As I return from vacation, I figured I'd bring back this simple setup for your debating pleasure.This Week's Prompt: Does the media have an adverse, or favorable, effect on Cinema as a whole?
Considerations: There's hardly any medium in modern times, with exception on non-media based internet, with as much influence on Cinema as the generic "media" (your basic news, gossip, and film shows/publications). They can build up a film, by using simple words like "greatest" or "popular," all the while attempting to reflect, or arguably set, the public mood towards a particular product. But, at the same time, they're often run by the very people who also finance many of the more mainstream films. Which may, or may not (depending on your point of view), give unfair advantage to big budget films in terms of public reach.
So, debate away!
5 better thoughts:
I think in many ways it is unfavourable. The two most prominent film magazines in the UK (Empire and Total Film) run glossy 'features' every month on the latest movies all directly financed by the major Hollywood studios. This has actually led to these magazines reviewing films a lot more favourably than they deserved. The Phantom Menace was a key example - Empire ran a huge promtional campaign for the movie - interviews, images, build-up (all supposed to be 'news' but actually financed by the studio, so actually just editorial advertising), and this was then supported by a glowing 5 star review. They even managed to do a glowing review of the soundtrack (http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?SID=4797)
That would seem to have been the end of the advertising/promotional agreement as ever since then The Phantom Menace has been talked about and rated as a 2 or 3 star failure on subsequent DVD reviews and other critiques.
The question is a bit unanswerable, but I won't copout - I will say positive. Without the media hundreds, perhaps thousands, of movies would be unknown especially to people (like me) not living in Europe or North America. It's because of medi - things like magazines, televised Oscars, BBC etc that we get to have the knowledge. Sure the bad comes with the good, but I'd rather that than nothing.
Depending on how the media presents the product, and what brand of media it is. For instance, if I'm watching some inane pop-centered thing (like E News) and they give a rather kiss-ass gushing over I Am Legend (ahem), I'm less likely to see it, because I'll have that association in my head the entire time.
But then, any publicity is good publicity.
Well, in many ways, we are part of the "media" and do affect in some infinitesimal way the outcome of the issue. I think the positive far outweigh the negatives as much less people would go see the movies without some kind of publicity from the media. Just like in blogging, there is an echo effect resulting in the biggest movie getting most of the publicity but this is one of the small negative I can think of.
In terms of promotion/exposure, the modern media is a definite positive. Having the opportunity to get to know titles that haven't even been cast yet is a huge boon for all of us. On the flip side, the overhype machine the media runs us through every time a new blockbuster comes our way is a beating to say the least. So I guess I'm coping out and riding the fence.
Post a Comment