I’ve barely heard of Flixster, the social networking movie ratings website which has just bought out Rotten Tomatoes from Rupert Murdoch but the words “good fit” and “makes sense for all” that are being branded around right now on the deal, just don’t sit well with me.
Anyone with half a brain can see that what the deal actually signifies is yet another nail in the coffin for the dying breed that is the full time film critic as we move into a very scary decade for the proffession. Who knows where film critics will be in five years time?
The current destruction of print critics will hit the online sphere over this ten year period because mark my words – the writing is on the wall with news like this.
Flixster, a bastard child of the facebook/iphone boom is sold on the idea of user-generated content, where it’s fans can share their own ratings and reviews of films with each other, see the stuff your mates are into, etc. I mean after all, who needs to know what Roger Ebert or David Denby thought of Avatar when your mate Derek who works down the garage saw it and called it the “best movie EVER!!!”. Dear Lord.
The current RT, despite it’s less than perfect system (the rather limiting “Fresh” or “Rotten” rating and it’s questionable reviews to % ratio), is still a smart and easy to use critics review site, with it’s heart in the right place and I sincerely hope this continues despite it’s buy-out.
It’s built on the idea of promoting movies from a critically authoritative voice – guys who have studied cinema for years giving us considered, clearly written, honest and well-thought out opinions.
With the Flixster buy-out, and by God it will happen sooner or later, Rotten Tomatoes will change from the useful site it is now to carrying the kind of debate between the masses on whether G.I. Joe 3 should be seen over Transformers 4. Flixster uses won’t care to talk about the latest David Lynch movie.
End of an area guys. It may not be evident for a few months, maybe even a year but the RT you used to know will soon be gone.
3 Comments
Um, have you ever stopped to consider that your own blogsite has contributed to the demise of print? Not so long ago, fan-style writing like yours would have been relegated to “newsletter” status — you’d need to go out to Kinko’s, make 500 copies, send them out to your mailing list on your own dime, and rely on the good ol’ fashioned post office.
The great, unwashed masses aren’t stupid, though you like to paint them that way. If you’ve actually spent time on Flixster (which I doubt you have, doesn’t appear that way), you’ll find that there is some incisive, good writing mixed in with the, “This movie blows” style of posting.
But you’re supercilious and smug and certain of the future. And in the midst of being proud of your smugness, you’ve missed a critical point — that YOU wouldn’t have had a voice 10 years ago, not one that could be heard loudly, if it weren’t for the Internet. And the very technology that has given you that voice is taking readers away from print. On the other hand, it is adding to the number of critics, giving Roger Ebert and his ilk an even bigger audience than they’ve EVER had, and opening new avenues of distribution for small, independent, art films that otherwise would never have had a shot of being seen.
Rather than just decide that this Flixster-Rotten Tomatoes merger is bad all around, perhaps you might want to think a bit more about the upsides of the technology that makes it possible and the multiplicity of voices … even simple, stupid ones. Unless, of course, you think that some people matter more than others, which is a sad thing to think.
Having opened with the line “I’ve barely heard of Flixter”, it does seem foolish to announce with such confidence what WILL happen to Rotten Tomatoes following this sale. The entire landscape of journalism has already altered significantly in recent years, and it will continue to do so, but there will always be a place for quality writing. Also, whoever owns Rotten Tomatoes would be pretty bloody stupid to get rid of its main selling point, which is a vast collection of professional reviews – from all kinds of critics – in one handy place.
end of an AREA?…did you mean ERA?
You’re aware that the studios don’t want you to listen to & read critics, right? That just makes me listen to them even more, from several sources.
Even “At The Movies”, without Siskel, Ebert, Roeper, & Ben Mankiewicz now at least has A.O. Scott from the NY Times. will they all be rendered obsolete? should they be?…I’m neutral on that but I put just as much weight on their opinions as I do any online movie geek, of which I am one.