Voices

Written by Kris Griffin Thursday, 14 July 2011

Digital Jazz - by Kris Griffin

When is a spoiler not a spoiler? The recent 2 part mid-season finale for Doctor Who provoked outrage towards Doctor Who Magazine and editor Tom Spilsbury.

“Thanks for the spoilering.”

“Thumbnail that gave it away. That is why I'm angry. I didn't click anything, because I didn't need to. It was there.”

“Love being shown a giant spoiler photo then being told not to look at it if you don't want to be spoiled. Can't read warning w/out seeing it.”

The crime was to post an image of the DWM cover AFTER the show aired, WITH a warning; the situation is ludicrous. The magazine was to be published that week before the final episode went out. The problem: US networks had decided to push back transmission of the final episode due to a public holiday.

Surely the answer would be to stay away from social networks. Instead these vociferous moaners took to their keyboards.

Are we all expected to save spoilers until the episodes in hand have broadcast? If so, I believe there is a tiny Pacific island still showing Tom Baker. Don't mention Peter Davison! I said his name once and I think I got away with it!

At the time of writing I still haven't watched The Ultimate Fighter (@insidetuf) season-finale. Don't judge me, I love it! But I've avoided websites and social media mentions. If I do find out who has won it wouldn't be the end of the World. I just have to accept broadcast delays and instant communications. Suck it up.

Moaners listen up. Twitter and the rest of social media isn't spoiler-free. Ask Ryan Giggs. DWM simply posted a cover that didn't really spoil anything. Just remember the dark days when your broadcasters didn't even bother with Doctor Who. Grainy VHS anyone?

Now stop moaning or I'll go kung-fu-spoiler on you, starting with: he's dead, he's his Dad, it's him (split personality) and Keyser Soze. Just warning you.

Louder Voices

Criticism appears to have found a home on the internet and social media has amplified that voice. I recently purchased an Amazon Kindle (@amazonkindle) and within moments of tweeting about my new addition I received a handful of quite aggressive replies. One simply asked “WHY?” Of course I responded politely stating that the Kindle was to read scripts on and not to replace my beloved collection of books. I see no point in the 'e. vs. tree' debate. There is room in my life for both. The point is that now everyone has a voice and some voices are louder than others. We live in an age when the bedroom evangelist can compete with a national newspaper for column inches, readers and headlines. Some of the more famous bloggers who have taken social media by storm include:

Guido Fawkes – politics

www.o rder-order.com

@guidofawkes

Perez Hilton – entertainment (US)

www.pere z hilton.com www.faceboo k.com/PerezHilton

@perezhilton

The Drudge Report – news (US)

www.drudgereport.com

@drudge @drudge_report

TMZ – entertainment/celebrity

www.tmz.com www.youtube.com/tmz www.myspace.com/tmztv

@tmz

Also iPhone and Android App.

Gawker – media/celebrity (US)

www.uk.gawker.com

@gawker

Holy Moly – entertainment

www.holymoly.com www.facebook.com/holymolydotcom

@holymoly

Mashable – social media/technology

www.mashable.com www.facebook.com/mashable

@mashable

Pretty much every form of social media and technology imaginable.

I'm sure you are aware of many of the sites here, of course TMZ made its name with obsessive coverage of Michael Jackson's death. Needless to say I don't recommend all of these voices, but trash sells. However, they tell us that there are huge audiences for this form of information and the shift towards online media is huge. Just look at the recent online success of Starburst Magazine (@starburst_mag): not a piece of paper in sight. But we have already established this in the past months of this collumn. What I'm interested in now is the power of that voice, specifically in the Starburst focused genres. Sadly these genres sometimes brings out the worst in people. Nevertheless, an interesting question to ask would be: is Twitter the most important critic?

Back in 2009 the LA Times ran a story on the effect Twitter has on movie box office being overrated. OTX, one of the movie industry's leading market research firms, conducted research that found, “a significant overestimation of the Twitter Effect." Also stating, "The number of people who use Twitter are only about 10% to 12% of all moviegoers. And when we asked people what was the most influential source of movie-going word of mouth, Twitter finished last, at the bottom of the list." Most respondents picked "family and friends and co-workers," which scored 40%, followed by Facebook at 31%.

An anonymous studio marketing chief reacted to the OTX survey commenting,"Twitter isn't a marketing tool, it's an observational tool. What it is really useful for is to eavesdrop in on a number of private conversations about a movie. You can quickly tell if people are all trending toward liking it or hating it. I think over time it will have more influence. But for now, what you're really getting with Twitter is the leading edge of opinions. It's a small percentage of moviegoers, but it's a very vocal, viral group -- like an online version of a Comic-Con convention, floating around every weekend. So as a group, it probably has an influence far beyond its numbers. But can Twitter bring down a movie? Probably not."

In my opinion the observation of one person can carry marketing strength. Therefore if thousands of people share a similar view does this not become amplified? What if one person carries a very loud voice? Or has many followers on Twitter. We have already witnessed the irresponsible behaviour of Lady Gaga (@ladygaga) tweeting to her 11 million followers about the baby food diet. Cue, thousands of impressionable young minds buying and eating baby food. It's marketing and it comes from an observation.

Perhaps our anonymous studio marketing chief didn't realise how big social media could go, and Twitter has, of course, grown exponentially since 2009. The influence continues to grow, negating much of the OTX research and LA Times article. Twitter works as part of the social media mix. Along with Facebook, Twitter is an immediate form of opinion as film critic Roger Ebert (@ebertchicago) found out recently. He admitted may have spoken too soon when he took to Twitter with anti drink-drive comments following the death of Jackass star Ryan Dunn in a high-speed car smash. Ebert, who had tweeted, "Friends don't let Jackasses drink and drive", and caused outrage amongst friends, family and fans. In a blog post for the Chicago Sun-Times he apologised and admitted he may have tweeted too soon, but said he stood by his comments. He stated, "I don't know what happened in this case, and I was probably too quick to tweet. That was unseemly. I do know that nobody has any business driving on a public highway at 110mph, as some estimated – or fast enough, anyway, to leave a highway and fly through 40 yards of trees before crashing. That is especially true if the driver has had three shots and three beers. Two people were killed. What if the car had crashed into another car?"

Roger Ebert is still learning about this new world as many of us are but he has to be commended for taking the plunge into social media without fear. Ebert first wrote for the Chicago Sun-Times in 1967 and is the first critic to win the Pulitzer Prize for Criticism. Without doubt Ebert is one of the most important, influential voices in film criticism and his books, festivals, accolades and awards stand testament to his great talent. At the age of 69 nearly half a million people follow his tweets and read his blog at www.blogs.suntimes.com/ebert. Like tens of thousands of those people, I trust and respect his opinion.

Another film critic I trust and read loyally is Mark Kermode (@kermodemovie). His weekly radio show with Simon Mayo (@simonmayo) on BBC Radio 5 is essential listening for any film fan and can be found as a podcast here: www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/kermode. Their brand of wittertainment (@wittertainment) is as funny as much as it is entertaining and useful.

Other notable voices include Jason Solomons (@jasoncritic) who writes for The Guardian and The Observer and also has a very good, if slightly more sensible podcast on the Guardian website. I also admire the writing and humour of Andrew Collins (@andrewcollins) who doesn't limit himself to film criticism. His blog at www.wherediditallgorightblog.wordpress.com will allow you to keep up with his adventures and again I would recommend his podcast with Richard Herring (@herring1967).

Michael Phillips (@phillipstribune) (from the Chicago Tribune) and Anthony O Scott (@aoscott) (from The New York Times) round out my eclectic list. Phillips hosts a great blog on the Tribune website called Talking Pictures which is always a great read. Both men offer cutting, fast opinion which doesn't always go down too well.

I'm a fan of Kevin Smith (@thatkevinsmith), I like the majority of his films and think he speaks with refreshing honesty. However in 2010 Kevin Smith launched an attack on critics after the mauling of his film Cop Out. He tweeted, “Film fandom's become a nasty bloodsport where cartoonishly rooting for failure gets the hit count up on the ol' brand-new blog.” He suggested that he would give away 500 free tickets to random Twitterers next time he releases a movie and post their reviews, good and bad. “Same difference. Why's their opinion more valid?”

But what if the majority of the 500 don't like his next film, who is next in the firing line? Are we running out of people to blame.

Here are the first 5 comments I could find on Twitter today about Cop Out:

"LOL tracey Morgan kiillss mee #CopOut"

"Just watched #CopOut. I had hoped I'd find it at least somewhat entertaining. I didn't"

"I can't believe that the whole movie is about a stupid baseball card :) #copout #worldgonemad"

"I like Tracy Morgan in 30 Rock. I like Bruce Willis in Die Hard. But Cop Out? It must be destroyed with fire."

"#nowwatching cop out. 6/10 just for the laughs. Willis sold out, blatantly got a MASSIVE pay cheque though! #copout"

Now, from 159 critic reviews on www.rottentomatoes.com (@rottentomatoes) 19% of them liked the film. This doesn't make great reading for Kevin Smith. Does it matter if he asks 500 random people or 500 critics to write about his film if the movie in question is bad? What Kevin Smith is asking is why settle for the critics when you can tap into millions of varied opinions daily on twitter? Quite frankly I don't see much of a difference. The critics do have a story to sell and there are plenty of reviews over the years I have venomously disagreed with but they are paid for their opinion. Those random people pay with their feet. Cop Out made $45 million in the US, 40% of this in the opening weekend. That is a significant drop off for a movie out for 12 weeks. Kevin Smith should be careful for what he wishes for. Which brings us back to our anonymous studio marketing chief. Perhaps, regardless of the size twitter gets, it all depends on a periphery of factors. Twitter could bring down a film like Batman and Robin, back in 1997 it only needed one poor review from a film news site. Franchises like Pirates of the Caribbean and Saw seem immune to bad press and poor social media reaction. Does all this depend on the groundswell of support for a movie?

The big release this weekend is from my favourite studio: Pixar (@disneypixar). Cars 2 is a big summer blockbuster from a beloved studio. On this occasion critics have not been kind. Rotten Tomatoes give it 33% from 141 reviews and the first five twitter reviews I could find are:

"Cars: Awesome. Was upset when it was over. Cars 2: Couldn't wait for it to be over."

"Cars 2: Not a masterpiece, but much better than critics have been harping on. Haters gonna hate."

"Never thought it would be Lasseter himself to break Pixar's streak. CARS 2 could have easily been made by Dreamworks, or anyone else."

"I saw Cars 2 yesterday, and it was GREAT! A totally enjoyable storyline, that features a heck of a lot more from Mater. It’s very entertaining."

"I applaud Pixar for trying something new with Cars 2. Unfortunately that thing is a movie without heart. Still enjoyed it though."

But Box Office Mojo estimates a $70 million opening weekend. That puts opinions both professional and amateur firmly in a locked box and drops the box in the sea. An opening take of this size really is spectacular business. Final figures and drop off will be confirmed by the time you read this article but it does make you question whether we count or not. If a film gets a tidal wave of support words aren't going stop someone from seeing it. An opinion is an opinion, nothing more, nothing less. We are all entitled to one. It shouldn't stop you from doing something but it could encourage you. At the end of the day it is your choice. That being said I do feel the pain in the voice of twitterer @GrayWoof, “Any review of Cars 2 is invalid unless written by a parent of toddlers after 80 viewings”. That's the bar set my friends.

Until next time.

FONASHEK!

@kristhescript

kris.griffin@starburstmagazine.com