Well, in Poland's case you get pissed! Jeff Wells didn't get too bothered. I found over at CHUD, Jeremy approached it calm and coolly expressing his own individual concerns. I didn't see anything on Thompson's blog.

What am I talking about? Well, the three "articles" I just mentioned are all in reference to Michael Cieply's article at the "New York Times" titled "Indiana Jones Is Battling the Long Knives of the Internet". The article basically brings up the news that a couple of early negative reviews of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull popped up on AintItCoolNews.com and Cieply began to ponder the impact it may have on Indy's chances after a 19 year absence:

[A] better gauge of success is likely to be the extent of online sales in the few days after the film screens at Cannes – and after many reviewers have weighed in.

I didn't really think Cieply's article was all that big of a deal and felt Poland in particular was making way too big of a deal about the fact that the "Times" was using an anonymous AICN source and passing negative news off. Poland wondered, "Does it get any stupider than this?" and "What is the news value?"

I think it does have value, especially should Indy tank. It begs the question: What kind of impact does the Internet actually have on movies? It's an important question, and the "Times" isn't the only one asking it.

I realized this was a slightly bigger story than I originally thought when "USA Today" didn't simply reprint Cieply's article, and Scott Bowles posted his own titled "'Indiana Jones' gets mixed reviews on the Web".

Do these AICN user reviews matter? Especially considering they aren't even from the actual sites posting them. Instead they are from a random moviegoer no one knows or can even compare tastes with.

Chris Aronson of 20th Century Fox tells USA Today, "They're going to turn out regardless, to see what's been done with their favorite movies."

Can't say I disagree with that sentiment, but I actually think this entire ordeal brings about an even larger question: If "major" news outlets such as "USA Today" and the "New York Times" are going to source user reviews from AintItCoolNews.com for their stories, what makes them any better than the blog/website that actually hosts the review? I think this is what aggravated Poland more than anything.

By using the AICN user reviews as legitimate talking points, both "USA Today" and the "New York Times" are giving these opinions weight Poland doesn't believe they should have. On top of that, it seems to be lowering the major news outlets to the level of the websites and blogs in Poland's eyes. He says in his post:

Paramount and all the studios in open or shady business with AICN and others who run this shite.

I guess this is the same cynical calculation you use so often. Milk the geek sites as best you can and hope the occasional rapes don't hurt too much. Meanwhile, threaten and manipulate real journalists who are just trying to, say, make Alt-weekly deadlines.

You've been aggrieved here, but it is hard to rev up too much sympathy when the guy trying to manipulate the fire gets burned.

Shady? Come on Poland, where are your sources now?

However, this made me wonder, will the major news outlets soon begin their own gossipy movie blogs in an effort to combat the growing opinion supported in the already saturated blogosphere? Will the old school idea of a movie critic soon die?

Personally I have never thought much about movie critics, and I don't really consider myself one. Before I started RopeofSilicon if a movie looked good I was going to see it. If it won the Best Picture Oscar I was probably going to check it out. Now days it is different for me. Normal marketing buzz, Internet widgets, film stills and movie trailers that give away the entire plot of the movies they promote don't interest me.

Instead I go to my typical sources and nibble at bits and pieces of their opinions until I am satisfied. I have actually grown more interested in the blogging of film critics rather than their actual reviews. After all, recently I saw YouTube videos embedded in a pair of Variety and Hollywood Reporter articles, one of them reporting on Paula Abdul's lapse on "American Idol". I don't think either of these outlets can claim supremacy over the bloggers of the world any longer, how long until the "New York Times" falls right in line?

I actually don't want to see it happen. I want the "Times" to keep their elevated ego elevated. I want the studios to show preference to certain outlets. It creates a pecking order. It demands these "higher ups" stay on the ball and present fair and truthful opinions that we are supposed to hold above our own. I like knowing there is something I can learn about an industry I love. Should the folks that help shape the industry, and feed the buzz for films I otherwise wouldn't see, begin to die out I think it hurts us all.

Related post categories: Editorials, Features : Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

Permalink   |   RSS Feed | 6 comments so far