Well, there was more than one hole in this claim. Not all the people quoted in the article were influential. There were some critics and professionals who had been working in this business for decades. And I know this because it was me. I was among those cited.
Then, on Monday night, influencers, creators, critics, and journalists alike began posting images from the 70mm IMAX screening odyssey in New York City, which left many people confused. What happened to the idea of not doing social media influencer screening? Wasn’t Christopher Nolan going to single-handedly reshape the state of entertainment journalism?
Well, the truth is that social media influencers were always screened odyssey. In recent years, influencers have overtaken more traditional journalists and get most, if not all, of the time when a movie is released, along with the talent, which makes sense. Many people (especially youth) would rather watch videos on YouTube, Instagram or TikTok than read websites like this. A studio’s job is to promote a movie, and those influencers do it better than anyone else.
In fact, some people do it so well that they can make a lot of money doing it. This is where most of the confusion arises. Sometimes—not always, but sometimes—impressive content or interviews may be paid for in a film disguised as journalism. It looks like a normal interview, but paid for and controlled by the studio. And why not? Instead of rolling the dice with someone who will be honest, why not pay them to tell you that your movie is good? Plus, if the studio writes the questions themselves, they can prepare the talent, and not worry about the interviewer asking something they don’t want to ask.
This is where I come back to the story. What people think of as “social media influencer screenings” is often actually junk screenings – screenings done well in advance of more traditional press screenings so that people who are conducting interviews or doing more long-form or long-lead editorial content can see the film. It’s in this context where I, a person who doesn’t get paid by studios to cover movies, often gets to see a movie early. And people who see films before there is a consensus about them will routinely offer opinions that not everyone will agree with. Like my quote from the THR article about Disclosure Day. I still think it’s Steven Spielberg’s best film in the last 20 years, and if most people don’t agree with me, that’s okay. But I wasn’t paid to say that. I was also not paid by Universal to use the quote. I was lucky enough to see the film early and have a strong, positive, certainly hyperbolic, opinion of it.
Now, watching a movie early and posting about it are two different things, which is another big issue. using the disclosure day For example, I was told by the studio (Universal, which is also releasing odyssey) that I was able to post my response on May 27th. An all-media screening was not held until June 8, when several other opinions emerged. Then the film was released on 12 June. So yes, having an early opinion on social media before everyone else can be influential. And it was mine. This leads to articles in seemingly every trade publication.
This is where something called social media restrictions comes into play. This is a date set by a studio when people who have seen the film (influencers, critics, whatever) are allowed to post informally about it. This is when you get articles like this, where outlets gather a bunch of reactions to a movie. Only those reactions are rarely from influential people. They range from critics, influencers, journalists, anyone who saw the film and wanted to post about it.
Are those posts on “influencers” and “social media”? Yes. But those initial reactions fall far short of a screening held just for influencers. They are screening for people the studio believes would benefit if they saw the film early. Maybe these are people with positive tendencies. Maybe these are the people who are taking interviews. There can be any number of people in it. It could also be an imaginary influencer who can be paid to say something nice. However, if they’re going to say it’s good anyway, why keep the screening? Just tell them what to say and move on.
bring things back odysseyA more accurate title for the THR article probably should have been something like “odyssey “Social media restrictions will not be lifted soon.” Because clearly influencers were going to see the film early and have now. He also posted about seeing it. But he hasn’t posted his thoughts on it and probably won’t for a week or two after other people have seen the film. (Universal has not yet disclosed official social media restrictions odyssey.)
So yes, definitely influencers were going to get early screenings odyssey. And, no doubt, journalists and critics will soon see it too. But the difference between influencers, critics, reactions, reviews, and more is not something that can be easily conveyed in a headline. Christopher Nolan is powerful, but he still can’t change the media machine.
Want more io9 news? Check out when to expect the latest Marvel, Star Wars, and Star Trek releases, what’s next for the DC Universe on film and TV, and everything you need to know about the future of Doctor Who.
<a href