I’m not saying you didn’t slam it. I’m saying
nobody wrote a story like this
that said it feels like it’s getting much more of a free pass than “John
Carter.” I’ve been thinking about it in my own head ever since it came out: So
many people were mauled, destroyed and ruined -- for weeks -- over Disney’s
movie…while the Peter Berg film seems to represent just another costly misfire. Its
failure is really just relegated to normal box office stories everywhere
(except for this),
while “John Carter” had volumes and volumes and volumes written about it. So
good on Patrick Goldstein for saying something. 
As the teaser for Paul Thomas Anderson's "The Master" debuts today, I’ve always wondered how well movie trailers do for news sites. I sure like them, and they’re fairly low-hanging fruit that easily jazzes things up. But I also wonder why nobody in the trade space has mastered the presentation, the distribution and the overall “bigness” that trailers represent. THR had “Skyfall” leading the site this morning, an idea I like…but it doesn't happen all the time, and their trailers are either strewn throughout the homepage or actually buried here, tucked away on the video page once they fall away from the general news roll. Variety often places the trailers here in their Boffo blog but doesn’t particularly call them out in a more significant way. The Wrap has no dedicated place for them at all. Deadline actually does highlight a trailer section here on the homepage (on their top tab). I’m not a fan of the “hot” designation (feels a bit '80s), but they are trying to do something solid. But still, why won’t these sites work harder to make them more of a major component, both aesthetically and editorially? 
I'm very surprised that this one -- the Oscar winner has been tapped to write the screenplay based on Walter Isaacson's great biography -- was a general press release from Sony; it's the kind of story that would have been a nice splash for someone. But that's a question for the studio, as they decided to go wide -- so I'm sure plenty of reporters are pissed. A look at the posting cascade shows that The Wrap went first at 5:46. Variety followed at 5:53. Deadline landed next at 5:54, as did The Hollywood Reporter. And honestly, the fact that Deadline didn't get it first is strange, as they have been on the Sorkin train for years, with exclusive stories like this and this and this. You can tell that they were frustrated, as they simply posted the release.
Whenever people start talking about what should or shouldn't be covered by the trades, I want to jam a fork in my gums. Because I've always said that, like herpes, you know it when you see it. So it's become terribly annoying -- sad, in a way -- to see stubborn editorial decisions from on high lead to a mishmash of news that waters down some of these publications' brands, and in some cases, has destroyed them. Now granted, everyone had to regroup after trade journalism went into the bidet (business-wise)...but wasn't that the time to cement an identity? Today's main culprits are The Wrap and The Hollywood Reporter, who mix Cannes and Upfront news with this and this. Garbage items. May I ask, why? Take "traffic boost" out of the potential answer pool...and ask yourself if these are the stories that will help you evolve moving forward. So here's a challenge: take a fucking stand. Stop covering everything that has a celebrity's name attached. Revisit your legacy and build it out. Variety ALMOST did that -- they made a decision to stick to what they are good at. But other things got in their way...which is a post for another day. Peace out.
No need for me to re-tell the news -- Deadline got this fair and square, so read it over there. Anyway, it's probably more fun for you folks to dive into the recent history between Queen Finke and Sharon Waxman. Last night's break that The Wrap is being sued by a documentary financier -- bylined, ironically, by ex-Wrap dude Dominic Patten -- comes eight months after this and more than a year after this. In other words, Nikki has beaten Sharon up quite a bit lately. But from what I see, the slings and arrows haven't been reciprocated. That's probably because Nikki, while "difficult," is very careful. And when it comes to bona fide journalism, she and her team happen to be fair. That's not to say Sharon hasn't tried to fire some cannon balls back. She said here that she was going to follow Nikki's moves. Remember that? But she hasn't. In fact, I haven't seen much on her site in a while about her once-friend, now-foe, and I have a suspicion it's because she just doesn't have the goods. Now, Sharon has survived quite a bit during her run. Most impressively, the site is simply still around. And while that may be a strange thing to praise, it's only right to backpat someone who has run any kind business in this arena -- and in this economy -- for this long. So in that regard, she's a survivor. And anyone who can't admit THAT isn't being honest. But this round goes to Nikki. It's a good scoop on a real suit that has relevance. (You can read THR's story here.)
Tradies are trying so hard to get the latest news
surrounding the Upfronts, but none of them have taken the time to present it
very well. Yes, there are dedicated landing pages here, here and here…but the
general blog rolls or home pages are so scattered with news, that it's exhausting...and a real turnoff. And it’s going to get worse. In years past, tradies have
always written stories before the networks make their announcements AND after
the announcements. But in an old-school ironic twist…print used to make this
stuff so much more manageable. Because
now, with all of these stories, constant updates and TV news nuggets that have
nothing to do with the Upfronts, it’s just one big messy romp with nobody
asking themselves, “Does this look good?”
There is so much horse trading that goes on with tradies and PR folks...it used to be about placement in the print editions, but that has now evolved into silly negotiations surrounding the times that stories "are allowed" to post. But the dealmaking also goes on between the journalists themselves, and it's almost creepy how everyone becomes colleagues instead of competitors. I can only imagine some of that went on with the announcement that the hit CBS show would be back for its 10th year. If you look at Variety, The Hollywood Reporter and Deadline, all of the timestamps say 12:00 PST. That means a few things happened: 1) The PR folks said, "you can't post until then"...and everyone actually listened to the mandate; and b) there had to be some kind of agreement in place between Nellie, Cynthia and Lacey Rose, which always seems icky, considering the whole point of this kind of journalism is to win. (The Wrap, by the way, isn't in this discussion, as they posted it at around 12:24.) I can't help but imagine at least ONE of these journalists knew this was happening beforehand. So why wait? Why help each other out? And why kowtow to the sources? Ridiculous.
UPDATE: Variety FINALLY got around to posting the news at 12:14 and some analysis on Jon Weisman's The Vote blog at 12:42. Wow. A full staff couldn't get to it until an hour later.
The Hollywood Reporter continues its dominance over everyone
else when it comes to legal stories, and really, nobody else comes close. The recently promoted Eriq
Gardner had a busy Friday: First, he published the Hawaii Five-O story; then
the Sam Raimi sequel story. Later, Matt Belloni chimed in with the CBS-ABC
spat over the latter’s plans for a “Big Brother”-like series. So did Nellie over at Deadline. Good on them. Here’s the deal
on legal coverage: Deadline has always been trying to find someone and finally did (Dominic Patten) who is only so-so plugged in. He’s better than having
nothing, but I’m not sure he’s going to get the huge ones a la THR, Esq.
Variety and The Wrap are pretty much moribund in that department. Just writing
stories from stories they read elsewhere. No real legal breaks beyond an
occasional decent one. THR, meanwhile, has really put its stamp on that corner
of the trade business. Eriq and Matt are terrific in that world, and they have
news judgment; they know what’s appropriate for the site and what isn’t.
