If you want to know why there is a somewhat broken class system for critics in the minds of the studios, you have to look no further than the antics of Dann Gire, front man for the Chicago Film Critics Association.
And I am not talking about the rather absurd and self-congratulatory threat e-mail from Dann & The CFCA Board (a group that does not include Ebert, Roeper, Rosenbaum, Pride, or either of the Chicago Tribune
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
And yet you continue to join in David on the half-assed reporting that has occurred during this entire stretch.
This L.A. Times reporter, who as you well know, wrote a piece on July 13 essentially throwing all onliners under the bus as a bunch of embargo-bustin’ cowboys. Whenever she contacted Mr. Gire this week – her intention was to write a story that Fox was taking an initiative to ban ALL online critics from here on out. All Gire commented on was how Fox was contemplating what we had on the table with them and that a resolution was imminent. A second quote attributed to him about everyone being an online critic these days is just an astute observation and the third was from the original memo.
So, basically, what you have is a reporter desperately trying to play catch-up, getting her facts crossed and having a source attempting to defuse the situation. And while you’re calling her out for not contacting people more closely involved in the statements she’s making – I don’t recall ever hearing from you to maybe answer a few questions or concerns you might have had. No, you’re too busy calling someone’s parents frickin’ pretentious because of the way they spelled their son’s name. Real classy. And that’s Erik with a “K”
This article is incomprehensible. Pick up a Strunk & White and read it. Please.
I agree with Dave on one issue here and I think it is the biggest one. If Dann was so passionate about this, then why did he wait until three fucking months after Pathfinder came out to start “boycotting”? That is a completely gutless move and he is positioning himself as some kind of critical messiah and I think this will do more harm than good for online critics, but that’s just my opinion.
Because like any period where such a drastic move is going to be made, there’s a lot of discussion and debate, back and forth with various members, gathering facts and seeing what the future holds. After the Pathfinder debacle there was this period with no direct response from Fox. We made our point – a second time after a memo sent a year earlier – and then waited to see how the NEXT Fox screening would be handled. That turned out to be Fantastic Four where the same Thursday night stuff was pulled. It was initially figured it was being a dumped screening, but closer to the date word start coming in that Chicago and other cities had received a screening earlier that week. When the Die Hard situation was no different, enough was enough.
Whatever the perceived timing of the original memo may be, the bottom line is that we tried to work with Fox to come to a resolution to this problem. Over a year, we were ignored. We never had any intention of “embarrassing” Fox and at no time were we out to fight this battle in the press. Those who know the detailed timeline of these discussions and the articles written about the situation know a lot more than some of the speculation that’s going on.
Well my other question is this: why does the studio OWE you these screenings? I mean, aren’t these press screenings just a courtesy to critics anyway? What Fox is essentially saying is that they don’t need your reviews to be successful and the truth of the matter is that they are right.
Now, I’m not saying that I agree with this rationale or support it. I believe the studio is flexing its muscles a bit too much and they are showing no respect for the job that critics do. But, the sad fact is that it is not written anywhere that they owe you that respect.
i am shocked, shocked i say, to see that the los angeles times tailored a story to fit their own personal beliefs! well, at least they’re not owned by a larger corporation that has other newspapers or television networks.
if you listen carefully, you can hear the soft chant “mencken, mencken, mencken”
“This L.A. Times reporter, who as you well know, wrote a piece on July 13 essentially throwing all onliners under the bus as a bunch of embargo-bustin’ cowboys.”
Yes… aided by CFCA quotes. So why didn’t you and the rest of CFCA publicly object to the false reporting right then and there? Why has the drama continued?
“Fox was taking an initiative to ban ALL online critics from here on out.”
As I think you know, never happened. Never in play. A false idea based on one screening that wasn’t even just for online and one quote that was spun out of context.
And how were you “ignored for a year,” Erik?
Were you still going to screenings? Were you still going to junkets? Did you have contact with Fox?
I don’t understand how anything that any person or any group thinks is this important festers for a year, half a year, or even a month. If you want to fight, fight. If you want to complain and complain and complain, I can’t take you too seriously.
“We never had any intention of “embarrassing” Fox and at no time were we out to fight this battle in the press.”
How did the LA Times know to call Dann, Erik? How did ANY of this become public? Why is Dann Gire or any of your people talking about any of this to the media while Fox IS talking to you?
And really… a boycott? Over a handful of screenings a year? And where is the Sony boycott? They had more movies they didn’t screen at all than Fox had ones you feel slighted on.
AND AGAIN… I am not really against you here, in principle. I have spent hours and hours fighting for more consistent treatment, and not only at Fox. I want you to have all the access anyone else has and I want you to be given clear embargo guidelines and I want you to be accountable for what you do. To me, that is the goal.
If you have a problem with what the LAT has done, the CFCA needs to speak out. If you have trouble with the words others, in their own service, are putting in your mouth, speak out.
And if you want to be taken seriously, behave like serious people, not like angry children.
Yeah, well that’s the universal question that we can all duck behind. Why does any studio need reviews and coverage? They seem to be friendly at awards season adding multiple screenings and urging our support. But they are having screenings and they are respecting people, so why not people who have earned respect by respecting their embargoes? And why are they the only studio to do so.
In related news, an agreement has been reached between the CFCA and Fox. A very simple one. Both parties appear to be happy. We’ll see what the future holds.
Let me be painfully obvious here.
Studios no longer need critics, other than during award season. The relationship between studios and critics is based on an archaic system of promotion that is no longer relevant in this day and age.
But studios adhere to protocols and rarely rock the boat. If we’re being honest, the studios could sever every tie with every critic out there today, give them no access to any of their films, wait til their readership dries up and find a new crop of critics eager to take whatever scraps they’re willing to throw them.
i.e. you need them a hell of a lot more than they need you.
and as each critic gets a little bitchier, it makes it easier for the studio to sever ties and just forget about critics altogether.
You are wrong, David. The July 13 piece was not “aided by CFCA quotes” In fact there was no mention of the CFCA or a “boycott” or Dann Gire or anything. It actually read more like a pro-Fox piece planted by an anonymous source, but that would just be speculation.
Yes, clearly Fox did not have an all-encompassing ban on online critics – which continues to prove how completely off the L.A. Times reporter was. But that was what she came to Gire with and he shot it right down.
We were ignored by Fox for a year on the issues we had raised – which is that 95% of the press in the Chicagoland area were being relegated to night-before screenings leaving most outlets shit out of luck when it came to deadlines while the Sun-Times and Tribune were able to have reviews for Friday morning.
And I don’t go to junkets.
How did the LA Times know how to call Dann? Oh, I don’t know David. Maybe cause he’s the friggin’ PRESIDENT of the CFCA whose NAME was SIGNED on the original memo.
Do you think if we just issued a blanket “no comment” on the situation – reporters like yourself or the LA Times still wouldn’t have been out there crafting stories and opinions based on not having all the facts. Kinda like what you’re doing now – except you keep twisting the facts that are right in front of you.
Where is the Sony boycott? There is none cause there’s a difference between not screening Ghost Rider at all for people and unnecessarily dividing up groups good enough for all the other screenings in town.
We’ve made it clear that we’re happy to clear up any misconceptions that any articles about this situation have created. Calls to the LA Times have gone unreturned to date. We’ve told Fox we’re happy to speak to anyone calling their offices to deflect any errors and they have actually asked us to do so.
I support the rights of critics, but I think you’re fighting a losing battle Mr. Childress. I think Anghus pointed out the problem inherent in fighting the studios, especially publicly. A critic’s whole job is dependent on the product that a studio releases and it has gotten to the point where studios don’t even need to have their films reviewed. I think the prevalence of test screening reviews on websites like AICN has contributed to the studios saying “eh, maybe we just shouldn’t screen this for critics since even the geeks hate it”. Or they’ll screen it for the big guns because to not screen it for them would surely indicate that something is wrong to the average American movie-goer.
I’m interested to see how all this plays out, but I fear it will not work out too well for the critics. Fox isn’t even bringing anything to ComiCon. I think they realize that they don’t need the geeks or the critics to have a successful film because the average American consumer doesn’t give a shit about what the critics say or whether a movie shows up at some comics convention. Hopefully, other studios won’t follow suit…
Noah. they all want to follow suit, but few of them want to be the first one sticking their neck out.
What fascinates me the most is that right now, the most effective piece of online marketing is background wallpaper on myspace main page. All these sites, all these guys bitching about how poorly their treated, all this bluster over websites that can’t sell or sink a film, bested by a still image on a website of adolescents.
These guys ask themselves every day how much time they’re spending kissing ass to websites that don’t drive them any traffic.
Trailers and Commercials are still the number 1 and 2 reasons average americans go to the movies. that has not changed since the advent of the internet.
So let’s be clear, Erik –
“Critics in Washington, D.C., San Francisco, Dallas-Fort Worth, Austin, Texas, and several cities in Florida answered Chicago’s call for support. And, like Chicago critics, some have promised to cancel publicity interviews for the Fox Searchlight film “Sunshine,” opening nationwide July 27.”
This did not come from CFCA and you don’t know or have any position on its veracity?
“The studio “is dividing people into print, broadcast and online media, and at this point, we’re all online critics,” said Gire, film critic at the Chicago Daily Herald. “The moment I generate something for print, before the ink has dried
As for the critic groups pledging their support for the CFCA, we have heard from them and this information was sent as part of an update to the membership to how this situation was unfolding. I have no knowledge of how the LA Times reporter received this info, nor the e-mail from Dallas which was quoted from but incomplete; an e-mail suggesting a further rallying of the troops. I do not know how many people they contacted, but it was an e-mail sent EARLY into these proceedings and before Fox even began talking to us.
“The studio is dividing people into print, broadcast and online media.” Isn’t that pretty much a nationwide thing? All markets that I know people in are labeled into such categories. I imagine there was a question posed to Gire, possibly based on the original Radar article, about why studios treat onliners a certain way. We do know the L.A. Times reporter was trying to create a mountain of a molehill and Gire told her that our memo to Fox was not specifically about “online” rights. It was about equality period.
I suppose the nature of the word “client” depends on who is on the asking and receiving nature of the request. It’s a give-and-take business.
I will provide more details of our discussion with Fox when I am able to.
Okay… so you admit that you have no idea what material was handed to the inflaming LAT writer by Dann Gire. You acknowledge that the CFCA has no specific beef regarding online. You seem to get that the word “client” could be read as “a person who you are there to take care of” and that this description might not fit.
And you seem to suggest that your deal is NOT done, but that you are still in talks.
Have I got it right?
And does it seem to you like your righteous indignation isn’t so well served by the facts?
You of all people, Dave, shouldn’t be talking about “righteous indignation.”
For all that I don’t know, there’s twice as many things that you don’t know and yet you are reporting as facts.
Studios take care of critics all the time and just as many take care of the studios. It’s a mutually beneficial relationship and that’s been a standing point of the CFCA’s beef with Fox all along.
And all I said is I would provide more details of the Fox discussion when I could. Not that it was or wasn’t completed. Again, more attachment on your part.
Shouldn’t there be some kind of solidarity amongst critics, both online and print? I thought one of the most telling points in the article is when Dann says something along the lines of “we’re being treated like online critics” and I wonder why you guys weren’t fighting for equality amongst critics before, if this is such an important issue to you?
We’ve always worked towards equality for critics, Noah, and for the most part, the majority of studios have recognized those onliners who are legit and rule-abiding – providing invites regularly. Dann didn’t say we’re being treated like online critics. He was just pointing out the distinction of the old business model (as he calls it.) There was a time when I first started writing professionally as a critic when many studios distributed internal memos separating online critics from the pack. That’s a whole other (and lengthy) discussion. But that was at a time when print was still a ruling class. What Gire is saying is that technically everyone is an “online” critic these days since every paper has a website and many of those print critics have blogs clearly specific to online. So to separate critics on the studio lists into such superficial categories these days is archaic. The distinction should be whom is trustworthy not to break the embargoes. But even then you have the trades and “early reviews” and publications trying to get the scoop on others through loopholes like the Harry Potter debacle going on.
solidarity among critics.
excuse me while i guffaw.
it’s about noah ego, it always has been, it always will be. there’s a weird competitive vibe between critics and online film journalists. it all boils down to the simple fact that film criticism and journalism falls under love of cinema which by nature is sycophantic. they’re all kids wanting attention from their studio fathers and celebrity older brothers, and that’s not something you want to share. It’s also about relevance. No website or publication wants to be stacked into groups of being more or less important. That rubs the egos the wrong way.
Fascinating stuff.
We’ve always worked towards equality for critics, Noah, and for the most part, the majority of studios have recognized those onliners who are legit and rule-abiding – providing invites regularly. Dann didn’t say we’re being treated like online critics. He was just pointing out the distinction of the old business model (as he calls it.) There was a time when I first started writing professionally as a critic when many studios distributed internal memos separating online critics from the pack. That’s a whole other (and lengthy) discussion. But that was at a time when print was still a ruling class. What Gire is saying is that technically everyone is an “online” critic these days since every paper has a website and many of those print critics have blogs clearly specific to online. So to separate critics on the studio lists into such superficial categories these days is archaic. The distinction should be whom is trustworthy not to break the embargoes. But even then you have the trades and “early reviews” and publications trying to get the scoop on others through loopholes like the Harry Potter debacle going on.
We’ve always worked towards equality for critics, Noah, and for the most part, the majority of studios have recognized those onliners who are legit and rule-abiding – providing invites regularly. Dann didn’t say we’re being treated like online critics. He was just pointing out the distinction of the old business model (as he calls it.) There was a time when I first started writing professionally as a critic when many studios distributed internal memos separating online critics from the pack. That’s a whole other (and lengthy) discussion. But that was at a time when print was still a ruling class. What Gire is saying is that technically everyone is an “online” critic these days since every paper has a website and many of those print critics have blogs clearly specific to online. So to separate critics on the studio lists into such superficial categories these days is archaic. The distinction should be whom is trustworthy not to break the embargoes. But even then you have the trades and “early reviews” and publications trying to get the scoop on others through loopholes like the Harry Potter debacle going on.
Here’s a good example, albeit a mildly personal one:
“The Messengers” and “Because I Said So” both opened on Super Bowl weekend earlier this year. “Messengers” didn’t screen for critics, but “Because I Said So” did and – according to that Rotten Tomatoes “bottom 10” list earlier this week – it has received the worst reviews of the year thus far.
The few critics who did review “The Messengers” generally slammed the thing, though a handful complimented the “artistry” of the directors – the Pang Brothers – though oftentimes they were heralding shots done by the re-shoot director, Eduardo Rodriguez. But, generally, it was panned as bad as (or worse than) “Because I Said So.”
“Messengers” narrowly beat the Diane Keaton/Mandy Moore flick to go #1 that weekend which, in this day and age, means a lot. It means the videostores automatically add a ton more copies to their order. It means that there’s a free couple of days of free publicity in the press where it blabs, “Messengers” goes #1 and sparks some interest, etc.
At the end of the day, however, “Because I Said So” had better word of mouth (or, well, its audience wasn’t as “opening weekend”-driven as the audience for “Messengers”) and ended up with $5 million more at the box office.
I feel that if “Messengers” had NOT opened at #1, that gulf would be wider.
So, the question is – did across-the-board bad reviews of “Because I Said So” in every newspaper hurt that film’s opening weekend? Could well be, particularly with a film aimed at older audiences (which begs a similar, albeit tangential question, if a film aimed at that audience does NOT screen for critics, does that lack of publicity provide the same detriment?). Did the fact that “Messengers” did NOT screen for critics and thereby did NOT receive the same kind of pans across the board help its opening weekend? That’s probably shakier as the 13 year-old girl-and-horror crowd doesn’t seem as affected by reviews, but Screen Gems got exactly what they wanted – a #1 for a troubled film that was hardly “Citizen Kane.”
I worked as a critic for awhile and hated it when things didn’t screen for critics. As the credited screenwriter of “The Messengers” and watching how not screening worked to the film’s advantage, I have to admit that it’s made me look at the screening/no-screening argument a little cockeyed. I remember when it started becoming common not to screen when the question kept going around – “has there ever been a successful flick that didn’t screen?”
And everybody had the same answer: “Ace Ventura.”
Now, there are many more to add to that list and with studios necessarily paying more and more and more attention to the bottom line, it seems that the ardor of critics is a trade-off the studios are simply willing to absorb.
But there’s one more weird example: there was a horror movie that came out that I – as a critic – was shown extremely early. I hated the thing and was told that the decision not to screen it for critics was made based partly on my vote as the thought went if even a HORROR critic (I wrote for Fangoria at the time) didn’t like it, what chance do we have with the mainstream press?
The movie came out, did “okay” financially, but then became a big video hit as people genuinely do like the movie – including a lot of horror fans. I’m still flabbergasted when people talk about how much they like it, but a part of me thinks the studio listened to the wrong guy.
So, it’s a crap shoot, will probably always be a crap shoot (hey, Universal might’ve thought the critics would embrace “Because I Said So”) and risk is simply something the studios are less and less willing to live with.
(unless it’s awards season where many of the movies are potential under-performers anyway and the crap shoot is definitely worth it as the studios not looking for “Day After Tomorrow” money on the thing)
But I could be wrong.
My apologies for the multiple posts.
WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT.
“The studio showed its May 12 release “Just My Luck”…”
This all started over a piece of shit Lindsey Lohan film?
Can’t we fight a good, principled battle over a Werner Herzog film, or at least a film that isn’t a total joke.
I don’t know what Chicago readers are interested in, but i don’t think missing deadlines for a Just My Luck review is really a victimless crime.
Erik… do I really have to call “bullshit” on you?
You suggest twice that I am ignorant of the facts. Put up or shut up, because I am pretty sure I understand a lot more of the factual details than you do at this point.
And please translate what your “standing point of the CFCA’s beef with Fox all along” is.
Your beef is that they show movies to Roger, Roeper, Caro, and Phillips before the rest of you? Your beef is that studios sometimes decide it is in their best interest to hide a movie, but not from people they feel will do them good even if the movie sucks? Your beef is… what?
And Noah, critics should seek overall equality… the ones with power are most often disinterested because they have the advantage… but we all need to also be equally responsible/accountable… and we must understand that hierarchy is a real part of any system, when that works against us about 20% of the time.
Agreed, Anghus, that the online vs print criticism has always been about ego. I was being facetious in my questions. But, I believe that in this case the critics are the good guys. But I also can see Fox’s point of view and I don’t understand how the critics can ever win, especially using these tactics. By boycotting screenings, it will obviously make the papers and because print journalism is indeed dying, they will always make mountains out of molehills.
I guess the larger point I’m trying to make is if all the critics, online and print had banded together to make some sort of statement, maybe it could’ve had an impact. But since the critics groups are largely elitist, they won’t associate with other critics groups to make that statement. I think that print’s disrespect of online has contributed to this a great deal and I think it’s interesting that the print critics are finally seeing how tough it was to be an online critic in the beginning because they are being treated now they way the onliners were treated not too long ago and still today.
Clearly you know all, David, so I may as well shut up. But I won’t.
Wouldn’t you agree that any studio is better served by having a mutually beneficial relationship with a critic? And I’m not just talking about any critic. Let’s say you. By being friendly and communicative, aren’t you more likely to work better with them? Aren’t you more likely to be swayed to run a certain piece or do a certain interview if a rep from that studio asked for your help?
Aren’t you better off seeing something early enough – maybe even early enough to see a movie twice – to craft an intelligent review as to the film’s strengths and flaws? Don’t you feel you owe that to your readers and to movie fans out there? When we start shutting out people who can deliver like that, we’re going to be left with nothing but Dittmans and Hammonds.
Aside from the quote whore verbage, which is part of my own standing beef with the system, THAT is what the CFCA has asked of Fox over time.
And don’t you find it funny that a studio would shut out 90% of the press in an area – maybe a fifth of which might do an interview or a feature about that film – in some effort of control for what is usually a product they are not exactly enthusiastic about from a review standpoint? So they cut off most of the press who would have a review for opening day and then give access to the 10% they perceive to be the most important (i.e. the group with the most readership). They are hesitant to get reviews but not so hesitant to make sure as many people read them as possible in the big outlets.
Can’t you guys like, join a union or something? Then you could grieve breaches of the collective agreement.
No, but you can say, “thank you Jeffrey Wells.”
And thank you David Poland, it’s been very real (and righteous) here.
Well, Erik… this is a different conversation altogether.
And I didn’t tell you to shut up… I told you to stop playing the “I know something you don’t” game when you don’t know what I know and I doubt you have some magic info that would easily clean this mess you guys have created.
But first… I disagree with Anghus and Noah a little… it’s not all ego… at this moment in time, it has a lot to do with fear as well… fear of losing the Traditional Media critics losing their jobs. And I am very sympathetic to that fear, so long as it doesn’t cause them to abuse me or others who toil online simply because we are online. Hating an individual is always fair game.
Back to you, Erik… of course to all of the issues in the last post. It’s never been an issue of what is best. Your action is about telling the studio what you must have, not what you think is good for them.
It is the studios’ 100% right to never show you anything. It is their right to show who they want, when they want, and with whatever rules they want. And you know what… they also have the right not to show people and not to have projectionists publicly reviewing their films before release and to “punish” people who break the rules, however messed up they are, that they set out.
Moreover, you need to acknowledge that the studios are screwed on a regular basis by people who are in thier confidence, large and small.
But we agree that studios are well served by having good, stable working relationships with critics and journalists. So long as they want to work with critics and journalists, the more clear and positive the relationships, the better. They agree, and this includes Fox.
But like I wrote in the first place, when they can’t trust a guy who is in charge of a critics group to behave like a professional and to keep his powder dry while working out details of an agreement that he says he wants and not talk to a reporter who is clearly spinning things, talking about things (the internet situation) of which he has no real working knowledge… this is when things go sideways.
Trust is everything.
And you guys finally got into a good place with one of the studios
Thank you Erik.
Dave, this is speculation: “and then Dann blew it.” Maybe it sped things along.
Being one of the critics “on the bubble” (I write for a weekly, which is almost as ghastly as online), here’s the one part that makes no sense.
The studio is booking a Tuesday screening. Only the daily critic can go. In our market, that’s one guy. They’ll do another promo screening Thursday, after my deadline.
And I’ve never broken an embargo. I can’t. My paper does not comem out until Friday morning!
THAT’S the insult. FOr me, anyway.
Hey Anghus!
“bested by a still image on a website of adolescents”
🙁
not all of us who use and abuse myspace are adolescents. It is easier & faster to use than email.
and yes…the wallpaper is much more effective since people can take it or leave it…and are often intrigued by it, whereas other web advertizing seems intrusive and I slam it “shut” immediately if I get those stupid floating windows/popups in my view.
Also I think you are right about commercials in that TV show loyalty is common among the average person so if you show stuff a sopranos fan is likely to like during a Sopranos commercial break, I think the veiwer might get interested in the coming attraction. I liked the blunderbuss approach of the Terebithia ads whcih were non-stop on the young people/family cable channels that I have to watch alot.
Those commercials were really effective since they were slightly *mysterious*…heck I went to see Terebithia and didn;t really originally plan to (and enjoyed it even though the advertizing was very different from what was depicted in the movie…so I felt slightly tricked). Terebithia’s cable campaign was effective.
and Dann Gire…never send emails when you are mad. Print can be resurrected forever.
It’s better to argue in person in a dimly lit bar. It’s also easier to change someone’s mind there too, which really at the end of the day is what would be preferable.
Furthermore, Dave, write about it because you’re interested, not because you want to be in a respectable enough market niche to be acceptable on CNBC or taken over by The Hollywood Reporter. Don’t write like an old man longong for a lost society. And no one should think that film criticism and journalism aren’t good for the film industry or that they want it to all go the way of “The Ten Spot” and “AICN.”
Being as modern as I am, can studios set up embargo busting tip lines and reward tipsters with cash prizes to help keep track of on-liners? Assuming the leads are verifiable, of course, and the tipster has a PayPal account.
I must confess to feeling no little amusement while reading this thread. Because David, rightly or wrongly, reads like some Elder Statesman of the Internet, lecturing the Young Turks on how to behave. Not so long ago — last week, maybe — he bristled at being told how to conduct himself by Old Media Sages. And now? Well, hey, yesterday’s Rebels are today’s Establishment. As it always has been, as it ever will be.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Or, as Rod Steiger says in In the Heat of the Night: “Boy, you’re just like the rest of us, ain’t ya?”
And BTW: There truly is nothing new under the sun. While digging through Variety archives last week, I saw that, as far back as 1968, studios were being brought to task for refusing to press screen certain movies — even some that had been in regional release for weeks if not months before opening in NY and LA.
Who were the “old media” sages, Joe?
I’ve been a traditionalist from the start. I respect what Traditional Media has built and have always believed in the idea that there were rules and responsibilities.
And THung, as regards Dann, you’re dead wrong. I will leave it at that.
There is nothing wrong with fighting for new ideas. But people who fight for what they want without considering the consequences are, have been, and will always be fools.
And TMJ, that rule sounds very silly.
The thing is, I support the idea of CFCA members seeing movies as early as anyone else in the market, with very rare exception. But I also believe that they need to take responsibility for that trust, which they were negotiating with Fox. Great.
My only issue now is the talking out of school.
Anne Thompson has written a interesting article to analysis Paramount/Dreamworks relationship.
http://weblogs.variety.com/thompsononhollywood/2007/07/corporate-shake.html
“When we start shutting out people who can deliver like that, we’re going to be left with nothing but Dittmans and Hammonds.”
I think the studio would be very happy with that. I’m sure they flinch everytime they look at the low ratings on places like Rotten Tomatoes (which they own) and realize how few of those are posted by legitimate and established critics and YET, if a low rating on RT is enough to dissuade a few thousand people from going to see their movie than they’ve wasted a lot of money trying to make their crappy movies look like they might not be nearly as crappy.
I can understand both sides of the coin here, but I do agree that trying to be helpful and professional towards critics/journalists goes a long way to getting them in the sort of headspace where they can view their movies unbiased and unhindered by all of the bullshit. Warner Bros. never played these games with Catwoman and I don’t think there ever was a worse negative vibe movie going into it than that one.
That said, I’m sometimes shocked by the movies that the studios DO show early and invite critics to screen… like Evan Almighty.
And David, I have to say that I don’t often speak up when I disagree with you but I don’t particularly like your stance or attitude on this matter. True, two wrongs don’t make a right and maybe the Chicago critics should have taken a different approach before announcing a boycott, but as someone who more than once was going to take a personal boycott against Fox myself (and I have an editor who would probably have been fine with that as long as I didn’t post anything about it on the site), I totally see where they’re coming from. The way that you’re taking on this decision of theirs very much from a studio shill perspective makes me wonder how you can even remotely consider yourself a pillar or a leader in trying to get respect for the online community.
See, you continue to use your TV/broadcast connections to get into early screenings so you can hold it over your mostly internet readers like a banana in front of a monkey for months and then you turn around and talk about how great the internet is over “old media” … blah blah blah.
Granted, moviecitynews is very much an independent site (still driven by advertising) but I can’t help but think that you’re very much like what new wave was to punk…. kind of like Internet Lite or internet for the 70 year old grannnies who just signed up for AOL. (Hi Mom!) If that’s the niche you’re trying to create for yourself, then more power to you, but you’re also creating this gap between yourself and the print world while at the same time creating an equally wide one between yourself and the onliners…
No man is an island, David.
i think criticism is important to the craft of film.
i just don’t think it matters into the finances of films.
Wow. I got away for a few days and I miss a great spat. Anghus wrote:
“it’s about noah ego, it always has been, it always will be. there’s a weird competitive vibe between critics and online film journalists. it all boils down to the simple fact that film criticism and journalism falls under love of cinema which by nature is sycophantic. they’re all kids wanting attention from their studio fathers and celebrity older brothers, and that’s not something you want to share. It’s also about relevance. No website or publication wants to be stacked into groups of being more or less important. That rubs the egos the wrong way.
Fascinating stuff.”
It’s true that ego plays into it. But I would argue that the main difference between print and online is that online is like the stepchild trying to be considered on of the “real children.” There will always be fighting and forced affection. Ultimately it’s a doomed relationship. I was once told that the reason I being sued was because, paraphrasing, print is a medium that can be “controlled.” Online cannot. The egos online are ridiculous though, evolved over time to be necessary to survive among the competition. Who else but someone with a big ego would have the gall to think what they personally think matters to anyone?
Maybe to some it’s about ego…but to others (like myself) it’s about being able to do their job and being able to watch movies in a way that one can give it the proper attention and a fair and unbiased viewing. When you’re dealing with all this bullshit before the lights go down, it really doesn’t put you in the mood to be generous.
It’s not like Chicago is asking to see movies weeks in advance or anything. They just want to be treated fairly so they can do their jobs and it’s not hard to enforce opening day embargoes if that’s the big worry on Fox’s side.
“Any reviewer who expresses rage and loathing for a novel is preposterous. He or she is like a person who has put on full armor and attacked a hot fudge sundae.”
– Kurt Vonnegut
I met Kurt in Bloomingdale’s, I think he wanted to buy me a hot fudge sundae. I agree with Ed. Critics are people too. And it’s such a hard, low paying, job, but talent rises, people know when they’re being given a framework upon which to make their own experience better. I think people feel cheated by anything less, and they don’t come back.
I got a PayPal account, I’ll monitor the phone from my current job, and then we’ll talk.
Warner just told me they will not screen The Invasion in our market.
And so it goes …
TMJ, that one seems par for the course. I’m betting they don’t screen The Invasion most places.
I hear Disney’s not screening Underdog either.
Ed – Do you know me? Do you think you know how I operate? Do you think you know how I have really treated some of the people who are now first to attack me? Do you think you know the fights I have fought for the internet community and how we (including you, pal) are treated in the film industry?
You need to sit down and think about what you think you know and what you really know. And as someone who can throw a hard punch as well as anyone, I know of what I speak. Do you think it would occur to me for a second to opine on you or your career? Would you consider me remotely qualified to have an opinion about you, aside from your box office analysis?
A lot of people have a lot of opinions about me and things I write. When those are negative opinions, some do sting… the ones from people who actually do know what and who they are talking about. That, I think by your own admission, would not include you.
David, I can only go by what I read and what you post here (which is a lot) and the only reason I disagree with you here is because to me, your stance on this situation and the approach you’re taking to address it seems to be go very much against character on stances you’ve taken in the past, at least in terms of the internet vs. other media. Unless you’re doing it strictly to play “devil’s advocate” and start discussion (and as someone who does that regularly, I can’t fully fault you for it), it certainly seems like your opinion on this matter is fairly clear. Of course, you have a right to your opinion especially here on your blog, but I think this is one case where you’re trying to be deliberately vague and confrontational in a way that seems like you’re deliberately trying to make even more enemies in the online community that you claim to herald.
You’d be surprised how much more I know than you might think I know though. I’ve been on the governing board for the only New York based onilne critics group for over two years and I’ve heard horror stories from every level of writer from the well-established veterans to the “vanity site writer” and yes, even from some of the Chicago critics well before they decided to take action.
BTW, I reread what I wrote earlier and realized that maybe it was needlessly harsh so I apologize for that. I was surprised not as much by the stance you’ve taken on this matter but the way that you’ve decided to address it in a way that was so negative and confrontational, which is probably why my reaction/response was in kind. I think I was just annoyed and on a rant…
Thank you.
And may I point out again… NONE of the CFCA stuff has to do with online. ONLY the LA Times story spun it that way. They would have the world believe there is an online boycott. And I say, “Name one onliner or critic who is currently boycotting.”
I had a beef with Fox because online was being sprayed with excrement in that first LAT piece, which included a Fox quote. Since, I have had some very long, significant, high-level conversations with the studio about how they treat all journalists, including online.
Ironically, it was Fox that wanted to make sure that I gave Dann Gire enough credit when I wrote about all this for his proposal to the studio intended to clear up the CFCA situation… which he then flipped by not shutting his mouth and giving the LAT ammo for a second bad/false story.
This is all a work in progress and the right thing to do at this point is to shut up and let it happen. And if there is no progress soon, engage again. The studio appears to have a sincere interest in fixing a long-festering problem. Going public should always be a last resort.
I am completely aware that I am not treated the same as the majority of onliners. But I once was. And I still fight that fight. The enemy here, in this specific situation, is not Fox so much as it is the LA Times.
Every studio plays games with screenings. And the point of all this talk is to create a structure that will open it up, not keep it murky and inconsistent.
Good points, David. I’m actually kind of thankful sometimes when a studio decides not to screen things that look bad… while I like building up a stockpile to include in my Terrible 25 every year, sometimes it’s better to just spend my time doing other things than watching bad movies.
But you did address one of my issues with the initial post and thread, that you really aren’t treated the same as most onliners/critics. Part of it is that you own/run your own site rather than just write for one like me and a few of the others who are complaning, because the studios do treat the site owners (many of whom don’t do any writing, yourself excepted of course) better than those who do the writing.
You’re right though that maybe this isn’t as much an online vs. critics thing as I originally surmised.
I don’t want to blow my own horn too much, but it has little or nothing to do with me owning a website or having broadcast gigs occasionally.
I wil tell you exactly when a lot changed… in the year after Hot Button turned 5. I think for a lot of people, they finally realized that I wasn’t leaving.
And if any one of them can swing the sledgehammer with me, they can have all the access I have. Nikki Finke was a ghost before her blog… and now she is being profiled by WWD. Brandon Grey is not a great mind on box office, but he built a site that organized it better than any other – including EDI and Exhibitor Relations – and now he is a master of the universe. And Gina Piccalo will not soon be forgotten by Fox or the CFCA.
Don’t be enraged because I have what others want. As Jimmy Cliff would say:
You can get it if you really want,
You can get it if you really want,
You can get it if you really want,
but you must try, try and try,
try and try,
you’ll succeed at last.
Persecution you must bear,
win or lose, you got to get your share,
You’ve got your mind set on a dream,
you can get it, though hard it may seem, now.
I know it – listen
Rome was not built in a day,
Opposition will come your way,
but the harder the battle you see,
it’s the sweeter the victory, now.
I’m sure the battle for online critics to receive their fair shake is EXACTLY what Jimmy Cliff meant by that. You should change your name to Ivan…
Jimmy Cliff is the Nostradamus of reggae.