The Web is King – and long live the King.
So why don’t movie advertisements use more quotes from web-based movie critics?
Sure, you’ll see an occasional rave from Ain’t it Cool News and Hollywood.com’s Pete Hammond is always available to rave about the worst movies available, but the vast majority of film quotes still come from mainstream – read: antiquated – sources.
Do we really want another rave review from Rolling Stone’s Peter Travers?
As a movie fan, I’d put much more trust in kylesmithonline.com – or even that site’s savvy commenters – rather than some of the folks quoted in modern movie ads. Why not quote John Nolte from Big Hollywood, a film critic who can write circles around many of his traditionally-based peers?
It’s all part of the media’s inability to truly grasp the future. Sure, a movie studio will throw big bucks at a social marketing campaign, but when push comes to shove they need the authority of Rolling Stone or The New York Times to sell a movie.
That’s a mistake. Those outlets don’t have the corner marketed on a movie goer’s trust. Not anymore.
Related posts:
on 
on 
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
Toss in the fact that the net has a more personal aspect. I’ve never met you, but I trust your opinion more than some smarmy cat making too much money while getting to watch movies for free.
Ace likes to write insanely arduous reviews of different movies, and I read them, cuz for some reason, though I never met him, I trust him.
Though there is really not much of a difference between one prosperous guy talking about movies and another prosperous guy talking about movies, there is a personal aspect to the net experience that makes things more direct.
There are people who trust my judgment on food, ONLY because they know me, and trust me. If I were some rich critic writing for a paper pulling in 6 fingers, they wouldn’t ever listen to me, but they do, because I’m just like them.
The net conveys that sort of familiarity, and people are more likely to listen to someone they trust (you ace nolte) rather than some person who thinks they are above it all, because for some reason we think that you are just like us, but with a different job.
Douglas,
Thanks for the kind comments and, more importantly, for articulating these thoughts far better than I did in my post.
“Do we really want another rave review from Rolling Stone’s Peter Travers?”
No.
I think a lot more people are going online for their reviews. Once the studios catch on, they may take a second look. But I don’t think they’ve caught up. This is all moving way to fast for them (and me, sometimes).
Reading a movie blog, be it this one, Smith’s or Nolte’s, you get a taste of that writer every day. Nolte loves B-Grade revenge movies, Toto loves horror, you get a feel for the writer’s biases and loves, his passions. That adds into a deeper point of view, so when you read a Toto review on Raimi’s horror flick or something Nolte wrote on The Hangover, you aren’t just taking those words in front of you, but the thoughts you’ve read from the beginning. Getting that type of depth from a newspaper or magazine writer is much more difficult, especially when all your given is 500 to 1000 word snippets purely on this or that film, not on what the writer’s thoughts and feelings as whole.
The web has done a lot of damage to the print model, but in this respect it has done the most. \
Thats why you are trusted christian.
Wow John. I think you’ve hit on it. Online, we feel like we can get to know someone – their likes and dislikes, and we can relate to them, know where we stand in relations to their viewpoints. What an excellent observation.