I clicked on “How to Dry Up Hollywood Funding for Democrats” — how could you not? — with some degree of anticipation.
Ed Lasky is absolutely right about a lot of stuff we’ve all known for decades.
But that “how” in the column title peaked my interest. Maybe Lasky is some kind of Hollywood semi-insider, a Friends of Abe type?
No, apparently he’s an Illinois lawyer (his sole connection to Abe…) and long time Tea Party type guy who runs the American Thinker site, which explains why he has so many articles on it.
Because this one is terrible.
Want to know the “how”? Are you sure you can take it? Are you ready to learn the secret to bankrupting the showbiz arm of the Dems?
Lasky was inspired by a New York Times article which theorizes that the Rotten Tomatoes site has become so influential that it’s costing Hollywood millions in box office revenue.
The column points out claims that movies that have basically been all but destroyed at the box office by postings on Rotten Tomatoes. The irony is that Rotten Tomatoes is headquartered in the belly of the beast (Beverly Hills) and is owned in part by movie studios and Fandango.
So how can you, John Q. Citizen register your disapproval of not only movies but the liberal powerhouse that Hollywood has become (one pines for the days of Ronald Reagan)?
Register to become an official critic on Rotten Tomatoes. The requirements are relatively easy –just ask reviewers such as Screen Junkies and Punch Drunk Critics (yes, they are actual Rotten Tomatoes critics).
The Tomatometer (that aggregates scores from reviewers) has become a very important barometer that audiences check across a wide variety of formats (including Fandango and Comcast viewer guides) before deciding whether to purchase tickets.
How to make life as miserable for Hollywood as many of them have played a role in making Americans miserable?
Hit them at the box office –where it hurts. Become a critic for Rotten Tomatoes and post scathing reviews.When only idiots go to movies, maybe they will get the message.
Lasky clearly thinks that “Screen Junkies” and “Punch Drunk Critics” are a couple of basement dwellers, based on their “weird” names, which are only weird if you’re a bumpkin.
In real life, Screen Junkies has 6 million YouTube subscribers. I’m one and enjoy their stuff.
Punch Drunk Critics, which I’m less familiar with, looks fun but serious, with lots of Variety-type reporting on casting, hiring and firing, release dates and projects in development.
So: Not a couple of loser weirdos, but pretty solid enterprises.
But let’s take Lasky’s word for it:
The requirements for becoming one of these influential Rotten Tomatoes critics are “relatively easy.”
Lasky doesn’t link to it, so I found the relevant page at Rotten Tomatoes. It’s pretty long.
Now, I don’t know where Screen Junkies fits in, but along with having over 6 million YouTube subscribers, they’ve been around for almost ten years and boast almost 2 billion views.
I presume Punch Drunk Critics would fall under Rotten Tomatoes’ “Online Publications” category. Here’s the criteria:
Online publications must achieve and maintain a minimum 500,000 unique monthly visitors according to comScore, Inc or Nielsen Net Ratings and reviews must have an average length of at least 300 words. Publications must also show a consistent standard of professionalism, writing quality, and editorial integrity across all reviews and articles. Lastly, site design and layout should also reflect a reasonable level of quality and must have a domain name specific to the property.
Online critics must have published no less than 100 reviews across two calendar years at a single, Tomatometer-approved publication, and all reviews should have an average length of at least 300 words to be considered for individual approval.
In all cases applicants should have two years’ worth of published reviews available online, and all applicants must be able to demonstrate that their reviews have editorial oversight.
In some cases, critics that are publishing reviews on a Tomatometer-approved outlet and have membership in select critics associations may be considered for individual approval. However, membership in a critics association does not guarantee approval.
Does that seem “relatively easy” to anybody else?
And if it’s so easy, has Ed Lasky successfully applied? Apparently not.
But if they did, would they be “idiots”? Because:
Become a critic for Rotten Tomatoes and post scathing reviews. When only idiots go to movies, maybe they will get the message.
Or is he encouraging his (imaginary) army of (non-idiot) critics to “post scathing reviews” without going to the movies themselves?
And does he really believe that Rotten Tomatoes — which is a pretty damn valuable property, certainly more valuable than American Thinker — doesn’t already have processes in place to reduce the ability of saboteurs to game the system?
This column by Ed Lasky represents American “Conservatism” at its worst:
Blowhardy, male-menopausal, tone deaf, “get off my lawn” crabbiness, but with the added awfulness of being embarrassingly naive, stylistically sub-par and factually-challenged, while convinced of one’s own cleverness — and then not even taking one’s own advice.
It would be better if people like Lasky didn’t write columns like this at all.
Self-indulgent foolishness like this does far more harm than good.