comment #1

LYT says ...

Pretty brave to quit a film critic position nowadays.

comment #2

Don Murphy says ...

Ummm I don't get this. Cinematical is crap. Regurgitated garbage from other sites. Mostly bullshit and incorrect. Now I don't know this woman, although she did take umbrage when I pointed out the site was crap. Now she left. Shouldn't you be happy for her?

As far as Sally Field films go, get her set up and call it ABSENCE OF TALENT.

comment #3

Zimmergirl says ...

Don Murphy, lol. It's always funny when you turn up. Kim Voynar is a wonderful writer and yeah, she'll do fine. I'm sure there are plenty of outlets ready to snap her up in a heartbeat.

comment #4

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

As far as Sally Field films go, get her set up and call it ABSENCE OF TALENT.

And this week's Pot Calling Kettle Black Award goes to....

comment #5

The InSneider says ...

"Weary of AOL's bullshit-bean counter attitude about in-depth film coverage"

Jeff, do you know that had something to do with it? I'd love to hear Kim's side of the story. There'll always be a spot open for her at The InSneider. Hehe...

Don Murphy, let's do lunch so I can pitch you ABSENCE OF WALLET. I have a feeling you're buying...

comment #6

Kim Voynar says ...

Don,

You're mistaken, once again. I didn't take umbrage when you pointed out the site is crap (which, I might point out, is your opinion and not unmitigated fact, though you frequently seem to take your opinion as such).

What I do take umbrage with is your insistence on lumping everything on Cinematical under the heading "crap," which makes it obvious you've not read the site in any depth. It requires little thought or analytic ability to blanket-label something you've obviously not read enough to have a more thoughtful opinion of, but keep beating that tired drum all you want to.

Yes, there's a lot of BS on the site. And yes, there's also some solid film criticism (particularly from James Rocchi, and thank you Jeff, for mentioning him here), and our fest coverage has been better than most other sites out there.

I fought very hard at Cinematical for just under four years now to keep the quality of the site up amidst more corporate mismanagement than I care to remember, and to ensure that we at least kept covering the major film fests to the depth we've been able to, when the higher-ups were more impressed with pictures of Megan Fox fondling her tits than coverage of Cannes.

I'm proud of the work I personally did for Cinematical, in particular in covering the fests, and I wish my friends sticking around there nothing but the best. I have no beef with anyone on Cinematical's team.

And LYT ... it wasn't so much brave as it was knowing when to jump ship. I've had other opportunities for a while, and it was just time to stop fighting a losing corporate battle and pursue them.

comment #7

crsryan says ...

"Bean counter attitude?" I wish that was the worst of it. I remember about a year ago when I was pulled onto a conference call with the AOL brass and told that from then on, I had to surreptitiously clear with them any negative posts about WB or New Line films before running.

To say they have no concern for in-depth film coverage is to dramatically understate their integrity problem.

Ryan Stewart
Ex-Cinematical EIC

comment #8

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

Kim,
It's Don Murphy. The guy has more crap on his resume than a Long Beach pier. If he can't spot it in the productions he oversees, begs where he thinks he got the insight to spot it online.

comment #9

Don Murphy says ...

Kim

The site is crap. All of it. That is why there is no traffic there. No readers. There are more comments on this measly thread than in ninety five percent of the posts on Cinematical. I had a friend who would start a bullshit rumor (he did it three times) just to see how fast it would rate an "article" on Cinematical- the answer was same day, every time.

I paid you a compliment by saying you were better off elsewhere. I guess you couldn't tell that in between defending a site that would run an article like "95 Dog Movies to See By Wednesday" or some shit like that.

DT Groupie you don't even have a cool screen name and your writing style is along the lines of remedial third grade. Attack me all you want if it makes up for your empty life. But at least I am who I say I am, sad one.

comment #10

Kim Voynar says ...

Don, I appreciate that it was a compliment, and I agree with you that I'm better off elsewhere, that's why I left.

But you're just categorically wrong when you say Cinematical has low traffic. I know the traffic many of the other major film sites pull, I was an editor of Cinematical for several years, I had access to the traffic logs, and I can tell you that it's simply an unmitigated fact -- Cinematical's traffic exceeds most other film sites out there. I have no reason to lie about that, particularly now.

The comment count is largely irrelevant to traffic. Much of the writing on Cinematical doesn't particularly lend itself to discussion, as opposed to sites like here and, say, Movie City News, and a good chunk of the traffic no doubt comes from the type of AOL readers Jeff would abhor, but that doesn't make them count less for advertisers.

I can assure you, Cinematical's traffic numbers have never been an issue, other than the sad fact that its traffic is dwarfed by TMZ. But that's another discussion.

comment #11

Laremy says ...

I think it's pretty easy to decry the rise of TMZ and the lack of legit film fest coverage online - but it's a reaction to the market itself. People want pictures of Megan Fox. They don't always want TIFF, SXSW, or Sundance coverage - even when it's done well.

So why should a business be to blame for delivering candy? No, it's not healthy for you - but it is what you're eating.

I've read Cinematical, and know a cinematical writer or two. I think they are trying their best given the conditions.

Here's what I consider the more interesting question - Why does Cinematical owe the internet smart coverage if the net wants pretty pictures?

I'm not trying to throw bombs here - just genuinely interested in the conversation.

comment #12

Kristopher Tapley says ...

I totally salute this move. Watching Cinematical devolve into a carbon copy of numerous other film blogs has been difficult to watch.

Good on ya, Kim.

Don: Comments don't equal traffic, but that's kind of the point of Cinematical's decline. No one wants to engage there anymore because it has become, in so many ways, sapped of creative energy (save for a number of factors mentioned in this thread more than a few times).

I wish Kim well. And should Mr. Rocchi, a gentleman in a world of heathens, decide to do the same: ditto.

comment #13

James Rocchi says ...

Kim will be sincerely missed, and writing for whomever she feels like sooner than many would expect (and, suspect after the grueling pace she's maintained over the past few years, possibly even sooner than she'd like). I think many outlets (and many writers) are working on figuring out what the world looks like these days in terms of what audiences and advertisers want, and that Cinematical does a superb job of the constant dialogue to try and answer that. I'll still be filing stuff for Cinematical -- with no fear or favor for any releasing studio; I've written plenty of negative reviews for each of them and never told to cool any of my jets -- as well as my gigs for AMCTV.com, Sfgate.com, Redbox.com, Common Sense Media, Mother Jones and MSN Movies. These are challenging times, and everyone's trying to find a way to get paid for honest work they're good at, with every right to move on if they so wish -- film critics, teachers, coffee shop waitstaff-- and the reason behind many people's departures from many positions in this day and age could, I think, be summed up by a inadequate balance between frustration and satisfaction, or between effort and recompense, which are all subjective factors which can vary wildly from human to human, and which can be affected by any number of factors. Also, if this were an '80s movie, I know two things for a fact: 1) It would be the dullest thing ever made and b) I would, in fact, be played by Richard Kind. Or a bespectacled Bill Paxton.

comment #14

LexG says ...

VOYNAR ROCK ON, HOTNESS. You OWN.

Best wishes, seriously.

comment #15

Nick Plowman says ...

are by far the best thing to ever happen to Cinematical, and I don’t mind being so blatantly honest because it is true. The festival coverage on the site IS probably the best out there, and that is a testament to your and Mr. Rocchi’s talent. Good luck on any of your future ventures, and if they have anything to do with film journalism or criticism, just know that you have a lot of supporters.

comment #16

FilmBuffRich says ...

Don Murphy- "Cinematical is crap. Regurgitated garbage ... Mostly bullshit."

Smell your own, Don?

comment #17

Erik Davis says ...

Ryan, since you left, not one person has ever told me to relay a negative post regarding a certain studio, movie or what have you. So that's not happening. People kept closer tabs on you because they didn't like you, but once you left all that changed.

I've been writing at Cinematical for almost as long as Kim, and while the site has had some bumps along the way (as does any site), we're still trying to find that happy medium, our writing is still strong, our writers are still fantastic and our traffic has doubled in the past six months.

But for any site that has big money behind it, big advertisers and millions of readers (like we do), eventually it comes down to traffic and traffic-driving posts. Write about Megan Fox once, and you get to write seven other stories that are actually worth reading. It's the way it works.

And, yes, sadly, this is what the people want. One post on The Dark Knight could equal the traffic of our entire TIFF coverage. And I know this sounds weird, but eventually you need to give the readers more of what they actually want.

comment #18

actionman says ...

Hey, I 've got no problems with pix/articles about Megan Fox fondling her tits. In the words of LexG, she OWNS.

Good luck Kim -- you're an excellent talent and you'll land something better in no time.

comment #19

Zimmergirl says ...

Yeah, Cinematical's traffic is GREAT. You generally get comments if your site has a specific point of view and a strong main voice. There has to be a relationship between reader and writer otherwise people come to read, get info and split. They'll never feel "at home" because they don't know anyone. On the other hand, the commenters can devolve into a mob mentality.

comment #20

Kim Voynar says ...

I'd like to just add here that my leaving had absolutely nothing to do with Erik Davis or Scott Weinberg, the site's EIC and Managing Editor, respectively. Erik in particular has done a superb job in the daily struggle of dealing with AOL on traffic and content, and fighting to keep enough room in the budget to continue also having reviews and fest coverage.

I can say this much -- trying to write intelligent content and keep the bar up above the level of 7th grade boys is a constant challenge when you're owned by a corporate behemoth that's myopically focused on numbers. And it's a reality that more people want to see Megan Fox than read about this really cool French drama from a festival. I get that, I just was tired of fighting it. I want to write about what I want to write about, and that's what I'll do.

How long he'll be able to keep winning those little battles, I don't know, but he's a good writer and a smart guy, and we've been friends for years now. I miss him already.

And lastly, Wells, if this was an '80s movie, I concur with James that it would be the most boring movie ever, but Sally Field? Not sure about that.

comment #21

cjKennedy says ...

Best of luck Kim.

comment #22

Laremy says ...

I've got to say that this quote:

"People kept closer tabs on you because they didn't like you, but once you left all that changed."

Was pretty interesting. Lesson: It's better to be liked. Film fest coverage may rely on it.

comment #23

crsryan says ...

Erik:

Yes, the AOL suits didn't like me because I kept them honest and wasn't a corporate tool. I told them to take their third-grade 'insert caption' games and shove them -- but I guess you thought that stuff was the height of culture. And yes, I believe you when you say they've never had to ask you to refrain from criticizing a studio.

comment #24

btwnproductions says ...

Covering some of the same ground:

http://www.cineaste.com/articles/film-criticism-in-the-age-of-the-internet.htm

comment #25

Erik Davis says ...

Ryan,

From what I remember (and have been told), it wasn't just AOL who didn't like you -- it was your fellow bloggers, studios, other webmasters, and pretty much anyone and everyone who came in contact with you during that period of time. So congrats on not being a "corporate tool" -- instead, you chose to be just a plain old tool.

But anyway, running a massive website like Cinematical is like being in any romantic relationship. It's a give and take sorta thing, and while other people might love to f*ck you (in more ways than one), sometimes it's better to stick with what you have and love and feel comfortable with. If it's not for you, there are plenty of other places online to hang your hat.

comment #26

thevisceral says ...

Megan sends her pictures straight to me so I really don't need Cinematical for anything.

comment #27

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

"your writing style is along the lines of remedial third grade"

Again, something you are apparently very familiar with.

But then huffing and puffing was always more your strong suite than producing anything of merit. Takes a certain level of mediocrity to fuck up two Alan Moore projects. Now that's sad.

comment #28

Kim Voynar says ...

Laremy wrote: Here's what I consider the more interesting question - Why does Cinematical owe the internet smart coverage if the net wants pretty pictures?

I'm not trying to throw bombs here - just genuinely interested in the conversation.

Laremy, I was going to respond to this question here in the comments, but it got too long, so I just put it up over on my site. If you care to read it and discuss, feel free to check it out:

http://www.filmessent.com/?p=87

comment #29

crsryan says ...

Erik:

You seem to forget I was promoted directly over you because you were so incompetent. What you "know" and what you "have been told" is a lot of horseshit, clearly. I have more friends than you have acquaintances -- I did then, I do now -- and I work regularly at half a dozen outlets, while you only work at (and only ever will work at) Cinematical. The day it goes under, you're done.

comment #30

Weinberg says ...

How very flattering that our website is popular enough to warrant such heated discussion. Thanks to those who've said kind things, and apologies to those who think we're CRAP. Can't please everyone, eh?

Yep, we're going through some rough spots now, just like many other entertainment outlets. We had a switch in corporate management right after I took over the ME job from Kim, and we've had some budget-crunching thorns in a month that's packed with film festivals. That's the long and the short of the Cinematical "drama."

Kim did some stellar work for Cinematical and she'll improve whatever outlet(s) she works with next. There is no bad blood whatsoever, and there's hardly anything "juicy" to report.

As far as Ryan Stewart's comments go, they're not even worth my keystrokes.

Lastly, Erik Davis is one of the best co-workers I've ever had. No matter what sort of problems arise, he rolls up his sleeves and tries to make things work. He cares about the writers on his team, routinely "gives up" big reviews so someone else can get a few bucks, and spends every freakin' day trying to strike a good balance between indie and mainstream. You people can say what you want about the final product, but there's no way I'll sit here and watch Erik get trashed. If James and Kim deserve your respect (and I'd say they do), then Davis certainly does as well.

Me you can trash if you like.

Now surely there's a new photo of a white kitten we could be talking about, yes?

comment #31

Erik Davis says ...

Wait, did you actually use the "I have more friends than you" line? Wow. I'm out. And good luck with all that.

comment #32

Laremy says ...

Kim,

Thanks for such a well formed opinion. I appreciate you taking the time and definitely see where you're coming from.

The only pushback I would have to the whole debate is the notion of the "film fest" as the bright, shiny city on a hill. It may be semantical, and perhaps we're really just talking about indie coverage (Whatever that is these days) - but having been to a few film fests I find myself disenchanted with the whole process. Big studios have taken over, by and large, the festivals that everyone has heard of. They seem to be more of an opportunity to hang out with friends - which is cool, but not exactly noble or altruistic.

I'm happy you made the right choice for you, and I think you're clearly talented and know what you're doing. But I see how many other people could have the exact same facts at their disposal and come away feeling differently.

The line between commerce and art is interesting - if also a nightmare at times.

comment #33

Laremy says ...

Also, for the record, I have the least amount of friends on this thread - no matter who else is involved.

Actually, I'm thrilled to see Hollywood-Elsewhere host the most meta-insidery debate in the history of all things... cinematical?

Sorry. Couldn't resist. I'm sure you're all solid people that find yourself with opposing motivations and differing needs. These things happen.

comment #34

Kim Voynar says ...

Laremy,

On the one hand, I concur with you on the fests, at least the major ones, but they're still the only place a lot of the smaller films (especially the foreigns and docs) will ever be seen by a lot of people. It's nice to see friends, sure, but I still go to every fest excited about the possibility of discovering some amazing little film.

And while it seems that every small city has its own fest these days, I think that's a good thing -- the smaller fests are bringing independent films to places that otherwise wouldn't even get to see most of those films at all. DeadCenter in OKC, the Oxford Film Fest, etc ... they're all doing good work bringing independent film to their towns, and they deserve support for doing so.

comment #35

Laremy says ...

Yeah, Eric D. Snider did a set of articles last year on the Oxford Film Fest in Mississippi - maybe the only time I've been truly jealous of him. Because the marrow of a film fest is discovery and interaction - and what the hell are you "discovering" at the majors? It's all polished and ready for distribution. Plus Variety is covering it and 35 guys in fancy suits are on their cell phones. That part is infuriating. Then you head out to the E! party presented by EW. Then you pass out in a pool of your own shame.

I do think the heavy lifting needs to be done and I'm glad there are people such as yourself who are willing and happy do to it. Someone does need to be a voice for intelligence, just as someone needs to protect people from Disaster Movie. And I guess some people have to keep on running Ms. Fox to keep the lights on.