Since the start of the new year, almost like flicking on a light switch, the web traffic to this blog has skyrocketed. I'm trying to figure out who the hell you people are.
When I say skyrocketed, I mean that literally -- a typical day is earning somewhere between three to five times as much as my historic average over the eight-year history of Captain Critic.
Glorious, of course, but discomforting in that I don't know why it's happening. When good things occur, you want to sustain and replicate it. So I'm trying to understand the how's and why's of this unexpected turn of events.
I've looked at the traffic sources, and it doesn't appear there are any new traffic revenue points -- just everything is attracting exponentially more from the same old places. Google searches and Facebook remain the top sources. Almost all of my traffic is from the continental U.S.
And why exactly did this start on January 1? Some new Google algorithm? As I said, Google isn't accounting for a larger share of traffic -- every source has exploded.
New posts almost always do great, and even older stuff is attracting a lot of attention. One of my current top five posts is a video review of "The Hollars," a tiny film that did little box office, which I published almost two months ago.
The really weird thing is that I don't even try to generate traffic for this blog. Everything I link and share is to The Film Yap, aside from a few infrequent personal columns like this. And I've seen no corresponding rise in traffic there.
Frankly, I'd prefer if you read my stuff at the Yap -- so please go there now.
Or come to both. I'm not picky. I just wish I knew who all these new readers were.
--Chris
P.S. I've been noodling with changing the name of this blog. I came up with "Captain Critic" in the midst of a flurry of life changes, most of them unfortunate, and I was desperate to continue my film writing and open up new avenues of distribution. It was meant to be fun and snarky and that's fine. Seems a little... well, too 2008 now. Suggestions?
I know, I know... you're saying, "Hey, it's only mid-April! How can you call this the time for summer flicks?" The truth is the summer season has moved up earlier and earlier. And it ends sooner, too. The biggest movies are usually done by the Fourth of July.
The first Friday in May had been the official kickoff for many years. Then the "Fast and the Furious" franchise made April the new hot thing by racking up massive box office in that month. Last week saw "The Jungle Book" debut to huge numbers, and "Batman v Superman" a couple of weeks before that.
Since I'm not doing a full summer movie preview this year, I thought I'd at least pick the films I'm personally most looking forward to in mid-2016. Let's call it "Six for Summer."
Captain America: Civil War
(May 6) Some people are complaining about the spate of super hero movies taking over cinemas. But audiences certainly don't seem to be tiring of them, based on the grosses of the last few films. And neither am I. The trailers have been a big hit and hype is out of this world.
In this go-round based on a huge multi-comic mashup, the super hero world squares off against each other in a fight over accepting government control -- including their secret identities. Captain America is the leader of the freedom movement, while Iron Man heads up the opposition.
There's a particular excitement for this film since Marvel is finally going to integrate its box office champion, Spider-Man, into the mix.
X-Men: Apocalypse
(May 27) Speaking of super-heroes, the "other" big comics film franchise -- which has existed in a parallel cinematic universe due to ownership rights -- is up at bat again after having "retconned" everything in the last movie. Jennifer Lawrence returns as Mystique, Michael Fassbender as Magneto, James McAvoy as Charles Xavier, etc. Sophie Turner of "Game of Thrones" takes over the pivotal role of psychic Jean Grey.
It's essentially a next-generation tale, with Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellen and the old gang turning over their characters to younger actors.
Here Oscar Isaac plays Apocalypse, a super-powerful bad guy who intends to make the entire race extinct with the help of his four horsemen. By the way, this will be the first X-flick without Wolverine. Despite remaining the most popular character, two attempts at solo movies didn't cut it.
Finding Dory
(June 17) Many people feel "Finding Nemo" represented the apex of Disney/Pixar animation, so anticipation for the long-rumored sequel is deeper than the deep blue sea.
In this plot the blue tang with short-term memory loss -- unforgettably voiced by Ellen DeGeneres -- goes on a quest to find her long-lost family. Albert Brooks is back as worrywart clown fish Marlin, and new voice talents include Idris Elba, Diane Keaton, Bill Hader, Michael Sheen and Eugene Levy.
What I liked about "Nemo," "Up," "Wall-E" and other top Pixar films is they blended a child-like sense of wonder at the world with some very grown-up ideas and morals. Not to mention groundbreaking CGI.
The BFG
(July 1) Director Stephen Spielberg returns to the themes of his early career, reteaming with "E.T." screenwriter Melissa Mathison in this adaptation of the Roald Dahl novel. There's not a lot of visibility for this movie right now, but I expect that to change as the trailer starts getting some play in theaters in May and June.
A young girl encounters a "big friendly giant" and finds he's not the terrible child-eating beast they're made out to be. In fact, he's something of an outcast himself because if his more humane dietary choices.
Also, despite being the size of a building, he's actually a pipsqueak among his people. The part was originally supposed to be played by Robin Williams, but alas things did not work out.
This one could be pure magic.
Ghostbusters
(July 15) There's a huge backlash against this remake because some guys are apparently offended by the idea of a group of girls replacing Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis and Ernie Hudson.
I don't know what to say other than: "Dudes, get over yourselves."
Melissa McCarthy headlines, and she's currently the most consistently bankable star in Hollywood right now. Add in Kristen Wiig, who deliberately chose smaller and more dramatic projects after her "Bridesmaids" breakout. Lesser-known stars Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones seem like good fits.
In a cheeky post-feminist nod, hunky Chris Hemsworth plays their receptionist.
Forget the naysayers and chat room trolls. They have the tools, they have the talent.
Suicide Squad
(August 5) -- D.C. Comics' second foray into building their own franchise starts with the counter-intuitive notion of making the villains the main characters. Here the government rounds up super-powered bad guys and give them a shot at getting out of prison in exchange for doing their dirty work.
The most talked about aspect, of course, is Oscar winner Jared Leto being cast as the Joker. After Heath Ledger gave the character his own iconic stamp before his early death, some are wondering if it's possible -- or even appropriate -- to reboot the character with another performer. I see: Let's see what he does with it.
Will Smith plays Deadshot, Margot Robbie is Harley Quinn and Cara Delevingne plays the Enchantress.
And ol' Batman himself -- well, the new Batman, Ben Affleck -- turns up for a cameo.
I'm not going to write a full "Chappie" review, because I don't have time and the Yap duties are in Nick Rogers's capable hands. But a few thoughts.
It's a movie of profound inventiveness and profound silliness. The
Chappie character, a childlike robot voiced and motion-captured by
Sharlto Copley, is a tremendous creation. But just as he gets ill-used
by the humans around him, so too does writer/director Neill Blomkamp
take Chappie's journey to places that are ridiculous, with some where-does-the-soul-reside type of musings near the end that are laugh-out-loud awful.
Some weird secondary characters that distract and discombobulate the
story. Start with Hugh Jackman as a robotics engineer who, for some
reason, wears shorts, a mullet and a gun amidst his suited, nerdy
colleagues. He's jealous because his ED-209 ripoff got overlooked in
favor of the Chappie-style police droids.
Then there's the
bizarre duo of Ninja and Yolandi, a real South African rap duo who got
cast in the the movie as themselves. With their weird haircuts, tats and
chirpy Afrikaans accents, they're like a pair of replicants who
wandered in from "Blade Runner" after a stop in the white ghetto to pick
up some cultural swag.
Bizarre, occasionally touching, a
humanist story that gets hijacked by an action flick. After the
brilliant debut of "District 9," Blomkamp is 0-for-2.
In a rare foray (for this space) into politics, here are my unsolicited thoughts on the (for now) legalization of gay marriage in Indiana:
· In general, I’m for it. Allowing people to codify their life partnerships ultimately leads to more stability and a better society in which to raise children, and for adults to live in.
· The definition of “family” is rapidly changing in our country, and it’s important to recognize the legitimacy of non-traditional arrangements.
· That said, I intensely dislike having this issue decided by a single unelected judge. I disagree that marriage is a “fundamental right” along with voting, ownership of property, etc.
· Marriage is a societal construction, and one that until very recently in human history flowed almost entirely from religious imperatives. Indeed, marriage is a central tenet of most major religions.
· Governments codify those relationships; they are not the wellspring of the institution. Using the legal apparatus to effect social change strikes me as trying to drive the train from the caboose.
· To wit: Gay marriage will never have the veneer of true legitimacy until it is authorized through the democratic process -- a voter referendum, or the actions of a representational legislation. Even a Supreme Court decision is unlikely to end debate -- look at Roe v. Wade.
· If they held a voter referendum in Indiana for gay marriage, I would vote for it – provided it included protections for religious values (e.g., priests or institutions would not be forced to conduct/host ceremonies that violate their beliefs, etc.).
· I have been incredibly disappointed in the way some local journalists have covered the story, particularly on social media. To those offenders I would say: Any pretense of objectivity has simply gone out the door. Setting aside the commentariat (those paid to express opinions), people covering the news should, at the very least, refrain from expressing their excitement while the process of reportage is ongoing. There has been a wave of unabashed cheerleading, and it does not reflect well on you or our profession. Even though I largely agree with this outcome, your conduct has been unprofessional and downright shameful.
Before heading off to the gym this morning, I followed my usual routine of reading the newspaper where I was formerly employed. Some people might wonder why I still do this, paying money to an institution that cut me loose so readily, and for a product that has clearly diminished. It's especially hard for someone like myself who is very interested in arts & entertainment and other feature coverage, and The Indianapolis Star has essentially eliminated the features section four days a week.
Oh, I know there's something included in the paper called an "Extra" section that the Star honchos would claim is the features section, but let's be blunt here: It's the classified section, filled out with comics and puzzles. There's been one small "story" at the top of the section each day, but it's a five- or six-inch blip with little substance. (I'm not being snooty; I had to write plenty of these myself over the years.)
The comics, puzzles, TV listings and syndicated columns are what we in the features biz call "furniture" -- stuff that occupies the same space day after day, and can be slapped in with minimal effort and editing.
They'd talked about these changes for months before they happened, and the question everyone in features department had was whether they were simply folding the features section into an existing part of the paper, as they have done with the business section, or actually eliminating all the daily features content except for the furniture. Now that we've seen it, it's clearly the latter.
So why do I still take the paper? Part of it is habit. I grew up with parents who read the paper every day (and still do), and it rubbed off. I can't imagine my day without thumbing through the sections, even though there's less and less of what I like to read. Some days "reading the paper" consists of a 5-minute skim.
Another part of it is reading the bylines of friends and former colleagues. Matt Tully takes a lot of beating in the Indy blogosphere, but he's a good friend and a good columnist, and I want to hear what he has to say. Ditto for David Lindquist, Shari Rudvasky, Mike Wells, Erika Smith and many others whose bylines I consistently enjoyed.
But the most basic reason is the one I would give to people when I was still employed by a newspaper, and they asked why they should pay for what they can get online for free. It's that news, or content, or whatever you want to call it, doesn't come free -- the good stuff, anyway. If I want to see this stuff, whether online or on paper, I feel I should pay something for it. Otherwise, it's likely to just go away ... suddenly, or bit by little bit.
January used to be the absolute pits for movies. All the big holiday movies came out in November and December, and the studios didn't start rolling out their good stuff until Spring.
Changes in recent years, though, have led to January becoming one of the better months for new movies, apart from the summer and holiday seasons.
First, the Academy Awards got moved up to February, which ended up compressing the time frame where ambitious films could get noticed. Some Oscar hopefuls started opting out of the crush, debuting in just a few cities in December to qualify, then waiting until January for their big roll-out. "Million Dollar Baby" followed this strategy a few years ago with virtually no hype, had January essentially to itself, and the money and golden statues rolled in.
Now many of the big Oscar wannabes are waiting until January to hit most markets, including "Gran Torino," "The Reader," "Defiance," "The Wrestler," "Revolutionary Road" and several others.
More importantly, studios have discovered that if you put out good movies during what is normally considered a slow time, avid movie-goers will show up.
So this month, in addition to those other movies mentioned above, some high-profile releases are slated. They include "Notorious," a biopic of rapper Biggie Smalls; "Bride Wars" with Anne Hathaway and Kate Hudson; the third installment in the "Underworld" franchise; and the Rene Zellwegger romcom "New in Town."
Here's my list. For now, it's only a list; you'll have to check my published links later this week to see all the whys and wherefores.
One caveat: the only major picture I didn't see was "Frost/Nixon," which for whatever reason the studios declined to screen for the Indianapolis critics (all three of us).
Glorious, of course, but discomforting in that I don't know why it's happening. When good things occur, you want to sustain and replicate it. So I'm trying to understand the how's and why's of this unexpected turn of events.
