The headline felt like a breath of fresh air. The dawn of a new era. A victory for the good guys. “Christopher Nolan’s The Odyssey to Skip Social Media Influencer Screenings,” said an article in the Hollywood Reporter last week, and everywhere, people rejoiced. Good riddance to those bought-and-paid-for early reviews. Reviews that, more often than not, are much more positive than those of professional journalists and critics that come later.
Only, there was more than one hole in this assertion. Not all the people quoted in the piece were influencers. Some were critics and professionals who had been working in this business for decades. And I know that because it was me. I was among those quoted.
Then, on Monday night, influencers, creators, critics, and journalists alike started posting images from a 70mm IMAX screening of The Odyssey in New York City, leaving many confused. What happened to the idea of no social media influencer screenings? Wasn’t Christopher Nolan going to single-handedly reshape the state of entertainment journalism?
Well, the truth is, social media influencers were always going to get screenings of The Odyssey. In recent years, influencers have overtaken more traditional journalists and get most, if not all, of the time with talent when a movie is released, which makes sense. Many more people (especially young people) watch videos on YouTube, Instagram, or TikTok than they do read websites like this one. A studio’s job is to publicize a movie, and those influencers do that better than most.
In fact, some do it so well that they can make a lot of money doing so. That’s where much of the confusion comes in. Sometimes—not always, but sometimes—influencer content or interviews can be paid publicity for the movie disguised as journalism. It looks like a normal interview, but it was paid for and controlled by the studio. And why not? Why not pay someone to say your movie is good instead of rolling the dice with a person who would be honest? Plus, if the studio writes the questions themselves, they can prep the talent, and not worry about an interviewer asking something they don’t want asked.
This is where I come back into the story. What people think of as “social media influencer screenings” are frequently really junket screenings—screenings done well ahead 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, someone who does not get paid by studios to cover films, often get to see a movie early. And people who see movies before there is a general consensus about them will regularly offer opinions not everyone agrees with. Like my quote from the THR article about Disclosure Day. I still do think it’s Steven Spielberg’s best film in the last 20 years, and if most people don’t agree with me, that’s fine. But I wasn’t paid to say that. I wasn’t paid by Universal to use the quote, either. I was just fortunate enough to see the film early and have a strong, positive, admittedly hyperbolic opinion about it.
Now, seeing a film early and posting about it are two different things, which is another major issue. Using Disclosure Day as an example, I was told by the studio (Universal, which is also releasing The Odyssey) that I was able to post my reaction on May 27. All-media screenings weren’t held until June 8, which is when many other opinions rolled in. The film then opened on June 12. So yes, having that early opinion out there on social before everyone else can be influential. And mine was. It led articles at seemingly every trade publication.
This is where something called a social media embargo comes in. That’s the date set by a studio when people who’ve seen the movie (influencers, critics, whatever) are allowed to post about it informally. It’s when you get articles like this one, where outlets round up a bunch of reactions to a film. Only those reactions are rarely just from influencers. They’re from critics, influencers, journalists, anyone who saw the film and cared to post about it.
Are those posts “influential” and on “social media?” Yes. But those early reactions are very rarely from screenings held only for influencers. They’re screenings for people the studios think will benefit if they see the movie early. Maybe it’s people with a penchant for being positive. Maybe it’s people who are doing interviews. It could be any number of people. It could also be a hypothetical influencer who may be paid to say something good. However, if they’re going to say it’s good anyway, why hold a screening at all? Just tell them what to say and move on.
Bringing things back to The Odyssey, a more accurate headline for the THR article probably should have been something like “The Odyssey Social Media Embargo Won’t Lift Early.” Because clearly influencers were going to, and now have, seen the movie early. They’ve even posted about seeing it. But they haven’t posted their thoughts on it and most likely won’t for another week or so when others have seen the film. (Universal has yet to disclose the official social media embargo to The Odyssey.)
So yes, of course influencers were going to get early screenings of The Odyssey. And, of course, journalists and critics will get to see it early too. But the distinction between influencers, critics, reactions, reviews, and more is not something that can be easily communicated in a headline. Christopher Nolan is powerful, but even he 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.
