 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| |||||
July 13, 2004
Update - 4:00pm: Part Two
STATE OF THE INTERNET/FILM BIZ UNION
Part OneEvery now and again, we get to a moment in the history of internet journalism that requires a good look at where we have been and where we are going. In recent weeks, there was a flair up at Ain't It Cool News, the announcement that Jeff Wells is heading out of MoviePoopShoot.com following long-time veteran Anderson Jones' exit from E! Online which is also in play, unverifiable internet "movie buzz" has been quoted in Time Magazine and The Village Voice as somehow factual, Rotten Tomatoes was bought for a reported $10 million by the Internet Gamer's Network (IGN), The Los Angeles Times' pay-only Calendar Live section has been cited as a motivation for some staffers heading to New York, new film biz sites (like Defamer) continue to land on the electronic shore and the New York Times' Public Editor, Dan Okrent has become a hot topic as he joins the parade of people questioning where the NYT is at the moment, from national to entertainment coverage.
I hardly know where to start…
I guess the place to start the convergence conversation is where convergence has been most apparent, Ain't It Cool News. About eight years into its existence, AICN is still the most written about and referred to independent movie web site. However, during the course of its life, it has also become the most schizophrenic.
The conversation goes, as it always has, like this: "We're not journalists. We are movie advocates. So give us everything you give journalists, but don't put any of those obnoxious restrictions on us…. We're cool!"
And as always, this has put the onus on the studios. How does a studio deal with a demanding, yet allegedly unwilling to play by the rules, web site that has the power to spread the worst possible kind of gossip - premature word of mouth - on a movie months in advance of the marketing and publicity machines revving up? Well, every studio has had a different answer. Some just say "no." Others actively engage Knowles & Co. on every film they release, hoping to win the day by massaging the site's masters. And some play it both ways, flipping back and forth between embrace and abuse on a film-by-film basis.
Studios have told me that agreeing to a course of action regarding AICN and other web outlets would be collusion. But so is most of the film business. AICN is a tool in the publicist's toolbox, like so many others. And when it works, all is well. And when it doesn't, people get in serious trouble. It's no wonder that AICN doesn't think it needs to play by any rules other than their whims, as studios continue to act just the same way as they do in regards to the site.
Interestingly, most in bed with AICN are New Line and Fox Searchlight, while their "senior" siblings, Warner Bros. and 20th Century Fox, have chosen, for the most part, not to work with AICN at all. (The two Time-Warner studios are still the strongest movie internet players in the game.) Universal, DreamWorks and now Columbia, where "Moriarty" is a full-blown insider, jump around in their behavior towards the site, though they will as often as not claim no relationship. And Disney… it's hard to tell what Disney's AICN rules are, actually. The other dependents and indies are anxious to get all the free publicity they can and AICN rarely targets any of their films for special attention, so in that area there seems to be peace.
This is all complicated further by producers and directors who feel they, too, can manipulate the AICN buzz machine and will take action to do so, often without notifying the studio ahead of time.
About three years ago, most studios began to feel that they had AICN under control. The actual words used by studio types to describe their relationships with AICN tended to be far less generous. One senior studio publicist was fond of saying, "No one has ever been more co-opted than Ain't It Cool."
But then the next step occurred… the AICN team started to break through the Hollywood barriers that it had been trying to breech throughout the life of the site. Moriarty was outed by FilmThreat.com, exposing his real name, Drew McWeeney. Around that same time, he got writing deals that ended up including, at last count, Revolution Studios, Sony, DreamWorks and Fox. Harry Knowles' relationships with directors from Guillermo del Toro to Robert Rodriguez and producers like Avi Arad started to evolve into film roles, active post-production consultations and, most recently, a producing slot on a now-defunct Rodriguez project at Paramount and Harry's own deal at Revolution.
Fortunately for their friends, the long established (with good reason) rules of objectivity were (and are) of no concern to the "we're not journalist" boys of AICN. Not only did they continue to control the flow of anonymous test screening and script reviews on the site with no offer of balance other than a "trust me," but they even continued to push films being made by friends and released by the studios with which they are working. Arguing inappropriate influence became harder as all the other media consolidated and church and state became impossible to be sure of in all media. Still, a guy like Roger Ebert has a long established track record of objectivity and is more than willing to discuss and debate anyone who questions his objectivity towards Disney. Not so AICN. And they are, for the most part, as blithe about it as Roger is deadly serious.
AICN's been even more reckless on the issue of movie piracy, when they actively encouraged readers to acquire and review pirated films, coming to a head when an unfinished version of The Hulk was reviewed weeks before release and the behavior was questioned and then approved by the site's leadership. Of course, how could it be otherwise… the site was built on illegally obtained information and pirated films from the beginning and wouldn't it make them hypocrites to suggest that those who followed them find a different way to the insider "scoops?"
But the industry made itself clear there too… Universal Studios, at the demand of Marvel chief Avi Arad, sent a print of The Hulk to Harry Knowles to review before any press other than Newsweek had seen the finished film. Printing reviews of the stolen early version of the movie didn't matter. Encouraging readers to steal that version and other versions of the film didn't matter. The desperation to get ahead of the buzz superceded any question of consistent behavior or consistent morality at the studio, despite constant high-horsing about other sites and non web outlets.
That dichotomy continues to this day. It is not particularly a phenomenon of the web, but of any and all media that studios determine are important to their publicity efforts. Abuses by major outlets are absorbed and forgotten regularly and AICN has been given that carte blanche by many. And the ongoing legitimacy given the site by traditional journalists, blended by the number of studios who are willing to play ball with the site continues to power the AICN buzz machine.
Interestingly, reviews by established AICN names continue to be treated as irrelevant by most outlets and studios. The power is the power of 5 or 10 or 20 or 30 "reviews" laid out well ahead of time. Studios know that journalists go to the site and measure the buzz… even if the buzz is based on mid-process screenings that the editors at the very same outlets would never allow to be reviewed in-house. It has become a game of "Well, someone said it," most often used by journalists who are looking to support their personal notions, even if they have nothing other than these anonymous reviews and their gut on which to base them.
But the tragedy of AICN is that the existence of the site - and others who have taken up printing test screening reviews - has altered the pre-production, production and post-production process at most studios. AICN has led the way in the studio world for the public's "right to know." Unfortunately, that notion, which is terribly important when it comes to the government (for instance), is terribly invasive when it comes to people trying to create something artistic… even if the art is incredibly commercial. AICN's legacy, so far, is that movies are getting worse because they exist... quite the opposite of the intent.
Here, AICN has a lot more in common with papers like the LA and NY Times than you would imagine. The arrogance of "knowing better" and feeling above questioning is surely the second most dangerous thing that can happen to any journalistic endeavor, just after putting being first ahead of being right. But studios get what they ask for, given that as helpless as a buzz situation out of control, they really do have the majority of the power. Very few films in this era become bigger than the studio's marketing and publicity effort. And when they do, they are bigger than the media too… we all become a part of the wave. No matter how many times the words "biggest documentary ever" get written, Fahrenheit 9/11 will still be seen by fewer Americans that Van Helsing or Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle. Scary, huh?
But here's the really sad part… AICNers just don't get it. They think they are still pushing the envelope in the name of better movies. They think they are above being questioned about their biases… biases anyone would be pulled by. And the stories about things that happen at AICN that I cannot prove and are far more severe - often offered up by former (and sometimes current) AICN players - are breathtaking. But, like certain government members, some AICN folks will scream their innocence over and over again while continuing to admit their questionable behavior in other areas. The truth is, as most truth is, probably somewhere in between.
Worse, the speed of the call and response of the web (not just AICN at all) has infected traditional media. So instead of AICN conforming more to the well-thought-out rules of the "good old days," the "real" outlets have become sloppier and sloppier, trying to beat the web at the game that is the very nature of the internet medium. AICN understandably takes no responsibility for this. And I don't really attribute any to them. Adults are not supposed to follow the lead of the children, even if playing in the mud and eating too much candy is fun sometimes.
And after all, piracy and information theft and media that is easily manipulated by personal and professional biases, etc, etc, etc are not really important issues in this industry.
I'm sure that I will hear about the myriad unfairnesses I have foisted on AICN from AICNers. But I really don't blame them for any of their behaviors. Their behavior, even with all the changes that have occurred, has remained consistent… charmingly passionate, yet selfish and utterly self-absorbed. But there are lots of people on the web (and off) who qualify as such. (Some would say I do.) It is the response of the "real world" that gives AICN power. It is the studio willingness to play, as much out of fear as anything else, but still quite empowering.
But this is just the tip of the State Of The Iceberg. I need to get some sleep right now and I have an early screening. So look for the second half (more like the next three quarters) of the piece later this afternoon, here on THB.
