KotCS reviews in media

Chilled_Monkey

New member
Actually the last reviewer over at AICN has a proven and reliable track record with news and pre-release reviews apparently. The others have not.
 

The Man

Well-known member
Will the Cannes screening be over this time seven days from now? Is it an afternoon or evening show? Either way, the opinions, be they good, be they bad, are but seven days away?
 
The 'reviewers' are probably Dark Knight freaks, jealous of Indy's popularity and who want nothing to stand in the way of their precious Batman and his Boy Wonder.
A similar occurence happened in 1989 with LC and the Nicholson Batman.
 

The Man

Well-known member
herr gruber said:
The 'reviewers' are probably Dark Knight freaks, jealous of Indy's popularity and who want nothing to stand in the way of their precious Batman movie.
A similar occurence happened in 1989 with LC and the Nicholson Batman.

You took the thoughts out of my mind. It was hip to be a Batfreak circa 1989, with Prince and all the merchandising. Indy was deemed comfy, fluffy family fare.
 

Jenos Idanian

New member
I think the reason for the lack of "professional" reviews is due to some kind of an embargo which means that critics are not aloud to post their reviews until a specific date. That's why at this point we only have "spy" accounts such as whats been floating around on AICN.
 

sparkyrules

New member
AICN/CHUD Blacklash

There is another 'article' posted at CHUD today talking about the negative buzz surrounding Indy, and hinting at people in the film industry who are unsatisfied...it even goes so far as to theorize that Lucas and Spielberg may end up enemies as a result of this film...

http://chud.com/articles/articles/14681/1/INDIANA-JONES-AGONISTES/Page1.html

This for me is the final straw regarding this kind of 'reporting.'

There is not a single fact, source, or bit of evidence in this piece, aside from the mention of the New York Times writer (WHO, by the way, based their reporting on questionable reviews to begin with).

This is 100% unacceptable. It's one thing to post reviews that may or may not be real. It's another thing altogether to hint at catastrophes with nothing to back up such claims.

I took journalism in high school and was the editor-in-chief of my school paper. I'm no expert, but as far as I can remember, things had to be based on something for them to be printed. This, I fear, is the danger inherent with this kind of dissemination of 'news,' especially when it finds its way into seemingly legitimate sources like The New York Times.

I assumed sites like Chud and Aint-it-Cool existed to update fans about the progress of films being made. Now it seems it's more about threading such news with personal opinions, or opinions of unnamed, faceless entities met as a result of these sites being a gateway to fans. You get a poster in the mail, an exclusive picture or trailer for your film news site, and suddenly you're 'in the know' and mixing it up with the bigwigs(?).

Personally, I am really offended at this shoddy, immature enterprise, and think it will be very interesting if the rest of America (who doesn't know or care about such sites) shows up in record numbers to see this film, and ultimately enjoys it. I would say then that the model of operations for such sites could officially be considered OBSOLETE, and would have to change dramatically if they expect to be considered valid at all.

This nest of contempt has been lurking for some time, but I for one am ready for a change.
 

Jr_1981

New member
sparkyrules said:
You get a poster in the mail, an exclusive picture or trailer for your film news site, and suddenly you're 'in the know' and mixing it up with the bigwigs(?).

That's how AICN operates (not sure about CHUD). If they get invited onto the set, get exclusive interviews etc. They'll hype the film up and only post the positive reviews. On the other hand if the studio shuns them and doesnt give em anything, they'll cry foul and say the movie sucks. It's all politics really, geeky politics, but politics nonetheless.
 

The Man

Well-known member
Jr_1981 said:
That's how AICN operates (not sure about CHUD). If they get invited onto the set, get exclusive interviews etc. They'll hype the film up and only post the positive reviews. On the other hand if the studio shuns them and doesnt give em anything, they'll cry foul and say the movie sucks. It's all politics really, geeky politics, but politics nonetheless.

Wow, that's about as childish and self-humiliating as a website can be. At this stage, if all these gibbons did like Indy 4, I'd worry a lot more.
 

SterankoII

New member
So far there have been four supposed reviews posted on AICN, two negative and two positive and I'm listening to the two good ones.
 

gallandro

New member
CHUD, like AICN, started in the late 90s primarily to feed the geek community with the latest "rumors" swirling around The Phantom Menace and Lord of the Rings.

The sites both grew in popularity, but somewhere along the way they both lost sight of the fact they were simply a geek clearinghouse for the day's movie nerd news... suddenly they thought they had influence... they did not.

The prime example was "Snakes on a Plane". Even the press started to pick up the buzz that this was going to be a huge hit led by Harry Knowles minions who would come out in force... well they did come out in force. Unfortunately people failed to realize they have zero influence because they are a niche group made up primarily of pre-teen/teenage boys or early twenty-somethings. Snakes fell flat on it's face and tanked at the box office.

Next came Grindhouse. Now this one was funny. Being forty I have actually been to "Grindhouse" movies when they played in the late 70s and started to fizzle out in the early 80s. Harry's base obviously has never been to one of these films, let alone seen one. We were told Grindhouse was a troubled production, but not to worry, the teen geek movie goers would save the film... again another bomb.

Now the geeks are all abuzz about Speed Racer... guess what... another bomb. A movie with a $160 million dollar budget that can barely eek out a $20 million opening. Sorry but AICN and CHUD are not good sources for the "inside" scoop on films, or gauging the pulse of film goers.

Relax.


Yancy
 

torao

Moderator Emeritus
Jr_1981 said:
That's how AICN operates (not sure about CHUD). If they get invited onto the set, get exclusive interviews etc. They'll hype the film up and only post the positive reviews. On the other hand if the studio shuns them and doesnt give em anything, they'll cry foul and say the movie sucks. It's all politics really, geeky politics, but politics nonetheless.

Yeah, just like the did with Brick, The Fountain, No Country For Old Men, There Will Be Blood, The King Of Kong or ...let's say Capturing The Friedmans.
 

The Man

Well-known member
torao said:
Yeah, just like the did with Brick, The Fountain, No Country For Old Men, There Will Be Blood, The King Of Kong or ...let's say Capturing The Friedmans.

They trashed them all?
 

Adamwankenobi

New member
Jr_1981 said:
That's how AICN operates (not sure about CHUD). If they get invited onto the set, get exclusive interviews etc. They'll hype the film up and only post the positive reviews. On the other hand if the studio shuns them and doesnt give em anything, they'll cry foul and say the movie sucks. It's all politics really, geeky politics, but politics nonetheless.

I think it's funny how on the back of the Southland Tales DVD (which I saw in stores a few weeks ago), AICN is the only "critic" quoted about the film. :sick:
 

The Man

Well-known member
Adamwankenobi said:
I think it's funny how on the back of the Southland Tales DVD (which I saw in stores a few weeks ago), AICN is the only "critic" quoted about the film. :sick:

Talk about backing the wrong horse...
 

isaac_z

New member
can anyone tell me if the AICN review is full of spoilers? i glanced at one of the earlier ones and saw i line i didn't want to read... crap... anyway, i'd like to read something general, without details, but i expect that such is not the case...

or, if it is spoiler-heavy, can someone post quotes of the non-plot/character oriented sections?

thanks!
 

The Man

Well-known member
isaac_z said:
can anyone tell me if the AICN review is full of spoilers? i glanced at one of the earlier ones and saw i line i didn't want to read... crap... anyway, i'd like to read something general, without details, but i expect that such is not the case...

or, if it is spoiler-heavy, can someone post quotes of the non-plot/character oriented sections?

thanks!

They contain nothing that couldn't be determined already, especially for those who've seen certain movie cards.
 

indyjones2131

New member
So a ...um....friend of a friend (sounds like BS already doesn't it?) saw Indy 4. I've kown this person for over 10 years. Older person. Loved Raiders and liked the other two somewhat as well. This person's review is basically that the movie is really good. The time flies by. Can't wait to see it again (hardly ever sees movies more than once). Would have changed a thing or two here and there. Blanchet is very good. Shia is very good. Its just really fun and "better than the last ones" not sure if that means TOD and LC or not. Other person who saw it also said the same thing, but this one know it all person said he didn't really like it, but LOVED Speed Racer....:rolleyes:

SO there you go. Can't wait!
 
Top