Lotta wisdom here, Mancini and I for one am trying to get dumber in my old age. So thanks for nothing.
It feels like even when your goal is to put out quality, the only way people understand things now is “brands” and so they have to think in those terms. Take A24, for example. They make all kinds of movies about all kinds of things and they try to pick quality scripts. But those movies are made by different filmmakers with diverse goals but I can’t tell you how many people I talk to that’ll go “Oh an A24 movie!” Then they buy the T-shirt for $60 or whatever. Who cares if Bong Joon-ho puts a movie out on Neon or A24?
So like you’re saying, the enshittification of everything. The Guardian article sorta plays into ageism and culture war thinking too, which is unhelpful.
A24 gets a lot of shit (especially for that merch, which I agree is terrible, thankfully I've never actually encountered it in real life), but for all their frequent obnoxiousness, it feels a lot of times like they're the only ones trying to make movies *cool,* and trying to sell that coolness. Selling coolness is always kind of obnoxious in that way, but man, the film industry so desperately needs to get cooler now. Especially when the only alternative is IP-driven dogshit.
I mean...the movies are good! So I’m not gonna complain if you want to sell a t-shirt as long as the movies are good. I just mean that the way people are wired feels all wrong. They’re looking at A24 like it’s “Sony” or something. It’s like how you always talked about people cheering at the Lucasfilm logo.
I really enjoyed this article because uproxx has become this garbage that just finds praise from any influencer with a checkmark that will slurp the juice for an article with no substance.
Filmdrunk always was something special to me that made me think about movies more and gave me something different to consider watching. I hate that you got pushed out and uproxx became 5 videos ads and dipshits saying nothing in a thousand words.
I love the comment that kids are supposed to be dumb & vain. If this were understood by the "oldsters" (I'm 62 BTW) it would cut down on the Comments on NYT articles--on basically any topic--that opine that young/teen kids are devoid of cultural discernment. I'd argue that youth is exposed to much more media (in all forms) today and it's only through experience and maturity that they will be able to "sort" their taste.
When I was 8 y/o, I saw 2 new releases: "2001: A Space Odyssey" and "The Love Bug." The former confused me a bit but was visually interesting. I saw the latter 2 more times that same year (Tuesday evening movies were 99 cents). I've seen "2001" a few more times since and appreciate its greatness.
But some days, I need a bit of "Herbie" more than I need a bit of "Hal."
I guess it depends on definitions of "influencer" and "critic," but something like film criticism is thriving on YouTube. It's mostly bad (like every single creative endeavor) and most channels can very neatly fall into one quadrant of the reactionary and brand-servility spectra, but it's there.
I completely agree with your points about access. My conspiratorial view is that the long tail of online discourse about entertainment is bots and content farms, the juicy middle is (implied) quid pro quo, and the head may actually be "sponsored."
Regarding quality, one of the interesting explanations I've heard is the sacrificing of creative executives on the altar of IP. Creative execs (e.g., Alan Ladd) would be responsible for identifying and developing projects and/or talent. The simple interpretation of the role is they decided what was "good;" with more nuance, they decided if there was a market for something, how big it was, and who was in it. Now, IP is assumed to have universal appeal and guaranteed returns, so we the movies we get are pants that don't fit anyone and cost $300.
Oh, for sure. It used to be, "this guy has a good track record, let's give him some money for a project." Which is, essentially, betting on a human. Now we like to pretend that there's some science to it, so everyone has to point to fake numbers (GRR, BIG DATA!) and tout their "IP," because the conventional wisdom is that this is somehow safer than just trusting some guy. Even though it always comes down to just trusting some guy at some point.
Back in the pre-internet days, there were so-called junket whores who may not have had big outlets for their reviews, but their whole deal was coming up with pithy quotes that would then appear on movie posters. Even the worst movie had a blurb from Jeff Craig at "60 Second Preview." Here's an article from the L.A. Times, way back in 1997: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1997-03-24-mn-41536-story.html
That hand-picked thing is emphasized any time I see a round of tweets from the critics I follow who got five hundred PR emails about Movie Of The Week, but when they requested a screener, they got stonewalled/ghosted/told you can only watch it during a two-hour window at 3AM on a Wednesday.
Brilliantly written stuff here. And I'm saying this partially because I dearly missed Filmdrunk. It informed me of the 'why is this good or shite' of certain films so much more than any aggregiate and marketing strategy. Good criticism can also be as useful to a filmmaker as taking a course and classes.
as cynical as I am and aware that the embargo was standing in the way of more than tweets I never considered the possibility that the tweets or "first reviews!" were from pro-brand influencers and the like.
fortuitous timing given the first reviews are in for Blue Beetle and what do you know, they're positive!
I met a film critic through mutual friends the other day, and he told me that the magazine he works for got quoted on the Ninja Turtles poster, and nobody at the magazine is really too pleased about it, because A) it's a magazine for film professionals, so being quoted on the Ninja Turtles poster isn't really valuable publicity to them, and B) the guy who actually wrote it is upset that the one time in his entire career that he gets quoted on a poster, it's nothing insightful or clever, it's a completely generic quote ("un bon gros délire !", so something like "so much fun!") that seems like it could come from an influencer's twitter account and not a "serious" critic.
Lotta wisdom here, Mancini and I for one am trying to get dumber in my old age. So thanks for nothing.
It feels like even when your goal is to put out quality, the only way people understand things now is “brands” and so they have to think in those terms. Take A24, for example. They make all kinds of movies about all kinds of things and they try to pick quality scripts. But those movies are made by different filmmakers with diverse goals but I can’t tell you how many people I talk to that’ll go “Oh an A24 movie!” Then they buy the T-shirt for $60 or whatever. Who cares if Bong Joon-ho puts a movie out on Neon or A24?
So like you’re saying, the enshittification of everything. The Guardian article sorta plays into ageism and culture war thinking too, which is unhelpful.
A24 gets a lot of shit (especially for that merch, which I agree is terrible, thankfully I've never actually encountered it in real life), but for all their frequent obnoxiousness, it feels a lot of times like they're the only ones trying to make movies *cool,* and trying to sell that coolness. Selling coolness is always kind of obnoxious in that way, but man, the film industry so desperately needs to get cooler now. Especially when the only alternative is IP-driven dogshit.
I mean...the movies are good! So I’m not gonna complain if you want to sell a t-shirt as long as the movies are good. I just mean that the way people are wired feels all wrong. They’re looking at A24 like it’s “Sony” or something. It’s like how you always talked about people cheering at the Lucasfilm logo.
I really enjoyed this article because uproxx has become this garbage that just finds praise from any influencer with a checkmark that will slurp the juice for an article with no substance.
Filmdrunk always was something special to me that made me think about movies more and gave me something different to consider watching. I hate that you got pushed out and uproxx became 5 videos ads and dipshits saying nothing in a thousand words.
I love the comment that kids are supposed to be dumb & vain. If this were understood by the "oldsters" (I'm 62 BTW) it would cut down on the Comments on NYT articles--on basically any topic--that opine that young/teen kids are devoid of cultural discernment. I'd argue that youth is exposed to much more media (in all forms) today and it's only through experience and maturity that they will be able to "sort" their taste.
When I was 8 y/o, I saw 2 new releases: "2001: A Space Odyssey" and "The Love Bug." The former confused me a bit but was visually interesting. I saw the latter 2 more times that same year (Tuesday evening movies were 99 cents). I've seen "2001" a few more times since and appreciate its greatness.
But some days, I need a bit of "Herbie" more than I need a bit of "Hal."
Reacting to this and your previous post:
I guess it depends on definitions of "influencer" and "critic," but something like film criticism is thriving on YouTube. It's mostly bad (like every single creative endeavor) and most channels can very neatly fall into one quadrant of the reactionary and brand-servility spectra, but it's there.
I completely agree with your points about access. My conspiratorial view is that the long tail of online discourse about entertainment is bots and content farms, the juicy middle is (implied) quid pro quo, and the head may actually be "sponsored."
Regarding quality, one of the interesting explanations I've heard is the sacrificing of creative executives on the altar of IP. Creative execs (e.g., Alan Ladd) would be responsible for identifying and developing projects and/or talent. The simple interpretation of the role is they decided what was "good;" with more nuance, they decided if there was a market for something, how big it was, and who was in it. Now, IP is assumed to have universal appeal and guaranteed returns, so we the movies we get are pants that don't fit anyone and cost $300.
Oh, for sure. It used to be, "this guy has a good track record, let's give him some money for a project." Which is, essentially, betting on a human. Now we like to pretend that there's some science to it, so everyone has to point to fake numbers (GRR, BIG DATA!) and tout their "IP," because the conventional wisdom is that this is somehow safer than just trusting some guy. Even though it always comes down to just trusting some guy at some point.
Back in the pre-internet days, there were so-called junket whores who may not have had big outlets for their reviews, but their whole deal was coming up with pithy quotes that would then appear on movie posters. Even the worst movie had a blurb from Jeff Craig at "60 Second Preview." Here's an article from the L.A. Times, way back in 1997: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1997-03-24-mn-41536-story.html
Fun read. Thanks for sharing.
That hand-picked thing is emphasized any time I see a round of tweets from the critics I follow who got five hundred PR emails about Movie Of The Week, but when they requested a screener, they got stonewalled/ghosted/told you can only watch it during a two-hour window at 3AM on a Wednesday.
You called it Vince, wow: https://www.ign.com/articles/rotten-tomatoes-under-fire-after-pr-firms-scheme-to-pay-critics-for-positive-reviews-uncovered
Brilliantly written stuff here. And I'm saying this partially because I dearly missed Filmdrunk. It informed me of the 'why is this good or shite' of certain films so much more than any aggregiate and marketing strategy. Good criticism can also be as useful to a filmmaker as taking a course and classes.
as cynical as I am and aware that the embargo was standing in the way of more than tweets I never considered the possibility that the tweets or "first reviews!" were from pro-brand influencers and the like.
fortuitous timing given the first reviews are in for Blue Beetle and what do you know, they're positive!
I met a film critic through mutual friends the other day, and he told me that the magazine he works for got quoted on the Ninja Turtles poster, and nobody at the magazine is really too pleased about it, because A) it's a magazine for film professionals, so being quoted on the Ninja Turtles poster isn't really valuable publicity to them, and B) the guy who actually wrote it is upset that the one time in his entire career that he gets quoted on a poster, it's nothing insightful or clever, it's a completely generic quote ("un bon gros délire !", so something like "so much fun!") that seems like it could come from an influencer's twitter account and not a "serious" critic.
God I would've loved to work at a place like that.