« BYOB - Humpty Hump | Main | And Now, Prop 8's Direct Challenge To Sundance »
November 12, 2008
And The World Goes 'Round
Why don't you get honest coverage of the film industry very often?
Patrick Goldstein writes: "Fox Co-Chairman Tom Rothman graciously agreed to have lunch with me today at the Fox commissary"
So... as so often is the case... a blogger attacks and attacks and attacks for no journalistic reason and the result... he gets what he wants. In this case, another free lunch.
Why? Because Tom Rothman wants to head off attacks on his most expensive production of the year at the pass.
But Patrick is hardly the only one who plays this game and Fox is hardly the only studio that plays along.
This is the same issue, at its core, as the embargo discussion.
I talk to studios all the time about how treacherous the publicity landscape is these days. And if you want to know why, it’s simple. Squeaky wheel. Grease.
The endless repetition of the lesson is that the loudest whiners get the most attention and that anyone who would respect studio edicts is likely to be an afterthought. There are a few who walk the line effectively.
For the record, I have made no requests of Fox about this film, a week before it will be shown to the media. I have been denied nothing and was, actually, offered access to whatever I’d like, had I been scheduled to be in L.A. next week.
Gossip about the film being changed at Fox’s request was and is idiotic, even if it were true… which I believe it isn’t. But why is anyone beating the drum on this a week out? How desperate are we to fill blog inches?
We in the media have gotten so paranoid and fearful of our own vulnerabilities that even in the biggest outlets in the world, we are seeing more attention to being first than to being right. And the studios have responded, for the most part, but dealing only with what is directly in front of them, solving the immediate problem, and moving along without much lingering memory of what has happened. (And the media, whose job it is to have perspective, has even less memory of anything other than what got them what they wanted.) As a result, they keep getting screwed the same ways over and over and over again.
We have become a schoolyard of seven-year-olds… not even high school…
You want to know what the future of Australia in the awards race is? You won’t find out in the L.A. Times, online or off. You will find out when the movie is seen and a consensus that is bigger than any one, two, or six of us starts to develop. You will find out at the box office over Thanksgiving. You will find out in the critics awards announcements and the Golden Globes nominations and the BFCA nominations and all the moments that define the season. You will find out when the Australia disc hits Academy mailboxes... or doesn’t… in Blu-ray… or not. Etc, etc, etc…
But let’s keep rolling that log. This one says it happened… then it didn’t… then it did… who cares? Is the movie good? Do audiences like it? Do Academy members like it?
The irony of all of this is that The Mainstream Media is becoming even more the The Internet Mob than The Internet Mob ever was. They are more rabid, more abusive, more likely to break rules, more likely to trade favors (without saying it out loud, of course), and just more of everything that was cute when the web was an infant, problematic when the web was a maturing child, and is now irrelevant on some level, since They have become Us only uglier than we ever dreamed of being.
Truth is, the Internet mob has had to fight for the traction it got over the last decade while the Traditional Media was, for the most part, pissing all over the web and its output. That fight forces its participants to grow up and to deal with the limitations of having to work for everything… of having to deliver or get fired… to build real trust in order to work with studios. And in this year, we have become the adults while the former grownups have become a bunch a whiny, nasty, spitting babies, just starting to learn the lessons that The Internet Mob spent the last decade learning.
To put too fine a point on it… it’s Obama v McCain all over again.
Of course, me writing this makes me Not The Obama. He was smart enough not to put up those red flags for the other side, so they could learn faster by more quickly recognizing their own mistakes of habit. On the other hand, the egos on the other side are so big, they are just beginning to recognize that before they can ever win again, they will have to seriously rethink it all.
The studios too… but they spend so much on advertising that they can afford to screw up publicity all day long and not pay a price at anywhere but the dinner table.
And so it goes…
PS, 5:55p - Ain't It Anne News prematurely ejaculates on Benjamin Button in Variety... you know, the trade paper... the one that holds up the traditions of the industry?
This doesn't mean that Ben Button is anything less than great... a "review" from a "spy" is not any more inherently inaccurate than accurate. But Variety has become the sleaziest player in the entertainment media game lately... breaking embargoes, printing "spy" reviews, overwriting stories instead of correcting them, etc.
I have no objection to Anne or anyone else writing that they heard good or bad or indifferent out of a SAG NomCom screening. But running an anonymous "friend" as a "review?" Bullshit. Just bullshit.
Posted by dpoland at November 12, 2008 01:28 PM
Comments
I suspect the LA Times insists on PG buying his own lunch (a minor point, admittedly).
Posted by: chris ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 12, 2008 02:28 PM
My understanding is that the former rules about that were rescinded last year.
Posted by: David Poland at November 12, 2008 02:38 PM
Off Topic, I apologize.
DP, did you see the Madagsacar 2 number for Veteran's day? $9.8 million. Over half of Sunday.
I looked back at other early November openings to see the Veteran's Day pop for kids movies and this looks awfully big compared to anything else.
Then again I am not sure it is comparable as the approach of school district's towards Veteran's Day has changed with more and more taking the actual day off over the years.
Curious if you have any thoughts. As you know, I follow this form a Wall Street perspective and DWA shares have traded off with the market this week despite what looks like a film that will exceed the Street's domestic box office expectations of $200 million.
BTW, I hope all is well. I have not posted here much lately as the market crash has me preoccupied. I decided to attend Sundance despite my need to shave costs. My son who is an aspiring composer interested in movie scores and a junior at NYU is going to accompany me. Hope to see you there again.
And thanks for the Obama coverage. I am from Chicago, met him a few times back in 2003 and happy to see the outcome.
Posted by: Direwolf at November 12, 2008 03:07 PM
Between this and the Luhrmann interview, Fox successfully spun the Times this day.
Posted by: Kristopher Tapley at November 12, 2008 03:24 PM
"But why is anyone beating the drum on this a week out? How desperate are we to fill blog inches?"
This from the man who originated the "20 Weeks To Oscar" feature to make the studios up their "For Your Consideration" ad dollar spending earlier than they normally would.
Posted by: boltbucket at November 12, 2008 03:26 PM
Boltbucket, take it from personal experience: when all you do is bash David Poland, you lose credibility fast.
Posted by: jeffmcm at November 12, 2008 03:30 PM
I'm not "bashing" anyone. I'm just making an observation.
Posted by: boltbucket at November 12, 2008 03:36 PM
Is that a distortion or just a lie?
Posted by: jeffmcm at November 12, 2008 03:40 PM
Yes, Boltbucket... I invented the 20 week Oscar season... I am just THAT powerful.
Measley humans, RUN from my lightening bolts!!!!
(For the record, 20 was a round number and meant starting in October, which is not September, which is when the drama really starts. It was not created with advertising in mind, though it has made a neat package.
In fact, this year we created a pre-October package at the direct request of two studios. Our awards package does start earlier than some studios have awards ads ready, but we will run non-awards ad for those studios in their slots. And frankly, we are cheap enough that some studios don't even care that they burn off the first month... the pricing still works for what they get in the second two months. Trying to find an excuse to attack the least aggressive ad sales effort in the business is a little lame.)
Posted by: David Poland at November 12, 2008 06:13 PM
The reason they needed to "spin" in the first place Kris was because most of the Internet Mob and quickly followed by the Mainstream Media didn't bother to check the validity of the original source and its content. Either by getting a comment from Luhrmann or Fox, or by just doing a simple review of the already available information on this film on the web. It was more important to be among the first, than to provide perspective or accurate reporting. It seemed like most merely reposted the item and said "Damn Fox! Film's in trouble." rather than adding anything to it. The original article was from a Mainstream Media pundit, but it was pretty poorly put together and should have rung alarm bells. He selectively quoted from test screening reviews posted on the web months ago. Then made his claim about the forced ending change happening the week before. Any film buff reading EW (of the week or so before) could have told you already that Luhrmann had chosen to alter his first ending and his reason why. Also, the author didn't Quote anybody on the supposed studio enforced change, so why was this article picked up? Because there is no new information out there on this film, it suited the vibe of a last minute dash to the finish line for the film, and yeah, to fill blog inches. So when bloggers write about the "buzz" or the "spin" just remember that you're a part of creating it, not independently reporting it.
Posted by: Kat at November 12, 2008 06:53 PM
Why is there someone named boltbucket? Totally copying my bucket idea for a screen name. I feel violated and not the good kind like from my professor.
Posted by: waterbucket at November 12, 2008 07:33 PM
Lots of paranoia there, Kat.
Posted by: Kristopher Tapley at November 12, 2008 08:50 PM
"Bullshit. Just bullshit"
Who gives a shit what "unnamed," hardy har har, people think anyway? At the very least, I don't.
Posted by: Nick Plowman at November 12, 2008 10:13 PM
Waterbucket: HIYYYYYYYYYOOOO!!! YES SIR!
Posted by: IOIOIOI at November 12, 2008 11:26 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)