A blog about Arts & Entertainment, Business & Finance, and Family & Home.
About entertainment


Member Since:
June 21, 2006
Last Signed In:
September 10, 2008
Profile Views:
4988
Blog Views:
46823
View Profile
Send a Message
Send To A Friend
Sign Guestbook
Add as a Friend

Previous Posts
22-year-old auctioning off her Virginity?!?
Ladies, get ready! Jason Mesnick is the new Bachelor!
Celebrity Dish
Love Celebrity Gossip?
Extreme Makeover home in foreclosure!
Celebrity Circus!
Still want to get married? Do it for free!
DVD Easter Eggs?
I survived a Japanese game show!
AFI's 10 Top 10!
Archives
June 06
July 06
August 06
September 06
October 06
November 06
December 06
January 07
February 07
March 07
April 07
May 07
June 07
July 07
August 07
September 07
October 07
November 07
December 07
January 08
February 08
March 08
April 08
May 08
June 08
July 08
August 08
September 08
October 08
More Archives
June 06
May 06
April 06
March 06
February 06
January 06
December 05
November 05
October 05
September 05

Blog Roll


Ask The Californian
Editorials
Entertainment
Eye of Bakersfield
Faith Forum
Fired Up!
Inside Sports
Neighbors
Right Thinking
Sound Off
Talk of the Town
Subscribe!
RSS 2.0 feed RSS 2.0
Add to My Yahoo
Add to My Google
Add to Bloglines
Add to My AOL

Share!


entertainment - > Entertainment -> Are movie critics a dying breed?
Are movie critics a dying breed?
Stephen Whitty of Newhouse News Service has written a story about the dwindling supply and need for newspaper film critics.

Apparently with the Internet avalanche of wannabe critics and the conglomeratization of the movie business — with its ability to spread rave reviews and hype about its films — the demand, supply and importance of film critics is diminishing.

Which brings us to the question  — Do newspaper film reviews help you decide whether to plunk down your money on the latest Adam Sandler comedy?

Do you rely on bloggers or the guy down the street to tell you how the movie was?

And how about Roger Ebert? Like him or loathe him? We at The Californian would  like to know. 

Whitty's take is that veteran critics know how to put a movie in context — as he puts it,
"trying to capture smoke in words, and get a purely emotional experience down on paper, with a sense of history and comparison and context and wonder."

Does any of that matter to you, or would you just like to know if you're going to be entertained, jolted, excited, sad, humored or bored out of your skull?


Posted by Steve E. Swenson
Posted in these Groups:
Topics:
posted by entertainment on Thursday, July 27, 2006 at 08:15 AM
Report a Violation
Viewed 392 times
3 comments from 3 users

1

posted by anonymous on Jul 27, 2006 at 09:54 AM
The "studios",  because they aren't really studios anymore, find it difficult these days to reconcile commerce and art.  On the one hand,  you have  the  Motion Picture Arts and Sciences association tirelessly promoting the artistic accomplishments of the industry around smaller films that do not generate much in the way of revenue. The other hand cranks out formula hits or tired retreads of those formula hits, and films driven solely by special effects of the latest in technology in desperate attempts to sell not only movies, but games, action figures, cereals, linens and whatever ever else can be licensed to bring in more dollars.

Studios really officially died in the 80s with the onslaught of merger/buyout mania that has made Hollywood an empty icon owned by the a few global media giants. Some of these giants are headquartered in New York, Time Warner, General Electric and Viacom. Some are foreign based in London and Tokyo like News Corp and Sony.  The reality is the "studios" are just divisions of these global media giants utilized to promote their other properties. They do it by with stars, franchises and special effects. Stories don't even matter today, unless it is from some independents operating below the radar on minimum budgets.

You would think critics would matter greatly in this setting but the opposite is true. Media giants realize that critics don't make hits, they only serve to limit audiences by noting the flaws, and the mounting expenses of seeing the same film over and over again. The media giants own most of the stations, most of the magazines, a lot of newspapers  and a lot of the internet.  Why  allow anyone to possibly restrict profitability?
posted by gr8scott on Jul 27, 2006 at 12:34 PM
I never understood why people would rely on film critics anyway. They rip the movie from wardrobes to backgrounds, something I care very little about. Years ago I would watch Siskel & Ebert for entertainment, not to decide whether to see a movie or not. If they're a dying breed, let 'em go quitely.
posted by MyLefteFoot on Jul 28, 2006 at 07:25 AM

The downfall of reviewer's relevance started when two-bit reviewers were willing to sell a "good review " for celebrity access.

I still read reviews just to get a synopsis of a movie to help decide if it's something I want to see.

 

1

Leave a Comment
Ground Rules for posting comments:
  • No profanity or personal attacks.
  • Please comment on the subject of the post itself.
If you do not follow these rules we will remove your comment. Please keep it civil.

To protect users from spam, please enter the text from the image on the left.
   

Our readers recommend: