Movie Reviewer Copycats

[MrRING]

I got a quote in another thread concerning how two articles sound the same:

(and very similar wording in each article too, but that's another matter)

I've noticed this a good bit, in particular on movie reviews. Look at how often reviewers use the same slang or angle when attacking a film (and it's usually attacking - positive stuff tends not to get copied as much). Not that in every case these films are great, but that reviewers take too liberally from their peers and offer nothing new, maybe because they are too tired/bored to write/form their own opinions.

It makes it seem like that there are a few "tastemaker" reviews that can make or break a film, because these few influencial pieces gets copied ad nauseaum.

Another pet peeve: IMDB's round-up of reviews that usually show up on Fridays in the "Studio Briefing" section. If you watch over months, there is seldom middle ground brokered in their review angle; they usually find most of the negative reviews and lump them together, or on occasion show most of the positive reviews for films.

I wonder if they do this on purpose, supporting films they like and attacking the ones they don't.

Then again, maybe it's just me...
:hmph:

 

[taras]

It's called "lazy journalism"

See Paul Morley for a prime example of a "critic" out to make as much money as possible for spouting crap and appearing on every "I Love The Excuse To Repeat Old Things And Interview C-List Celebrities" show.

 

[Anonymous]

I sometimes have to write film reviews. I do actually go to the films, but am not great for staring obsessively at the credits and taking notes of actors, director, etc. So I will often do a google later to get these details. But I don't copy whole reviews written by other people.

Anyway most on-line reviews have a few deliberate errors thrown in to expose any writer who does this. Sometimes it is blatant. One review I found on 'From Hell', the Jack the Ripper film, had the murders happening in 1898. Didn't fall for that one :lol:

 

[James_H]

I recently read a times review of a festival that said oxford band goldrush were from hull. Do you reckon this was a result of same? They also seemed to just be saying what everyone else said about the bands.

 

[JamesWhitehead]

I suppose if critics on several continents were slating films in the
same way we could say they were plagiarising or conspiring to bury
the movie. But mainly, I guess press screenings are followed by
drinkies and some sharing of epithets. Afterwards everyone writes up
their memories of the discussion rather than the movie, confident that
a consensus of sorts has been reached.