This is probably going to be a state-of-the-blog post with a little opinion mixed in. It’s been a while since I’ve written one because, as tempting as they are, I kind of hate them. For better or for worse, I try to subscribe to a philosophy best described by a quote from The Good, The Bad and The Ugly: “If you’re going to shoot, shoot. Don’t talk.” Process and intentions and statements of principle are for people who like to hear themselves talk. You don’t have to tell people what you’re doing, just do it.
Having said that, I think about what I’m doing constantly and LiC has slowly transformed over time – I hope for the better. I keep an eye on the successful blogs and movie sites and sometimes wonder what I could do differently to be more like them. The truth is, none of them are really successful in ways that appeal to me. I conceived of Living in Cinema from the start as a slow growing niche blog and right away I eliminated or reduced focus on three of the things that seem to be most popular: awards, gossip and blockbusters. I also don’t care for manufactured controversy.
From time to time I’ve flirted with daily production news which is another traffic driving item, but I don’t ever want to become a blog that simply recycles other people’s reporting. In fact, 90% of the newsy stuff I’ve passed along in the last few months has been via Twitter with a link back to the original source. I haven’t bothered to post at all. You may or may not have made use of the LiC Twitter feed to the right to click on something interesting, but I hope you have. I know this is impacting my “page views” but I find most “news” doesn’t demand more than 140 characters or less to get across. Am I limiting my own traffic? Probably, but luckily I don’t depend on page views for my livelihood.
This brings me to a recent post by Anne Thompson embracing the constant repetition of the same old stories featuring the same old popular names (Fincher, Cameron, Pitt, Nolan etc.) that was part defense of some mean-spirited and pointless (though sprinkled with some sense) criticisms David Poland had recently made of her, and part justification for running some not-especially-interesting nuggets that fell out of James Cameron’s mouth recently and were endlessly repeated as though they were carved on stone tablets and delivered by Moses. Her take seems to be that this stuff builds traffic and therefore it’s all good.
Naturally, I totally disagree. That’s the same attitude that has destroyed the TV news business. The instant in the 1990s when TV stations were let off the hook for keeping us informed as a service in exchange for the free use of the public airwaves, the whole thing has gone straight to hell. Local TV news especially is a mire of sports, weather, Lindsay Lohan, the tragedy of the day or a combination of the four. The broadcast networks are all soundbites and human interest stories while the cable channels rely on opinion, controversy and spin. Boring old information takes a back seat to sexy, audience grabbing headlines.
Interestingly, in a previous post praising the popular movie site The Playlist on the occasion of its joining indieWIRE (Thompson is indieWIRE’s newly installed Editor at Large), she zeroes in on what makes that particular site successful: “The Playlist doesn’t just regurgitate, comment and repeat. They dig, check and ask questions as the story develops and matures.” Exactly! Not only that, The Playlist is incredibly thorough in digging stuff up, they’re great at connecting dots between half-stories and turning them into full ones, and they almost always provide a bit of their own analysis. The point is, though they rely about 70% on daily news, The Playlist is the antithesis of all the other news recyclers and it’s all for the better. Thompson knows the difference, but I wonder if sometimes the panic to drive traffic clouds her (and everyone else’s) judgement.
I guess what I’m getting at here is that there’s a disease infecting online media that will do anything for a page hit and it’s not just the fanboy sites who mysteriously call an interview an “Exclusive” when everyone else in town has talked to the subject in question. The pros are just as guilty. Just last night Mike Fleming posted an “exclusive” at Deadline about how Matt Damon would not be returning for the next Jason Bourne film, but that the option remained open for his return at some future date. That’s fine, but writer/director Tony Gilroy had already stated on the record that The Bourne Legacy would be a story within the Bourne universe as it had already been filmed three times, but that Jason Bourne would not be a character. In other words: Damon isn’t in it, but there’s nothing stopping him from coming back since they’re not recasting the part or killing the character, which is all Fleming had to offer as an exclusive. I suppose it’s possible Fleming never saw the original item where the information was already covered (can’t blame him for not reading H-E), but the story was then repeated and retweeted hundreds of times as though there was really new information being passed along. I don’t necessarily want to criticize the other sites because they all outclass me trafficwise and they probably always will, but I know for sure I don’t ever want to be like them.
Ok, I admit it I’m kind of rambling here. I’ve got three or four semi-related thoughts swimming around in my head and I’m not sure if I have one grand point to make. I guess I often define Living in Cinema by what it isn’t and sometimes I’m left wondering what it is. Reviews I hope will always be the site’s backbone and whenever I can shine a little light on some of the smaller movies you might not be aware of, I’ll do it, but what else would you like to see? Since I’ve pushed headlines to Twitter, my posting rate has declined, but my traffic has remained constant and the number of unique visitors has actually increased dramatically. In other words, more people are reading fewer posts and it balances out. As a side benefit, I have more energy each day to focus on the things that really matter. That’s not to say I’m doing heavy lifting every post. I rely a lot on easy things like trailers plus the occasional press release as I receive them, but even then I try to emphasize the little movies. If I can provide a steady stream of content to fill the spaces between the more in depth items (like reviews, or even the Weekend Forecast which takes more time than anything else I do) without stooping to the worst kind of nonsense, I feel like I’m doing all right.
What do you think? Am I carving out a big enough niche to justify the effort? And no, I’m not really looking for kind words and encouragement. I assume to a point you like what I do or you wouldn’t be reading this, but I’d love to hear what you’d like to see that you aren’t getting or what you are getting that you don’t want. As always, feel free to comment or drop me an email.
This is probably going to be a state-of-the-blog post with a little opinion mixed in. It’s been a while since I’ve written one because, as tempting as they are, I kind of hate them. For better or for worse, I try to subscribe to a philosophy best described by a quote from The Good, The Bad and The Ugly: “If you’re going to shoot, shoot. Don’t talk.” Process and intentions and statements of principle are for people who like to hear themselves talk. You don’t have to tell people what you’re doing, just do it.
Having said that, I think about what I’m doing constantly and LiC has slowly transformed over time – I hope for the better. I keep an eye on the successful blogs and movie sites and sometimes wonder what I could do differently to be more like them. The truth is, none of them are really successful in ways that appeal to me. I conceived of Living in Cinema from the start as a slow growing niche blog and right away I eliminated or reduced focus on three of the things at are most popular: awards, gossip and blockbusters. From time to time I’ve flirted with daily production news which is another traffic driving item, but I don’t ever want to become a blog that simply recycles other people’s reporting. In the last few months, 90% of the newsy stuff I’ve passed along has been via Twitter with a link back to the original source. You may or may not have made use of the LiC Twitter feed to the right to click on something interesting. I hope you have because I find most “news” doesn’t demand more than 140 characters or less to get across. Am I limiting my own traffic? Probably, but luckily I don’t depend on page views for my livelihood.
This brings me to a recent post by Anne Thompson embracing the constant repetition of the same old stories featuring the same old popular names (Fincher, Cameron, Pitt, Nolan etc.) that was part defense of some mean-spirited and pointless (though sprinkled with some sense) criticisms David Poland had recently made of her, and part justification for running some not-especially-interesting nuggets that fell out of James Cameron’s mouth recently and were endlessly repeated as though they were carved on stone tablets and delivered by Moses. Her take seems to be that this stuff builds traffic and therefore it’s all good.
Naturally, I totally disagree. That’s the same attitude that has destroyed the TV news business. The instant in the 1990s when TV stations were let off the hook for keeping us informed as a service in exchange for the free use of the public airwaves, the whole thing has gone downhill. Local TV news especially is a mire of sports, weather and Lindsay Lohan or the tragedy of the day. The broadcast networks are all soundbites and human interest, stories while the cable channels rely on opinion, controversy and spin. Boring old information takes a back seat to sexy, audience grabbing headlines.
Interestingly, in a previous piece praising the popular movie site The Playlist upon its joining indieWIRE (of which Thompson is the newly installed Editor at Large), she zeroes in on what makes that particular site successful: “The Playlist doesn’t just regurgitate, comment and repeat. They dig, check and ask questions as the story develops and matures.” Exactly! Not only that, The Playlist is incredibly thorough in digging stuff up, they’re great at connecting dots between half-stories and turning them into full ones, and they almost always provide a bit of their own analysis. The point is, though they rely about 70% on daily news, The Playlist is the antithesis of all the other news recyclers and it’s all for the better.
I guess what I’m getting at is that there’s a disease that infects online media that will do anything for a page hit and it’s not just the fanboy sites who mysteriously call an interview an “Exclusive” when everyone in town has talked to the subject in question. The pros are just as guilty. Just last night Mike Fleming posted an “exclusive” at Deadline about how Matt Damon would not be returning for the next Bourne film, but that the option remained open that he would return at some future date. That’s fine, but writer/director Tony Gilroy had already stated on the record that it would be a story within the Bourne universe as it had already been filmed three times, but that Jason Bourne would not be a character. In other words: Damon isn’t in it, but there’s nothing stopping him from coming back since they’re not recasting the part or killing the character. The worst part is that the story was then repeated and retweeted hundreds of times as though there was really new information being passed along. I don’t necessarily want to criticize the other sites because they all outclass me trafficwise and they probably always will, but I know for sure I don’t ever want to be like them.
Ok, I admit it I’m kind of rambling here. I’ve got three or four semi-related thoughts swimming around in my head and I’m not sure if I have one grand point to make. I guess I often define Living in Cinema by what it isn’t and sometimes I’m left wondering what it is. Reviews I hope will always be the site’s backbone and whenever I can shine a little light on some of the smaller movies you might not be aware of, I’ll do it, but what else would you like to see? Since I’ve pushed headlines to Twitter, my posting rate has declined, but my traffic has remained constant and the number of unique visitors has actually increased dramatically. More people are reading fewer posts and it balances out, plus I have more energy each day to focus on the things that really matter. That’s not to say I’m doing heavy lifting every post. I rely a lot on things like trailers plus the occasional press release as I receive them, but even then I try to emphasize the little movies. If I can provide a steady stream of content to fill the spaces between the more in depth items (like reviews, or even the Weekend Forecast which takes more time than anything else I do) without stooping to the worst kind of nonsense, I feel like I’m doing all right.
What do you think? Am I carving out a big enough niche to justify the effort? And no, I’m not really looking for kind words and encouragement. I assume to a point you like what I do or you wouldn’t be reading this, but I’d love to hear what you’d like to see that you aren’t getting. As always, feel free to comment or drop me an email.
Filed under: Opinion
I think you’re doing a good job, Craig. Since I opened that Twitter account, I’ve also seen my postings decrease, because I mainly link to it through Twitter.
As far as my conclusions go, Twitter’s made me lazy. I used to check Cinematical everyday, but now since they’ve suddenly change to Moviefone and see their headlines on the Twitter timeline, I’ve stopped clicking. I don’t even go through their feed on my Google Reader.
It’s funny how the internet has changed the way we watch tv… or at least news on tv. Just last night, CNN was talking about this iPhone subway performance. Things like that are becoming news worthy. It’s like any cute video that goes viral becomes a headline. Weird.
Thanks Amy. Oddly enough, in the last 3 or 4 months, Twitter has made me LESS lazy. I’m more engaged with news which I just didn’t have time to focus on before, and I still have time for reviews and whatnot.
I use twitter for the up to the minute stuff I don’t really need to say much about but which might be interesting to readers and the blog for other more important things. That’s the idea up to now anyway.
I mean, I may read 20 to 40 headlines and click on 2 ( or 4 or 5).
Well, as long as people come here to discuss – I think it’s good. I don’t really hate Awards, it’s actually my favorite time of the year xD I’d like to discuss performances – in the case of musical awards, as well as overall show. Plus, there’s always one or two films that I may not have checked out that I take from there…
YAM solely focuses on reviews, so I hope we can maintain that with the website. Still trying to figure out how to integrate that with actual use of twitter and facebook. A little short on hands xD
I enjoy awards too, I just think coverage of them gets out of hand. I like to stick to a couple of awards-specific sites like Awards Daily and In Contention, but that’s it.
Lack of discussion is one drawback of tweeting news rather than posting it, but I guess I’m ok with that. We’ll see though.
Like Amy, when it comes to film news on Twitter, I only click on a small percentage of the links. (Though when it comes to LiC tweets back to LiC, I click on them all.) You’re right, most of those news blurbs really don’t require more than 140 characters. If there’s a site or reviewer I know has superb writing, I do click on those.
I like that you focus on writing posts about the things that interest you, whether or not they have extensive appeal to the wide internets. It keeps your voice distinct. You write about things you have something to say about, insightful or amusing or provocative. That keeps it entertaining for us, too.
The film reviews are my favorite thing here. I come back to refer to past reviews often, too, not just the current ones. Anything that gets more of those outta your head and onto the screen is a good thing in my book.
Honestly Craig, I enjoy your reviews the most, partiallly because they spark interesting discussions. That’s atypical of most sites of this nature, where either everyone comments randomly and the writer never responds or responds rarely, or the sites like HE where the comments run far and wide but are mostly populated by angry trolls.
I know the reviews are hard to write but I like them, even when they’re just capsule thoughts on a film. I also really enjoy the Weekend Forecast and the Watercoolers, because the Forecasts usually surprises me with 4-5 films I haven’t heard about while the Watercooler follows up with thoughts on the weekend’s entertainment.
No matter what you end up writing on though, I always enjoy it.
Well, this is pretty much the only film dedicated site which I’m visiting regularly and it goes without saying that I enjoy it very much.
So far I don’t have a Twitter account… The thing I enjoy most here are the discussions (watercooler) and the weekend previews which often inform me about films I have never seen or heard of before and also gives me the opportunity to see other perspectives on films I’ve already seen. The reviews are great but I often read them a few months after they are posted since the films come to Bulgarian cinemas at least a couple of weeks later than they do in US.
I love the site and thank you sincerely for your commitment Craig.
Jennybee, the great thing about Twitter news is that it’s so easy to do, I can use the shotgun approach and if someone doesn’t care about one thing, they might care about the next. If not, no big loss. Easily done and equally easily ignored, but there if people want ‘em.
Reviews are my favorite part too and I’ve been trying to write more of them lately. Stuff always falls through the cracks, but I guess that’s just the way it’s going to be. Unless I expand with more writers, LiC will never be comprehensive so I just have to pick and choose the things that are important to me. The main thing is giving shout outs to stuff I think is worthwhile and reviews aren’t the only way to accomplish that.
Piro, you’re not the only one who comes to reviews late. For one thing, not everyone sees movies on opening weekend and for another, a lot of the movies I choose to focus on roll out slowly and they don’t play everywhere at once. Some people don’t get a chance to see them at all until they hit DVD.
Anyway, glad to have you all around keeping the joint interesting.
I’ve been completely out of the movie universe in to-tal the last month, but I was glad to come across this in the literal thousands of unread posts in my reader. Two things, I guess:
One, when you connect with readers by just consistently being yourself (as in this post), they will seek your posts first out of thousands of unread posts. :)
Two, I miss some of your commentaries like this one, which are basically just an antidote to a lot of what’s out there. I know they are more work and feel riskier, but I find it’s almost always worth the effort. In this case it’s directed more toward media and blogging, but you’ve done it similarly on other film subjects, too (box office, audiences, particular directors or stars). I don’t know if that’s helpful, but in other words just continue offering your unfiltered original thoughts and don’t worry about competition or pageviews. But, if your pageviews have increased while your posting has decreased, that’s probably all the feedback you need about the strength of your writing.
Yes that is helpful. I’ve had a few other people suggest to me I should do more opinion pieces. In the past I’ve just done them when the spirit moves me, but maybe I should try to focus on it a little bit. It’s a good way to air out a different style of writing than reviews.
Glad you were able to squeeze me in in a month of movielessness :)