Leonard Maltin’s Movie Guide Ending After 45 Years – Internet Kills Iconic Print Paperback

Deadspin ^ | 8/19/2014 | Pete Hammond

[driftless2]

On-line reviews or hard copy reviews do have their place. I used to ask a friend at work about movies because he and his wife did nothing but watch everything out of Hollyweird and elsewhere. However, my friend liked every movie he saw.

But my experience over the years is that at best they, the big name movie reviewers, were fifty-fifty as to whether I would like the flick or not. For me, a good movie is any flick that holds my interest until the end. The hoity-toity critics, especially Siskel and Ebert, always seemed to fall hard for the awful, arty Euro flicks with the existential subtexts that bored the h... out of me.

[a fool in paradise]

All business models change. Youtube is there today. May not be there tomorrow. Or it could be a subscription service.

Even Disney movies periodically go out of print/back in the vault.

Who uses AOL these days?

Myspace had a lot of music content hosted by the bands. Facebook has never had that capacity. The cool kids jumped ship for Facebook when Newscorp bought Myspace and the site was turned into some twitter/chatfeed hybrid with tons of ads.

Facebook is annoying now to those who loved it 4 years ago.

I don’t have faith that I will be able to get all the content I want off the web at a moment’s notice.

I also have somewhat of a photographic memory. If I read something in a book, I generally have an idea of where I can find a passage that I want to cite (many books don’t have an index). Give me another edition of that book and I’ll probably be lost. And to search the text of an e-book, you have to know the words you want, not just vague details.

[greene66]

Indeed, it’s wearying to constantly read reviews that are more reflective (if not entirely warpred towards) modern cultural biases. Such reviews are pointless to me. And often idiotic enough to annoy me. In fact, I really no longer bother with much of any online reviews, unless it deals with print/transfer quality. Although in the past I have gotten some vicarious enjoyment from reading the fannish, memory-tinged reviews of vintage tv-dvd sets submitted by folks on amazon.

I seem to find myself actually utilizing the internet less and less, the past few years. I’m really not terribly sure how much (if at all) it has actually enhanced any of my old hobbyist pursuits and interests.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

I remember the NEW YORK TIMES book of movie reviews from 1968. The critic was Rex Reed.

Since ZULU had been on TV a few weeks before, I looked to see what he had to say about it.

Nothing but weeping and wailing about how bad that movie was because of the 1968 riots.

[a fool in paradise]

Via the internet and youtube I’ve discovered movies and tv broadcasts that I never knew existed. But there are still films I’ve never located.

And I’d prefer to have even choppy film printed on professional “stamped” DVDs. I find too much of a tendency for DVD-Rs (sometimes it may be because of the glued labels they stick on them) cease to be playable (without any scratches) after 2-5 years. Who wants to pay $10-20 for a recording that will be unaccessible on anyone’s equipment (and believe me, I’ve tried) within a short lifespan?

[a fool in paradise]

Has Rex Reed been in any other movies than that one where he chops his tallywhacker off and becomes Raquel Welch (so I’ve heard, never have seen Myra Breckenridge)?

[Borges]

He played himself in Superman.

[Oratam]

Not to be vulgar, but I remember Maltin's guide as terrific bathroom reading. You could open it at any page and read a few entries at random and be informed and possibly amused. The Book of Lists was similarly suited for the preferably short time one should spend in the smallest room in the house.

Your right about googling ruining the experience of allowing facts to find you. Is surfing the same as browsing?

I miss the Information Please Almanac.