Home Theater Forum and Systems banner

The Status of Movie Reviews - IMPORTANT!

1K views 32 replies 6 participants last post by  Sonnie 
#1 ·
Hey guys...

Status One Update

We started our new adventure of In Theaters - Box Office reviews back in January and I think four months is long enough to see that it just ain't working. For whatever reasons (with the exception of a very few), our readers like media reviews much more than they like box office reviews.

THIS MAKES SENSE!

If you think about it, our readers are in fact home theater enthusiasts. For the most part they come here interested in things to do with their "home" theater so that they can watch movies at "home" and not the commercial cinemas. Granted, people go out to watch movies, but they are not coming here to find out about those movies... they are coming here to discuss "home" theater and "media" would be more in line with what they would be interested in here.

If you look through our reviews, the ones that have any hope of drawing a lot of attention are the new releases on media, be it Blu-ray or DVD. None of the box office review views have broke 500, not even Avatar that was several months ago. Yes, if we reach way back to a couple of box office reviews that were non-paid reviews (Star Trek posted in 6/09 and Watchman posted in 3/09) those have broke 500. It took a long time for those to get where they are. Avatar will probably break it, but it could be several more months.

I truly appreciate you guys giving it a go. I do not fault you or your reviews... it is the nature of our forum that creates less interest in these type of reviews.

Therefore, beginning May 1, 2010, we will cease all In Theaters - Box Office reviews. You can review them if you like, in any format you desire, in the General Discussion and Reviews: Movies | TV Shows | Hollywood forum, however, there will be no payment made for those.


Status Two Update

When we started the paid review process some couple of years ago, I agreed to allow re-releases on Blu-ray to be reviewed, but only if they were big hits. However, it seems we have been pulling any and every ole re-release off the shelves for reviews. I am seeing a LOT of movies that simply were not that big of a hit. Yes, they may have been "good" movies, but many of these are not even in the IMDB Top 250. If you look through these, they hardly break 300 views. We lose money on these. For us to justify paying for a review, it needs to at least break 500 reviews... then we still lose money, but at least we are headed in the right direction. We are definitely getting a better viewership because we are reviewing more movies, but we are definitely wasting a lot of re-releases that we should not be reviewing. There have only been a couple of really good re-releases, LOTR being one of those, but look at where it sits on the IMDB list... all three in the top 30... one at number 11.

Therefore, beginning May 1, 2010, we will cease all re-release reviews unless they are big... and I mean BIG hits. I am not even sure if there are any left to be re-released, but if it ain't in the IMDB top 50, I doubt we will consider it. If it is, we still need to think long and hard about whether it will be worthy of a review.


Status Three Update

We want more "NEW" Blu-ray and DVD movie reviews. Those are the ones that will bring in more viewers for us and hopefully get us to a point where we can start paying you guys more for these reviews. We would like for all reviews to be posted within 5-10 days of their release date (unless you guys think this is simply too unreasonable). If we wait too long then we miss a lot of potential viewers who go to where the reviews are released on or before the actual release date. If we are able to get the review copy from the studios early, I don't see why we can't have the reviews posted at the same time or sooner than other review sites.

I hope all this makes sense. I am certainly open to suggestions for improvements, but it has to be within reason if we are going to continue to pay for reviews. We have spent quite a bit and just simply are not seeing the returns. I firmly believe all of you are top notch reviewers and I am certainly glad we have a crew that does as well as you do with your reviews. This does not go without our appreciation for everything you guys do to try to help our site. We truly thank you for your contribution and can only hope that you understand our view point. We have to do things reasonably and wisely.
 
See less See more
#2 ·
You make three very valid points Sonnie. I agree with everything. Obviously I do not know the financial side of things as for the forum, but I understand we need movies that are going to bring in a lot of views to make it worth it...for you and for us.

Also, I think the 5-10 days to have a review out is more than reasonable. While schedules sometimes does not allow us to get reviews out as quickly as we would like, I think 5-10 is more than enough time to have it out. Closer to 5 than 10 I would say though, because getting up to 10 days, there has already been another set of new releases out by then.

It's unfortunate that the Theatrical reviews did not make it, but this change came from a learning experience. Now we know what to do, and I think we are heading in the right direction. Especially with the opportunity to have bluray movies earlier through Dave! ;)
 
#3 · (Edited)
Hey guys...

Therefore, beginning May 1, 2010, we will cease all re-release reviews unless they are big... and I mean BIG hits. I am not even sure if there are any left to be re-released, but if it ain't in the IMDB top 50, I doubt we will consider it. If it is, we still need to think long and hard about whether it will be worthy of a review.
Sonnie, the IMDB Top 50 already has several out on Bluray, do you want to visit any of those or is it more of new releases that are in the top 50?
 
#5 ·
I was referring to "re"-releases that are new releases. IOW, if it has not already been released on Blu-ray and may be released in the future. I would only want to "consider" it if it were in the top 50. Some of those in the top 50 I still do not think would do that well.
 
#7 ·
It's no big deal either way but from a business standpoint, if I were giving away movies for review I would want the receivers to take the bad with the good sort of speak. But you're right, they're are plenty of new releases.
Posted via Mobile Device
 
#12 ·
Yeah, engineers tend to do that. We techs have to keep them in line and make sure that they are grounded in reality sometimes.

In scouting we have a saying, KISMIF. Keep It Simple, Make It Fun. It works for lots of things...
 
#14 ·
I think we are late to the game with SPR... that has been reviewed on BD already. I see it at AVS now and other places have had it reviewed for a while.

Why is AVS getting their reviews before us? Are we lower on the totem pole since they been doing it longer?

I would say that is one we would review... and maybe WOTW too, but we have to be VERY particular about reviewing re-releases. We can easily get carried away like we have in the past. We all have favorites and many we think that are big, but once they are done they ain't that big... as we can see in most of our previous cases.

I guess what I might ask is SPR or WOTW half the potential review of LOTR?
 
#15 ·
Why is AVS getting their reviews before us? Are we lower on the totem pole since they been doing it longer?

I guess what I might ask is SPR or WOTW half the potential review of LOTR?
My guess is that AVS is getting them before us because they have been doing it longer and it is something that will only be able to overcome with time. Additionally, consistancy seems to be a problem with them as well as Dave wasn't even expecting to see Lord of the Rings for a couple of weeks when it arrived in his mailbox and Universal sent him several back catalogue titles that he didn't even request. I think it will take some time to get the process established and some consistency on our part so the studios start sending titles to us in a timely manner.

I think SPR and WOTW have plenty of potential as do many back cataloque titles. The problem is getting them posted before the other sites. It will take some time to get established to the level that AVS, Bluray.com and High-Def Digest are but I also think we could potentially appeal to a bigger audience because our reviewers don't try to talk over the readers head. One of the things that I love about HTS is that we all try to explain things in 'average joe' terms because that is what the majority of us are. The two top questions I get from people about Bluray's are:
  1. Is it worth replacing my DVD version?
  2. Is it worth buying?
I still think we are shooting ourselves in the foot by not reviewing older re-releases. One thing we could do to keep older title reviews going without getting out of hand cost wise is that we don't turn in an older title for payment until it has reached a pre-determined number of hits. IOW, if someone were to review something like SPR or WOTW and it doesn't get at least 500 hits then we simply don't bill for it. The reviewer would still be able to keep any advanced copies so it wouldn't be a total loss on their part either.
 
#16 ·
I'm pretty concerned about this 5-10 day thing -- does this mean we shouldn't review a movie if it's been out for more than ten days, even if no one on HTS has reviewed it? I don't think the readers here are that anxious to see every single film. The old policy seemed to be 3-5 weeks, and given how many films are coming out all the time (and that I, for one, rarely see new releases immediately), I'd like to see this time frame remain intact. I just don't know if my schedule and the fact that there are a number of other reviewers vying for new releases makes this viable for me.

I'm fine with all of your other suggestions, Sonnie.
 
#17 ·
For me personally when a new release comes out, regardless if I want it or not, I'm looking up reviews on it the day it releases or before if they are out. Just to see if it would be worth getting someday, if not right away. I look up what people thought about the disc, if there are any special editions coming out etc.

I think for a lot of movies, 5-10 days is more than enough time. Because when a movie releases, 10 days from now, people aren't too concerned on the review on that movie anymore, they are concerned about the movies releasing that next tuesday. Does that make since?

And I kind of agree with Dale, if I understood what he was saying right. I think doing older re-releases would help us out in the long run as well. Of course for now it might seem like a waste, but I think we need to show that we are versatile and not just reviewing the hot releases. Otherwise I think we do run the risk of losing credibility with studios if we want to receive movies early.

Just a couple thoughts.
 
#18 ·
I think it depends. If we're able to get those movies through pre-release, then having a review up within 2 weeks is pretty reasonable. Otherwise, it's going to be hard -- especially since we're spreading reviews out to about one each day.

Personally, I don't lose interest in a review just because it comes 3-4 weeks after the movie is released. I really don't think that many people go to the video store with a new release in mind -- they're just looking for a good movie that may have come out within the last 1-2 months. That's how I feel, at least.

Anyhow, as mentioned I think it depends on whether we can keep up the pre-releases, which thus far is great.
 
#19 ·
Oh no, I'm not saying they lose interest, I just meant that they have already read a review or two (if they care about reviews) within that time period, that by 10 days they are already reading reviews from other movies.

And from personally experience of working at blockbuster when I was younger, nearly EVERY person that came in would look at the new release board and/or ask if a new release is out yet and if we had copies. Very rarely did anyone come in and rent an older title, at least not without a new release in hand, and in that case the older release was free for them. lol

But I was talking more about people reading the review, if we want coverage on people reading the reviews themselves (not so much watching the movie), then we need to have them out as soon as we can. I think in this kind of business, per say, if you are too late with reviews, you're falling behind. If other publications and forums are reviewing movies day of or before, and we are reviewing movies 10+ days later, I think we will quickly lose credibility as a good place to go to view movie reviews, and ultimately we lose out on viewing of our reviews, future members, and/or future customers.
 
#20 ·
I see no reason we cannot get it worked out to have the reviews done within 5-10 days of their release, especially if we can get them a week earlier than the release date. That would give you almost 3 weeks in some cases. You guys pretty much know the movies you want to review. They are at the box office at least 3 months before the media release. If you schedule it, it should not be an issue to get it done within 5-10 days of the release date.

As far as re-releases... about as far as I am willing to go on those is maybe allow one re-release to every four new movie releases AND they must be in the Top 250 at IMDB to qualify.
 
#21 ·
When Dave got Armageddon for me he said that the studios insist on having it up on the site within 10 days of the release date so that in of itself should dictate some level of timeline. I think we could use his input on some more of these issues as we try to work through them as he is the one with the contacts to the studios however, he is on the road until Monday and even then he will probably have to catch up a few things.

If we are going to compete with the other sites and be taken seriously we are going to have to turn the reviews around as soon as we can especially the anticipated ones in which we have a chance to be first to post. I am sure Dave is under a lot of pressure carrying the load of managing the studio relationships and it is to our benefit that we follow the rules that they put forth if we are going to expect them to continue sending us advanced copies.
 
#22 ·
Don't have terribly long to type this out but I did want to clarify some things about our studio relationships and why we might be treated differently than other sites.

This one is probably the biggest factor - title choice:

Studios often have certain films that they want reviewed more than others, either because they need the extra media sales to make up for a less than stellar box office performance, or because they have a lower promotional budget. These titles are often solicited via email without my asking - unfortunately a lot of these titles don't meet the somewhat unrealistic standards we set here. I received solicitations for several movies that are simply not acceptable as review material by the standards Sonnie has laid out - so I have to decline.

When I asked for a review copy of an upcoming title we do want - often I ask the very hour it's available for request and the PR firm taking requests adds us to the queue. Unfortunately - this queue is usually pre-filled with the sites/publications that aren't picky. Since we are picky - we don't get preselected to receive every title. Universal is the only exception - they don't ask they just send me random titles - which Dale and I will end up sharing depending when they send a new release.


The point I am trying to make here is we are operating from a bit of a "holier than though" position with these studio reps and we don't have the reputation or traffic to be so demanding. They do their best to get me every title I select but this is business for them as well. I am usually able to get a title about 10 days prior to release (if they solicit early enough and don't preselect recipients) if all goes according to plan - so this should make your 5-10 day timelime acceptable.

To make this manageable in the future we are going to need to do a few things. Number one is that each reviewer is going to need to start PM'ing me with titles they plan to review at least 6 weeks prior to release - this gives me enough time to research which PR firm is handling advance copies. I will then get the request process started.

Number two is a formatting issue. Reviews go into studio reports once an advanced copy is sent - in order to build our credibility we need to have a page set up where we can post HTML formatted reviews without the forum restrictions. By this I mean 1) Room for graphics and images that are not maxed out at 300px, 2) A semi-hidden location for us to post these HTML formatted versions so studios can look at them in this format. This also allows us to have a nicer archive of old reviews.


I recognize that policy regarding what we review here is unlikely to change - so I will do my best to work around this with the PR reps - but we do need to remember that as long as we have this attitude of picking and choosing what we will and will not do - we aren't as valuable to them as the other outlets who review every title they are sent. Reviewing a movie by release date (the ideal situation) really does rest on getting an advanced copy. I don't think our compensation package for reviewers is sufficient to justify them paying to rent or buy a movie on or near release day just to hit a deadline - advanced copies are really the only workable solution so we should do our best to make this happen.
 
#23 ·
Number two is a formatting issue. Reviews go into studio reports once an advanced copy is sent - in order to build our credibility we need to have a page set up where we can post HTML formatted reviews without the forum restrictions. By this I mean 1) Room for graphics and images that are not maxed out at 300px, 2) A semi-hidden location for us to post these HTML formatted versions so studios can look at them in this format. This also allows us to have a nicer archive of old reviews.
I do not believe any forum allows HTML formatting. That is simply a HUGE security risk. BB code does nearly every thing you can do via HTML and if there is something missing, let me know, I will see if we can add it via BB code.

You can make your images bigger if you want as long as they are not in the first 1200 characters of the thread. The first 1200 characters is what shows on the front page. If we stick with a max of 200px with the cover art and no other images in the first 1200 characters, we should be fine.

OR... I can limit the amount shown on the front page to 1000 or even 800 characters if you guys prefer.

Keep in mind though... large images really look cheesy in a review thread and can create all kinds of ugliness with those people using lower screen resolutions. I would highly consider not going over about 500px wide to keep it looking professional.

For the record... AVS does not even include images in all of their reviews, so I am not understanding what the deal is with the studios requiring it. AVS gets an exception?
 
#24 ·
No - AVS does not get an exception - but you may notice that they do get considerably less titles out than sites like highdefdigest et al. It's not a requirement but they always like a page (HTML or not really) that includes a formatted version of the review they can easily print to PDF etc for studio reports. Our forum post layout just doesn't work quite as well - not to say it's the major factor in any of this.

The best thing we can do is to keep posting reviews and keep asking for titles. Over time the presence we have should grow. I just wanted to clarify how this all works - as not many people realize certain titles are contracted to a certain PR agency and they are paid to market it and send the review copies prior to the studio report.
 
#25 ·
If we were to adapt to a particular format that they "claim" they want... I can tell you that it will only be us and perhaps one other site that is conforming to it because no two are alike... so if we adapt to it, we could be the only one formatting it like they want it... worst case one of two sites.

You also keep mentioning HiDef Digest (who BTW, is not listed on the first page of Google for "movie reviews" nor "dvd reviews" - although a jam up site for very in depth reviews). You might note that most of their images are 220px wide... and their reviews can exceed 4,000 WORDS... not characters, but WORDS!!!

DVDTalk... only 2 of their top 10 latest reviews has images.

There is absolutely ZERO rhyme or reason when it comes to formatting with other review sites. I can hardly see how there are any "enforced" formats from these PR firms.

Let's talk review pricing.

Would you guys be willing to go to a scale of payment for reviews based on several factors?

  • $10 for all "re-releases" not in the IMDB Top 250.
  • $20 for all "re-releases" in IMDB Top 101-250
  • $25 for all "re-releases" in IMDB Top 100.

Minimum 1,000 words. Most of you run about 900-1000 words... a few have hit 1200 and Avatar hit 1700 words. I am counting from "Movie" down... not the title, cast info, etc. And not counting copy and pasting of extras, features, etc. We are talking "your" words.

  • $25 for "new movie" new releases at 1,000+ words. (See The Fourth Kind review at 1010 words)
  • $35 for "new movie" new releases at 2,000+ words. (See Avatar review at 1781 words and LOTR at 1901 words - both a little short)
  • $50 for "new movie" new releases at 3,500+ words. (Which should be reserved for very popular TOP grossing films when they are released.)

Maximum one $35 review and one $50 review per reviewer per month.

Maximum 4 reviews per month per reviewer.

This will at least give you guys some incentive to do longer reviews.

We need some way to qualify those $45 reviews though... like a minimum box office return where there are probably only 4 or 5 to choose from each month. For $50 bucks, they need to be in the top 5 movies of the month. In some cases there may not be but 1-2 big releases like this in a month.







************* BTW Dave... the Avatar review is probably not getting the hits it should get because it is taking forever for those SUPER LARGE images to load. I tried to access it on several occasions and it took well over five minutes one time to even start to load it... two to three minutes nearly every time and then the images were still loading when I finally got to start seeing the review. People are NOT going to wait for those large images to load. You ruin the thread with those in there. If you want people to see that large of an image, you should link to them... or post thumbnails with links. I deleted them until you can get a solution.

This is a GREAT example of why we need to use OUR image gallery to host images and keep them to a REASONABLE size. You start sticking a bunch of large images in a review (or even in the review thread)... and we will start to see our "Views" go down down down. You will run absolutely everyone off with those. I can tell from lots of experience, people do not like to wait on images to load.
 
#26 ·
Fair enough on the image size - I will just link to a separate thread elsewhere on the forum. I do want to keep them full size (for those who like to look at screencaps to assess quality) but I'll restrict anything on the review page to the usual smaller images.


As I said earlier - review formatting is really not a big deal but it was mentioned to me by a couple of PR reps that our format was hard to get into the studio report. I just thought I'd pass it on.


I like the new scale personally - it seems to encourage quality over quantity which I appreciate. The only concern will of course be what titles we each get as each person needs an equal chance at the top titles. Thanks for your thoughtfulness Sonnie.
 
#28 ·
Man, I go to sleep for a couple of hours and all this happens. Dave's opinion pretty much reflects my own and I also think that the new scale is very encouraging toward quality over quantity. Personally I think my reviews are a ways off from getting to the $50 range and I don't mind passing on the bigger titles for now as they may benefit from someone like Dave doing a more thorough review.

The one thing I might change would be the limitations on the number of reviews. I would limit it by a dollar amount. Instead of four reviews that could potentially equal $135 per month, set a limit of $140. That way if someone were so encouraged to review one $50 title they could also do five $10 and two $20 reviews or any combination that would equal that amount if they were so motivated to do so. I have said many times that I personally don't do this for the money, I do it because I like writing which should be evident in the additional game reviews I do when I get a chance. I would prefer not to be limited to four reviews a month.

I think anticipating which titles will reach the $50 and $35 scales can be done a couple of ways:
  1. Box Office Take - Say $50 for movies that gross over $150 Million
  2. Who can get it done? - Some of us may not have a schedule conducive to getting the review completed and posted in a timely manner.
  3. Hype around release - Maybe we monitor Amazon's top 10 most anticipated Blurays.
These are a couple of ideas I think we could build on as we move forward. I think we are on track but still have a little ways to go with working out who should review what but I am sure we can get there.
 
#29 ·
Yes, I am a fan of the new pay scale! I think it should not only encourage us to have quality out, but to also work better as movie reviewers to stay on top of things. And to work more as a team to get things going right so we not only bring ourselves in some extra case, but we also bring the forum extra cash, members, future vendors, etc.

So I like that idea. :)
 
#31 ·
I am fine with the new pay scale... however, if you already had "re-release" movies sent to you from the studio... those will be at the old rate for now.


  • $10 for all "re-releases" not in the IMDB Top 250 (750+ words)
  • $20 for all "re-releases" in IMDB Top 101-250 (1,000+ words)
  • $25 for all "re-releases" in IMDB Top 100 (1,000+ words)

  • $25 for "new movie" new releases (1,000+ words)
  • $35 for "new movie" new releases (2,000+ words)
  • $50 for "new movie" new releases (3,500+ words, 150 million domestic box office gross at time of release - http://boxofficemojo.com) *Requires my pre-approval.
I am not sure we can afford it... the max per month per reviewer will be $150.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top