Entertainment Weekly Hype Etc.

[modage]

I was thinking recently about this. 

I'm a longtime subscriber but sometimes the magazine bothers me.  You know when they're like "INCEPTION is going to be a smart summer blockbuster!" or whatever for months leading up to the film.  But then a month later through the rest of the year they start taking on a condescending tone towards it like "Brainy INCEPTION was too confusing for audiences", like "nice try".  Because the only thing that matters is box office and they have to report from some kind of mass consensus instead of ever standing up for a film.  I think this also leads to all these lame films getting nominated for Oscars because its like "what can we all agree on and get all worked up about" even though no one will care about this shit by next year.  I know its only EW and not like Film Comment or something but c'mon EW, stand up for something!

Does anybody know what I'm talking about?

[Pubrick]

this could be your polanski's illegitimate baby moment.

[modage]

Haha.  Anyone who reads the magazine should know!

[©brad]

So this movie is going to bomb because people have to think when they watch it? I know I've been ragey lately but motherfuck everyone.

[modage]

I'm not talking about Inception specifically, though I think it will be gently dismissed by the mainstream for not making ENOUGH money.  But just in general they have no convictions.  They'll never hype something, have it underperform and stick up for it for being great.  It's like they have to side with the masses.  Hive minded.

[cinemanarchist]

They are a pop-culture magazine and thus only seem to report on what pop culture is talking or thinking about. EW is like USA Today meets the water-cooler.

[pete]

they called these two goofy guys from Australia the It off-broadway performers in 1998, I read about it and sought them out and made friends with them.  I thought that was pretty cool, sticking up for the little guy.

[Sleepless]

I superscribed to EW for years but stopped about a year or so ago because it was just generally getting trashy and more focused on celebrity gossip than anything else. Bringing in Diablo Cody as a columnist was the last straw.

[Stefen]

I get what you mean, Mod. It is frustrating, but them's the breaks. They have a lot of advertisers to appease and can't really champion the little guy.

[modage]

I get what you mean, Mod. It is frustrating, but them's the breaks. They have a lot of advertisers to appease and can't really champion the little guy.

I'm not saying they have to spend 6 months pimping The Fountain after it comes out or something.  I'm just saying when they refer to it, instead of like "headscratcher flop The Fountain" they could be like "ambitious divisive The Fountain" or something.  Like, just don't refer to something dismissively because THE MOST PEOPLE IN THE WORLD didn't get it.  Like because something wasn't Avatard doesn't mean it wasn't still good.

[picolas]

for what it is, a giant pop culture magazine, i actually think they're discriminating. The Wrestler was the #1 movie on some main critic guy's list a couple years ago.. they devoted a page or two to why avatar doesn't deserve to win best pic. they mega-hyped d9 the week before it came out. i think they have taste.

[Sleepless]

There definitely seems to be some push and pull in terms of the influences tugging on the magazine. I recall many occasions where the cover would have the latest big thing all hyped up, 5 page article with all the photos talking about how awesome it was going to be, then be the lead review revealing it as a dud. Stefan hit the nail on the head - they've just got a lot of money people they need to please. The magazine just seems to be a weird hybrid of a douche mainstream hype machine that kinda knows better but continues to listen to the corruptive voices in their head. But that's what it is, I guess, a mainstream corporate glossy.

[Stefen]

EW's 25 greatest working directors list.

http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20311937_20346922,00.html

What do we think?

[Pubrick]

haha.. well apart from the sambong criticism (pre-emptive) that it's american-centric.. it shouldn't have bygelow, edgar wright... and.. hate to say it but lynch may never make a good movie again, he has pretty much announced his retirement by imploding up his own ass.

they are weirdly accurate with placing wes anderson at the bottom of their list.. i think that's a great insult if he ever got to read it.. that is, after someone translates it to french and reprints it on scented paper.

according to their criteria of "the most talented, in-demand filmmakers behind the camera today" i guess fincher makes sense to be at number one but that hardly makes him the number one greatest director working today.. i also don't think it should be Godard or some idiot like that who only ever made 3 or 4 good movies anyway. PTA and Malick should be number one and the rest don't really matter.

[Gold Trumpet]

What do we think?

I'll go with "Meaningless." If the right buzz surrounded more foreign filmmakers, they would be included on this list, but they don't. As far as I could tell, Mike Leigh is the only stature and longevity filmmaker from across the pond on the list. All others are either established franchises in America or operate on the right radar of buzz worthy right now. David O. Russel had a few projects foreclose on him in the last decade and Hollywood rejected his vision of comedic storytelling and because he resigns himself to making a fine boxing movie, he's now big? Well, since he's now willing to take on producer selected projects (namely: Mark Wahlberg), he's seeing a lot of green lights right now.