very strong opinions, and at times make broad statements when nuanced thought would probably serve me better.
but the truth is, i have no side in these battles. i like this site (obviously) and respect what you do. I have respect for what Aint it Cool does as well, though what you do and what they do are very different.
I think the friction that exists between websites and their dueling philosophies exists because we try to pigeonhole all entertainment sites into a journalistic mold that, in truth, doesn’t exist online.
At the core of most of these disputes is playing fast and loose with words like ‘ethics’ and ‘morals’. The memflix thing, to me, is kind of a defining point in these head butting sessions. Is there any harm in a review for FF 2 appearing a week early? Nope. Had memflix not been busted, would it have mattered much to the film? Nope. Should he have done it? Nope. Were they wrong to bring the thunder down? No. It was their perrogattive. But man, did that kick off a powder keg. What i got out of that whole thing was a general consensus from people that if they walked into a theater and were asked not to write a review of a film test screening, that they would write one anyway. That fact bothered me, not because of anything to do with film, but the fact that people would break their word without a second thought. It’s like that doesn’t even matter in this world anymore.
It does raise a question, who is being hurt by all of this? Who gets hurt from early reviews or test screening reviews. If it’s the studio, then stop running test screening reviews. They’re no nearly as important as people tell us they are. I hear industry friends saying ‘IT TESTED THROUGH THE ROOF’ and the film still ends up getting dumped to DVD.
It must be tough for those who run sites like this. Because there are two groups that are vital to keep happy:
The Studios and the Readers.
Without either, no site would be able to survive, not as a paying gig. So there is this constant back and forth between what the studios want, and what the readers want. Personally, i think that all the sites are in essence 90% the same, and a lot of time is spent arguing subtle differences in how you play the game.
To me, a reader, i like both sites for different reasons. To spend countless pages and threads debating what constitutes a review seems kind of silly.
Again, why is Alan “Nordling” Cerny trying to lecture anyone about what constitutes hypocrisy, much less a review?? I can actually buy the arguments Nordling is making, but the fact that he is and always will be an AICN toadie renders his opinion useless. It’s like water accusing piss of being wet.
That being said, I think Dave explained himself fairly well. You can debate forever what consitutes a review. Just saying “I liked it” can be a review, I guess. But what exactly is “write about it but don’t review it’??? How can he be expected to write anything about it but not offer a viewpoint on it?? I don’t really get that. To me that is code for “elaborate if you like it, keep quiet if you don’t.”Kissing and not telling is really hard. Even what Projectionist Boy did is iffy, aside from the fact that he’s a projectionist with a different job and expectations. But I can understand him wanting to speak about what he saw.
I dunno….I do like Projectionist Boy as a future AICN talkback id though. That’s funny.