I just realized that I hate EMBEDDED FILMJOURNALISM!!!!

[pheadx]

It's late at night, I'm about to go to bed and I just felt like bitching about what most fan sites have become (Joblo is still cool I guess)... I just realized that I can't stand that lazy form of film journalism that's becoming more popular these days. Is no one worried that all we get to read are "exclusive set visits" or watch stupid promo material. Are all former fanboys going to sell-out now? Is the industry really buying everyone? What comes out of it are reviews that totally praise or bash a film without trying to even have an argumentation or analysis. people just hate or love a movie. instead of getting an insight, i have to read who of the film industry the author is friends with, or what his girlfriend thought about the movie, or what he himself would have done better if he were the director. And mostly I get the feeling that the oldest film the author has seen might be Star Wars, and the most experimental would be Lost Highway. Also, most of the films are blockbusters and comic book or video game adaptations. I mean, we get bombed by advertisments and clever viral campaigns, why do we want to support that? There are loads of different movies. What happened to real journalism, to opinion, to cultural content, to film theory, to contextualisation, or to the sheer fun of provocation? If you only write what everybody else wants to hear, you wouldn't recognize a masterpiece if it's in front of your eyes... instead, you would just wait for someone to tell you that it's a masterpiece. i wish All these wrIters i'm talking about Could get over the fact that they woN't be making serious movies (and if they do they shouldn't act as a film critic), and once you get over it you will see that the film themselves are so much greater than the dream of meeting steven spielberg one day and selling one's soul for that.... The aim shouldn't be to write something that can be quoted in a movie trailer, the aim should be to write something memorable..... Damn, that was so pathetic... haha

[someguy]

dude this site finds any excuse to post tits in every news story, why are you looking for integrity

[LordSimen]

I don't really look at exclusive set visits or the like as "selling out," really. I just look at it as the industry finally realizing the power of it's internet fans and how a lot of guys like Joblo telling you "Hey, this movie looks pretty awesome. I recommend it" can lead to more people showing up in the theater. They use to ignore internet journalists, now they're embracing 'em. I think it's a good thing to be honest.

[The Heart Collector]

A set visit tells you nothing about the quality of a movie, it's essentially publicity.

It's all publicity. Set visits, set photos, interviews, etc... they're all very hollow publicity / fluff pieces. They're not "embracing" internet journalism they're using websites as gigantic billboards for fluffy bullshit. Which is what it is, I'm sorry. Has anyone read an interview here and thought "wow, i really learned a lot from that, that was in-depth, fascinating, beautiful journalism"? No, because these are short interviews for press junkets.

I also disagree with the notion that Joblo.com is exempt from this. Honestly, Joblo.com is one of the worst victims of this crap. The background for the site is a goddamn ad for the movie WANTED, for fuck's sake. THE GODDAMN BACKGROUND.

[LordSimen]

It's all publicity. Set visits, set photos, interviews, etc... they're all very hollow publicity / fluff pieces. They're not "embracing" internet journalism they're using websites as gigantic billboards for fluffy bullshit.

'Eh, I consider that embracing in a lot of ways. Instead of ignoring the internet journalists like Joblo, Comingsoon.net, or AICN or sueing the shit out out of them for their leaked info every week, they're now embracing the internet community and using it to their advantage. Yes, that does equal fluffy billboards advertising the film. Yes, that does mean giving websites exclusive set visits and small press junket interviews. But really, I don't look at that as a bad thing. They use to just ignore 'em.

[BanksIsDaFuture]

What in the hell are you rambling about?

[Preston_79]

What in the hell are you rambling about?

It has something to do with movies, something about selling out, something....

I don't really know. I'm distracted by a cloud over my that looks kind of like a giant hand. Anyway What?


Yeah total bullshit. Where do I sign up?

[Rated R]

When I first read the title of the thread I expected it to be a scathing indictment of war reporting and embedded journalists in a warzone. That's such an odd issue where there doesn't appear to be a suitable alternative. Embedded journalists will get the perspective of the soldiers while having little perspective on the opposite side. They are safer, but there's little balance. Sacrificing safety to go rogue will also sacrifice the perspective of the soldiers most likely as they will be less likely to talk to that journalist...but that's not the issue here.

I don't mind set visits on the site because if the movie is garbage it will be reflected in the review afterwards. I remember reading the Globe and Mail a while back with an interview with Robert Towne, screenwriter of Chinatown. The interview was about his film Ask the Dust. It was a nice interview about a journeyman screenwriter and his pet project. That same issue was a negative review about that film. I'm not saying they did it purposely, the reviewer (I think it was Rick Groen...maybe Liam Lacey) simply disliked the film.

I think it comes out in the wash in film sites and entertainment sections.

What I don't like are shows like Entertainment Tonight that glorify the life of celebrity and try to make paparazzi seem like an honorable profession. It's image based and perpetuates the ideals that wealth and fame are more important than anything else in life, and I loathe that programming.

But sites like this who go on a set visit? No, I don't see an issue there.

[Homyrrh]

A set visit tells you nothing about the quality of a movie, it's essentially publicity.

It's all publicity. Set visits, set photos, interviews, etc... they're all very hollow publicity / fluff pieces. They're not "embracing" internet journalism they're using websites as gigantic billboards for fluffy bullshit. Which is what it is, I'm sorry. Has anyone read an interview here and thought "wow, i really learned a lot from that, that was in-depth, fascinating, beautiful journalism"? No, because these are short interviews for press junkets.

I also disagree with the notion that Joblo.com is exempt from this. Honestly, Joblo.com is one of the worst victims of this crap. The background for the site is a goddamn ad for the movie WANTED, for fuck's sake. THE GODDAMN BACKGROUND.
Definitely second your last.

You think this is bad, watch some ESPN programming.

"Well I was talking to Brett Favre last because he called me over to speak with him and give him a sponge bath and give him some tips on his bowel movement, and he said he was nervous." Was this all really necessary, John Madden?

[pheadx]

When I first read the title of the thread I expected it to be a scathing indictment of war reporting and embedded journalists in a warzone. That's such an odd issue where there doesn't appear to be a suitable alternative. Embedded journalists will get the perspective of the soldiers while having little perspective on the opposite side. They are safer, but there's little balance. Sacrificing safety to go rogue will also sacrifice the perspective of the soldiers most likely as they will be less likely to talk to that journalist...but that's not the issue here.

I think that's a similar case here. Through the embeddedment, it doesn't really matter whether the review is positive or negative. If someone writes in an actual review that he "simply dislikes" it, it has as much value as if he had "just liked" it.

It doesn't really matter what you write if you have nothing to say... If you don't watch anything besides the hardly advertised movies and then even become a bihatch of the studios, it is probably not very differentiated. With a lot of articles I'm reading it just doesn't make a difference to me if it's positive or negative. This whole hate-it or love-it review style is a result of the industry's influence, because only through this distinction, a film becomes marketable.

[dellamorte dellamore]

You do have a point , but you have to realize some of these fanboys aren't traditional journalists , they're hype masters in bed with the studios . Some of them are so desperate just to have a 2 minute sit down with their favorite director , actor , visual fx person , they will do anything to get in their good graces . On the other side , you have the desperate studios who seek to manipulate this fanboyism into big returns at the box office , it's called marketing , but it's really nothing like the marketing i was accustomed to when i was a youngin ' .

They will invite fanboys , the pseudo journalists , to a production in progress , because they know , that fanboy will be shooting loads all over themselves simply because he's on a movie set , in that moment all objectivity is rendered moot , and all we will get is , it was great basically , and it was amazing meeting my idol and all that nice stuff .

Then said fanboy blogs about his exploits and the hype machine jumps another level , well , the studio hopes it does , because it doesn't always go the way they plan .


Now , i'm not going to sit here and say that these people who get invited to a movie set and blog about it are without talent , and some of them may even have degrees in journalism , but i never really get a feel for a film's potential entertainment value from these set reports . They can be interesting , but i tend to avoid them , i'll watch the behind the scenes when the dvd comes out and i'll simply eschew the fanboy set visit hype . Who the fekk wouldn't be excited about visiting a movie set , any movie , for someone that likes movies , even a Uwe Boll flick would be quite the experience , even if the movie would most likely blow chunks .

So , i think these visits benefit the one doing the visiting more than they do the people who read the blogs of the exploits and see the pics if any are taken .

[pheadx]

So , i think these visits benefit the one doing the visiting more than they do the people who read the blogs of the exploits and see the pics if any are taken .

Exactly.